Comments about ‘Federal judge dismisses Summum suit against Pleasant Grove’

Brian Barnyard needs to get a real job.

It's good to know there are some judges with some common sense!

'Pleasant Grove built the monument in Pioneer Park 39 years ago for historical, not religious, reasons, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball wrote.' - Line from article.

So, apparently the 10 commandments were reserved only for Pleasant Grove?

Wouldn't that be a historical context?

I disagree with this ruling. I guess 'freedom of religion' only covers...one.

This supports that.

This judge should be commended for exercising sound reasoning. The Ten Commandments are part of the historical significance of this Country. Indeed, the values espoused are the very values by which citizens practiced to make this Country great. More judges must follow the example of this judge by standing up for right and refusing to give in to so-called political correctness.

Hey, Attorney Barnard! Why don't you consider my suggestion to your list of possible "options"--- get a life and a real job! One need not look any further than this nonsensicle claim to wonder why courts are as backlogged as they are. Give me a break!

Brian, may I suggest you go to Washington DC and sue the Feds for all the buildings that has the word "God" on them. Next "follow the money". There is a gold mine there for an anti-religion lawyer. That should keep you and your future generations wealthy.

Another potential gold mine. Why not head to the middle east, and battle for "human rights" there. Heck, they would even agree with you on most of your anti-religion postering. Just watch your back. I hear flogging really hurts!!

I wonder if all the conservatives that always whine that the government is trying to get religion out of America will just ignore this. Yeah, probably. They are good at ignoring things that don't fit into their view of reality.

Pagan,

Do you even understand the second amendment? As soon as Pleasant Grove is forcing its people to belong to a certain church, then I think you've got a beef. If a city wants to put a monument to the 10 commandments in a park, who cares? Where is your right to exercise your religion, or no religion at all, being usurped?

Let me help you out here. To understand the inclusion of the second amendment into the constitution, you have to understand where it came from and why. It has to do with the Church of England, the persecution of the Puritans and their subsequent exodus to the Colonies so they could worship how they wanted, and not be forced to belong to what they considered to be the heretical Church of England established by Henry VIII.

Hence the language, "establishment of religion" or national religion, and "free exercise thereof". You, Pagan, are free to exercise how you want, just like Summum, and no 10 commandments monument in Pleasant Grove, Utah, will infringe that right.

John C.S.: "The Ten Commandments are part of the historical significance of this Country. Indeed, the values espoused are the very values by which citizens practiced to make this Country great. "

Which commandments were you talking about specifically?

The first four refer to a God. In this country, we allow anyone to worship anything they want to. Or we allow them not to worship if they so please, right?

Of the following 6, only 3 are laws of this land: Don't kill, steal or lie (under oath). The rest of the commandments we are free to break without any recrimination, right?

I never understood why the 10 commandments were so revered as law in this country. Maybe you can explain it to me.

'Do you even understand the second amendment? As soon as Pleasant Grove is forcing its people to belong to a certain church, then I think you've got a beef. If a city wants to put a monument to the 10 commandments in a park, who cares?' - 3:13 p.m.

Hindu's? Buddists'?

Have you given thought to people who are NOT Jewish, Christian or worship Islam?

There are more religions than that.

As the 10 commandments were NOT found by Odin, but rather by Moses, it does not represent all religions and is not inclusive.

And as the 10 commandments were found on 'the mountian', mount Sinai, in Egypt.

Since that is not Pleasent Grove, the historical claim is out.

The religion claim, is out, as it selects one over others.

Religion is not often based on fact, but rather faith. As it is based on faith, the concept that it has a historical context is moot.

Since the monument was based on an event in Egypt, not Pleasent Grove, the historical context of this claim is a lie.

Lane and Pagan have apparently lost sight of the fact that this is not a religious issue. The Ten Commandment are guidlines for keeping peace and promoting the public welfare of any community. A society which violates these guidlines is a society plagued by crime, divorce, and broken families.

Re: Pagan,
I didn't forget about Hindus or Buddists. Why does any monument have to represent the religious view of every people (which would be impossible)? I'm merely saying that such a monument does not infringe on your right, my right, a Hindu's right or Buddist's right to worship how they want to in this country (and particularly in Pleasant Grove, Ut). If it does infringe on that right, please explain!

John,

So, allowing MORE monuments (not REMOVING the 10 commandments) will lead to more...divorce?
Is that like allowing MORE people to marry (not STOPPING straight marriage) will...lead to divorce?

Well, at least your consistant.

I am baffled. Why should any group have the "right" to have a monument to their mantras monumentalized simply because another's mantras are? If they can't get what they want, will they demand the ten commandments be taken down? "If I can't have it, no one can"?

That said, it's immoral for a city to have taken money from the populace to build any kind of monument in the first place. That kind of thing *should* be done by voluntary donation.

If a community decides to put up a monument in a park, they vote on, and then pay for said monument. Apparently 39 years ago, the people of pleasant grove had enough of a vote to authorize spending (or perhaps it was donated) to build the monument.

The people who settled UTAH were LDS - Mormons. We, as a people, still adhere to the ten commandments. For us, it is of Great HISTORICAL meaning that we remember our roots...Present day prophets, past prophets (Brgham and Joseph), ancient prophets - Moses, etc. We consider all of these part of our rich cultural history. So..the "historical" angle works just fine.

Second, the monument in no way prevents or interferes with someone elses' belief (or lack of belief) in any other religion. One can be Christian, and pray to Heavenly Father from a prison cell, or a park with a Budda in it.

Separation of Church and state is about not allowing the Govt to support a religion. Go see what Nancy Pelosi is doing with the EPA and offering deals to certain churches. If you want to cry foul, i suggest you start there!

Lane and Pagan also lose sight of the fact that the 10 Commandments provided the general moral basis for the British and American legal systems - or to put it in non-theist terms - the 10 Commandments are the Primordial Soup of western legal evolution, whcih is a pretty big historical precedence. AND since the Washington Monument is patterened after an ancient Egyptian (not D.C. or Pleasant Grove) obolisque dedicated to a sun god - should it be banned too?


BTW: I have no religous affiliation and have read many Hindu and Buddhist texts. I am not sure why Pagan thinks I should be offended by the 10 Commandments.

Correction to general line of posts: Free speech, Freedom of religion and government non-establishment of religion is guaranteed under the First Amendment - the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms (I suppose if there is a need to defend the First).

Pagan, you are clearly NOT consistent. Your overly emotional rationale is leading you to make ridiculous correlations only barely based on things John has said. You're making Pagan look bad.

Counter Intelligence | 4:30 p.m. June 3, 2010
"Lane and Pagan also lose sight of the fact that the 10 Commandments provided the general moral basis for the British and American legal systems - or to put it in non-theist terms - the 10 Commandments are the Primordial Soup of western legal evolution"

-----

Really? Explain how no graven images help form our moral basis for our legal system. How about keeping the sabbath day holy? Adultry? Why, you can even lie as much as you like as long as it is not slander or under oath. Please!

Again, there are only three of the ten commandments that are part of our laws. I don't know who told you that they are the basis of our legal system, butmy guess is that they are religious!

@ Pagan "I disagree with this ruling. I guess 'freedom of religion' only covers...one"

And which one religion do you suggest it covers since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all believe the Ten Commandments are inspired? Not to mention that most all religions believe in the principles of the Ten Commandments.

Re: Lane Myer | 4:52 p.m.

Humans don’t look much like amoeba anymore either, but non-theists claim that’s where we started.

The 10 Commandments are the basis for Judeo-Christian morality, which morphed into western cultural norms, which morphed into English law, which morphed into American law, etc. Things are added and things are dropped (For example: Not that long ago Sunday closing laws were common in the US and even more recently in Canada and they still exist in many European Countries. Current laws regarding marriage and sexual conduct have a basis in prohibitions of adultry. Certain forms of profanity will change a movie rating or be prohibited on broadcast TV, etc).
Even the Commandments are different according to the biblical translation. But in the end: "Thou shalt not kill" still holds up as a good moral imperative, whether written in religious terms or in terms that wont offend delicate secular fundamentalists.