Commandments foes can't remain anonymous
By The Associated Press
08.01.02
Printer-friendly page
The two people suing La Crosse, Wis., over a Ten Commandments monument in a public park cannot remain anonymous, a federal court ruled.
One anonymous plaintiff has died since the lawsuit was filed July 1, and the other wants to withdraw from the suit, according to the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation.
The foundation filed the lawsuit claiming the monument's placement violates separation of church and state because it sits on city property.
The La Crosse City Council had decided to fight the suit but voted earlier this month to sell a 400-square-foot section of the park where the monument stands to the Eagle's Club.
The foundation wants to maintain the anonymity of the plaintiffs to protect them from harassment.
La Crosse Attorney Pat Houlihan argued the names must be revealed so the city can mount a defense by questioning the plaintiffs and their acquaintances.
In his July 29 decision, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker denied the foundation's motion for a protective order to maintain the plaintiffs' anonymity.
"Federal courts have a long, strong tradition of conducting their business publicly," he said. "Identifying the parties to a proceeding is an important dimension of publicness; the people have a right to know who is using their courts."
The foundation must file an amended complaint with the plaintiffs' names by Aug. 7.
Foundation founder Anne Gaylor said yesterday the foundation does not plan to release the identity of the remaining plaintiff because her husband, the other plaintiff, has died.
"She has enough to cope with without coping with the religiously motivated citizens of La Crosse," Gaylor said.
The foundation is not withdrawing its lawsuit but is seeking another plaintiff.
Meanwhile, Hamilton County, Tenn., has abandoned plans to display a group of historical documents that contain the Ten Commandments.
The commission decided to post the Ten Commandments following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But U.S. District Court Judge R. Allan Edgar ruled in May the county's Ten Commandments plaques violated the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state and ordered them taken down.
Then in June, another court ruling in a Rutherford County case barred officials from displaying religious documents, even when grouped with other documents such as the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence.
"People like us sworn to uphold the law, we can't afford to buck a federal judge," Commissioner Curtis Adams said July 29.
Edgar had also ordered the county to pay legal fees in the case. On July 29, commissioners said they had $46,000 in donations to pay such fees, leaving $23,000 in unpaid bills.
The donations came from citizens, businesses and churches. The single largest contribution of $9,200 came from Woodland Park Baptist Church. There were hundreds of private donations, some for as little as $5.
A fund-raising campaign will continue until the remaining $23,000 is collected. Commissioners said they did not want to use public funds.
In both Tennessee cases, the displays were opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to have them removed. The ACLU contended the displays violated religious freedom and were divisive to religious diversity.
The original Chattanooga display was posted in the Hamilton County Courthouse and the city-county courts building.
More than half of Tennessee's 95 counties have approved similar displays and more than 30 have posted the biblical laws.
Update
Wisconsin city sells park property with Ten Commandments monument
Meanwhile, Georgia town officials agree to remove religious codes from City Hall.
08.25.02
Previous
County loses fight over Ten Commandments displays
Federal judge orders Tennessee officials to remove plaques from two courthouses, ruling postings violate church-state separation.
05.06.02
Related
Maryland town officials hope park rededication will save Ten Commandments
Board designates park as historic cemetery; ACLU argues land's ownership should be transferred to private entity.
08.03.02
