[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DaveL - I think it strange you have not commented on this. Hey, give us some spin to say this is a good thing. :-)DAVEH: LOL.......well Glenn, I hardly have enough time to answer the questions you and other TTers have asked, let alone respond to questions that haven't been asked! But, since you asked......
I have two biases that put me on the LDS side of the fence on this. First, as a conservative I think the government(s of this country) controls too much property. If they were to sell off (or lease) much of their real estate holdings, perhaps the national debt would be slightly less.
Second, as an LDS person, it seems crazy to me for the Church to buy a piece of property without obtaining some measure of control over that piece of real estate. In this case, it seems to be an extension of the grounds at Temple Square. Why should the Church effort and expense to provide a forum for anti-LDS folks to preach against the Church? It is permissible (though some may think reprehensible) for those who disagree with our theology to stand at the edge of the Church property and attempt to dissuade others from participating in Church activities and beliefs. But should the Church be expected to allow such activities to take place on Church property. I think not.
The flip side of that, is the citizens of SLC are giving up a bit of their 'freedom' in a way.....the right to denounce the Church on that particular piece of real estate. To me, it is a matter of fair exchange.....not only should they give up the right to drive on that land, but they also should move their anti-LDS activities beyond the boundaries of that land. In exchange, the city (and its citizens) are receiving a compensatory payment. Furthermore, it is not like the citizens are really losing the right to dissent, but rather they are merely being restricted as to where they can voice their disapproval......not on private property. Does that seem unreasonable? Not to me.
The concern has been raised that the panel of folks making the decision are all LDS. I assume they were all duly elected, and as such represent the (majority of) folks who elected them. So what's the problem? If they side with the Church, they are still representing the electorate. If that bothers a lot of people.....then perhaps (if Utah State/city law allows) they could put it to a vote and let the population as a whole decide. If most of the people figure the city would be better off with the money in its pocket, and a nice plaza without obnoxious individuals who want to harangue a group of people worshipping as they sincerely desire....then so be it. Let the Church improve the city. On the other hand, if the citizens of SLC feel that the rights of the anti-Mormons to preach in that one location is worth more than the money and benefits of having a beautiful plaza there, and that it is too much of an imposition to require those wanting to embarrass the Church to move 100 yards to the edge of the property.....then they can tell the Church to forget the whole deal.
In the end, I would be very surprised if the Church is party to any deal the city may require that gives the antagonists center stage to ridicule us for our beliefs.
BTW Glenn.......have you ever been to Temple Square or even SLC?
--The following article explains some of the dynamics of local city politics
in Salt Lake City. Looks to me like Mormonism will eliminate public access
to their disputed pedestrian plaza because there is an all Mormon city
council in Salt Lake City.Read about it at: http://www.sltrib.com/11202002/utah/utah.htm
Peace be with you.
David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA
------------------------------------------RELIGION ARISES IN PLAZA FLAP
BY HEATHER MAY
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNEThe rancor over religion and politics that has been simmering below the
surface of the Main Street Plaza easement debate boiled into full public
view Tuesday night.
In the "questions to the mayor" segment of the Salt Lake City Council
meeting, Council Chairman Dave Buhler started with a statement. He chastised
Mayor Rocky Anderson for comments the mayor made to The Salt Lake Tribune
and The New York Times suggesting some Mormon council members are doing the
bidding of their church by considering giving up the city's easement through
the church's plaza.
"To make public statements that because of a council member's religion
he or she is biased and unable or unwilling to be fair or objective is
offensive, and it's also destructive. I ask that you raise the civility of
this discourse and refrain from any further or future personal attacks,"
Buhler said. He noted the council has not accused the mayor of bias because
of his former affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union, which
sued the city over free speech restrictions on the plaza.
In a packed, and semi-stunned, council chambers, Anderson then attacked
the council and the 1999 process where another City Council and then-Mayor
Deedee Corradini sold a block of Main Street to the LDS Church and retained
the easement now in question.
"The [5-2] vote to close Main Street was along [Mormon-non-Mormon]
religious lines. The same held true in terms of the [6-1] vote [in 2000] to
reconfirm the transaction," he said.
And Anderson, a non-practicing Mormon, said some members of the current
all-LDS council would not have sought an outside legal opinion, which said
they can get rid of the easement without the mayor's approval, if they were
not Mormon.
That step "would not have been taken to deprive the community of that
perpetual right [of access to the plaza] had this been any corporation, any
private individual, or I must say, any other religion," he charged.
No other council members dared to ask Anderson any more questions. But
members of the public gave their opinions. They asked the council to turn
the plaza back into a working street,to give up the easement or to keep the
easement.
Two men in particular epitomized the fight for the plaza. Lonnie
Pursifull, a Baptist who frequently "preaches" near church grounds, told the
council, "You have no right to take my constitutional rights away from me or
bargain them away. If you're a temple Mormon, your oath is to the church
above all."
An LDS man from Roy, Lance Reed, reminded the council the plaza is
adjacent to "the most sacred place we have, which is the temple.
These people want to take away our place of worship, in effect."
The council's next move is to hold a "fact-finding" hearing Dec. 10 and
invite some former City Council members, Corradini, LDS Church officials and
the ACLU to rehash the plaza's history and explain the original intentions
behind the deal. It could hold a public hearing Dec. 17.
Since the LDS Church launched a public relations campaign Sunday for the
easement, the council has received 195 comments, with just 26 for keeping
the easement.
Church officials and Corradini have said the church planned to control
behavior on the plaza all along -- though how well that part of the plaza
sale was represented to the public is being debated.
To Anderson, the council's "investigative" hearing means the members
want to give up the easement. Countered Buhler: "We haven't made a decision.
Is he a mind reader?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
