When will we learn to not let the rights of the majority of Americans be usurped by such nuts as these. We should honor our fallen heroes and tell these idiots to not visit the memorial, if they don't want to honor those who paid the ultimate price for their freedom to act like idiots.

We're looking more and more like Rome just preceding their fall.

When will we learn that, every time we bring religion to the table or the public square we have to bring ALL religion. Otherwise, religious freedom is compromised. I believe that our constant efforts to put religion front and centre here are, in fact, the reason that so many of these fringe outfits exist here.

Perhaps it is the right of all Americans at stake not just those of the majority.

Excuse me, but why is the United States Army involved in the installation of a private memorial. There were thousands of Americans killed in WWII, should each of them have a special memorial from the Army.

I appreciate the service and gift that our service men have given to me and my fellow Americans but it sometimes seems that people want to brag about the loss of their relatives and ram it down the throats of us who survived.

There are war memorials all over this country and white crosses along the higways, Do we really have to spend so much of our lives worshiping the dead.

Perhaps there is a "majority", but I think anyone who literally believes that a supernatural god handed down enscribed tablets to a human is nuts, and I don't want this nonsense promoted in a public park, especially where children might be influenced by it. If you think we're better off without the Summum monument (as I do), you ought to agree that we'd be better off without all the ridiculous displays of religioin in public spaces, including the ten commandments.

The problem is not whether the markers are donated or not, it's whether they are religious or not. If the memorial marker is not religious, then the Summum case is not likely to affect its placement.

As soon as "Summum" can prove that they have had animpact as profound as Christianity or Judaism on our nation's history, then they can say they have a right to place a historically significant monument on public property commemorating that historical impact.

Until then, they're just another small, fringe religion with the constitutional right to practice their religion, but not to memorialize a historical impact that doesn't exist.

To Bob: Take a chill pill.

To the summums people, or whatever spinoff of Scientology they'd like to refer themselves to: go back and study this country's history. The Ten Commandments are a very significant, culturally historical part of this country's foundation. Summums is not. These people should be grateful soldiers died to protect their freedom to practice whatever nutty religion they choose.

Pleasant Grove could place their religious display on private property, and this entire dispute would disappear. However, when city leaders decide to display religious speech on public property, with the implied imprint of government approval, the city is in trouble. To pretend that the Ten Commandments are historically relevant to Pleasant Grove is ridiculous. Last I heard, Moses didn't come down from Mr. Timpanagos with the tablets. BTW - you should look at who is pushing this litigation foward - a Christian/Faith based lawfirm who has volunteered to help out the city. Don't tell me they don't have an agenda.

Amen. It is like sueing to have Lavell Edwards Stadium named after me, because it not fair Lavell has a Stadium named after him and I don't.

Do-Re-Mi | 9:08 a.m. May 8, 2008

What is a "Christian/Faith based lawfirm"?

Yes, Do-Re-Mi, ACLJ does have an agenda - that of protecting the people's right to commemorate their nation's history on public property as it really happened, and not as every tiny fringe 30-year-old cult run by guys named "Corky" wants it to look like.

And last I checked, Pleasant Grove is a part of the United States of America, where Judeo-Christian tradition and God have played such a historically central role that God is mentioned in the first sentence of its first founding document as the source of all human rights. And if you think that God, specifically the Juedo-Christian God, hasn't played an absolutely central role in the history of Pleasant Grove, then you haven't read any history on Pleasant Grove.

The Supreme Court will strike down Summum's silly lawsuit, probably sending it back to the appeals court without comment. The alternative would oen the floodgates to the absurdity of every single person claiming to be a "religion" having the right to place a monument on public property.

Before any more of you try to imply that Summum somehow has a goal of keeping these servicemen from being honored, you might want to read the article. Or read it again.

Summum has no opinion whatsoever on the servicemen's monument. The Army is simplyusing the pending case as a copout excuse to delay a decision on placing the monument.

Summum's goal is to give equal time to their "aphorisms" as are being given to the "commandments". Doesn't seem unreasonable to them because their aphorisms are as important to them as commandments are to christians. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me, either, since I believe in neither religion.

You Christians won't be so unaccepting of equal governmental treatment of religous denomintations, unti it comes back to bite you in the butt someday. Put it another way, if you get your way in Pleasant Grove, and some city with a large Jewish population puts up a menorah in their park come December, and denies a cross or Xmas tree, you''ll scream bloody murder, but it'll be your precedent that brings it on.

The core of the issue has to do with the fact that Pleasant Grove, like most all other communities throughout the US, have taken federal funds, grants and special low interest loans from the federal government, and all those entitlements have a standard clause in the contracts fine print... that the communities will be subject to all federal laws and regulations, including those relating to civil rights issues...

Sorry Pleasant Grove, but looks like the Summum group have legally binding civil rights that the courts have no choice but to uphold, especially since the courts ALWAYS rule in favor of contract-law... the basis upon which any civilization, commerce and society operates... and Pleasant Grove signed those contracts with the US government.

That's what most on this forum are either not aware of or are simply ignoring.

There's nothing funnier than Utahns who think that the protections of the First Ammendment are secondary to the will of the "majority". If the will of the "majority" prevailed in most parts of this country, the MTC could more or less close up shop, or a least relocate to a couple of empty classrooms at BYU. The First Ammendment ensures that the government--whose composition DOES represent the will of the majority--does not use its power to endorse one relgion to the detriment of another.

I am going to take my family to a WW2 memorial for vacation for sure. I wish Pleasant Grove would hurry up. That way we can have a choice between theirs and Washington DC.

I want to see statues to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (ramen) in the PG and Duchesne parks as well. Let the Supreme Court digest that!

Hatuletoh, our goverment officials represent the will only of the majority of those who vote, and the choices of voters are heavily influenced by money, superdelegates, and a whole suite of other variables that undermine the representative nature of the government. We lost majority determination a long time ago.

And by the way, "amendment" has only one 'm' following the 'a'.

My point exactley. I used Lavell Edwards Stadium above, but the Flying Spagetti Monster works. The story in Duchesne is this. A local man who was very influential in the community passed away. His family was offered an opportunity to erect a monument to honor him. They choose the ten commandments. A nut job from the Summum group sees this and sees an opportunity for a lawsuit. Do you really think this group lives and is a part of the community of Duchesne. Have you ever been to Duchesne? I certainly don't think they have contributed anything of historical significants. Duchesne City sold the small corner of the park to the family in response to this ridiculous lawsuit. It has a small white picket fence around it. So if the Supreme Court rules in favor of summons on this case, we have lost all common sense. I am not sure how they will rule. That's what scares me about this country.

Actually, in no way do I endorse putting religious statues in public parks. Duchesne just chickened out in taking the approach they took. When I was in Alabama 4 years back, we had the Supreme Court Justice trying to put such a monument in the court house. At least all of the other Justices wised up and shut him down.

"Voice of Reason" - Perhaps you should read the briefs in Summum's lawsuit. They argue that monuments in their Pioneer Park are historically relevant specifically to Pleasant Grove, not to the United States. The city argues that everything in the park relates directly to Pleasant Grove's history. It's a weak argument, and is the reason the 10th Circuit agreed with Summum. BTW - the constitution protects insular, fringe groups, not just the majority. BTW - your logic is faulty.
Your argument is that only those religions who have an impact on the United States should be able to speak in public forums? That cuts both ways my friend. Islamic Militants have recently had a huge impact on our country. Would you agree to setting up monuments to Allah in public parks? No? I didn't think so. Let's just eliminate the problem by taking such monuments out of public parks.