Facebook Twitter

LITIGATION IS A FORM OF COERCION

SHARE LITIGATION IS A FORM OF COERCION

Brian Barnard wants the 10th Circuit Court to review the case of the Ten Commandments monument outside of the Metropolitan Hall of Justice again. He states that, "It would be wise to let the 10th review it again in light of 20 years' worth of changes in the law and in light of the 11th's ruling."

Have the changes in the law changed the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson stated in his second inaugural address that: "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government." Aren't the 10th and 11th circuit courts part of the federal or general government?Is the constant threat of litigation on religious matters by the ACLU and the Society of Separationists a form of coercion?

What are the special qualifications of attorneys Brian Barnard and Kate Kendall to determine that the people of Utah will not have freedom of religion but will have freedom from religion?

What is the purpose or result of such anti-religion coercion except to produce an uniformity of lack of religious expression in governmental places? Do we not thereby forgo all rights of religious expression in governmental places? Jefferson pointed out that such uniformity is neither desirable nor attainable and that the effect of coercion was "to make one-half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

What is the practical difference between a uniformity of a lack of religion imposed on people by the ACLU or the Society of Separationists and a uniformity of the exercise of religion imposed on people by any religious denomination? Both are imposed from without.

M.I. Cox

Riverton