What would you do.

Not at all. The church has indirect control over the state (the way I see it) only by virtue of the fact that the majority of people in the state are of the LDS faith.

As of 2006 I believe that the SL Tribune stated that the population was 62% LDS.

You will never remove religious influence from any democracy due to the fact that most people are influenced by their religious beliefs.

That means if you are catholic, you are likely to vote for things that the catholic church believes in.

Same if you are LDS, Wicken, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.

There is really no direct control of either from the other.

Sorry for the Hijack guys.

Click to expand...

The constitution does NOT create a wall of separation between church and state. This was an erroneous supreme court ruling using wording from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1803.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

The constitution only states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Disallowing prayer in schools for example is a grievous usurpation of powers that are specifically denied by the constitution.

This is of course, the way I interpret it.

Click to expand...

thx997303 wrote:

The constitution does NOT create a wall of separation between church and state. This was an erroneous supreme court ruling using wording from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1803.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

The constitution only states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Disallowing prayer in schools for example is a grievous usurpation of powers that are specifically denied by the constitution.

This is of course, the way I interpret it.

Click to expand...

Boy you sure are taking this thread way off track. I was just pointing out that he would be judged differently. With him going to a bar, than if he was a returned missionary with a wife and 6 kids.
And as far as prayer in school, the middle and high schools in Utah have a whole period devoted to church.
The mormans in Utah won't even bat an eye at the the kid marrying pedophiles(polygamist), but if they see a black man or someone with tattoo's they can't stop staring at them.
Make that $.04 now

Click to expand...

Sabotage70 wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

The constitution does NOT create a wall of separation between church and state. This was an erroneous supreme court ruling using wording from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1803.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

The constitution only states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Disallowing prayer in schools for example is a grievous usurpation of powers that are specifically denied by the constitution.

This is of course, the way I interpret it.

Click to expand...

Boy you sure are taking this thread way off track. I was just pointing out that he would be judged differently. With him going to a bar, than if he was a returned missionary with a wife and 6 kids.
And as far as prayer in school, the middle and high schools in Utah have a whole period devoted to church.
The mormans in Utah won't even bat an eye at the the kid marrying pedophiles(polygamist), but if they see a black man or someone with tattoo's they can't stop staring at them.
Make that $.04 now

Click to expand...

Sabotage70,

KINDLY LAY OFF THE BIGOTRY AND TROLLIKE EFFORTS TO GET A RISE OUT OF EVERYONE!

Click to expand...

Check this out, but remember the law is to protect life first then property and under the Constitution everyone has the right to due process before being punished. The thought of kicking someones #ss for wronging you sounds good, but can open you up to civil liability, and or criminal prosecution. It seems after reading all the laws that they protect the criminals and cops, but not so much the citizen. I have listed a few Utah Codes in regards to citizen arrest, but you need to look even further as to when you can use deadly force. Check 76-2-401 thru 407 for use of force and deadly force.

Arrest, by Whom, and How Made

77-7-3. By private persons.
A private person may arrest another:
(1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; or
(2) When a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested has committed

77-7-6. Manner of making arrest.
(1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him. Such notice shall not be required when:
(a) there is reason to believe the notice will endanger the life or safety of the officer or another person or will likely enable the party being arrested to escape;
(b) the person being arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense; or
(c) the person being arrested is pursued immediately after the commission of an offense or an escape.
(2) (a) If a hearing-impaired person, as defined in Subsection 78B-1-201(2), is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law, including a local ordinance, the arresting officer shall assess the communicative abilities of the hearing-impaired person and conduct this notification, and any further notifications of rights, warnings, interrogations, or taking of statements, in a manner that accurately and effectively communicates with the hearing-impaired person including qualified interpreters, lip reading, pen and paper, typewriters, computers with print-out capability, and telecommunications devices for the deaf.
(b) Compliance with this subsection is a factor to be considered by any court when evaluating whether statements of a hearing-impaired person were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.


77-7-7. Force in making arrest.
If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.

Don't you think these could have been written in more plain english?:banghead:

Click to expand...

This may sound strange, but breaking into a car is not a Felony. Hence, you may not make a citizens arrest under article 77-7-3. I don't know what a "Public Offence" is, so it may qualify under that portion. I don't know. Can anybody define what a "Public Offense" is?

Click to expand...

redreed wrote:

This may sound strange, but breaking into a car is not a Felony. Hence, you may not make a citizens arrest under article 77-7-3. I don't know what a "Public Offence" is, so it may qualify under that portion. I don't know. Can anybody define what a "Public Offense" is?

Click to expand...

I would guess it's referring to offenses like public urination or public intoxication. Things like that. Indecent exposure, drunk in public. ("I don't wanna be drunk in public... I wanna be drunk in a bar!")

Click to expand...

The constitution does NOT create a wall of separation between church and state. This was an erroneous supreme court ruling using wording from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1803.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_dba.html

The constitution only states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Disallowing prayer in schools for example is a grievous usurpation of powers that are specifically denied by the constitution.

This is of course, the way I interpret it.

Click to expand...