First Amendment: Summum’s 1st Amendment Rights
19 Comments Published by clay December 2nd, 2008 in U.S. Politics.First Amendment Has the city violated Summum’s 1st Amendment rights and must erect the aphorisms? Why?Editorial What is the 1st Amendment?
Somebody respond to this one. I hate being the first blog reply.
The facts are that Summums claim that moses, instead of having the ten commandments he had the seven aphorisms. The aphorism are the principles that the Summums guided there life with. Now in a public park located in Pleasant Grove there is a monument of the ten commandments. Now the Summums wanted to put a monument of the seven aphorisms right next to the ten commandments. The City said no to the Summums. Out rage the Summums start to complain saying a city cannot accept one privately donated monument but reject another if it disagrees with that group’s message. The Summums claim that the city is violating there first amendment rights.
The first amendment is freedom of speech. Under that law any one can have a religion and do things that they want. question is how much power does religion have? During centuries religion has had more or equal power to politics. But now it seems to be changing. Politics has started to see how much money all the religions have. For example in ecuador there was a statement said that in a certain church that they mentioned it contained as much gold as to pay the external debt of the country. Little by little this is happening. This is a event the the bible foretold almost 19 centuries ago. It is found in the book of Revelation chapter 17 verse 1-16. This shows us in turn that the bible is a book worthy to take a look at. Isn’t that right?
My verdict: Do Not grant the Summums permission to build monuments.
I would have to say that I too would have said, No to the Summum religions request to have the Seven Aphorisms (their version of the 10 commandments) displayed near a ten commandments monument in a public park in Pleasant Grove, a Salt Lake suburb.
My only requirements for the religion to gain the ability to display their aphorisms would be to:
A) Find a different park, that does not already have any religious statuettes.
B) Collect like 5,000 signatures from those in and around the city.
C) Pay a fee to the city for allowing them to place an object in their park.
David,
You raise a good question. How much power does a religious organization have? Should we let all religions, whether we agree with them or not, post religious symbols in our public places and why?
i really dont see why a religous group is trying so hard when it seems that everyone is so opposed to it. i for 1 try to make a point of never talking about polotics or relgion, however since i have to here i will say that i believe that if people are fighting you so hard that you have to go to court in order to force your somone to provide an area for you to show your beliefs, you u should probably go about things another way
What i learned from the article is that the Summum are a religious organization whos beliefs include that moses wrote seven commandments opposed to ten among other things. The Summum wanted to inscribe their version of the commandments next to a commandment memorial in a local salt lake city. The city rejected their request sending a wave of protest that leaded all the way up to the supreme court where the issue was highly divided.
I think I would have sided on the that of the city. I would have denied the Summum’s request because i don’t think its okay for other organizations to come and add on to already built statue. I also think that allowing the Summum’s to add a statue will create a slippery slope and then everybody else will want to built statue or memorial for their beliefs.
ops!! i didnt change the name
i wrote the second one but it says britnee
Well I dont think the city violated their rights at all. I mean honestly, not everyone can have a statue in a park. I understand that everyone has equal rights but who has ever heard of “Summums” anyway (no offense)? I think religion and politics should always stay seperate, when they both get together it is just too messy. I think that if the Summums want a statue, I say we let them have it. But I think that they should pay for every bit of it and it should look extremely nice. Im sure the city didnt have to pay for the ten commandments statue so I think that is the Summums can come up with enought money then it is ok. But really, is it that important?
I do think that the city has violated this religions first admentment. The first admentment specifically states that all religions should be respected and be given the right to express themselves. I think the summuns have a right to sue the city or the opposing religion if they like. I do feel though that if the summuns build their statue in the same park there might be big debates and very possible physical fights as well as vandalism. I believe that if the summuns do build the staue they should have it as far as possible to the other one. If I were the summuns I would go to the other religions minister or leader and try to discuss this as civil as possible. If the other religion is christianity I dont think the summuns will have a problem because if I am correct christians must respect other religions. If I were the summuns I would take my statue else where so their wouldn’t be any controversy.
Well to start off the first amendment says: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is a lot of conflict with this situation. Erecting a monument such as this could be found find highly objectionable to others. I don’t understand why the city can have the Ten Commandments in the park, but can’t have the 7 aphorisms there also. It is apart of history. The city rejected their request sending a wave of protest that leaded all the way up to the Supreme Court where the issue was highly divided.
The whole thing is very tricky. I think in the past hundred years religion has started to become more of politics. Even though the government states it has not, I beg to differ. This seems more of beliefs of faith, and whether or not it would be accepted. But I will say I think I would have sided with the city only because, if one organization were to add onto a standing statue others might want to also creating more grief and more problems for the city.
I believe that if the statue was donated to the city like the Ten Commandments statue, then it should be put up in the city. It would be unfair to put one up and not the other. However, the city should not have to pay for it. It should also be able to put it up wherever it wants and not have to put it up next to the Ten Commandments statue. Also, do many citizens even want the statue? How many people follow the religion to begin with?
Okay, fist of all, religion and politics will never ever mix. It’s like oil and water, of course people will clash with their opinions and what not. To be quite blunt, I think the so called “Summums” are just being whiny. If they want a statue then fine, they can have their statue, but why should the city have to pay for it? That’s just stupid how they’re trying to push this whole equal rights bit over a silly statue. Seriously, it seems like people are just finding any little thing to complain about now a days.
Laura,
Some questions to consider:
(1) If I form my own religion and donate items to the city to be posted at my expense, is this ok?
(2) Does it matter how many citizens support the statues or the religion?
After reading the article i started thinking about the situation. If there is already a statue there of the ten commandements then i believe that Summum should respect that statue and the religion it represents and should go build there statue somewhere else. If they want to place it there, then it will be almost as if they are trying to compete against that statue.
The summums should be allowed to put up there statue but somewhere else and not just next to the ten commandments. I believe this way both sides will be satisfied and there will be no violation of the first amendment.
Mmmm. I don’t know how I feel about that first question. Or at least, I wouldn’t know how to answer it.
But to number two, I think it does matter, at least, I think it should matter. We live in this country that’s supposed to be equal for all, but let’s face it, there are some people who are not going to agree with the balance of things. Would it be too much work if they voted on it? But then again, wouldn’t that also mean that they should have voted on the Ten Commandments being posted in the park as well?
Just because somebody starts a religion and goes, “Hey! Post up my beliefs for all to see!” doesn’t mean that they’re going to get put up. Why should the city have to? Especially if the majority of the people in that city don’t agree with those beliefs.
I bet you nobody even visits that park ANYWAY.
This is a little bit of a touchy subject because the first amendment can be looked at or twisted in most cases to force people to do allow other people do write what they want make what they want i don’t believe they should build it just because another religouse statue is up because not only will it look like its trying to out do the other statue but to me it seems like it would cause people to separate such as people from each religion would gather more towards there own statue and that isn’t something that should be happening today.
I personally dont really think that amendement 14 was violated for mrs.dixon because she was treated equal. she was just not treating others equal. And as for the 1st amendemt it was not violated either. She had her freedom of speech and did and said what was needed. i think that she felt this way about her topic because of her religion. But she most definetly messed up in the part on what she wrote about those people. but in the end none of her rights where violated, in a way i guess it was good she got fired, was her type of punishment. but then again that was a little exaggerated.
Yes, I believe that the city violated the 1st Amendment of not considering another religion. If you want to make everyone happy might as well put the Qur’an, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, etc. up there too. But that is why there is so much controversy in this world, because no one can’t get along. You people say that politics and religion cannot mix. You’re too late. Isn’t that what our country was built upon? Political leaders that were inspired by God. We have God everywhere: In our currency, national anthems, Constitution, etc. That is when people who oppose religion try to take out God in our country. The big conflicting question is: Do we have to consider their beliefs so that it won’t be unconstitutional?
I think you shouldn’t grant them the monuments because they are using the law improperly. First ammendment rights allow you to believe, think and say whatever you want. No one is forcing them to give up their beliefs, or stop them from spreading the beliefs. So therefore, they aren’t able to use the first ammendment