Quote:
Originally posted by johnnymysto
The monument and the land that it is on is privately owned land, and therefore is not a government endorsement of religion. The city formerly owned the monument, but sold it in 2002. So this is not a case of "separation of chuch and state."
|
how is it on privatly owned land? it's at the freakin' courthouse, which is government (aka public) property. doesn't matter who owns the monument, it still can't be there. and where do you get that he sold it? that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. could you post a link?