Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Proposed sale of Manti street

Recommended Posts

The image made me chuckle, yeah...not me, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:50 PM, hagoth7 said:

In theory, a man's house is his castle. Not as if I would really know, but in theory, it's supposedly true.

I know you prefer not to concede the point, but a door visit is truly perceived by many as much more invasive to one's privacy and sense of space than a phone call, an email, or someone preaching at a pageant.

Have only been to the Cumorah pageant when I was a kid - never been to the Manti one.

So feel free to shuttle me down there.

(In exchange, I'll gladly keep the *other* rabble rousers busy/engaged with discussion for hours on end.)  ;0)

Let's say that instead of the pageant someone is going to go watch their child in a play. Do you really believe most people would be more annoyed at missionaries knocking on their door over something like these street preachers yelling at their children's play? I don't. I think most would even get angry. 

I think the majority of people who would think the door knocking is more annoying just haven't really thought about it.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:31 PM, Storm Rider said:

Please explain to those of us that are not trained lawyers; if the city can legally sell a plot of ground and a buyer buys it - how is it violating the US Constitution?  I have been a real estate professional my entire career and this is done all over the US.  It certainly is not a violation of the US Constitution.

It appears that your issue is that the Buyer is the LDS Church, but the anyone else would be an acceptable Buyer.  This appears to be your personal problem and has nothing to do with a legal transactions between a city and a Buyer

this trained lawyer would like the explanation as well

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The First Amendment.

This is your answer?  I am not meaning to be blunt, but it is obvious you are either refusing to admit your mistake or you have no understanding of the 1st Amendment.  Please, go read it and then you will immdiately grasp why your "answer" demonstrates such a high degree of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion of preventing the free exercise thereof.... . Courts throughout the nation have affirmed that this means that no governmental agency or subdivision thereof shall favor one religion over another. Just imagine if the Church of Satan wanted to buy a public thoroughfare in Manti; Utah. 

If you really want to get into calling names. We can go there. However you won't like the results. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:38 AM, JAHS said:

How do you curb the activities of those annoying those Evangelical street preachers during he Manti Miracle Pageant? Buy the street that they do their protesting on. 

"One side argued for what it saw as a logical business deal. The other side argued that its right to free speech was being infringed.
That was the bottom line during a vocal hear public hearing of the Manti City Council on Thursday, Jan. 26 that drew a large crowd.
What was the controversy about? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to buy the stretch of 100 East that goes from the north side of 400 North, north alongside the Manti LDS Temple, LDS Distribution Center and Manti LDS Stake Family History Center, to U.S. 89, where 100 East terminates.
While all property abutting the street in church-owned, the street is also the site of religious demonstrations and street preaching during the annual Mormon Miracle Pageant.
If the street became private, the church could ban such First-Amendment activities, which would force the preachers and evangelists to move further from the center of the pageant, the event that is the focus of their evangelistic message.
The road is approximately 1.65-acres and was appraised at $80,000, according to Soper. The church has offered the city $160,000, double the appraised value. And the city is proposing to earmark the whole $160,000 for the sports complex on the northwest end of town"

Proposed sale of Manti street to LDS church sparks controversy

Honestly...this is a huge mistake by the church....these evangelicals a pushing believers to the church not away from it...it reinforces their persecution complex

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly...this is a huge mistake by the church....these evangelicals a pushing believers to the church not away from it...it reinforces their persecution complex

You may be onto something! While I visited once during my faith crisis, I wanted to see it for myself these street preachers and I even felt drawn to their message. But watching their actions and the LDS, the LDS almost glowed or exuded goodness compared to the EV's and their shouting, praying in the streets, pulling around a fake set of gold plates and having TBM's try to lift it. Maybe they've toned it down somewhat now. 

ETA: Oops, I'm losing it, I've already mentioned this experience on this thread! :(

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly...this is a huge mistake by the church....these evangelicals a pushing believers to the church not away from it...it reinforces their persecution complex

Possibly, but mostly it just simply made sense practically and economically for the city, since nobody else but the church was using it anyway all the others days of the year. 

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post

The evangelicals will still be there, just around the corner instead on interfering with people's plans for picnics and such.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion of preventing the free exercise thereof.... . Courts throughout the nation have affirmed that this means that no governmental agency or subdivision thereof shall favor one religion over another. Just imagine if the Church of Satan wanted to buy a public thoroughfare in Manti; Utah. 

If you really want to get into calling names. We can go there. However you won't like the results. :angry:

It was an arms length transaction.  Seller A had a product and Buyer B offered an acceptable price or exceeded the offer of all other bidders.  The fact that the Buyer is a church is absolutely irrelevant.  You are stretching the 1st Amendement to the point of absurdity.  It is not applicable to this transaction.  All that is evident is that you have a personal problem with the fact that the buyers was the LDS Church.  

I admit that you are willing to go much lower than I am willing to do when it comes to name calling; however, I was accurate in what I stated.  I know you NOT to be a stupid individual.  Your persistence is demanding that your opinion is somehow better than all of the facts shared with you does not improve your position. It only means that you refuse to accept any facts that conflict with your opinion.  A professional lawyer has stated your opinion is wrong.  I am a real estate professional who told you this is a common action in cities throughout the USA.  Yet, nothing we say affects your opinion.  What do you call an individual who acts like that?

Lastly, I do agree that those Evangelicals that protest at Manti probably push a lot of people toward the Church of Jesus Christ rather than do any harm.  However, I support that if they really want to do it they can move their activities around the corner and preach as much as they choose during the event or any other time that strikes their fancy.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

. Just imagine if the Church of Satan wanted to buy a public thoroughfare in Manti; Utah. 

It's not a public thoroughfare, the street is a dead end going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post

You never been on a dead end street?

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It was an arms length transaction.  Seller A had a product and Buyer B offered an acceptable price or exceeded the offer of all other bidders.  The fact that the Buyer is a church is absolutely irrelevant.  You are stretching the 1st Amendement to the point of absurdity.  It is not applicable to this transaction.  All that is evident is that you have a personal problem with the fact that the buyers was the LDS Church.  

I admit that you are willing to go much lower than I am willing to do when it comes to name calling; however, I was accurate in what I stated.  I know you NOT to be a stupid individual.  Your persistence is demanding that your opinion is somehow better than all of the facts shared with you does not improve your position. It only means that you refuse to accept any facts that conflict with your opinion.  A professional lawyer has stated your opinion is wrong.  I am a real estate professional who told you this is a common action in cities throughout the USA.  Yet, nothing we say affects your opinion.  What do you call an individual who acts like that?

Lastly, I do agree that those Evangelicals that protest at Manti probably push a lot of people toward the Church of Jesus Christ rather than do any harm.  However, I support that if they really want to do it they can move their activities around the corner and preach as much as they choose during the event or any other time that strikes their fancy.

It is not arms length in my view. I don't want my tax dollars going to any religion whether I personally agree with that religion or not is immaterial. I have no problem with the LDS Church. May it live long and prosper.

It was you that cast the first stone. Not me. If I respond in kind you asked for it. Fortunately I see no need to respond in kind. But my patience isn't unlimited.

The facts are that a city government is selling a piece of public property to a religious organization for the express purpose of  limiting freedom of speech. Common just makes it that much more obnoxious in my never to be humble opinion.

EV's shooting themselves in their own foot is nothing new. But I believe we shouldn't encourage it.    

Share this post


Link to post

Since the LDS church is the only user of the street, the city is supporting them more by keeping the street and using tax dollars to pay for its use.

The Church is not only taking over the care of the street, saving tax dollars, and paying more than it is worth, iirc.

So if you are concerned about tax dollars, be joyful.  The city is getting the better deal there, Church dollars are going to the state, not the reverse.  If someone gets hurt on the property, the Church will be liable, not the city.  The Church will have to pay for security, not the city.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You never been on a dead end street?

The point is that it is not a public thoroughfare that get's a lot of traffic from the public. The only ones interested in going on it are church members or sightseers. Those protesters can still use it any other time they want to. You keep assuming that keeping the protesters off is the only reason the church bought or that it was illegal for them to do it when that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Since the LDS church is the only user of the street, the city is supporting them more by keeping the street and using tax dollars to pay for its use.

The Church is not only taking over the care of the street, saving tax dollars, and paying more than it is worth, iirc.

So if you are concerned about tax dollars, be joyful.  The city is getting the better deal there, Church dollars are going to the state, not the reverse.  If someone gets hurt on the property, the Church will be liable, not the city.  The Church will have to pay for security, not the city.

Build, and maintain their own property. That way they get to decide what religious speech thy want.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JAHS said:

The point is that it is not a public thoroughfare that get's a lot of traffic from the public. The only ones interested in going on it are church members or sightseers. Those protesters can still use it any other time they want to. You keep assuming that keeping the protesters off is the only reason the church bought or that it was illegal for them to do it when that is not the case.

 

Restricting the rights of one restricts the rights of all. Whether it is one or 320 million is immaterial.

" However, I support that if they really want to do it they can move their activities around the corner and preach as much as they choose during the event or any other time that strikes their fancy". So the heart of the matter is that some governmental officer doesn't like what is said.

So yes I am a strong supporter of a strong, high, and thick wall of separation between Church and State.

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Build, and maintain their own property. That way they get to decide what religious speech thy want.

Yeah, that is what they are trying to do.  The road cuts their property in half.  One end that hit the highway was probably closed off for safety reasons.  Now there is no reason for anyone else to use it, no homes, no businesses, just Church.  It is essentially a driveway and not that long.

Is it better for a driveway to be paid for and maintained and have liability attached to it for the city when city people get no real use out of it (unless they are Church members going to and from the temple or visitors to the pageant etc) or to be owned by the Church who is the primary benefitor from its existence. Street preachers can still be seen and heard and after walking a couple of hundred feet or so, one can talk to them.  The only difference for them is a slight diminishing of sound from their bull horns and they won't be able to as easily accost people walking from their car to the pageant.

Freedom of speech should exist as strongly, imo, for those who do not wish to converse as for those who do.  People should not be forced into having conversations they don't want.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

Restricting the rights of one restricts the rights of all. Whether it is one or 320 million is immaterial.

" However, I support that if they really want to do it they can move their activities around the corner and preach as much as they choose during the event or any other time that strikes their fancy". So the heart of the matter is that some governmental officer doesn't like what is said.

So yes I am a strong supporter of a strong, high, and thick wall of separation between Church and State.

Except in this case you want the state funding, maintaining, and being liable for what is a driveway used by the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Build, and maintain their own property. That way they get to decide what religious speech thy want.

TSS take off the blinders.  There is no tax dollars going to the Church.  The Church is paying for the property and improvements.  The property is worthless to the city or anybody else.  You are way off on your understanding of the first amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Calm said:

Except in this case you want the state funding, maintaining, and being liable for what is a driveway used by the Church.

IIRC the street was built by the city. Who now wants to sell it to the Church.

SEE http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home/50173304-76/church-manti-sale-street.html.csp

18 hours ago, ERayR said:

TSS take off the blinders.  There is no tax dollars going to the Church.  The Church is paying for the property and improvements.  The property is worthless to the city or anybody else.  You are way off on your understanding of the first amendment.

Not from what I read in the newspapers.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

IIRC the street was built by the city. Who now wants to sell it to the Church..

So throwaway tax dollars to support the Church because the street was once used by others, but is not now?  You are not consistent in your argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

IIRC the street was built by the city. Who now wants to sell it to the Church.

SEE http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home/50173304-76/church-manti-sale-street.html.csp

Not from what I read in the newspapers.

1 - Yes, and what is the problem?  The street has no more value to the city, in fact maintenance is a drain on the city.  It is up for sale if someone else (street screetchers) wants to continue using it let them buy it. 

2 - What did you read in the newspapers that is different than what I have stated above?

Share this post


Link to post

Is there something about the first amendment you don't understand?

 However, I support that if they really want to do it they can move their activities around the corner and preach as much as they choose during the event or any other time that strikes their fancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×