Quote:
Originally posted by johnnymysto
Smooth,
I don't know if the courthouse is leased property. Mael made that point. I'm just saying that there has been a previous ruling that the sale of a monument has relieved the issue of government endorsement of religion.
|
You confused me when you posted this:
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."
|
The link you provided is about a display in a
park that has been present since
1965. The land and the display were sold to a private party and the case is in dispute; the case
is not precedent--it hasn't been decided yet.
This case in Alabama, however, is not on private land, nor can the land be sold to a private individual since it is the
inside of a courthouse. The judge already ruled that the monument can be moved into the Alabama judge's
office.
There you go, hopefully that will clear up some confusion and end the detour argument over leased property rights.
edit:
this article
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...wscommands.txt (written four days after the one you posted) states that a federal judge rejected the argument that the display could remain. He ordered for the monument to be removed and the city to recompensed for the costs of removal.
Unless the Supreme Court intervenes there is no precendent for the monument to remain in either Alabama or Wisconsin.