Resend, correcting some errors, for which I apologize.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: [ZION] Punch their lights out

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:24 AM
> Subject: [ZION] Punch their lights out

> Ron,
> And yet it is the ACLU that has pushed for access on the
> sidewalks around Temple Square.  Interesting that their disgust
> motivates the ACLU into pushing for even more disgusting civil
> liberties, eh?<

One can argue in favor of civil liberties and still be disgusted by the way
people abuse those rights. I'd imagine the Lord gets pretty disgusted from
time to time at the way we abuse our freedoms. So far as I can tell, He does
little to abridge or amend them. Instead, for the most part, He lets
"nature" take its course.  This seems to be the way it's going in SLC, in my

> I'm all for freedom of speech, but I also believe that personal
> property rights need to be respected, as well.<<

Initially, the deed for the Main Street property contained an easement for a
public right of way. I happen to think that the city is better off if the
church owns outright the Main Street property-- and that's the way the deal
should have been structured in the first place. Unfortunately, it wasn't.  I
believe the Church should have told the city to pound sand when it injected
the "easement" provision at the last moment.

More unfortunately, the deal was strapped together the old fashioned way, in
ways that would have, in principle, grossly offended conservatives if the
acquirer had been any other party than the Church.

> The Church has offered a generous trade to the city of 2 acres
> land in exchange for the rights of access, yet the ACLU continues
> to fight it.<

Given the history of how this deal came together and that the Federal Courts
ruled in the ACLU's favor, I can understand why ACLU would be wary and
cautious of a new deal. There is a principle at stake.  To me it has
absolutely NOTHING to do with whether one is a loyal church member or not.
Arguably, a loyal Church member would insist that the Church honor, obey and
sustain the law (which includes procedures mandated by law). As I said, the
primary responsibility for this mess sits squarely in the lap of the city
for proposing the deal, failing to give ample public notice to the
electorate, changing the nature of the deal at the last minute.  The
Church's lawyers erred by not rejecting the last minute change out of hand
and, previously, for not insisting that the city follow all the rules and
regs that pertain to the selling of city owned land.

> I think your friends who are disgusted do not
> protest enough. Or at least do not protest enough in the
> direction they should. <

Well...for years, for as long as I can remember, there have been protestors
and demonstrations at conference.  Frankly, most were entertaining, if
annoying.  The ones at the most recent conference seemed completely over the
top, bigoted and, in some cases, violated the civil rights of some
conference goers.  Moreover, in my mind, the nature of the protests this
past confrence session provided the opportunity for to restrict similar
protests in the future on grounds they present a clear and present danger to
the general peace of the city. Further, I suspect the police will now have
greater liberty to   arrest protestors who impeder, obstruct and harrass. I
will not be surprised to see the ACLU support such measures.

>In my opinion, the terrible events that
> antis are doing in front of the temple are just as much the fault
> of the ACLU as of the Antis doing it. They are often the
> ennablers of such wicked and sordid craft.<

Yep, that Consitution of ours allows evil and wicked stuff, that's for sure.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to