Religion
Related: About this forumAtheists sue another Pa. school over commandments
Updated 1:31 p.m., Thursday, September 27, 2012
CONNELLSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — A Wisconsin-based atheist and agnostic group has sued another southwestern Pennsylvania school district over a monument of the Ten Commandments currently on school grounds..
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which sued the New Kensington-Arnold School District earlier this month, on Thursday sued the Connellsville Area School District over a similar monument outside its junior high school.
A school attorney declined comment, but residents of the district, about 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, have asked the district to fight requests to remove the monument. The nearby Connellsville Church of God has offered to prominently display the five-foot monument and light it up at night.
However, the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court also seeks to prevent the monument from being displayed by the church because it's next to some school athletic fields and might be seen by students.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Atheists-sue-another-Pa-school-over-commandments-3899353.php
That's the enire four paragraph article. The last paragraph is the most interesting one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbayer
(146,218 posts)property, even if it's on private property?
That would create a lot of problems.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Moving it off the school property is one thing, but if there is some law that prevents religious symbols from being seen from public property, that seems ridiculous.
Response to cbayer (Reply #1)
rexcat This message was self-deleted by its author.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I think that webpage in your OP, from San Antonio, may be taking a bit too much journalistic liberty.
rug
(82,333 posts)The complaint itself, from where this information presumably came, may be available online from the federal court website.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Information and belief? Maybe they heard that was going to happen so they are getting out in front of it?
rug
(82,333 posts)It's too startling for the AP to have just made up.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)BTW, it looks like FFRF enlisted a local Pittsburgh attorney, probably pro bono, to file the original complaint on September 14 against the school district.
The one, below, just filed by the same attorney addresses its concern with the church's offer.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Sounds like they got wind of this plan and are getting out in front of it.
Would you agree that, if true, the church is simply trying to keep it visible and poking a thumb in the eye of those that want Public places secular?
rug
(82,333 posts)But the flip side is the other side is just as vehement.
In any given case, only one side will have the law. Here, if the church leases the land to the school, no monument. If it does not, monument.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)lease.
rug
(82,333 posts)The court will have to sort it out. I bet there will be a compromise where the monument is moved to church land but that church land will not be leased to the district.
I was watching How the States Got Their Shape on the History Channel the other night. They were talking about how "independent" Texas is and commented it has few zoning laws. Then they talked to this guy who lived in a beautiful house next to the beach. As they panned out, behind the house was a rollercoaster from the amusement park next door.
There can be worse neighbors.
MineralMan
(146,318 posts)school qualifies.
I'd have to see the plan to move it to the nearby church mentioned in actual court documents before saying anything about that. I have nothing against religious monuments on private property. But, there seems to be some confusion about that detail in various news stories. Perhaps we'll learn more later. Given the fact that this newspaper is in Texas, while the story is in Pennsylvania, I'm going to withhold comment on that last part.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)all they say is they want the monument moved. There is nothing at their web site saying the display can't be moved to the church.
FFRF, on behalf of local plaintiffs "Doe 4" and "Doe 5," seeks a declaration that the display is unconstitutional and an injunction requiring it to be moved, nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
snip
Pittsburgh-based attorney Marcus Schneider represents the plaintiffs. He wrote to Superintendent Dan Lujetic on Aug. 29 demanding that the district "permanently remove the Ten Commandments monument from school property" and provide notice of removal to Schneider by Sept. 7 or FFRF would file suit.
More at the web site...
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/15778-ffrf-takes-ten-commandments-to-court
If the AP got it right it does not make sense that a church, no matter the location, could not display the thing. Interesting that AP reports it but it is not on the FFRF web site.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's discussed starting at paragraph 40.
41. Upon information and belief, the proposed arrangements with Connellsville Church of God would place the Ten Commandments monument on the edge of the Church of God property, which borders the high school and one of its athletic fields.
42. Upon information and belief, the District rents and uses an athletic field owned by the Connellsville Church of God. The church field borders a Connellsville Area Senior High School athletic field.
43. Upon information and belief, Connellsville Church of God intends to prominently light and display the Ten Commandments monument for viewing by District students should the District move it there.
44. Upon information and belief, these proposed arrangements are intended by the District to continue to bring District students in contact with the Ten Commandments monument.
45. Doe 4 will attend Connellsville Area Senior High School upon completion of her studies at the Junior High. If the monument is moved to the athletic fields, it is assured that she will continue to view the monument.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's some serious bullshit knowingly skirting the issue.
rug
(82,333 posts)which is legalese for somebody told me and I believe them.
Once testimony is taken the fact will be determined if there is an intent to move it to private land leased by the District. If so, that puts it back on government property. If not, then it's still private land and FFRF is SOOL.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I was not making a legal judgement. I have no doubt that the school district and the church came up with a plan to put the fucking monument right up on the edge of school property. They may or may not legally be able to get away with it, but I think it's bullshit.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)but it will be interesting to see how the court looks at it.
Oregonian
(209 posts)When a public school leases land from a church that brazenly and intentionally lights up the 10 Commandments on said land with the intent of being inflammatory? Could the church strategically locate a lit-up cross so that it shines through a classroom window 24/7?
I think not. I could see this case creating new law, for better or worse.
