The Summum of All Fears
Can a fringe religious sect that believes in mummifying pets and their owners force a landmark Supreme Court decision on free speech?
Stymied, the Summum changed tactics. To get around the 10th Circuit's finding, the group argued that favoring one faith over another in public monument selection constitutes not religious discrimination under the Establishment Clause but "viewpoint discrimination," a free speech violation. That decision proved pivotal, and timely, as it was the same argument that many Christian-right groups were using to score big victories in the Supreme Court to win permission for religious groups to use public school facilities, among other things. Under its free speech argument, Summum won a trio of lawsuits, though still failed to get the Aphorisms installed. The cities of Ogden and Salt Lake chose to remove the Ten Commandments rather than install the Aphorisms. In 2003, the city of Duchesne took the extraordinary measure of privatizing a 10-by-10-foot square around its Ten Commandments monument to prevent a Summum installation.
In 2003, the group sued Pleasant Grove for violating its free speech rights. Again, the case went to federal court. But this time, the court ruled against Summum. The group appealed to the 10th Circuit, where a three-judge panel ordered Pleasant Grove to let Summum install their monument. Pleasant Grove asked for a rehearing on the case by the full circuit, which was denied. But the conflicting opinions of the judges on the rehearing issue, particularly that of Judge Michael McConnell, who is regarded as one of the country's leading experts on religion and the law, practically begged the Supreme Court to take up the case. (The decision also emboldened Reverend Phelps to make his request for the Matthew Shepard monument.) The case attracted the attention of the religious right and its leading public interest law firm, the American Center for Law & Justice, which had pioneered the use of free speech arguments to expand religion into the public sphere. But in this case it took the exact opposite position, coming out against the sect. With help from the well-known ACLJ lawyer Jay Sekulow, Pleasant Grove appealed, and Wednesday, Sekulow argued the case before the Supreme Court.
Sekulow's position in the case conflicts with his earlier arguments against religious discrimination. Based on his litigation record, you'd think he'd support more religion in public space, not less. But Sekulow and his supporters don't want just any religion in public space—just their own. They want the government to be able to discriminate among religious faiths. Christian-right groups also fear that if Pleasant Grove loses this case, Ten Commandment monuments nationwide will be threatened, and ultimately removed, as they were in Ogden and Salt Lake. Hence the brief in Summum filed by Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice who lost his job after he ignored a federal court order to remove an enormous Decalogue from his courthouse. Now head of the Foundation for Moral Law, Moore issued a statement on the Summum case saying, "Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the radical opinions of federal courts give judges a right to act as park managers to install the beliefs of a new age religion foreign to our culture and heritage."
You'd think that in a case like this, civil liberties groups would be eager to defend Summum's free speech rights from the right wingers in the high court. Instead, the case has totally befuddled the usual defenders of religious minorities. Sadly for Summum, most of those groups are sitting this one out. Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other civil liberties groups filed amicus briefs, but supporting neither side. They simply argued that the case should not be decided on free speech grounds at all and suggested that the court instead correct the 10th Circuit's screwy 1970s-era decision on the Establishment Clause that said the Ten Commandments weren't a religious icon. The ACLU chose to abstain from the case altogether. Summum's supporters are few and far between. The reason, of course, is Fred Phelps. A win for Summum would bar governments from discriminating in its choice of monuments in places like the National Mall, and essentially force federal and state authorities to either let everyone in or get rid of the monuments altogether.
As much as the ACLU and Americans United oppose the government's discrimination against a religious minority, in this case, there is simply no good outcome for them. "You're dammed if you do, you're dammed if you don't," says Ayesha Khan, the lawyer for Americans United.
The only hope for Summum is Chief Justice John Roberts' prediction in oral arguments on Wednesday: They'll be back. The current case only involves the First Amendment free speech rights. Summum never asked the court to consider whether Pleasant Grove had violated the Establishment Clause by turning down its Seven Aphorisms, which it appears the city clearly did. Roberts noted that the court could expect to see Summum before the court in about five years after it litigates the other issue. After all, Roberts asked, "What is the government doing supporting the Ten Commandments?"
Photo from Summum website.
Why when the bigotry is homophobia, does it become a free speech issue? If the statue had been of Martin Luther King and read, "Ni***rs should shut up and plow the fields," this case would not even be entertained.
This points to a blatant, if not acceptance then at least, tolerance of some kind by many heterosexuals. Perhaps this is because they themselves cannot quite comprehend why people are gay?
Why should people need to make monuments for this kind of thing? I mean, to commemorate some event or person, to show honor or respect to a historical figure or moment in history, fine. I agree with those statues.
Why is it that churches feel that they deserve or have the right to public space? If that's the case, then anyone should be able to post anything anywhere about whatever they want.
I'm disgusted about the concept of the Mathew Shepard statue. Obviously this ignorant, bigoted, bible-thumper of a Jesus-Chrispie Fred Phelps needs to be pistol whipped and tied to a fence so he can somehow glean some intelligent insight.
On the flipside of this arguement, I don't think the Summum's should be allowed to post their monument either. Let's think of WHY they feel the need to do so. Basically, they don't think the 10 commandments are good enough for them, they have to have this special 7 Aphorisms which they feel trumps the 10 commandments. Either way, they're doing it out of discriminatory motivation. It's like a petulant child going, "he has a lolly, mum!! Why can't I have one??"
Ridiculous.
Just feed them some cyanide and the problem is solved.
Since I am not a lawyer, I don't understand how separation of church and state works in this matter. Does the Anderson v. Salt Lake City ruling mean that Phelps' people would declare that their cruel symbol "not religious?"
I need to add more to my previous comment. If, indeed, the Phelps people use that "not religious" ploy to get past the separation of church and state argument, someone needs to step up and find a way to stop this trickery. There should be no church or religious sponsored use of public space. I admit I have trouble with the idea that in the case of religious holidays that there could be displays that are educational and free of intolerant intent such as a creche for Christmas and a Menorah for Hannukah. But if it is not possible to find a way in the law to allow that kind of celebration of different beliefs and the law had any loopholes that allow hate speech or hateful images, then the law should not allow any religious use of public space. What a pity it has come to this.
Joyce, I don't see anyway that this piece of degenerated human refuse, Phelps could argue the "not religious" slant if he wants to quote scripture on the monument. As hateful as this might sound, I just wish Phelps would become so miserable in his small minded hatefulness the he decides to eat his own bullet. It would be the only honorable service he would provide this country.
Dominionism is all about control and has nothing to do with the advice offered humanity: do unto others......... our gov't views thou shall not murder and thou shall not steal..... Bush has commanded hundreds of thousands, many christians, to just that. there is a time to be intolerant to intolerant people.
Just talking politics with an aquaintance of mine last night, when after telling me he has always voted republican and he was glad we elected a black guy president (logic. where?) he proceeded to say how happy he was that prop.8 passed.
I informed(?) him that he had been played the fool by the mormon, catholic and rushdoony religions. His response was a resounding "huh?".
He was clueless when I questioned who would be next to have their rights and civil liberties stripped away by the "church". He thought I was being absurd. Perhaps he should read this article.
If religions want to push their agenda upon the public they need to pay TAXES and accept the consequences of the law like all other Americans.
Now I think I'll hit Phelp's website and see what I can stir up there.
Put up your monuments of hatred, or whatever, we'll smash them with a hammer and you'll be out a few hundred bucks. No problem. And if you erect another, we'll smash that one, too.
The trouble is that, as we've seen in California, Westboro Baptist Church's hatred of LGBT people is NOT a minority or fringe opinion. They just give voice to something that many times more people believe and are too polite, or hypocritical, to speak out loud.
So I'm in favor of banning all permanent religious expression from public spaces. Temporary holiday exhibits are fine, just not permanent monuments. Because if we're going to go by what the majority believes then there's still space to put some pretty hateful stuff out there.
Just got back from wwwgodhates[deleted].com
Apparently these OVER THE TOP wackjobs believe that God hates the entire world! except of course the faithful/mindless at Westboro.
And they will expend hundreds of thousands of rhetorical words to tell you so.
I couldn't find how to post on their blog, but their god hates me too so that's no surprise.
If someone knows how to get on their blog, let me know. I'd like to post a nice first amendment boot to their collective hater asses. Thanks
If it's legal for a "home owner's association" to tell residents how they can or cannot decorate their own property, it should be legal for a town to take a vote and decide whether they want some nut case to erect an offensive statue that the whole town and visitors to the town will have to look at every time they drive through town. AND, what about the RIGHT TO PRIVACY of the deceased's family? They should also have a say in this disgusting matter.
A thorny dilemma, indeed.
Solution: a new holiday.
Anyone who wishes to build any sort of monument on public property shold be free to do so. Once a year, in August, comes Dynamite Day. (Why August? There's no August holiday; a big hole in the calendar that needs filling.) On Dynamite Day, anyone who feels strongly enough can legally dynamite one, and only one, monument that offends them enough to want to blow it up. If its builders want to put up a new one the very next day, let them. If it's offensive enough, it will only last 364 days.
Disclaimer: I am not a lobbyist for DuPont, Olin, Dynamit Nobel, nor any other dynamite manufacturer.
Given thir history, one'd think the Mormons would be more tolerant of religious diversity
Go Summum, stick it in their craws!
I think this article sets up a false equivalence between the 10 Commandments, the 7 Aphorisms, etc and a monument that attacks an historical person and through him an entire class of people. It's a civil right violation.
Even if someone wanted to argue that right wing religious had a right to *express* their opinions about homosexuality, there's still a difference between "saying something" and turning it into a monument in *someone else's* local community (no less).
I don't see how they can win that one. I would think that a talented jurist without an ax to grind could direct these cases in socially desirable directions. Frankly, I think trying to scrub social spaces of non-offensive religious expression just shores up the power that Judeo-Christian traditions have in this country.
Let faiths and philosophies post their aphorisms. Go for it, people.
You know, I think this 'Summun" group is just one giant troll. Parodies, like the Flying Spaghetti monster
This convoluted evolving conception of Monumental Monument Redefinition in conjunction with aspects of obvious collaboration of religion and state ought to be put out of its misery.
To say that a religious symbol (for example, the Ten Commandments, a seminal philosophical tenet of the Christian religion) is actually "principally secular in nature" is absurd on the face of it. That fiction needs a monument of its own dedicated to incredulity.
Having said that, it can't be practical that any ruling in favor of "if one monument to religious tenets is allowed, all such monuments must be allowed" could ever be anything but equally absurd. It would turn governmental grounds into what would essentially be cemetary-like expanses, appropriate to no one’s edification. Summum and Phelps would be just the tip of a juggernaught of an iceberg of competing religious assessments.
I am afraid that the only rational outcome would be a “return” to the separation of church and state. No monuments even hinting at establishing a one and true religious leaning ought to be on government (local, state or federal) property, supported by the taxes of a splendid range of true believers. All those belong on private property where regulation would be more difficult to proscribe. Religion would not be damaged in the slightest and the controversy would be concluded so we could move on to more critical elements of cultural/societal/legal distinctions and principles.
This one ought to be a slamdunk.
I find it interesting that Jesus was able to minister to the world without creating any controversy except the essential one-Was He, in fact, God made flesh and the Son of God. All races were drawn to Him and He condemned no one. His friends included Prostitutes, he died with thieves and murderers and yet Christians continue to judge instead of minister. The Bible is Pro-choice! You can choose whatever path you desire but there are consequences! Those Consequences are the message of the Church, and witnessing to the World its task. People will hear this message but not one of hate!
This is just another reason why religious groups MUST pay taxes. I know of NO religious group that is apolitical and minds its own business.
Just recently, a priest in South Carolina, told his congregation that those that voted for Obama could not and should not receive communion because he supported the woman's right to choice.
Religion is and always will be the root of most evil in this world. And until it is understood for the mythology and superstition its foundation stands on and is banished to the trash heap of human ignorance it belongs, it will always be a major part of the evil and bigotry in the world.
Maybe some common sense here? Hate filled monuments shouldn't be allowed any where. How about a moratorium and a vote? The 10 commandments is a private religious monument and has no place on government land, the same with the Summum monument.
There's an easy solution to the Matthew Shepherd monument case: you claim that it's libelous.
That's the damnedest article on religious freedom I've seen. They're all lunatics, Mormons and Summums too.
According to journalist Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the origins of church-state separation came from the Reformation through the American colonial period to the present day. Some of the religious leaders of the colonial period, such as Roger Williams, favored religious freedom. Williams was an unusual character for his times. A devout Christian, he was absolutely convinced that his views on religion were correct and that any rational being would in time come around and agree with him once the facts were laid bare. But Williams insisted with equal force that the state should have no business in enforcing orthodoxy. A person's understanding of religion and truth, Williams insisted, must come from within. He argued for complete freedom of conscience, a concept he called "soul liberty."
In 1635, Williams and his followers were expelled from Massachusetts. They fled south to what is today Rhode Island, where he founded the city of Providence. Williams, announced that all who chose to live there would enjoy full religious and political freedom. Williams' proclamation proved the sincerity of his beliefs, as he soon had to suffer many religious views he personally found distasteful. For example, Williams detested Quakers and often blasted them in his writings. Yet in Rhode Island, Quakers worshiped unmolested, at least during the years of Williams' oversight.
It was Williams who coined the phrase that may have been the grandfather to Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state metaphor. In his 1644 treatise, "The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, for cause of Conscience," Williams warned against opening "a gap in the hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." A decent distance between church and state, he maintained, would keep the purity of the church intact and safe from the corrupting influence of government."
Similarly, Pastor John Leland was dismayed to see dissenting preachers in jail for their religious views. Leland's writings echo some of the comments made by Jefferson. Leland, defending freedom of conscience, wrote, "Government should protect every man in thinking, and speaking freely, and that one does not abuse another...all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, pagans and Christians." On another occasion, Leland wrote in opposition to the idea that holders of public office should have to believe certain things about religion before they could even run. Such "religious tests" were common in many colonies. Wrote Leland, "If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors...let him worship one God, twenty gods, or no god--be he Jew, Turk, Pagan, or Infidel, he is eligible to any office in the state."
Unlike Jefferson, who was a rationalist and something of a religious skeptic, Leland's support for church-state separation was anchored in his theological views. In 1790 he wrote, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...If all the souls in a government were saints of God, should they be formed into a society by law, that society could not be a Gospel Church, but a creature of the state."
Clergy in other states also played a pivotal role in the struggle to establish the separation of church and state in America. In Massachusetts, Pastor Isaac Backus, a Baptist minister, went so far as to refuse to pay a church tax and was arrested. In 1774 he wrote a document blasting the tax, which asserted in part, "Religion is a concern between God and the soul with which no human authority can intermeddle."
In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: "The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us." Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he "hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they."
Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that "there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." Martin's report shows that a "Christian nation" faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.
The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins "We the people," and contains no mention of "God," "Jesus," or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the "no religious test" clause (Article VI), and "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (First Amendment)
The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words "under God" did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Similarly, "In God we Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins since 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is "E Pluribus Unum" (Of Many, One) celebrating plurality and diversity.
In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bonds," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn't discuss religion at all. The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus," wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, "In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds..." It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.
Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Jefferson advocated a "wall of separation" between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:
"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;" he observed, "but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind."
Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism. "The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight," wrote Jefferson. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this..."
As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson, Madison and Paine's writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. "I have sworn upon the altar of God," wrote Jefferson, "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Well presented information . . . I'm with you! 'Have long admired Jefferson's thinking on these matters. Perplexing, isn't it, how religion, the source of so much wisdom, can be so easily hijacked and poisoned by sanctimonious opportunistic hypocrites and megalomaniacs.
In cases of religeous zelotry, Im always confounded by the "sins" these folks pick to attack. There is no gradation of sin for Christians: it isn't a peeding ticket, 10 over get one punishment while 20 over gets another. Sin is sin and regradless of the infraction it results in the same punishment. The old testament law grouped sins into atonment and required different sacrifces for different sins but, Christ put an end to that.
Put it a vote you cant have it both ways.
Everyone is preaching tollerence and polical correctness. You cant have it both ways.
I'm just fine with that as long as you include a monument that includes the requirement that "usurers" be stoned to death also. Well, maybe just one for the usurers; homosexuals do not bother me and I have a hard enough time running my own life without trying to run someone else's. However, the moneychangers amongst us seem, in light of history and recent events, to be a major threat to us all. Oh and Mr. Phelps? God doesn't hate [deleted]; he does, however, despise religious hypocrites that can read the teachings of Christ and and only find in them hate and intolerance.
Very informative posting, Vasu Murti. Roger Williams is a hero of mine. One does not have to be mindless to believe in Jesus, but only a mindless follower would would attempt to enact these beliefs into law.
"...and no religion too." -john lennon
We live in a country where even human waste gets a voice.
"What is the government doing supporting the Ten Commandments?" -about sums it all up. Since all religion is screwy, why not allow this (curse word) to display his vicious little ideals? How are his concepts any less unfounded then any other believers?
The jerk trying to install that horrid monument is not an aberration: he's the logical conclusion of religious belief.
There is no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural Supreme Being or Jesus for that matter.
Some people say they know God exists because they feel him in their hearts. Again that is just childhood conditioning.
Others are fond of saying that there had to be someone, or something to act as a First Cause, but even a child can see through that argument.
If you tell a child "God made the world" he will usually ask "Then who made God?" If we reply, as the catechism states, "No one made God, He always was," then why couldn't we just say that about the world in the first place?
Those of you here that still believe in Jesus are enablers of the wackos and give them credibility.
Check it out, there is no more evidence (archeological or anthropological) for the existence of your miracle producing Jesus than there is for Zeus. And until the stories of Jesus are placed in the proper category of mythology and/or superstition, the world (and especially this country) will continue on its ignorant, dysfunctional, irrational, bigoted path.
While I am vehemently opposed to most if not all of Fred Phelps’ and his church’s beliefs, why should he be denied his right to free expression? My answer to that is a quite cliché but true sentiment: With freedom comes responsibility. Erecting a monument glorifying the murder of a human being is irresponsible and wrong. I use the word wrong carefully as I believe you should be allowed to do whatever you want unless you’re hurting or infringing upon another person. Fred Phelps saying “God hates [deleted]” is okay. He should be allowed to say that, as idiotic as it is. Implying that it’s okay to kill gay people, however, is not okay. I could never really wish death upon another person, but death is a natural part of life. Thank God Fred Phelps is 79 years old.
I feel I must respond to many of the anti-religious posts. I am not religious myself, and still have no idea what "God" is and if it even exists. However, simply saying religion is the root of all our problems is far too simplistic. Many of the problems of religion are people twisting words to benefit their own political agendas.
Almost everything is driven by language and culture. A misinterpretation of words in the Bible can cause and has caused a lot of problems. If you take religion out of the mix humans would still find something to disagree over. Basically it comes down to certain people wanting to attain power so that their ideology can be the ultimate truth when really there is no such thing.
Let Phelps put in his monument. He will have to replace it every week and will probably run out of funds doing it.
Im agnostic so take this as its meant...
Physicist can't "prove" gravity yet you blieve in that. You merely see it's effect. I would think the argument for God is the same.
The reference to Fred Phelps and the murder of Matthew Shepard seems to be a sensationalized red-herring here. I do not see a relationship between the public display of religious maxims (10 commandments/7 aphorisms) or movie promotions, as the case may be, and the installation proposed by Baptist minister Fred Phelps. The latter commemorates an illegal hate crime, a brutal murder by torture and robbery justified by the murderers as "gay panic defense." The Phelps installation is not legally defensible as free speech, because it glorifies and promotes the murder, and "speech" that incites violence is not protected under law. No one would consider an objection to the Phelps installation to be anything other than an objection to promoting more hate crimes; opposition to the Phelps agenda is not anti-Christian or sectarian anti-Baptist, opposition need not be based on religious grounds, but based on objections to promoting violence, including even perhaps the potential for retaliatory violence against homophobes.
The issue of whether religious expression should occur in public space is a completely separate argument. I think that a jurist can easily argue that since religious expression is often intrinsically sectarian, promoting division and potential violence.
How ridiculous, that the "Summums" (sorry, but I can't utter that joke name without snickering) should be trying to convince (anyone) that before the Old Testament Gawd handed down His concrete Thou Shalt Nots, he first trotted out a bunch of psycho-feely abstractions to test the proclamation tolerance of His Chosen People.
Evidently the desert-wandering focus groups weren't on board with that mushy new-age stuff, and demanded some old-age prohibitions about Golden Calves instead. What happened to Gawd's omniscience? How come He didn't see that one coming?
And how poetic, too -- that the LDS should be the ones complaining about such historical/doctrinal revisionism. After all, it was Joseph Smith "himself" (there's a deal of controversy over the very existence of a real Joseph Smith) who supposedly dug up some gold tablets hidden for him by the "Angel Moroni," that supposedly added to and addended all of the previous scriptures, by "revealing" a deeper book and plan for the (newly) "Chosen" people (the Mormons, of course).
That the tablets in question were again permanently "lost" is only par for the course, in revelation circles. Revelation and faith actually suffer, for having the "proof" at hand, because concrete evidence not only risks being concretely disproven, but also ossifies the revelationist instinct; which is to keep on revealing "new" truths as they are revealed to the elect by Gawd (read: made up for ideological convenience).
Personally, as one who would drive hundreds of miles out of my way, to avoid going through "Zion" (I have Mormon relatives, so I know how crazy they are), they can put up monuments to all the gods and angels they want. They can put them up in the middle of the highway, for all I care. It just makes them look like the kooks they are. Let's have monuments to Moroni, Kabuki, Stanislavski, and Fahuti, for all the great things they supposedly did in the great by-and-by. And let's have the personal testimonials of all these ridiculous "deities" engraved on new golden tablets, and used to pave the roads of Zion.
I've no problem with this, so long as they stay in Utah. But if they try to bring that nonsense to Alaska with them (and they're trying), they should expect to run into some, let's say, Second Amendment obstacles.
In school, I am the lawyer representing Summum.
Solution
-
tagged as:
- solution
I think the fundamental solution to this problem is to reverse the decision from which all this confusion proceeds: The Ten Commandments are an implicitly religious artifact and should be treated as such. Separation of church and state is absolute. We shouldn't have commandments, pillars, tenets, aphorisms, or any other religious statements-- no matter how fringe or how mainstream-- in the public sphere. Reverse that decision, and all of these other arguments about religious tolerance dissolve.
If people are really that bent on having a religious belief and sticking to it, that's their business. They can do it inside churches; they can preach hate and build silly monuments to whatever they want in their gardens. They already luxuriate in tax-exempt status while telling their followers what to believe and who to vote for. Reversing the decision that declares the Ten Commandments a part of public life instead of calling them what they are-- religious doctrine-- is just one step in the right direction.
Reverend Fred Phelps, the
Reverend Fred Phelps, the infamous head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, runs a website called www.godhatesfags.com and wants to erect a monument in Casper, Wyoming's Historical Monument Plaza depicting Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998. The caption would read, "Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, in defiance of God's warning 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.'"
tiffany jewelry
-
tagged as:
- result
That little blue box - everyone woman dreams of seeing it come their way. tiffany jewelry jewelry is world renowned for its stunning quality and top of the line artisanship; however, it also has a reputation for having a price tag that is way out of most people's leagues.
discount tiffany jewelry That doesn't mean you can't get that Tiffany look you want at a price you can afford, however. Thanks to replica Tiffany jewelry, you can look like you are draped in Tiffany jewelry, and yet still have the money left in your pocket to go out and show off your looks.
high replicas
s, Oris replica watches therefore legitimate is Replica Watches online store absolutely immense seeing Longines replica watches store those who esteem Baume & Mercier replica watches store sea adventures.The drawing Concord Replica convey image that Glashutte replica watches store indeed catches concern Seiko replica watches store is the end replica watch on the shadowy cheap Michele store dial. The resolution Technomarine replica watches of this settlement Baume & Mercier replica watches has been aggressive Tissot replica watches by the checky cheap replica watches forged moor panels replica watches of a Walter Jacob & Co. store PPK that is cheap Technomarine store run-of-the-mill to typify IWC store James Bond’s pistolThe Porsche Design store stress of the Parmigiani store extended Omega Seamaster Richard Mille store Planet Ocean 600 m any Of ecstasy is over hide impressive collapsed faceted activated Arabic numerals seeing able-bodied through lock up Omega name further logo. The tension additionally makeup piping Super-Luminova compelling indes, luxury swiss therefore legitimate is swiss watch replicas absolutely immense seeing Parmigiani Replica Watches those who esteem IWC Replica Watches sea adventures.The drawing high quality swiss convey image that Glashutte Replica Watches indeed catches concern cheap swiss is the end swiss watch replicas on the shadowy Porsche Design Replica Watches dial. The resolution cheap swiss of this settlement Patek Philippe Replica Watches has been aggressive cheap swiss by the checky Technomarine Replica Watches forged moor panels swiss watch replicas of a Walter replica swiss PPK that is Seiko Replica Watches run-of-the-mill to typify Breguet Replica Watches James Bond’s pistolThe Chopard Replica Watches stress of the Bvlgari Replica Watches extended Omega Seamaster Swiss Replica Watches Planet Ocean 600 m any Of ecstasy is over hide impressive collapsed faceted activated Arabic numerals seeing able-bodied through lock up Omega name further logo. The tension additionally makeup piping Super-Luminova compelling indes, Glashutte watches replica therefore legitimate is cheap Harry Winston watches replica sale absolutely immense seeing watches replica those who esteem new Romain Jerome watches for sale sea adventures.The drawing watches replica convey image that watches replica indeed catches concern Romain Jerome watches is the end Baume & Mercier watches replica on the shadowy best watches replica dial. The resolution Porshe Design watches of this settlement Romain Jerome watches has been aggressive watches replica by the checky watches replica forged moor panels watch replica of a Walter Cartier watches PPK that is watches replica run-of-the-mill to typify watches replica James Bond’s pistolThe Roger Dubuis watches replica stress of the watch replica extended Omega Seamaster watches replica Planet Ocean 600 m any Of ecstasy is over hide impressive collapsed faceted activated Arabic numerals seeing able-bodied through lock up Omega name further logo. The tension additionally makeup piping Super-Luminova compelling inde
