Will the ACLU be equally involved if someone decided to pass out material
offensive to Muslims outside one of their mosques in Utah?No, I
didn't think so, either.
Geez, the ACLU needs better hobbies. No one's rights were trampled when
the pamphleteers were restricted to a certain area to pass out their propaganda.
They could still pass it out. I for one might of punched one of them if I had
been met at the bus with them waiving their stuff in my face as I stepped off
the bus, had I gone to the open house.As I recall, there are free
speech zones outside of the Conference Center in Salt Lake where the protesters,
anti-Mormons, etc. are restricted to. The ACLU seems to be in favor of that.
Same thing.The free speech zones have ample precident, and Brigham
City was just trying to prevent the type of incident that seems to happen almost
every time General Conference convienes in Salt Lake.
Several years ago I was involved in a protest outside the office of House
Speaker Denny Hastert. Barricades were set up around a 50 foot square buffer
zone. Each "side" of the issue could extend as far back from the
barricades as needed to accomodate the size of their group.No one was
injured and we could express our point as much as we wanted. People could
gather literature from either side if they chose.My point is that there
are ways to allow freedom of speech/assembly and still provide unrestricted
passage to the temple grounds.Of course, if your intent is to get "in
your face" with people, such a plan won't work. I'm not sure that
has anything to do with the First Ammendment.
Our Constitutional freedoms come with consequences. Often religious beliefs
conflict with those freedoms. The anti-Muslim film of this past week is an
example. Such religious intolerance and evil distortion incite peolple in
various ways. We've seen cartoons that do the same.As for the
Brigham City ordinance restricting free speech on public property, the ACLU is
exactly correct. The ACLU is usually correct. We all want the Bill of Rights
freedaoms. But we also do not want others to exercise theirs "in our
face" or within our space.And religion may be the most sensitive
and dangerous realm for freedom conflicts.
DN Subscriber, you are wrong. The ACLU doesn't choose their clients based
on any political viewpoint. They've defended neo-Nazis, Rush Limbaugh (I
couldn't post a link, but Google "Rush Limbaugh and ACLU" -- it
will get you to a Fox news article that talks about it) and many other
people/groups you wouldn't consider "liberal". Their goal is to
protect Constitutional rights. Some people get confused as to why the ACLU
won't defend a conservative when a liberal individual speaks out against
them, etc., but the ACLU only gets involved when the government is involved in
the issue. In other words, your Constitutional rights aren't being
violated if the government is not involved (Bill of Rights protects people
against government not other individuals). So, if someone wanted to pass out
anti-Muslim literature and the government stopped them from doing so, yes, the
ACLU would defend them.
Re flashback, that would be possible jail time as well as a civil suit against
you. They have the right to speech and assembly on the sidewalk as that is
publicly owned. The grass owned by the church would be a different matter.
"I for one might of punched one of them if I had been met at the bus with
them waiving their stuff in my face as I stepped off the bus, had I gone to the
open house."Ah, there's the Christian Spirit we like to
see. Did you learn that in Church?
JoeBlowSarcasm, cynicism and mockery. Did YOU learn that in Church?
DNSubscriber - The ACLU came out in support of Chik-Fil-A's owner and his
right to express his opinion on marriage. They defend ALL of our Constitutional
rights. That's the tought thing for some wth the Constitution - it
protects those we disagree with.The Main Street Church has long been
an anti-Mormon group. They produce videos challenging many things - DNA and the
Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc. I would be concerned about their
actions while handing out their literature, but would not agree to restrict
their right to do so. I also feel that those attending the open house have a
first ammendment right to do so without harassment.That said, the
Main Street Church folks seem to be nice people. I got some free popcorn and
water from them at Peach Days last Saturday...
I am all for free speech. Although it is allowed, it is rarely effective. I have
seen people at political events, church events, schools, etc. In this case, this
church simply wants to be able to hand out pamphlets and talk to any member of
the LDS faith and others that are not LDS that are touring the new temple in BC.
Most people coming already have their minds made up before attending any event.
Most people that are protesting usually come across as a little fanatical and
usually lose the attention of the people they are most trying to convince.In any case, let them hand out their pamphlets. Allow people the
opportunity to see if they want to pursue other churches, organizations, etc.
Most of it simply isn't effective.
middle classWe all want the Bill of Rights freedaoms. But we also do
not want others to exercise theirs "in our face" or within our space.--------------There is a reason we don't want that -- It
isn't free speech.Free speech doesn't mean you can say
anything, anytime, anywhere you want.You can't come into my
home to tell me what you think, unless I invite you. Otherwise, that is
trespassing.You can't make untruthful claims about me that
cause me harm in reputation with or without financial consequence. That is
defamation (or slander, if verbal), not free speech.You cannot
incite others to violence against a person or group based upon their race,
religion, etc. That is unlawful hate speech, not free speech.While
some who rail against others may then physically abuse them, which is battery,
merely instilling fear of physical violence is grounds for a charge of assault,
a crime, not protected speech.Holding one against one's will is
unlawful detention, whether or not the detainer is some kind of government
official.Presumably, given you are online, you are adept enough on
the internet you can educate yourself on these matters.
Wonder, Redwings,99.999999999% of what the ACLU supports is
anti-christian and anti-conservative. They take the occassional conservative
case to put on a front. The VAST majority of what they do is to suppress
to Rational...Yes, you are right, but you have taken Free Speech out
of context... Free Speech liberties are guaranteed. Those that assault, cause
harm, threaten or instill riot have violated other laws, not the Free Speech
liberty.The Government (in this case the City) cannot restrict Free
Speech because they don't want a particular event affected by these folks.
Nor could the City restrict you from going into a theatre because they were
afraid you would yell "FIRE!"
CottageCheese said: Sarcasm, cynicism and mockery. Did YOU learn that in
Church?Actually yes, I learned it from the people who attended my church,
the dominant Church in Utah.I learn it from watching Mitt, mock the
president.lost in DC said: 99.999999999% of what the ACLU supports
is anti-christian and anti-conservative.Making things up again? This is
why people tend to not take your arguments seriously.Why do the
republicans hate free speech? Except when their idols on the radio yell it at
@lost in DC -- The ACLU only gets involved with religion if government is
establishing or sponsoring a specific religion or if it is denying someone the
right to exercise or practice their religion. They aren't
"against" religion. It only seems that way to you probably because the
governmental action that the ACLU has opposed agreed with your particular
religious beliefs. Now if the government started promoting, say Scientology,
you'd probably not like that and would think the ACLU was fabulous.
Ironic that the ACLU argues that protesters may not block people from being at
the main access point of an abortion clinic (supporting buffer zones), but they
have that right at LDS Temples (opposing buffer zones).
middle/class "The ACLU is usually correct". Now that's something
you don't read everyday.If we choose to pretend that to be true, even
though legal history proves that to be far from true. I would ask that they at
least be consistent in how they go about defending/attacking different
religions.Example: Have you ever seen the limited access given in areas of
the United States where Islamic celebrations are going on? Police put up
barriers 2-3 blocks away.Photos are not allowed. Filming is not
allowed.Didn't see the ACLU taking on that group.So as another
here pointed out, the credibility of the ACLU and those who conceal their true
intentions under the guise of feeling discriminated against are simply too easy
@middle classThe free speech of the pamphleteers was never
restricted, it was fully allowed within the zone permitted. I highly doubt the
ACLU will win this court case, as it would set a precedence for other free
speech zones set up by cities. Could you imagine what the effect would be if
they couldn't limit the free speech zone when the president visits Utah?
Free speech zones help to provide a buffer for the public safety and
safety of others (like the pres), you take away that buffer in this case and you
have to take it away in ALL cases. Hey that would also mean that I could just
walk along the red carpet in Park City when the celebs come for the film
festival, this could get interesting.
A good Catholic friend of mine here in AZ went with me to the annual Easter
Pageant in Mesa.As usual, the anti's and their pamplets were there on
each corner chanting their loving remarks and handing out poorly printed
materials.I hadn't prepared my friend for what was coming, so when
they tried to talk to him he gave a most perfect response to the group.He
said "Do you people really have no more respect than this?" Is your
religion so shallow that you have nothing better to do than stand here and annoy
and offend these people?He then told them that he was a proud Catholic,
but felt grateful to be invited to a beautiful program depicting the life of
Christ. And ended saying "shame on you".I just smiled and thanked
him for expressing his honest feelings.
@AZRods -- No, I haven't seen the government putting up blocks around
Islamic celebrations. To be truthful, I haven't seen any huge outdoor
Islamic celebrations, so perhaps that is why. However, if someone were trying
to peacefully protest these celebrations and the government would not allow it,
I feel confident that the ACLU would step in.
Flashback: Really?? You might have had some creedence without that quip.
Probably best that you stayed in Kearns... Obviously very few people
read and or understand the actual points of what is going on here. So no further
regurgitation of the reality of the situation is warranted. Main
Street Church can now press forward in their efforts to save the Mormons from
themselves. Party on!
@WonderI respectfully disagree with your postYes; the ACLU is
very active in enforcing the non-Establishment clause of the First Amendment,
but often at the expense of the non-interference clause and the free speech
clause (regarding religion) by pushing for a hard line suppression of religious
speech in most, if not all, public venues.The ACLU fails to
comprehend that mere accommodation of religious expression, is not the same as
governmental establishment of religion, but suppression of religious speech is a
suppression of free speech (and tacit establishment of atheism as the enforced
I love the smell of victory. THe ruling party has kept the 'Gentiles"
down to long. I like this pattern of reason.
"Yes; the ACLU is very active in enforcing the non-Establishment clause of
the First Amendment, but often at the expense of the non-interference clause and
the free speech clause (regarding religion) by pushing for a hard line
suppression of religious speech in most, if not all, public venues."
Another ACLU case was in Santa Fe Texas - (June 19, 2000) where the ACLU
sided with a Catholic and Mormon family to stop student led prayer before
football games.Seems the heavily Baptist community didn't want
to play nice with those religious persuasions.
Regarding Joe Blow's comment -- I'm not familiar with that case, but
it doesn't surprise me. It illustrates what I was saying in my earlier
posts that the ACLU is not anti-religion or anti-Christian. In the case Joe
Blow describes, the Baptist community would think that the ACLU is "against
religion" because it represented someone who was fighting the
"establishment" of the Baptist religion. However, that wouldn't be
the way the Catholic or LDS people in that example saw it. That said, Counter
Intelligence, I think you might have a point in your earlier comment about the
ACLU not protecting the rights of protestors at abortion clinics. I've
seen some articles that claim that they have not protected those protestors to
the same extent they have protected other types of speech. I have no reason to
believe those articles are wrong, but I still think, in general, the ACLU stands
for protecting Constitutional rights regardless of political persuasion.
The whole thing is rediculous! The extra traffic AND foot traffic here has been
amazing, and the city only did this for safety and traffic control. For those
many,many thousands who have come here to tour the temple, the crowds
(especially in the evenings and on Labor Day) have been amazing, long lines,
etc. If we had to deal with protestors getting in the way, it would have been
disastrous! It wasn't like the city banned them from handing out their
anti pamphlets, they were given ample area to waste their time. The ACLU could
have it's place, but more often than not, they're a bunch of misguided
liberals and wasting time and money on such cases! Seriously! Also, you don't see Mormons out picketing or protesting at other
church's functions! What happened to being Christ-like? For
those of us who aren't just visiting Brigham City, but live here, it's
been nice to have a bit of control and safety concern from the city. They
should be applauded, not condemned. No one's freedom of speech was EVER
Wonder - Google Santa Fe School Prayer. Comes up first.TwinbPicketing and passing out literature at a temple open house is certainly
in poor taste.Very few would disagree. Although they probably had
intentions of saving some souls."Giving them ample area to waste
their time" is not really the point. Obviously, all who would be protested
would love to get to pick a spot for the protesters to protest. Kinda defeats
the purpose.This is one of those things, just like the guy who made
the derogatory film on Islam. We wish they didn't do it, and while we
denounce the message,shouldn't we stand up for their right to do it?That applies even in areas that affect us personally.Lastly
to Cottagecheese who posts "Sarcasm, cynicism and mockery. Did YOU learn
that in Church?"I am sarcastic and a cynic at times. God made
me that way. But, don't you see just the slightest bit of irony when
a guy, going to a temple, wants to punch another guy for passing out religious
literature. Cmon, not even a little bit amusing?
Nice post AZRods...I think most civil Americans react inwardly or
outwardly like your friend did. Deep in our American souls, lies not only those
rights of free speech but the clarity of civility. It bothers some and
motivates others.I wouldn't picket my old girl friends wedding,
or enemies funeral...or find respect for a church who does something like this
church in Brigham City did. Free speech? Yep! Civil? Nope!I
think to most descent Americans these two principles travel in the same bag.
People complain about not being able to go into the LDS Temples. This is exactly
why Temples are not show places. Unity, love and peace abide inside Temples that
cannot be felt anywhere else. I'm thankful for that.
Looks to me times haven't changed since Jesus, Our Savior, was on the
Earth. Whenever he did something good the Pharises and certain lawyers always
were there causing problems. Well, now it's the ACLU that have taken the
roll of the Pharisee. But, it's a shame that this Main Street Church
doesn't want to rejoice in glad tidings with the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints that their is a beautiful Temple there for all to see. Instead
they have chosen to have a not so Christ like attitude about it and act
disruptive instead of peaceful.
joe blowi dealt with your bubbas when there was an open house at the
Columbia Temple. I told them then and I'll tell you now, biggoted people
will not move the church anywhere. Get use to it. It is not the mid 1800s. BTW,
just exactly did you learn from your church?
"BTW, just exactly did you learn from your church?"I learned
that religion/churches are mostly about money, power and control.
RationalNone of the things you listed were don in front of the
temple. Now I someone can sit in front of your home (as long as they are on the
sidewalk not touching your property, or blocking passage) and distribute flyers
of a nature you may not believe in. There would not be anything you could do
about it, you can call the police and complain, but as long as they are not on
your property or blocking the way they can do this.
These people really are pathetic and need to get a life. I feel sorry for them.
justme001;"Now I someone can sit in front of your home (as long
as they are on the sidewalk not touching your property, or blocking passage) and
distribute flyers of a nature you may not believe in. There would not be
anything you could do about it, you can call the police and complain, but as
long as they are not on your property or blocking the way they can do
this."Actually no they can not. In most cities they need a
permit to distribute fliers or even knock on doors.
the aclu has defended the LDS missionaries right to go door to door postalizing
something everyone on this thread likes to pretend never happened.
When one of their attornies died, that didn't stop this type of action.
This is not an issue of free-speech and is of public safety. What was the
intent of that man when he filed the law suit. Did the ACLU come to him to push
his rights? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had similar
incidents as have parents and families of military personnel when they had
funerals. We live in a free country where people can express freedom of speech.
There was plenty of space for these people to do what they wanted to do. They
could have gone to parking lots at both ends of town, where people who went to
the temple boarded buses to hand out their material. The temple parking lots
and entrances to and from the parking lot had a lot of activity. This is not a
large temple with an expansive parking lot. The other parking lots had people
waiting to get on the bus with ample opportunity for people to hand out
pamphlets without as much congestion. The temple ground is a place to meditate
and think about the beautiful message the work will be.
Usually several of those that protest are somewhat curious. I say that we invite
them to tour the temple. We could babysit their signs while they go. Maybe they
will feel something there. Betting some will become interested.I
have a good friend that has protested the AZ Easter Pageant with his
"Christian" church. I told him that we do not protest his church and
beliefs. My son did his Eagle project for his church. So this year I asked him
to come to the pageant and be on the other side. He was coming but ended up in
the Hospital. But he is planning on it this year. If you have some
lemons make lemonade. I do not appreciate people demonstrating but I also
understand they have that right. I have the right to knock on their door too
and often they do not appreciate it as well. But reading some of the posts it
looks like we all need to go back to being a Sunbeam or Sunday School at other
churches or just the Golden Rule. If this and any other Temple did not bring
some controversy I would be disappointed.
to WonderThe case is Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530
U.S. 290 (2000).
The fact remains that Brigham City is using the governmnet to favor one religion
over another on public property. You just can't get away with that.I think it's a shame the Church has so many enemies but actions
like this aren't going to help.
so when the ACLU protects the right of LDS missionaries to come onto my private
property and knock on my door to spread their religion it is a good thing but
when the ACLu protects this churches right to hand out pamphlets on a public
street corner it is wrong and they are evil and have always been evil?
Snoman,Really so the next time the two mormon boys come knock on my
door for the millionth time, they need a permit? Glad to hear that i will make
sure I ask them for one. Now should I call the police if they do not have one?
You know since they are on private property without my prior consent.Sorry
you can't just have it on way
Saving Mormons from themselves. Those kinds of comments make me laugh.
I'm just curious. Exactly what is it that I need to be saved from?
Seriously. What is it exactly that the Church teaches or does that is
endangering me in any way that I need to be saved from it?
JWBSo you are OK with free speech as long as it does not get in your way?
Are you ok with missionary's going on private property without consent to
spread their views? If so why?
Many ACLU attorneys are home grown and graduate from the BYU law school.
justme001: Missionaies don't normally need a permit to knock on doors in
Utah. In some states and countries they do. But if You don't want them
there ask them to stay away and they will. They don't need your consent to
knock on your door the first time.
Will Hillary Clinton condemn me if I insult the prophet Muhammad in one of these
free speech zones? How about if I say something unpleasant about Mormons?
@JoeBlowAll you did is prove my point: The ACLU is eager to suppress
public religious speech (and is slow to support non-interference
with religion or the accommodation of religious free speech)
Ah, the lack of a sarcasm font... Rats.
I wonder if this same group has travelled to Dearborn Michigan to spread their
beliefs among the thousands of muslims? They should. It's about time that
the differences between muslims and christians be clearly explained.
Particularly pertaining to Sharia Law and the ten commandments and our
Constitution. Or is the ACLU going to ignore the attrocities committed by these
muslims against the local christians?