I don't think they expected this...(Ten Commandment display)

[pgwenthold]

So some folks in Indiana decided they had a great way to get around the whole "Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn" problem: sell a small patch of the courthouse lawn to a local who can then put up the Ten Commandments display. Technically, its fine, because its private property. They thought they had a clever solution to the problem.

Until...

http://www.lafayettejc.com/news20050201/200502016local_news1107234322.shtml

An atheist has decided that he wants to buy the land, and has lined up a donor that will outbid any offer that comes in. He wants to erect a monument that says, "Freedom from Religion."

Let's see how fast this idea gets thrown out?

 

[richardm]

Are they obliged to sell to the highest bidder, then?

 

[pgwenthold]

Are they obliged to sell to the highest bidder, then?

It's hard for the government to not sell to the highest bidder, but there is a bigger issue: If they _don't_ sell to the highest bidder, there has to be a reason, and that reason can't be based on religion. If they don't take the highest bidder, it will be another nasty court battle.

I'm wondering if they would try the argument that they will only sell to a local, but if that is the case I'm guessing some local will stand up and take Lewis's place, using the same benefactor for support. I'm guessing the idea fizzles.

 

[Ed]

It's hard for the government to not sell to the highest bidder, but there is a bigger issue: If they _don't_ sell to the highest bidder, there has to be a reason, and that reason can't be based on religion. If they don't take the highest bidder, it will be another nasty court battle.

I'm wondering if they would try the argument that they will only sell to a local, but if that is the case I'm guessing some local will stand up and take Lewis's place, using the same benefactor for support. I'm guessing the idea fizzles.

Can you restrict land sales to one group? And if that group is 99.9% white and a black guy (non-local) tries to buy and is refused would we then have a jolly case of racism?

This could be very, very amusing. Perhaps we could pool our money and buy a plot ourselves. Anyone know the costs?

 

[pgwenthold]

Can you restrict land sales to one group? And if that group is 99.9% white and a black guy (non-local) tries to buy and is refused would we then have a jolly case of racism?

I think private land owners would have trouble in this situation, much less the government.

I can tell you, working for a government agency, it is _very_ difficult to make a major purchase (sort of the reverse) and not take the lowest bid. You can't argue that "I don't like that company" or even "their service is incompetent." We use a lot of lock-out bids, and insist on certain features that only one company can provide, as a way to get the equipment we want.

On the other way around, I don't know how you could lock-out a buyer. The only difference between the religious and atheist buyers, in terms of the land, is the message on the display. The government can't discriminate on that basis.

 

[hammegk]

I smell lawyers circling. This has SCOTUS written all over it, and years of free publicity up the kazoo.

 

[pgwenthold]

I smell lawyers circling. This has POTUS written all over it, and free publicity up the kazoo.

Lawyers circling? Nah, the lawyers have been there and left already. They already told the county that it was a waste of time to fight to display the monument. They've already been through the publicity.

I will give credit to the county for a creative attempt, but this is going to fizzle fast and quietly.

 

[Ed]

I smell lawyers circling. This has POTUS written all over it, and free publicity up the kazoo.

SCOTUS, rather?

This is very cool. I am sharpening up my epigrams.

 

[Upchurch]

The way I read the article, sale of the property has only been proposed by one of the potential buyers. It doesn't sound like the county officials have made any action, either for or against. Based on my (limited) experience with small-level politics, I'm guessing this issue is, or was, barely on the council members' radar screen, having actual issues to deal with. It wouldn't surprise me if they never really considered the proposal before reporters came around to ask about it.

Of course, the article doesn't give a lot in the way of details, so who knows?

 

[hammegk]

Whoops ... SCOTUS, not POTUS ...

 

[pgwenthold]

The way I read the article, sale of the property has only been proposed by one of the potential buyers. It doesn't sound like the county officials have made any action, either for or against. Based on my (limited) experience with small-level politics, I'm guessing this issue is, or was, barely on the council members' radar screen, having actual issues to deal with. It wouldn't surprise me if they never really considered the proposal before reporters came around to ask about it.

I think they had considered the proposal (I heard about it before), and thought about doing it. Of course, there are regulations they have to follow, so not much had happened yet (its not a high priority). This snag is going to make it more hassle than it's worth, I'd guess.

 

[Ed]

I think they had considered the proposal (I heard about it before), and thought about doing it. Of course, there are regulations they have to follow, so not much had happened yet (its not a high priority). This snag is going to make it more hassle than it's worth, I'd guess.

Maybe, depends on how much fervor they have.

A "Battle of the Bucks" would be very amusing.

 

[pgwenthold]

Maybe, depends on how much fervor they have.

I don't think they have much. They didn't bother fighting the original request to have the monument removed in 2001. These aren't the folks in Elkhart that took it to the Supremes (and lost miserably).

The citizens may want it, but the county has not shown that they are willing to waste resources on this matter.

 

[Number Six]

If this turned into a bidding war between believers and non-believers the non-believers would ultimately win because there are a lot more of them. That might be a good thing though because it would come across as being bullying and plus it might get overturned in court eventually anyway.

 

[Bikewer]

Slightly related, perhaps:

The local KKK branch (only a few members, apparently) filed to participate in the Adopt-A-Highway program, volunteering to keep a stretch of I55 clean in return for having a prominent "This section of highway adopted by the Ku Klux Klan" sign posted.
This resulted in a long court battle, which was eventually decided in favor of the Klan.
They put up a sign, which was promptly sawed down during the night.
While waiting for the new one, the State Highway Department came up with a solution; they named the section of I55 the "Rosa Parks Highway".

Naturally, the Klan was not interested in cleaning up a highway named after a civil rights icon, and they went elswhere. (Still litigating in Southern Missouri, I understand)

 

[Meadmaker]

One of the things that always amuses me about these "ten commandments" arguments is that people who support these sorts of displays act as if "the Ten Commandments" is one of the few things that everyone religious agrees on, and as for atheists, even they have to admit that those laws are an important part of our heritage.

A lot of people are suprised to find that there are three different versions commonly used of "The Ten Commandments" One is used by Protestants, one is used by Catholics, and one is used by Jews. The version that ends up on displays is inevitably the Protestant version, and they are almost always surprised to learn that there are other versions.

(In case anyone wonders, none of the three appear in the Bible. There, the items aren't numbered 1-10, and aren't called Commandments.)

 

[pgwenthold]

A lot of people are suprised to find that there are three different versions commonly used of "The Ten Commandments" One is used by Protestants, one is used by Catholics, and one is used by Jews. The version that ends up on displays is inevitably the Protestant version, and they are almost always surprised to learn that there are other versions.

A couple of years ago, a local congressman sent a promotional flyer regarding his politics, and one of the things in there was his view that the Ten Commandments should be displayed in the House chambers. I sent him a letter and asked him which version should be displayed, and detailed the differences between the protestant and catholic versions.

After doing that, I asked him, after Congress has decided the version of the Ten Commandments that they want in their chambers, haven't they established that version as the official one? If so, how is it NOT a case of Congresss passing a law establishing a preferred religion, in violation of the 1st amendment?

I never got an answer.

As many have noted, places get around this issue by just showing two slabs with numbers on them, without any text.

 

[Meadmaker]

This link describes the differences pretty well, along with another interesting little known fact about the Ten Commandments. The story in the Bible that most resembles the version we learned as kids, and which was portrayed by Charlton Heston, is in Exodus 34. There's only one problem, which is that those "ten commandments" aren't even close to what we know of the "Ten Commandments"

I wonder what would happen if a Jew bought the plot, and put up the "ten commandments" from Exodus 34. I can see it now, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." Right there on the courthouse lawn.

Won't happen, though. It's not a very Jewish thing to do.

 

[Bikewer]

I can see why God would tell his chosen people not to seethe a kid in it's mother's milk- yechh.
As I recall, you weren't supposed to eat bats either.

Sounds like good advice. Really pesky to catch enough for a decent stew, and after you clean em', there isn't much left.

 

[Meadmaker]

I can see why God would tell his chosen people not to seethe a kid in it's mother's milk- yechh.
As I recall, you weren't supposed to eat bats either.

Sounds like good advice. Really pesky to catch enough for a decent stew, and after you clean em', there isn't much left.

Bats are right out, but rabbits are ok. Rabbits are ok because they chew the cud. (It says so in the Bible, so it must be true.)

But the bat-chewing problem isn't in the Top 10. On the other hand, those 10 aren't extra-special in Judaism. To get down to bat-chewing, you would have to list the 613 commandments. You would need a bigger plot.