| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 02:21:20 AM |
| Object: |
Judge says ten commandments monument must be moved |
A couple of amusing things. The occult writings were put on government
property in some stupid notion that it would some how reduce "delinquent
youth." <rofl!> Like some voodoo occult moron shaking a rattle.
Then in 2002 this Darrel Russelburg character was running a strip joint
which caused the current crop of insane cultists to file a "public
indecency" charge against him which he was convicted for... prompting
him to retaliate by forcing the local government to obey the Constitution.
-=-
From The Daily Clarion, 2/2/05:
http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2005/02/02/pdclarion/news/news3.txt
Judge says ten commandments monument must be moved
By ANDREA HOWE
PRINCETON-
The Ten Commandments monument must be moved from the Gibson County
Courthouse square, according to a federal judge's Jan. 31 order.
"Basically, the judge found in favor of the Indiana Civil Liberties
Union and ordered it removed within 60 days," reported County Attorney
Jerry Stilwell Tuesday.
"We've got a little time to decide wither(sic) to appeal this decision
to the Indiana Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals," Stilwell told county
commissioners.
The monument was erected on the northeast corner of the Gibson County
Courthouse lawn in 1956 by the local Elks lodge as a part of a
national campaign to lower the rising number of delinquent youth.
The ICLU filed the lawsuit against the county on behalf of former Fort
Branch businessman Darrel Russelburg and co-plaintiff, Deborah Nally.
Russelburg filed suit in September, 2003, in the midst of a
misdemeanor case filed against him for aiding public indecency at his
strip club.
A jury convicted him, and he alleged in amended charges filed in May
2004, that while he no longer operates a Gibson County business, he is
still forced to confront the monument on the square during the course
of his ordinary affairs.
Nally joined the lawsuit, alleging that she is forced to confront the
monument as she conducts business with the county.
"The direct contact which I have with the monument is unwelcome to me.
Although I do not object to the Ten Commandments, I do object to the
Ten Commandments being placed on government property," she alleged in
the suit.
"I do not believe that religion and the government should be
together."
In his order to remove the monument, U.S. Southern District Judge
Richard Young noted that case precedent in Indiana finds the Ten
Commandments "cannot be reasonably stripped of their sacred religious
significance by a characterization of them as a moral or ethical
code."
Judge Young wrote, "While a large majority of those that pass by the
monument in Princeton may find its inscription to be consistent with
their intentions and beliefs, plaintiffs and perhaps numerous others
do not share that same feeling. Our forefathers strived to craft a
Constitution and Bill of Rights which took into account the need for
government to be "of all the people," no matter what religious beliefs
they hold or choose not to hold."
Young found the display of the monument on the lawn of the seat of
local government violates a constitutional guarantee that government
will "not appear to promote, discourage or endorse any particular
religious beliefs."
Last summer, Indiana joined eight other states seeking a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on how the Ten Commandments can legally be displayed on
public property, and court agreed in October to hear the issue.
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
Covert text file server: http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
FRice Antiwar: http://www.skeptictank.org/antiwar.htm
FRice Tree Sit: http://www.skeptictank.org/treesit/treesit.htm
"The basis of your cockeyed political beliefs is some sort of damage to
your ability to remember anything but Clinton's *****." -- Carlos
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
