Federal Courts Rule Against ACLU in Ten Commandments Cases

http://thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14544-federal-courts-rule-against-aclu-in-ten-commandments-cases ^ | Feb 17, 2013 | Dave Bohon

[EXCH54FE]

A federal judge has given a victory to free speech and religious expression, dismissing a six-year-old lawsuit filed by the ACLU against a Ten Commandments display in Dixie County, Florida. The 12,000-pound monument was erected at the Dixie County courthouse in 2006 by local resident Joe Anderson, who was given permission by the county and who maintained the display at his own expense. In addition to the Decalogue, the display included the simple admonition, “Love God and keep His Commandments.”

In 2007 a visitor to the county was offended by the display and contacted the ACLU in an attempt to force the monument's removal. The plaintiff in the case, referred to as “John Doe,” claimed that the monument was a major factor in his decision against purchasing property in the county.

While a U.S. district court ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments display in 2011, ruling that it violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, in August 2012 the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th District ruled that the display could temporarily remain while the case was returned to the lower court for reconsideration. In granting a temporary stay, the appeals court explained that it was concerned over the plaintiff's confusing explanation over why he had decided against purchasing property in Dixie County.

“Mr. Doe” originally testified in the case that there were several things about the county that he found objectionable, including a cartoon taped to a county employee's desk, a website in the county for an entity called “Patriot Properties,” as well as the Ten Commandments monument. But after the county asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, Doe insisted that it was only the Ten Commandments monument that had caused him to decide against purchasing property

[EXCH54FE]

Francis Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented the county in the case, noted that the court was clear that the Ten Commandments display “does not violate the Constitution and merely acknowledges the role that the Ten Commandments has played in the formation of our nation's heritage and history. This decision is an important victory underscoring the fact that such a display is an acknowledgement of history, not an endorsement of religion.”

[shelterguy]

“”The plaintiff in the case, referred to as “John Doe,” claimed that the monument was a major factor in his decision against purchasing property in the county.””

Would he be ok purchasing property anywhere using money that says In God We Trust on it?

[Cowgirl of Justice]

Hiding behind the name ‘John Doe’ certainly isn’t something Jesus would do.

Coward. Hope he gets hit with the legal bills.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Good!

[DustyMoment]

This will probably be overturned and, eventually, end up in the SCOTUS where CJ Roberts will suggest that Congress should tax the display for $3 Trillion instead of trampling on the defendant’s 1st Amendment rights!

[SuziQ]

Sounds like the complainer was just looking for a fight. And I’m sure the fact that he was disinclined to purchase property in the county that would allow the Ten Commandments placed in a public place didn’t make the residents of that county sad at all. ;o)

[trebb]

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as “John Doe,” claimed that the monument was a major factor in his decision against purchasing property in the county.

Such tripe ought to be met with a quick kick in the ass and then give the guy a chance to change the tune. If a stone monument can keep him out of the county, then he is SOL for finding a place to live that doesn't contain a plethora of Christian churches and institutions.

[jiggyboy]

I’d bet big money that the “visitor” had directions to the courthouse printed out by the ACLU.

We’ve seen this countless times over the years — a “visitor” or “new resident” is the only one to claim to be offended over something that’s been there forever, but before the case is even resolved, they quietly slink back to wherever their next assignment is, claiming they reconsidered living in such a backwards, lawless place, or that they’ve been harassed by the evil, ignorant populace.

[Cowgirl of Justice]

My favorite is the coward who claimed his daughter was offended by the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance when it was HIM!!!!!

Just like islam. Lying to achieve their goals.