Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten Commandments can stay in Frederick park
The Washington Times ^ | 6-22-05 | David Dishneau

Posted on 06/22/2005 11:37:27 AM PDT by JZelle

BALTIMORE -- A privately owned Ten Commandments monument may remain on display in a Frederick city park, a federal judge ruled yesterday. U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. concluded that no reasonable observer would think the 5-foot-tall granite marker is meant as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Judge Quarles also found that the city's sale of the monument and an accompanying strip of parkland to the local Fraternal Order of Eagles (FOE) chapter in 2002 was proper. Plaintiffs Roy J. Chambers and the District-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State had claimed the transaction was a sham designed to keep the monument on what appeared to be city land. Frederick Mayor Jennifer P. Dougherty said the ruling affirmed the the city's decision to sell the monument to avoid a legal battle with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The sale caused the ACLU to drop a lawsuit challenging the display. "We sold the land, and the Eagles could do with it what they will, and they have, and that's that. And I hope this puts an end to it," Miss Dougherty said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: atheists; frederickmd; liberals; ruling; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
It's on privatley owned land and they're still not happy. These people just never quit. Now we see their true anti-religion colors.
1 posted on 06/22/2005 11:37:28 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JZelle
It's on privatley owned land and they're still not happy. These people just never quit. Now we see their true anti-religion colors.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I think the park is public land . . . only the monument is privately-owned.

2 posted on 06/22/2005 11:39:22 AM PDT by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Whoops! Nevermind, re-read it and saw that they sold the small strip of land. My bad.


3 posted on 06/22/2005 11:40:11 AM PDT by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

Nope...Monument and An accompanying strip of Parkland....


4 posted on 06/22/2005 11:41:16 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

I'm an atheist and have never had a problem with displays like this. As long as the government doesn't pay for it, I'm fine with it.


5 posted on 06/22/2005 11:42:31 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Maybe cities are getting smarter and selling both the monuments and the land to citizens, trying to get the ACLU off their backs.


6 posted on 06/22/2005 11:42:36 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

"Maybe cities are getting smarter and selling both the monuments and the land to citizens, trying to get the ACLU off their backs."

EXCELLENT!

I guess there reeeeely is more than one way to skin a 'Rat! LOL


7 posted on 06/22/2005 11:46:09 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Hot diggity dog! Best news I've read all day.


8 posted on 06/22/2005 11:46:43 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

>>>Maybe cities are getting smarter and selling both the monuments and the land to citizens, trying to get the ACLU off their backs.

But what happens when another group want to purchase land in the park for their monument? If the city does not agree to the sale they will have the ACLU on their backs once again.


9 posted on 06/22/2005 11:48:10 AM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NC28203
But what happens when another group want to purchase land in the park for their monument? If the city does not agree to the sale they will have the ACLU on their backs once again.

I think you can tell from the story that the ALCU will always be trying to remove faith from our country. It is their goal and they have rigged the system so that their lawyers are always paid. The long term answer is to amend the constitution, but until then, selling the monument and the land to someone who can hold on to it seems to be the only answer for now.

10 posted on 06/22/2005 11:52:01 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NC28203
"But what happens when another group want to purchase land in the park for their monument? If the city does not agree to the sale they will have the ACLU on their backs once again."

Hey, if the wiccans want to pay 143 million dollars for two square feet ... sell it to 'em !

11 posted on 06/22/2005 11:52:51 AM PDT by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

What really kills me is that this ever got to a federal (or any) court.


12 posted on 06/22/2005 11:53:40 AM PDT by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

In what way do you suggest amending the constitution?


13 posted on 06/22/2005 11:56:44 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LIConFem

Yeah, to whom does one sell the Supreme Court Building in Washington where the Ten Commandments are displayed in various locations?


14 posted on 06/22/2005 11:57:55 AM PDT by Socratic (Honor the Liberator - He toils for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

It's already been sold to the socialists, who erect new monuments to their beliefs there on a regular basis.


15 posted on 06/22/2005 12:03:51 PM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

The ACLU is already filing an appeal...


16 posted on 06/22/2005 12:04:47 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Socratic
Yeah, to whom does one sell the Supreme Court Building in Washington where the Ten Commandments are displayed in various locations?

So you were expecting a total solution? That would have to be through a Constitutional Amendment. Temporary solutions must be used till an ultimate solution is put in place.

Sorry, I am not God and do not have all the answers.

17 posted on 06/22/2005 12:07:58 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
Sorry, I am not God and do not have all the answers.

Aw. What a gyp! ;o)

18 posted on 06/22/2005 12:12:36 PM PDT by Socratic (Honor the Liberator - He toils for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dmz
In what way do you suggest amending the constitution?

I'm not a genius or a lawyer. But for the problem of activist judges redefining marriage, we need a constitution amendment defining what it is and that it can't be tampered with.

And the same thing in this case, that a memorial to historic document (such as the Ten Commandments) does not constitute and endorsement of Religion by the Government.

The same thing needs to be done for our flag.

All it takes for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

19 posted on 06/22/2005 12:14:00 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

It seems the God haters don't like it that even thout the 10 Commandments is on the "accompanying strip of land" make it APPEAR that the monument is on public land. So just "appearing" to be on public land is an affront to their sensibilities.


(Later pingout.)


20 posted on 06/22/2005 12:14:50 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson