Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beejay · 07-15-2003, 06:16 AM

When the La Crosse WI 10C monument was ruled unconstitional, the city sold the land to a private group so they could keep the monument in place.

Finally, a judge who isn't fooled by this...

Story in the Guardian

Quote:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A federal judge ruled that the city of La Crosse must remove a Ten Commandments monument from a public park, saying it tried to ``disguise its intent'' to advance religion by selling the parcel of land to a private group.
The display still violates the separation of church and state, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in an opinion handed down Monday.

And in the local paper:

La Crosse Tribune

Quote:

Local plaintiffs happy with court decision
By JOAN KENT of the Tribune staff
The lead plaintiff in the Freedom From Religion Foundation suit said she was pleased with the federal judge's decision ordering that the Ten Commandments monument be removed.

"That was what we wanted," said Sue Mercier, who filed the original complaint with her late husband Richard Koenig. "I understand they probably will appeal it, but I hope they do not."

Jewel · 07-16-2003, 04:11 AM

Here is the text of the court decision from the ffrf.org website.

And another article from the Las Vegas SUN

Quote:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A federal judge ruled that the city of La Crosse must remove a Ten Commandments monument from a public park, saying it tried to "disguise its intent" to advance religion by selling the parcel of land to a private group.

The display still violates the separation of church and state, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in an opinion handed down Monday.

Stephen Maturin · 07-16-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jewel
Here is the text of the court decision from the ffrf.org website.

Dang, that's some good stuff. Regarding whether the land sale obviated any Establishment Clause concerns:

Quote:

* * * To the extent defendant means to suggest that it was not concerned with preserving the monument's religious message, this is a disingenuous assertion at best. Defendant has communicated very clearly its intent to keep the monument in Cameron Park. Defendant passed a resolution stating that the monument should be kept in the park by "any and all means available to the City." Defendant was true to its word when it rejected offers from both the Eagles and a local Episcopal church to move the monument to private property. There would be little reason to reject these offers unless defendant was intent on furthering the monument's message. * * *

It is also revealing to consider the history of defendant's position with respect to the monument. None of defendant's efforts to diminish the perception of endorsement for the monument were initiated voluntarily. Rather, defendant has continuously resisted efforts to move or modify the monument until it realized it had no other choice. * * *

* * *

Defendant has done in this case exactly what Justice Souter warned against in Capitol Square, 515 U.S. at 792 (Souter, J. concurring): it has "encourag[ed] the private enterprise of the religious to exhibit what the government could not display itself." Because the facts show that defendant did not have a secular purpose in selling the parcel of land to the Eagles, it has failed to cure the establishment clause violation.

snoiduspoitus · 07-17-2003, 07:09 PM

Good reasoning, and I don't know how anyone could rule otherwise. Such a decision would leave the door open for me and a couple of buddies to purchase a five square-foot parcel in a gov't park and erect a monument stating: 'Jesus? Bwahaahaa!!!'

Surely this could not be misconstrued as an attempt by me and my buddies to circumvent the 'irreligiousness' of our monument on gov't property.

Stephen Maturin · 08-13-2003, 10:20 AM

According to this report, the city's taking it up to the Seventh Circuit. And it ain't gonna be cheap:

Quote:

After the [15-2] vote, council member Joe Ledvina said the city has a $110,000 fund for legal judgements, which City Attorney Pat Houlihan told the council should be enough to cover the appeal. (Emphasis added.)

"Should" be enough? The good citizens of La Crosse best hope it's enough, considering that the city's already on the hook for the plaintiffs' $50,000 attorney bill.

beejay · 08-13-2003, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
According to this report, the city's taking it up to the Seventh Circuit.

The mayor says "no".

CNS news report

Quote:

The mayor of La Crosse, Wisc., said a verse from the Bible partially inspired his decision Wednesday to veto a measure the city council passed in favor of a Ten Commandments display at a local park.

Well, I was pretty excited about that until I read further in the story.

Quote:

The council scheduled another meeting for Thursday night, when it is expected to override Medinger's veto and press ahead with the appeal. The council needs 12 votes to override.

So it probably will be appealed, and like Stephen says, it won't be cheap.

Shake · 08-14-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beejay
So it probably will be appealed, and like Stephen says, it won't be cheap.

... and guess who's stuck paying the bill!

beejay · 08-15-2003, 06:14 AM

Quote:

The city of La Crosse will begin preparing for another legal battle after the Common Council voted Thursday to override the mayor's veto and appeal a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from Cameron Park.
The vote to go "above the wishes of the mayor" was 15-2 and almost anticlimactic, with few comments from the council.

La Crosse newpaper article

The selling of public land to preserve a religious monument seems like such a transparent attempt to evade the Constitution that I'm surprised it's ever upheld by courts.

The city had no other reason to sell the land. So what was the "secular purpose" for the sale?

Stephen Maturin · 08-15-2003, 07:54 AM

Yeah, that override was a sad but pretty much inevitable decision. The mayor's letter to council explaining his reasons for the veto was a thing of beauty. Looks like Medinger just made too much sense for council members' liking.

beejay · 08-15-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Third, one of the things I wanted to do as Mayor is to give people "hope" in the sense that there would be a "new day" at City Hall. This would be a place where everyone could be heard and all opinions would be respected. A hope that diversity whether dealing with race, sex or even religion would be welcomed and affirmed.

Troublingly sensible.

15 council members insist of spending more money to try to keep the religious monument in place.

The good news about this and Moore's monument is that it alerts other cities and states to the cost of fighting for these monuments on public property. That knowledge has led a number of cities to remove the monuments, sometimes without even a lawsuit being filed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2003, 07:09 PM	#4
snoiduspoitus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,613	Good reasoning, and I don't know how anyone could rule otherwise. Such a decision would leave the door open for me and a couple of buddies to purchase a five square-foot parcel in a gov't park and erect a monument stating: 'Jesus? Bwahaahaa!!!' Surely this could not be misconstrued as an attempt by me and my buddies to circumvent the 'irreligiousness' of our monument on gov't property.

08-15-2003, 07:54 AM	#9
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Yeah, that override was a sad but pretty much inevitable decision. The mayor's letter to council explaining his reasons for the veto was a thing of beauty. Looks like Medinger just made too much sense for council members' liking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.