Ten Commandments Taken Down in Rutherford County Courthouse

wkrn ^

[chance33_98]

Ten Commandments Taken Down in Rutherford County Courthouse 
 Email story to a friend 

The Ten Commandments have been taken down from the Rutherford County courthouse. Officials removed a display Monday in response to a temporary injunction issued Friday by a federal judge.

State ACLU Director Hedy Weinberg called the court order "a victory for religious freedom." The Rutherford County executive had no comment.

A federal judge in Nashville heard arguments in the case, but has not yet issued a ruling.

[goodieD]

yeah, a victory for every religion EXCEPT Christianity and Judaism, which is what it's come down to these days.

[Redbob]

George Orwell, you were so right!

Here we are, year 2002, and some (dare I say "non-Christian"?) lawyer calls taking down the Ten Commandments "a victory for religious freedom!"

Or did Lawyer Weintraub mean to say "freedom from religion"?

Whatever happened to governors willing to stand in a courthouse door and tell a federal judge to take a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut?

[TightSqueeze]

…take a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut

What is a good conservative like you going around quoting Kurt Vonnegut for, and does your family know? :-)

[f.Christian]

Good News For The Day

‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace’ (Luke 19:42)

"The Jewish people did not want to be ruled by Rome. By the time of Jesus, uprisings against the foreign oppressor were entrenched in folklore, as well as an ever-simmering possibility. It would be a mistake to think that Jesus had no opinion on the political situation in his country. No sooner than his become a public figure, he was pressured to declare himself in relation to Israel's subjection to a gentile power. Belligerents hoped that he could galvanize the people, and wage messianic war."

"Jesus' own disciples cherished similar hopes. Some scholarship suggests that the name 'Iscariot' indicates Judas may have belonged to a resistance group called the 'dagger men.' Words spoken by Jesus were interpreted given a nationalist meaning by men like Judas. For example: "I am come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled" (Luke 24:9).

"On the eve of his last entry to the beloved city, Jerusalem was awash with expectation. Militants were bristling with hope that Jesus would begin the overthrow. But what a disappointment he was to them. Instead of using the temple as a platform for national pride, he drove out the traders, quoting Isaiah 56:7 "My house shall be called a house of prayer for ALL people." In another humiliating utterance, he forecaste the utter destruction of the temple. This was not the language of a patriot. They were the words of one who appeared to have given up the cherished hopes of his people."

"It was at such a time that Jesus tearfully lamented: "If you had only known what would bring peace." Plainly, Jesus did not believe in peace by force of arms. He turned his steps instead, toward a cross."

"God help me to know in which... direction---the hope of peace lies."

[chance33_98]

Bump in light of recent events.

[FreeTally]

Officials removed a display Monday in response to a temporary injunction issued Friday by a federal judge.

I thought that the criteria for an injunction was generally something like "would allowing the lower court's ruling to stand while its appealed cause irreputable harm to the petitioner if the ruling is overturned".

Does anyone else have further knowledge of this legal issue?

OPH?

[varina davis]

In efforts by "those people" to subhumanize their opposition, there was cultural degradation of Southern heritage. It was only a matter of time before they attacked our God, Old Glory, our children and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Those who wish to preserve heritage and symbols are not surprised by the scurrilous attacks on all our freedoms this week -- just saddened.

I hope the Judge in Rutherford County consults with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy S. Moore, a man who knows where The Ten Commandants belong and how to keep them there.

[FreeTally]

You've got it a little scrambled. The standard on temporary injunctions prior to trial is whether the Plaintiff has a high probability ofsuccess, and whether allowing the disfavored practice to continue during the pendency of the litigation can be remedied later on (there is some other language about irreparable harm, which the courts tend to cherry pick depending on circumstances).

Thanks for the clarification.

Two questions, though.

Isn't the concept of "high probability of success" pretty much the court deciding the issue before they decide the issue?

Second, in your opinion, in this case, how could the practice of displaying the Ten Commandments not be remidied if the court overturns the decision to post them? Doesn't the petitioner have to demonstrate/show what harm will be caused if the injunction is not permitted?

[FreeTally]

Because we're not talking about a monetary relief case, the argument goes that there is not an adequate remedy for the continued violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs.

I guess this is where the issue gets complicated by years of "activist" court rulings. Courts have basically ruled that people somehow have the right to not have to look at a religious inscription on publically owned property, although, the clear words of the 1st Amendment only preclude Congress from making such laws regarding "respecting" religion.

So, IMO, to say an individual's rights are being violated, you still have to point to physical or monetary harm(or even potential harm) to an individual. If citizens were going to receive some kind of returned compensation for public money going toward the placing and upkeep of the Commandments(thus the issue would be the theft of money to "forward" a religion), there may be a claim.

A temporary injunction in this case is not warranted, IMHO. No harm, or potential harm to an individual, can be shown to be probable if the Commandments are left up pending a court decision.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I don't think the Court has been "activist" at all. This is right up the alley of the establishment clause, and I think the Courts have taken this approach for some time. The 10 Commandments definitely treads on violating that establishment clause, no question--a LOT less debate, than say, "under God," since that isn't specific to a certain religion.

But I don't see why there SHOULDN'T be an injuction here. As was mentioned before, the government has lost on this subject time and time again, and they shouldn't be able to get away with violating the Constitution simply because the case is pending. Otherwise, they would just never take it down--just wait until someone sues them again. This just ends the perpetuity.

By the way, towns and courthouses are free to post the 10 Commandments so long as they are done in an open forum, where anything can be posted.

[nravoter]

The 10 Commandments definitely treads on violating that establishment clause, no question...

Really? This violates the precious establishment clause? I don't recall seeing Congress mentioned in this story at all.

[FreeTally]

But the 1st Amendment specifically says, "Congress shall make no law", which regardless of what courts have "ruled", negates this as a Constitutional issue.

Personaly, I do not want a State, county or city forcibly taking anyone's money to post anything, 10 Commandments or otherwise. The "public property" placement does not bother me, as long as the monument was paid for with private funds and its upkeep is also paid by private funds.