Reader comments
Pleasant Grove religious case in top court today
66 comments | Read story
Follow the Prophet | 3:29 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Why does the LIBERAL Supreme Court think they have the right to rule on this
matter? This is a democracy! What don't they understand?! If we can
change the California constitution, we can also change the U.S. Constitution.
Let democracy rule! Follow the prophet!
What idiot Judge made ruling? | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
"...the courts ruled Pleasant Grove must accept the monument because, by
accepting other monuments, the city had transformed the park into a public forum
where free speech must be permitted."
That is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard. The fact that the government allows certain speech in public buildings, parks or other public spaces doesn't make it a public forum. The other monuments are the property of the City and became "government speech" when the city accepted them. If these courts are correct then any property that the City chooses to place in a public space makes it a public forum. That plaque on the side of the County Courthouse means that I get to place a plaque there too. The picture of the City Council in a municipal building means that it is a public forum and I get to place my picture beside theirs.
There's a difference between government speech and private speech which means that just because the government place monuments, pictures or other documents in public buildings, parks, etc does not mean that we as private individuals get the same forum.
The same holds true in reverse, public to private.
That is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard. The fact that the government allows certain speech in public buildings, parks or other public spaces doesn't make it a public forum. The other monuments are the property of the City and became "government speech" when the city accepted them. If these courts are correct then any property that the City chooses to place in a public space makes it a public forum. That plaque on the side of the County Courthouse means that I get to place a plaque there too. The picture of the City Council in a municipal building means that it is a public forum and I get to place my picture beside theirs.
There's a difference between government speech and private speech which means that just because the government place monuments, pictures or other documents in public buildings, parks, etc does not mean that we as private individuals get the same forum.
The same holds true in reverse, public to private.
Proud I'm a Mormon | 3:38 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Those Summum agitators want special rights. Who do they think they are? They
already have the same rights as every other group and can put up a monument to
the LDS church, just the same as everyone else. Next, they will force us to
marry them in OUR temple and teach it to OUR children. This is a DEMOCRACY and
should be put up to a vote. Just what don't they understand? Their way of
life makes me sick! Just read the Book of Mormon and follow the prophet!
Comments continue below
dave4197 | 3:39 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I think the City is on shaky ground on this one. This park should be owned and
maintained by a pioneer group, non gov't, in order to be this exclusive. I
personally have no interest in reading any monument fromt this Summum group, but
they may have a strong legal point about their right to post in a gov't
owned public place. Good luck, city.
Plain & Simple | 3:42 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
This is another case of liberal activist judges going against the will of the
people! We settled this state, not that sicko Summum group. Let them go to
California and build their false idols to worship there!
Jorge | 3:43 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
This is an interesting case. It may be more difficult for the city to maintain
that the monuments are only there because of their historical significance, not
religious significance, when it includes a Ten Commandments monument. However,
it's laughable for Summum to claim that Pleasant Grove is subjecting their
religion to the kind of religious persecution that early Mormons endured. There
is no comparison there.
What? | 3:54 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Don't you just love these liberal socialists?
Dan | 4:02 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
A ruling against Pleasant Grove would definitely open a can of worms. A strict
interpretation would mean that every time a city in Utah wants to put up a
monument they have to express every point of view. Kinda takes away the point
of a monument, doesn't it?
48% | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Well, it's all about love, right? The Summums love the monuments they love,
so we should recognize their love because it's the highest possible reason
for anything.
Now if only they could show us that their love actually produced something - a park, or a town, for example, then we could tell them that they were being ignorant and insensitive for wanting to actually decide what they might want to put there.
Now if only they could show us that their love actually produced something - a park, or a town, for example, then we could tell them that they were being ignorant and insensitive for wanting to actually decide what they might want to put there.
huh | 4:16 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
So a monument with the ten commandments becomes government speach because some pioneer donated it.
DSounds like the technicality written to get around church-state seperation just got the bluff called.
I have a stone copy of the devils creed carried by one of my pioneer ancestors. I guess that qualifies for display.
Mmmmm.... | 4:31 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Demacracy - popular vote....no we have a Constitutional republic founded on
Constitutional rights & Laws, not on public whim. The PG city government is
not promoting a particular sect of religious expression but providing a setting
for their citizens to "bask" in the memories of the areas history,
with symbols associated to their history. The city will win this one and the
Liberal appellate courts will be sent packing again for legislating from the
bench. Prediction: City by 3.
Re: Follow the Prophet | 4:36 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Stop using mormonsim to perpetrate an ignorant viewpoint. You can't speak
for the prophet and what he would say in this situation. The constitution is
set up to allow judges to rule on the constitutionality of laws that are
challenged. While the judges themselves are not elected, those who appoint them
are, so that allows for accountability to the people. The system of checks and
balances allows the people to amend the constitution in the case that the voice
of the people doesn't agree with the judges ruling, as in the case of
California Prop 8. However, "liberalism" (whatever that means)cannot
be a blanket term that you use to slander viewpoints that you don't agree
with. The judges are appointed to make legal (not moral) decisions regarding
the constitutionality of laws. If you don't agree with their decisions,
exercise your constitutional rights and amend the constitution, rather than
labeling them "liberal."
FaithNoMo | 4:39 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Wow, the Religious cry about people not letting them put up their 10
commandments, but once soemone else wants their's up, they scream NO.
Follow the Prohpet; it's people like you that give religious zealots a bad name. This is a secular government. Keep your Jesus in your own imagination.
Proud I'm a Mormon; I have a strange feeling you're being ironic. You can't be for real.
Follow the Prohpet; it's people like you that give religious zealots a bad name. This is a secular government. Keep your Jesus in your own imagination.
Proud I'm a Mormon; I have a strange feeling you're being ironic. You can't be for real.
Group has no standing | 4:42 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
dave4197,
"I think the City is on shaky ground on this one."
Actually, the City is on very firm ground and has precedence in its favor. The park acts as a public forum in the same sense that every other member of the public can access it. If one person can go to the park for a picnic so can another but if no one from the public can put a monument or other statute there without city approval no one can.
In this instance, that is where the line is drawn and the city has firm standing. The city chooses which monuments, and other displays to put in the park by a vote of its council, duly elected by its citizens. It doesn't have to give equal access to every possible monument (in the millions) by virtue of placing a single monument in the park.
That's where this group fails in its argument.
The only other argument is separation of Church and State but it has to be clear that the City endorses certain religion instead of simply recognizing its historical and cultural significance. The proposed monument doesn't meet this test and would violate the 1st amendment.
"I think the City is on shaky ground on this one."
Actually, the City is on very firm ground and has precedence in its favor. The park acts as a public forum in the same sense that every other member of the public can access it. If one person can go to the park for a picnic so can another but if no one from the public can put a monument or other statute there without city approval no one can.
In this instance, that is where the line is drawn and the city has firm standing. The city chooses which monuments, and other displays to put in the park by a vote of its council, duly elected by its citizens. It doesn't have to give equal access to every possible monument (in the millions) by virtue of placing a single monument in the park.
That's where this group fails in its argument.
The only other argument is separation of Church and State but it has to be clear that the City endorses certain religion instead of simply recognizing its historical and cultural significance. The proposed monument doesn't meet this test and would violate the 1st amendment.
a thought | 4:47 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
A Thought. Please do not say "when we settled this country"... you
are forgetting that there were people here, who had settled the area, long
before the Pioneers came in 18 whatever. The name for these folks is
"Native Americans." Please, keep that thought as you fight over
whether something belongs in a park, etc. etc. etc.
"Native Americans," remember the phrase and you might become more tolerant.
"Native Americans," remember the phrase and you might become more tolerant.
read the constitution | 4:49 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
The constitution does not say anything about seperation of church and state. It
has one sentence that is very straight forward and says that congress can not
pass a law favoring one religion over another religion. Nothing more is ever
said about religion in the constitution. Read it for yourself and quit allowing
these liberals to lie and get away with it.
Please take a const. law class | 4:49 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
huh,
"So a monument with the ten commandments becomes government speach because some pioneer donated it."
Yes. The government took possession or control of the monument and it belongs to the government. It's important to bear in mind that the government does not have to accept every monument that is offered. Remove the issue of religion from the equation and ask does a statute of George Washington in a public park mean that every citizen has a right to place a statute of their choice in a public park?
"DSounds like the technicality written to get around church-state seperation just got the bluff called."
It's not a technicality. It's a basic premise that regulates public and private property. This is true of private malls as public forums as well.
"I have a stone copy of the devils creed carried by one of my pioneer ancestors. I guess that qualifies for display."
It does, and if the city council chooses to place it in a public park then it would be within its right to do so as long as it isn't unduly endorsing a religion. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10 commandments can be a secular display.
"So a monument with the ten commandments becomes government speach because some pioneer donated it."
Yes. The government took possession or control of the monument and it belongs to the government. It's important to bear in mind that the government does not have to accept every monument that is offered. Remove the issue of religion from the equation and ask does a statute of George Washington in a public park mean that every citizen has a right to place a statute of their choice in a public park?
"DSounds like the technicality written to get around church-state seperation just got the bluff called."
It's not a technicality. It's a basic premise that regulates public and private property. This is true of private malls as public forums as well.
"I have a stone copy of the devils creed carried by one of my pioneer ancestors. I guess that qualifies for display."
It does, and if the city council chooses to place it in a public park then it would be within its right to do so as long as it isn't unduly endorsing a religion. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10 commandments can be a secular display.
wondering... | 4:50 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I wonder if the previous monuments weren't there or origionally placed
there if there would even be a desire to them place this Summum monument anyway?
I think that these groups look for excuses to whine and cry that the other kids
get what they want but when it really comes down to it. The Summums probably
don't even care they are just trying to make a point and that is they cant
come up with an origional idea or place to have a monument or even someone who
would be willing to let them place a monument. Think about that. Why not put a
monument where people actually want to see it where it will add value and
appeal. Surprise that most of these people cant think beyond that....
Serious? | 5:14 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
these guys want to put up a liberal group monument in a park that has lots of
LDS history?
Thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Not an endorsment of religion | 5:18 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Mmmmm,
"Demacracy - popular vote....no we have a Constitutional republic founded on Constitutional rights & Laws, not on public whim."
The Founding Fathers were very clear about what they meant by a "republic." James Madison said:
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."
Thomas Jefferson said "[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
"The city will win this one and the Liberal appellate courts will be sent packing again for legislating from the bench. Prediction: City by 3."
The Courts have been clear. That this isn't a simple issue. The Government does have a secular interest in recognizing history. The fact that a stone from the original Nauvoo Temple is a part of the display indicates that the park is a historical park which seeks to honor the historical founding of Utah. This group will loose.
"Demacracy - popular vote....no we have a Constitutional republic founded on Constitutional rights & Laws, not on public whim."
The Founding Fathers were very clear about what they meant by a "republic." James Madison said:
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."
Thomas Jefferson said "[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
"The city will win this one and the Liberal appellate courts will be sent packing again for legislating from the bench. Prediction: City by 3."
The Courts have been clear. That this isn't a simple issue. The Government does have a secular interest in recognizing history. The fact that a stone from the original Nauvoo Temple is a part of the display indicates that the park is a historical park which seeks to honor the historical founding of Utah. This group will loose.
Totally Disgusted | 6:51 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I grew up in Pleasant Grove, and Pioneer Park is a local park dedicated to the
town's pioneer heritage. The Summums are just another organization that few
people know about, and even fewer people care about. They're just another
bully group trying to impress others with their self importance by demanding
recognition, all in the name of "tolerance." Let's face it,
we've turned this country into a joke with our "political
correctness" and forced tolerance. Whatever happened to America, land of
the free????????????????
really now | 6:52 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
silly mormons. can't other religions play in your sandbox, too?
Instereo | 7:06 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
We are a democracy because we follow the prophet? That doesn't sound like a
democracy but a theocracy.
After eight years of Bush and two appointments to the Supreme Court, the court is not a liberal activist court anymore, it's pretty conservative. This means that if they rule against Pleasant Grove, it's because it's unconstitutional for government to support one religion at the expense of another religion in spite of the local traditions or the majority of people in the local area.
The founders of our country knew full well what religious zealots would do with political power, that's why there was put in the Bill of Rights the provision of seperation of Church and State.
What's happening in Pleasant Grove is an example of how a group of people with political power are trying to push their religion on to someone else and how they won't respect another view. It seems pretty clear to me that inspite of the majority of people's opinions expressed in this column, it's a violation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, it's because they are conservative and don't care about the constitution.
After eight years of Bush and two appointments to the Supreme Court, the court is not a liberal activist court anymore, it's pretty conservative. This means that if they rule against Pleasant Grove, it's because it's unconstitutional for government to support one religion at the expense of another religion in spite of the local traditions or the majority of people in the local area.
The founders of our country knew full well what religious zealots would do with political power, that's why there was put in the Bill of Rights the provision of seperation of Church and State.
What's happening in Pleasant Grove is an example of how a group of people with political power are trying to push their religion on to someone else and how they won't respect another view. It seems pretty clear to me that inspite of the majority of people's opinions expressed in this column, it's a violation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, it's because they are conservative and don't care about the constitution.
Non Utah resident | 7:10 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
We could just use round up, kill the grass, remove all the monuments,benchs.
pathways, trees and flowers. Then there would be no place for the new monument
and all would be happy. "NOT"
Roland Kayser | 7:53 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
The monument was not put there by pioneers, it was donated by the Fraternal
Order of Eagles in 1971. Also, the Supreme Court today is composed of 7
Republicans and 2 Democrats. Most court scholars consider it the most
conservative court in the last 75 years. So no whining about the "liberal
Supreme Court".
Anonymous | 8:09 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Seperation of Church and Sate isn't in the constitution, there an
exstablishment clause which makes sure there will be no church of America, like
in England. Seperation of Church and State has been fabricated by the court to
excuse the fact that they don't care about what the constitution says
anymore, but more about what they want it to say.
Sauce for the goose, folks | 8:17 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Do governments get to pick and choose which religions receive public support for
displaying their religious icons and which don't?
Nope. Absolutely not. Not if you're serious about the 1st Amendment.
What you're willing to permit one religion to do with public resources you should be prepared to let _any_ religion do with public resources.
Nope. Absolutely not. Not if you're serious about the 1st Amendment.
What you're willing to permit one religion to do with public resources you should be prepared to let _any_ religion do with public resources.
Socialist Mormon-Consecration | 8:26 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Let equal rights to equal citizens. If they want to put another amendment as
described by the law of Moses as a monument..let them. Moses was not that bad of
a guy afterall. Stop your bickering and lets live in harmony!!!! Let all make
their own choices without disharmony. You can choose Satan or God. At least
there is a choice.
PS I think it would be great if we did away with all war memorials and erect Peace memorials to those who were the standard bearers of Peace! Adam Enoch,Elijah,Elisha.1st NEPHI,Lehi-they fled instead of fight!And monuments everywhere for our Savoir and Peacemaker ..Jesus the Christ
Fortunately we havent erected a monument for the "War in Heaven"
PS I think it would be great if we did away with all war memorials and erect Peace memorials to those who were the standard bearers of Peace! Adam Enoch,Elijah,Elisha.1st NEPHI,Lehi-they fled instead of fight!And monuments everywhere for our Savoir and Peacemaker ..Jesus the Christ
Fortunately we havent erected a monument for the "War in Heaven"
Canadiandy | 8:31 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Oh yeah, when they're done here they'll want a red flag with a golden
sickle and hammer to fly opposite the US flag as an expression of their freedom
of speech.
A little common sense people.
Think of the thousands of dollars the lawyers and judges will make on this one that could have gone to the less fortunate.
A little common sense people.
Think of the thousands of dollars the lawyers and judges will make on this one that could have gone to the less fortunate.
cright80@hotmail.com | 9:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I find it interesting that almost every building in Washington DC has some sort
of "religious" conotation on it. What will happen if this ruling comes
down against PG? Will all the monuments in our nations capital have to be
removed? This is ridiculous!
@read the constitution | 9:05 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
You are so correct.
The constitution does not say anything about seperation of church and state.
"It has one sentence that is very straight forward and says that congress(government)can not pass a law favoring one religion over another religion"
Pleasant Grove has passed a law favoring ONE religion over another religion
The constitution does not say anything about seperation of church and state.
"It has one sentence that is very straight forward and says that congress(government)can not pass a law favoring one religion over another religion"
Pleasant Grove has passed a law favoring ONE religion over another religion
Anonymous | 9:06 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I say.. sell the park to a pioneer group, like the Sons of the Utah Pioneers.
That ought to do it!
David O | 9:20 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Throw all the people who want these 10 Commandments in in Islamic Republic, make
them live there for 1 year or even 3 months and see how they like it.
re:re:follow the prophet | 9:30 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
Where in the constitution of the United States does it say the federal courts
are established to determine the constitutionality of laws in the country. This
is just a myth, the precedent was established by the first activist juris, Mr.
Marshall, and the President complied in order to get a political appointment
made, and as the saying goes "the rest is history". And, not a very
good history. Please note the actual upholder of constitutionality is the
President and he is sworn to do so, with impeachment being the penalty for
failure to do so. Unfortunately, this is not the way we do things. Thereby, we
let the legal elite dictate to the republic what is and what is not
"constitutional" law. The people of Pleasant Grove should have every
right to be as narrow or broad in what they allow through their elected leaders
in their park as they want, the 10th amendment was set up to ensure this.
States/localities could be godless, god fearing, gay or straight, prejudice or
not. Now that would be real diversity and is the nation under God established
by the U.S. Constitution. The current nation is not even close.
Sharjah to David O | 10:33 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
I have lived in two separate Islamic republics and have enjoyed both of them
very much. Have you done the same?
Betty Wright | 11:16 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008
The majority should prevail, not the minority! It's
about time, we stop giving away our rights to them!
about time, we stop giving away our rights to them!
allow all: | 12:20 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
Just let any religious group put up a monument, it would make the park
interesting.
Anonymous | 1:15 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
this really isn't something to fight over. Pick a better fight. Time to
grow up and quit bickering over something like this. Have you seen the economy?
Have you heard about immorality? Perhaps there is something that could take
our time that is actually worth our time.
Anonymous | 1:43 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
When the government accepted a monument with the Ten Commandments it took the
side of the religion who accepts the Ten Commandments. "There shall be no
god before me," has no secular meaning. The park became a public forum
displaying religious teachings. How can the state favor one religion over
others? A school can't let kids carry a Bible and forbid carrying a Book of
Mormon.
The majority of people in Missouri favored the extermination order signed by Governor Boggs. Let's stop with the selective view of a Mormon majority ruling.
I carry my values with me. I never understood people needing to constantly be told what is right. Where were their parents?
This is America. Follow your prophet. For me, there is no prophet worth following. My point is, your beliefs aren't mine. Let's keep it this way, please.
The majority of people in Missouri favored the extermination order signed by Governor Boggs. Let's stop with the selective view of a Mormon majority ruling.
I carry my values with me. I never understood people needing to constantly be told what is right. Where were their parents?
This is America. Follow your prophet. For me, there is no prophet worth following. My point is, your beliefs aren't mine. Let's keep it this way, please.
outsider | 6:35 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
you people are truly frightening! I think I will vacation in vail this year but
thanks for the invite.
Re: a thought | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
OUR name for them is "native americans." Typically, their name for
themselves translates as "the people." In English, they call
themselves "Indians," not having been sucked in by the PC
ever-changing name game. Food for thought.
me | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
It needs to have relevance to the park. It looks very out of place to have the
ten commandments in the middle of a park!! Our freedom of religion is personal
to each person to worship however and whereever. It is very important to me to
keep that standard in place. Worship is private and not a public display.......
We cannot push any religious beliefs on anyone. A public park is not a place
to place scriptures etc... Ok to place heritage and historical events relevant
to the area but to post beliefs that might not be the same beliefs of some one
else is using taxpaying money/ parks to promote something that is not the belief
of all citizens. It is our duty to protect freedom of religion. That freedom is
not placing individuals doctrinal beliefs on public lands.
Nellie | 7:10 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
The city of PG could have stopped this group and its agenda long before now but
the mayor and his counsel refused to negotiate. This all started over much
lesser issues (as in public prayer prior to the start of city counsel meetings
and should various denominations be allowed to take turns or should only one
prayer style be allowed) and when the powers that be decided they wouldn't
'play nice' these small offshoot groups pushed back. So sad for the community and especially for Utah because once again nationally the state is defined by extremes rather than reality. I beginning to wonder if reality even exists in Utah.....
'play nice' these small offshoot groups pushed back. So sad for the community and especially for Utah because once again nationally the state is defined by extremes rather than reality. I beginning to wonder if reality even exists in Utah.....
Statue | 7:16 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
I thik that they should leave it their, They hae worked lon and hard on this
Statue, So I guess I don't see what the big deal is, It is a good thing to
explain to you kids, and when you go to the park it is something you can
always remember
CougarKeith | 7:51 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
Why is it everyone has to try and build off of something and always try to
"Make it better"? This is weird? I just read these 7 things and it is
as if they are trying to top the best and make it better than the best? It is
all repetitive already known if you study what is already known, it's
nothing new??????? Well it's new alright, but these people belong in
California not Utah! Whether they want to admit it or not they are a spin off of
Mormonism in a fashion whether they want to admit it or not. Just by reading
they are a few "I don't want to follow the rules" thinkers who
invented their own rules with some other Christians and Philosophized their own
religion for the sake of their own indulgence, that is what this is all about I
think. Then again, who am I to judge. In closing, take your monument and put it
in your front yard and keep it out of the Park!
no law | 8:11 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
Ok all you "congress shall make no Law" gurus.
Congress made no law. Not a single law was made by congress establishing a religion.
Cities can make laws.......States can make laws...but ole congress can make no laws.
So much for strict interpretation.
So when our non-liberal Republican court lets those yoyos put their hunk of stone next to a hunk of stone everyone agrees with remember..it's just a hunk of stone.
How's that for strick interpretation?
Mc | 9:11 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
The 10 Commandments is the basis for all the laws in this country. It is part
of our heritage whether we like it or not. The monument was accepted by the
city on that basis, not to "establish" any one religion. The Supreme
Court has ruled that displays of the 10 Commandments do not constitute
establishment of religion, so they are okay.
I think the city will win this one because the Supreme Court justices know and understand alot more about the Constitution than Instereo does: "it's a violation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, it's because they are conservative and don't care about the constitution."
I think the city will win this one because the Supreme Court justices know and understand alot more about the Constitution than Instereo does: "it's a violation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, it's because they are conservative and don't care about the constitution."
Go all the way!!!!! | 9:18 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
Not only should we have displays of the 10 Commandments displayed in public
spaces, we MUST have, along side of them, the Biblically (God's Law)
prescribed penalties for violating any of God's Commandments!
Following another religion? DEATH
Working on the Sabbath (Saturday)? DEATH
Disrespectful to your parents? DEATH
Swearing? DEATH
Telling a lie? DEATH
You get the idea.
Following another religion? DEATH
Working on the Sabbath (Saturday)? DEATH
Disrespectful to your parents? DEATH
Swearing? DEATH
Telling a lie? DEATH
You get the idea.
Salt Lake Resident | 9:21 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
I think we are all missing the real story here. Did anyone else notice that
everytime this issue of the Ten Commandments on City Property comes up, it is
always Brian Barnyard representing the other side. I think what we have here is
an attorney that has made a career out of bringing actions against a city
government, or any government. The clients change but the attorney remains the
same.
Amicus Briefs | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008
Interesting to look at the Amicus Briefs filed in favor of PG and where they
come from.....some come from the liberal east coast where cities want to have
control over what things are allowed to be in their parks. If my memory is
correct New York City filed a brief...can you imagine if anyone was allowed to
erect a monument in Central Park? Interesting to say the least.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
A Ten Commandments monument stands in Pleasant Grove's Pioneer Park. The monument was a gift to the city in 1971 by the Utah Aerie Fraternal Order of Eagles.
- Nobel returned to Iranian laureate 8:46 a.m.
- Stocks rise on trade deficit, jobs data 8:45 a.m.
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out 8:43 a.m.
- Spanish gov't to change abortion bill 8:41 a.m.
- IOC OKs cycling, tennis changes 8:28 a.m.
- BCS = power conference monopoly 8:15 a.m.
- Beck, lawmaker's husband trade jabs 8:10 a.m.
- Pakistan: 5 U.S. have al-Qaida link 8:00 a.m.
- Defense Sec. Gates arrives in Iraq 8:00 a.m.
- Russian nightclub fire toll at 136 7:58 a.m.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Many seek to wipe clean misdeeds
- Letters: Global warming a lie
232 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall185
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead120
- Palin signs books, chats with fans110
- Revive full food tax?100
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke94
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Do it while he's asleep, take the beard with it.
Thanks Dennis for the Memories you are a class act and will be missed at the...
Here we go again, the Mike Richard philosophy of God; that man is not...
How about increasing production capacity?
To "wouldn't listen anyway | 7:38 a.m." because that "rodeo clown" knows more...
A couple of years ago, my wife bought me a BYU replica jersey. Matt makes me...
'Go Sarah!!! You're driving the left mad. President PALIN 2012!' RDUB, I...
Good lord. Yeah, that's it. All he needs is a haircut. With a measley...
People really need to stop and think before they make comments about people...
uh, deniers? what about the physicists, paleo-botanists, ocenaographers,...
Advertisements