|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bru
|
|
Keep your religion off your private property!
| 
Jul 16 16:20 UTC 2003 |
A judge in Lacrosse Wisconsin has ordered the removal of a monument dedicated
to the ten commandments from a public park. The monument, located across the
street from the Eagles Club was donated by that organization in 1965.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled Monday that the monument be removed
because its presence in a city park violates the Constitution's First
Amendment. The issue was raised in a lawsuit by the Madison-based Freedom From
Religion Foundation and 23 La Crosse area plaintiffs
The city had tried to mitigate the issue by selling the property to the Eagles
Club, but the judge set the sale aside, ordered the property returned to the
city, and then ordered the monument removed.
As it now stands, the monument may be removed to a local church property on
main street, but the city council needs to decide whether they want to take
the case to the Supreme Court.
So, is it now illegal to have a display on private property?
A religious display, that is.
|
| 185 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 185:
|
Jul 16 17:00 UTC 2003 |
The article says it is not private property. Anyway, a church on Main St
in Lacrosse has offered space on its property for the monument.
|
md
|
|
response 2 of 185:
|
Jul 16 17:04 UTC 2003 |
Re #0: I don't get that from the text at all. It would have been legal
if the court had allowed the sale, but as long as the park remains
public property the Constitution forbids displays of Islamic, Buddhist,
Taoist, pagan, animist, Druidic, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, or
other religious stuff.
The question is, why did the court stop the sale? The story says "the
city" was trying to sell the park, but what does that mean? The
mayor? The city council? Did they have the right to do that? I mean,
if I found out that somebody was trying to sell a piece of public
(i.e., my) property in order to get around the First Amendment, I'd try
to stop it, too.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 185:
|
Jul 16 17:22 UTC 2003 |
A relevant consideration is whether the city was to receive fair market
value for the land, and another is whether the sale was planned before
the issue of the monument came up.
<snip>
In June 2001, the Freedom From Religion Foundation ("FFRF"), through
counsel, asked the City to remove the Monument from Cameron Park. The
City refused this request. Id. Instead, on July 11, 2002, the Common
Council of the City passed a resolution authorizing the sale to the
Eagles of a small piece of land--twenty by twenty-two feet--immediately
under and around the Monument.2 The deed to the Eagles contains the
restriction that "appropriate fencing, landscaping and signage shall be
provided by 10/24/02 and maintained in order to commemorate the youth of
the La Crosse area for their assistance and great help for the spring
1965 flood that the City of La Crosse experienced." The Eagles installed
a wrought iron fence, approximately four feet high, around the perimeter
of the parcel on October 24, 2002.
...
The attempted transfer of the parcel does nothing to terminate the City's
endorsement of religion. That transfer was, admittedly, a strategy to
"get around" the First Amendment and to maintain the Monument in the
park, where it remains today. Even if the City complied with the formal
requirements of a sale of park property--which it did not--what the City
deems to be "appropriate fencing and signage" does not disavow the
inherently religious message of the Monument.
</snip>
source: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may03/index.php?ft=lacrosse.html
|
other
|
|
response 4 of 185:
|
Jul 16 17:24 UTC 2003 |
Hey, Bruce! The city council of La Crosse broke the law, so maybe we
should "send them home" just like we did with Rabih Haddad, huh?
|
sabre
|
|
response 5 of 185:
|
Jul 16 17:33 UTC 2003 |
Bullshit ..no laws were broken. This is another case where the ideas the
founding fathers brought forth have been preverted by liberals.
The "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
It merely states that congress shall not establish a state church.
The only reason that is there is because so many of the settlers came here
to escape religous persecution. The same persecution you liberals are trying
here. Any religion should have the freedom to display any message they choose
on public property. I remember my tax dollars being spent so some pervert
could hang a crucifix in a bottle ot urine and call it art. I guess you
dumb liberals would say" oh that's freedom of speech"
you hypocrites.
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 185:
|
Jul 16 18:37 UTC 2003 |
(Every post sabre makes says exactly the same thing:
View ignored response.
What a dullard!)
|
sabre
|
|
response 7 of 185:
|
Jul 16 19:05 UTC 2003 |
Your rebutals are where the lack of contexnt lies.
"DUH what a dullard..er DUH he doesn't agree with our liberal agenda and he
always posts against it"
You have yet to post a meaningful arguement against any thing I post.
Only a dumb jackass would say every one of my posts are the same.
They come from a position that is pure from leftist nonsense like the bullshit
that gets applauded on this bbs.
|
flem
|
|
response 8 of 185:
|
Jul 16 19:37 UTC 2003 |
"Any religion should have the freedom to display any message they choose
on public property."
Somehow, I suspect that this would piss off the religious right even more than
the current situation. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 9 of 185:
|
Jul 16 22:57 UTC 2003 |
The park isn't private property.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 185:
|
Jul 16 23:21 UTC 2003 |
If religions (and everyone else) had the freedom to display any messge they
choose on public property, can you imagine what public property would look
like? A battle of religious icons PLUS commercial spam.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 185:
|
Jul 17 00:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 12 of 185:
|
Jul 17 00:15 UTC 2003 |
I'd like a close-up view of the signs along the fence...
|
polytarp
|
|
response 13 of 185:
|
Jul 17 03:49 UTC 2003 |
Abortion, other.
|
pvn
|
|
response 14 of 185:
|
Jul 17 05:46 UTC 2003 |
Clearly the building that currently houses the SCOTUS needs to be either
demolished or moved to private land (maybe the SCOTUS should have to pay
rent?) by the reasoning of #10 et al. Church Street in A2 needs to be
renamed as well. Hmm, I wonder if the residents of Arlington National
Cemetary need to have their markers redone? The Tomb needs renovation
to change the phrase.
Hmm, as a priest in the cargo cult of United - we worship the 747 - I
must should file a lawsuit to get the city of chicago to rename the
United Center. Works for me...
|
novomit
|
|
response 15 of 185:
|
Jul 17 11:35 UTC 2003 |
Sabre, if you are so pissed by liberals disdain of Christianity, why don't
you behave more like Christians say everyone should? If you are an example
of a loving Christian, then all I have to say is Hail Satan!
|
sabre
|
|
response 16 of 185:
|
Jul 17 11:52 UTC 2003 |
RE:#10 Any religion that has 501c-3 isn't a venture for profit. They serve
the local community and hence they serve the public.
RE:#15. That's the excuse every dirtbag like you uses."Oh he doesn't act like
a christian, therefore Christ isn't real" You consider that a license to sin.
You consider it a passport to please. When you hail satan make sure you suck
his cock. Novomit...you make me *barf*
|
polytarp
|
|
response 17 of 185:
|
Jul 17 11:56 UTC 2003 |
Stop it, sabre. You should feel embarassed.
|
russ
|
|
response 18 of 185:
|
Jul 17 11:57 UTC 2003 |
So Lacrosse wanted to sell the land to the Eagles, in order that
the illegally-installed Christian monument could stay. What do
you bet that the Satanists, Wiccans, Muslims or even folks as
inoffensive as Buddhists couldn't get in on such land sales? What
do you bet that the people protesting this "oppressive" court
decision - including Bruce - would scream bloody murder if it was
seriously suggested to be fair to all faiths?
It shows just how little thinking the right-wing religious fanatics
allow themselves to do, or how transparent their agenda is (to establish
Christianity as the state religion of the USA, and probably a
particular sect).
Bruce, please tell me: are you that blind, or do you think we are?
Does this stuff *really* fool you?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 19 of 185:
|
Jul 17 12:56 UTC 2003 |
Russ, y'know what? If the Buddhists wanted to put up a memorial in a public
park, and then need to "buy" the land to keep it, I'd say cool. Because it's
the memorial that's important to me, in this case.
|
scott
|
|
response 20 of 185:
|
Jul 17 13:00 UTC 2003 |
OK, but then would you support automatic sale of public property to religous
organizations?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 21 of 185:
|
Jul 17 13:54 UTC 2003 |
I'd go for that--I have my eye on a nice piece of public property in
town, and if all I have to do to buy it cheap is to form a religious
group...
|
novomit
|
|
response 22 of 185:
|
Jul 17 19:54 UTC 2003 |
Let him without sin cast the first stone . . . Jesus probably makes you barf
as well, yes? Don't worry, though, I am sure that the feeling is mutual.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 185:
|
Jul 17 19:56 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sabre
|
|
response 24 of 185:
|
Jul 17 19:57 UTC 2003 |
You already cast the first stone.
|