The mere mention of the contributions and sacrifices in settling and building
Arizona of any specific faith group is not even remotely equivalent to the
outright promotion of the faith group in question.BTW, the name Dan W,
Jones needs to appear on any plaque commemorating the early efforts in Arizona
of individuals and families sent to Arizona by President Brigham Young.
@NoNames;The others you mentions aren't religions. Nor is it
"hostility" toward religion to keep religious monuments off of state
property - it's called 'neutrality'.And stop all this
nonsense about religion having a "favored place" in our society, it does
not. It has an equal place, nothing more.
Pardon, the 1st Amendment is about freedom of expression and religion. That
makes the 2nd, right to bear arms, that much more important.Freedom to
remember history, recall faith and religious movements.We do not live in a
vanilla vacuum of secular "state". Sounds like Marxism.
Freedom of speech and religion as enshrined in the First Amendment can easily be
accommodated here. It is improper to discriminate based on content.If you
would honor secular pioneers, then it is equally permissible to honor religious
ones.There is no prohibition on recognising the contribution of particular
groups. There is a prohibition on only recognising groups that are (or are not)
connected with a race/religion/sex etc.
NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT@Impartial7:"Do you
also object to monuments to honor the historic contributions of groups tied by
common bonds other than religious? "Religious monuments are not
secular. The others are. Why push your religious beliefs on others?Should National Park and National Monuments erase the important contributions
of Catholic explorers or of the religious motivations behind the settlement of
some of the 13 colonies? "Government non interference with the
free exercise of religion was never intended to be government hostility or
bigotry toward religion."The hostility of which you speak comes
from the religious folks trying to force their beliefs on others. You hate our
secular society."Some would allow their own hatreds to stand
that on its head and make religion the one entity where official discrimination
is demanded"Your religious beliefs makes religion the one entity
that is subjective to your beliefs. How about we make our society completely
Jewish or Hindu? Would you object to those religious beliefs?You
claim "hatred" only when someone disagrees with your religious beliefs.
Isn't your hatred for those that disagree the same thing?
It is good and important what the Mormon migration brought to the development
and growth of the territory of Arizona, however, at the same time there are so
many special groups of people and organizations that contributed to Arizona
development that if they were all given their deserved recognition the Arizona
state capital would be so over loaded with monuments that there would be no room
to fulfill its purpose of government. The Mormon church purchases private land
to establish their temples, therefore they should consider acquiring private
land and build themselves a Mormon Memorial park and visitor site similar to
what they have made in San Diego, Cal. It would be a good and educational
addition to Arizona visitor sites.
So now National Monuments are fine with Utahns?
@Impartial7 There is no separation of church state in the
constitution.The 1st amendment does not mean what you think it
means.And it certainly does not mean to ignore or deny actual
history, or to remove religion or its contributions from the public square .
@Impartial7:Do you also object to monuments to honor the historic
contributions of groups tied by common bonds other than religious? Shall we
forget the contributions of women, American Indians, slaves,Asian Americans,
railroad workers, or other such groups? Rainbow bridge?Should
National Park and National Monuments erase the important contributions of
Catholic explorers or of the religious motivations behind the settlement of some
of the 13 colonies? Should government sites fail to mention the role religion
played in the Underground Railroad and abolition?No where does the
US Constitution require separation of church and state. We must not let an
analogy replace the actual contractual language by which we are bound.Government non interference with the free exercise of religion was never
intended to be government hostility or bigotry toward religion.The
1st amd secures a favored place for religion in our officially secular
government. Some would allow their own hatreds to stand that on its head and
make religion the one entity where official discrimination is demanded.How very sad it is to see what hatred does to both mind and soul. Truly a
canker to everything good.
Good idea. Why put it in Phoenix? A better place would be in Mesa, or Apache,
Navajo, or Graham Counties where the Saints settled.
A monument to people who left everything behind and faced danger to seek a new
and better and safer life in a new land?How remarkable.Why does it sound familiar today and what would have happened to them if they
had left Nauvoo today?Something to think about . . . .
No monument, no scriptures, no statues no religious shrines on any US government
or State property. Put it on the temple grounds or private property. Separation
of church and state.