Religious Discrimination

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#1
From Harper's Weekly Review:

Judges in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, were weighing a free-speech suit filed by adherents to the Summum church. Members of the church claim that the city is discriminating against them by displaying a red granite plaque of the Ten Commandments in a public park but refusing to display a monument inscribed with their own faith's Seven Aphorisms, which were communicated via telepathy from divine beings to a man named Corky Ra. Ron Temu and Su Menu, two Summum worshippers, argued that the Commandments were compatible with the Aphorisms, as both were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. “If you look at them side by side,” said Su Menu of the two monuments while sitting in a metal pyramid and drinking an alcoholic sacramental nectar beside a mummified Doberman pinscher, “they really are saying similar things.”
I'm with Ra, Temu, and Menu. If a city displays the Ten Commandments, they gotta display the Seven Aphorisms.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
#2
I agree. Why not let them have it? Just because someone in the City doesn't like the idea doesn't mean others don't, or don't care.

Did you really think Abe Lincoln really wanted that monument of Bill Clinton built......oh wait.....nevermind
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#3
I say 7 aphorisms for everyone. As long as they don't encourage anything immoral, I see no reason as to why they can't put up a monument with their aphorisms on it.
 

padd

Registered Member
#4
this country was built on the 10 commdanments.. LIVE WITH IT.. not the 7 whatever, or the rag heads of arabia.. if someone wants their religion to be heard then they gotta fight for it, thats all i gotta say. Why is the West so leniant with this stuff? If i go to Iran and say "I want the ten commandments because its fair" I'm gona get hanged.
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#5
this country was built on the 10 commdanments.. LIVE WITH IT.. not the 7 whatever, or the rag heads of arabia.. if someone wants their religion to be heard then they gotta fight for it, thats all i gotta say. Why is the West so leniant with this stuff? If i go to Iran and say "I want the ten commandments because its fair" I'm gona get hanged.
We're lenient with this stuff because:

A: Freedom of religion is in the constitution of the USA
B: This country was built by people of multiple ethnicities and beliefs
C: As a majority we're not intolerant assholes

And by the way: Iran is not a great role model as to how to run your country. Just throwing that out there.
 

padd

Registered Member
#6
Iran is not a great role model as to how to run your country
don't put words in my post, i never said that. I'm just throwing it out there that alot of religious comlaint comes from muslims, but if we christians go to THEIR country's, and we make religious complaints.. we're dead
 

photosaurusrex

Registered Member
#7
I don't think theres a problem with having it there - them not having it there will cause more protest etc, so it's easier for them to have it there. The Summum church can't force people to read it so it hardly matters.
 

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#8
don't put words in my post, i never said that. I'm just throwing it out there that alot of religious comlaint comes from muslims, but if we christians go to THEIR country's, and we make religious complaints.. we're dead
Muslims don't have anything to do with this news story. Here's a link to Summum's website:

Welcome to Summum

Also, the difference between the Middle Eastern countries where you would be killed for speaking against Islam is that their countries are actually run by the Church of Islam. Our country is not run by the Christian Church.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#9
So get this: because the Supreme Court apparently ruled once that the 10 Commandments are secular (don't ask me...), the Summum(ians?) aren't arguing their case under the Establishment Clause. Instead, they're arguing it as a free speech issue, and if they win their case in the Supreme Court, cities will either have to get rid of all privately donated monuments (which probably includes the Statue of Liberty) or accept any monument (which certainly includes one Fred Phelps wants to get put up somewhere). So advocates of civil liberties (like myself) pretty much find ourselves between a rock and a hard place on this one.

I suppose the only thing to hope for is that the Summum(ians?) lose their case, and bring a new one forward under the Establishment Clause if and when the Supreme Court takes a step to the left. :(
 
Last edited:

Stab-o-Matic5000

Cutting Edge in Murder
#10
So get this: because the Supreme Court apparently ruled once that the 10 Commandments are secular (don't ask me...), the Summum(ians?) aren't arguing their case under the Establishment Clause. Instead, they're arguing it as a free speech issue, and if they win their case in the Supreme Court, cities will either have to get rid of all privately donated monuments (which probably includes the Statue of Liberty) or accept any monument (which certainly includes one Fred Phelps wants to get put up somewhere). So advocates of civil liberties (like myself) pretty much find ourselves between a rock and a hard place on this one.

I suppose the only thing to hope for is that the Summum(ians?) lose their case, and bring a new one forward under the Establishment Clause if and when the Supreme Court takes a step to the left. :(
Yeah, that does throw a monkey wrench into the mix. Jeez, now my head hurts.