Posted on 08/05/2005 9:36:44 AM PDT by obnogs
SALT LAKE CITY The Summum religion has sued the city of Pleasant Grove for the right to display the other set of laws they say Moses brought down the mountain.
The city has refused to allow the Salt Lake City-based religion to erect a monument enumerating the Seven Aphorisms, principles they say underlie creation and nature, with a public memorial that includes the Ten Commandments.
Summum leaders believe these were initially passed only to a select few who could understand them, but that Moses also delivered a lower set of laws, the Ten Commandments, which were more widely distributed.
Pleasant Grove's memorial sits in a secluded area that honors the city's heritage. The monument has been on city property since the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated it in 1971, and Summum wants the right to put its monument of the Seven Aphorisms there also.
The lawsuit alleges the city's denial counters previous rulings handed down in 1997 and 2002, when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed that Salt Lake County and Ogden City had created a forum for free expression by allowing the erection of a Ten Commandments monument on government property. Both cities eventually removed those monuments in response to the decision, leaving Summum with no public displays.
But that same standard applies to Pleasant Grove, Summum contends in its lawsuit, filed July 29 in U.S. District Court here.
"The rights of plaintiff Summum are violated when the defendants give preference and endorsement to one particular set of religious beliefs by allowing the Ten Commandments monument to remain in a public park or in a forum within the public park supported by taxpayers and disallow a similar display of the religious tenets of Summum," the lawsuit says.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
Negative. They fell out of favor with the Roman government which is never a good thing.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/gnosticism.html
Probably better not to poison the mind with their wacky thoughts though.
So, like everything must be infinte, man, like, because if everything has a pair of opposites that's like three things, and, like, that pair of opposites must each have a pair of opposites, so, that's like six things, and each of those three other opposites has, like, wait, I need a calculator... hold muh bong, man.
Having just followed your directions, I have only one thing to say.
"EE-EWWW-WW!!!"
You're right. These folks are twisted. They have a right to their beliefs. But at home. I wouldn't want to see this stuff in a public place.
Clear as mud. Sounds like something God would have handed down - NOT!!
o_o is that all you read on the page?
I'm glad you didn't post their statue of God creating the universe directly into this thread. (CAUTION: IMAGE OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT STATUE)
I repeat (concise version): "Ewww."
Not that most folks don't do this themselves from time to time. But to say that God having a yank was the Grand Principle of Creation is pretty over the top. I thought only old, obsolete religions worshipped genital functions directly. Oh, and maybe adolescent boys, but we won't go there today.
Let's ask these goofballs to please stay home.
Sounds oddly similar to the Gnostics.
III. THE PRINCIPLE OF VIBRATION
"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."
A vibrator to women was a gift from God.
I did not know these guys still dabbled in the esoteric and occult. That stuff is basically lifted from the the older tradition, in many ways word for word. The only major differences is the wording of the principles, eg instead of the alchemical princinple of signatures the Aphorisms call it the principle of correspondence, and instead of the twin principles of thaumaturgy the Aphorisms have the principle of cause and effect).
The sad thing is these people spend so much time on principles that can be derived from a year old fortune cookie reading,looking for benefits that can be acquired from simply watching a sun set or making a child laugh. Really sad.
I don't see it as clear at all, the Supreme Court gave conflicting findings and pushed the question you ask further down the road, but did nothing to settle the question of whether a community can put religious symbols on the public property in their community. (The statue of Brigham Young in Salt Lake City for example.)
The Constitutional ban of "establisnment of a religion" means the compelling of citizens to join a religion or suffer consequences of some kind from the government. Putting monuments in a public place should not require evidence that the monument was historical or art or anything else, it could in fact be a recognization that many people in the community adhere to certain beliefs.
To answer the question about Hindus or Islamics, or some other recognized religions monument, I would say it depends on whether the local community (and not some offended individual) wants or does not want the monument.
Actually, Summum is a couple of winos living in a wooden pyramid, all left over from the 60s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.