Reader comments
Top court ponders Pleasant Grove case

The Ten Commandments are historically linked to the laws of the United States. Hence, they can be found etched into the U.S. Supreme Court Building and in courtrooms throughout the nation. Display of 10 Commandments in a court neither endorse or dismiss any religion. They have never nor will they ever compel government to force a particular religion on anyone. Although we live in a pluralistic society today, our roots as a nation are historically Christian. Freedom of speech for the 10 Aphorisms has not been denied. They may be spoken, published, worshiped, put on billboards, etc with no recourse from Pleasant Grove or the U.S. Supreme Court. This case should not have been considered as a First Amendment issue. It's an argument of which even the U.S. Supreme Court is trying to make sense.

And the decline begins...

I will say it again and hope you religious bigots will listen: The United States of America is NOT a "Christian Nation". It never has been. It never will be. It is not "historically Christian" and it is does not have "Christianity" as its basis or foundation or roots or anything else. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something... usually their own religious bigotry!

Today, Chief Justice Roberts said a declaration that the Pleasant Grove monument was government speech would make it harder for the city to argue that it wasn't favoring one religion over another. "You're really just picking your poison, aren't you?'" he asked the town's lawyer, Jay Sekulow.

Come on, we all know the Religious Right doesn't really believe in religious equality. Of course they're hypocrites!

Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words �Jesus Christ,� so that it should read, �A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;� the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1743 - 1790

The person who "disagrees" that this is a Christian Nation says that it never has been nor will be a Christian nation. You don't say why it isn't, just that you don't think it is. Where are your arguments for your opinion? The Founding Fathers of our nation said prayer before and after every meeting to establish this great nation. They even said in the Founding documents that we are a nation under God.
Where are your arguments against what they did? You just have an opinion.

The ten commandments have NOTHING to do with our country or our laws. Only two of the ten are even laws in this country, and those two are pretty much common sense. Our country was set up on freedom and our laws are based on where your freedom runs into mine.
Dont kill and dont steal are the only 'commandments' that are in our laws.

Mr. or Mrs. "Disagree",

It's a phrase like "you religious bigots" an inherently bigoted remark?

10 commandments - basis of our laws?

Well except for those first five. Nothing in the constitution about half of the 10.

Keep grasping.

Disagree,

Isn't a phrase like "you religious bigots" an inherently bigoted remark?

With a wink and a nudge, we've chosen the first among equals, the trump card in what we'll pass for religious freedom. Getting called on it calls into question the whole concept of religious freedom, and whether or not we really believe in it when the rubber meets the road. More often than not, we do not. This idea that there is no religious symbolism in the park or court is laughable when there is a tablet of rules, each beginning "thou shalt". Sure, it's historic, inasmuch as that history is religious, and pretty much all religion draws heavily on history. So, invite everyone to the table. Their religion is, or will be, our history. If that seems unworkable, then ask whether religion, which so mightily divides us, belongs in the common.

Steve, How about these?

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were not religion in it."
-John Adams

"I am not a member of any Christian church."
-Abraham Lincoln

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."
-Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson

Don't get off base now. This nation was founded by a basically Christian group but not founded on the laws of the Lord. This case is about mixing those two elements - religion and law - but it was decided long ago to separate church and state. If the park is government owned then no religious monuments, period. This is not a religious issue. This is understanding what government is or was and not trying to have your cake and eat it too. Don't make this a religious argument, it only proves you don't understand the real issue at hand.

Pleasant Grove's property, they can do as they wish.

IF the founding fathers intended "sponsor" or "endorse" or "prefer" they would have used those words.

They used "respect an establishment".

People who believe in Summan have not been impeded in there ability to establish or practice their religion or even talk about it or pubh iinformation about it.

This about putting up a Monument in a park. Which is an action and a thing.

Actions/things are not protected in the constitution.

They are not speech without twisting the constitution to have no meaning at all.

As such, it should be left up to the community to decide,

Any power NOT given to a higher level must necessarily fall to the lowest level of governance.


RE: ROBERT OH:

Very deceptive, taking quotes out of context to make point. A typical liberal tactic.

Riiiiight. The Ten commandments are certainly recognized world-wide as Buddhist or Hindu tenents. I think I saw them on a picture of a temple somewhere in India.

Nah, no promotion of one particular religion over all others there.

Just be honest. If you are going to claim that there is freedom of religion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but that the US is a "christian" country, just come right out and say it, "NO other religions are wanted". Come on, you KNOW you want to.

so what, let summum pay for a 7 aphorisms monument; as long as they pay for it and it fits in reasonably well with the design of the park, just let them do it...who does it hurt?

the 7 aphorisms are not offensive, but a possible argument is that allowing this group's monument would mean they'd have to allow any group's monument, even from a group with extremely offensive beliefs, but as long monuments are required to be paid for with private dollars and do not contain offensive content, there should be no future issue either

The 7 aphorisms do not belong in a public park!

What you need to do is go to the SUMMUMS web site and read what they are all about. Then you can really decide if you want this so-called religious group (it amazes me that this group can be considered a religion with tax exempt status)erect their philosophies on a monument in Pioneer Park. Have the city of Pleaseant Grove give/sell the site to the LDS Church and let them take care of it. End of discussion.

Does anyone know whether this case was tried in the Utah Supreme Court? If it was, could you please give the case name or number so I can look it up? Thanks.