Update on Marietta bench story

The Marietta Daily Journal ^ | August 2, 2005 | Candice Cunningham

[THE person involved]

 Tuesday, August 2, 2005

School says bench stays where it is By Candice Cunningham

Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writer

MARIETTA - Despite one parent's questions about its "overtly religious" content and a possible constitutional violation, Marietta City Schools officials say they have no plans to remove a bench from the Marietta High School campus inscribed with the words "Jesus Loves You!"

Marietta Superintendent Dr. Emily Lembeck said in a response letter to parent David Bernknopf on Friday that the bench would stay.

"On the advice of legal counsel, there are no plans to do anything regarding the bench," Dr. Lembeck stated.

Dr. Lembeck and the school system's attorney, Clem Doyle, were unavailable for further comment Monday.

Bernknopf, a former CNN producer and media consultant whose son and daughter attend nearby A.L. Burruss Elementary, sent a letter to school system officials last month questioning whether the bench's message was "overtly religious." He sent a letter to school officials asking them to investigate whether it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which calls for separation of church and state.

On Monday, however, Bernknopf said he never intended to take the matter to court and plans to take no further action.

"I certainly never had any interest in filing a complaint or filing a lawsuit," he said. "Obviously, I thought it was questionable."

After receiving Dr. Lembeck's response, he said he is not interested in pursuing the issue. Any future challenge to the bench, he said, could be left to constitutional experts.

Smyrna resident Ed Buckner, secretary of the local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the bench message clearly violates state and federal Supreme Court law, which regulates religious content on public property.

"It implies to anyone who sees it that the government is endorsing that particular point of view," he said.

He said the school should remove the bench or face the potential of a costly lawsuit.

"I think they'll move it," he said. "I think it may require court action to do it, but I think they'll move it."

Buckner said his group was not planning to file a suit but said the school system is leaving itself open for other groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, to do so.

"It's a bad idea to get into the business of which religion is right and which is wrong," he said. "In that lies madness."

"What if the Atlanta Freethought Society wanted to put up a bench that said, 'There is no God?'" Buckner added. "Do you think they'd say 'Yes?' I don't."

Marietta school board Chairwoman Irene Berens said the law governing such issues is vague.

"The Supreme Court didn't give us much guidance," she said. "They seem willing to look at it on a case-by-case basis, which puts us in a difficult situation as far as interpretation."

Just last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two divergent rulings relating to displays of the Ten Commandments at courthouses in Kentucky and Texas.

Berens said she was satisfied with the legal advice provided by Doyle.

He researched legal opinions and consulted with state school board attorneys, the Gainesville-based Harbin and Hartley firm, before returning his decision, she said.

Bernknopf said that Dr. Lembeck's three-paragraph letter was brief and did not clarify whether the bench is currently violating the law.

"It would've been nice to have more detail," he said.

For now, district spokesman Bill Doughty said the bench would stay where it is because no one has specifically asked the school to remove it.

If a formal request were made, he said, school officials would need to reconsider the issue.

The bench, located outside the high school's cafeteria and near the school bus drop off area, was installed in 2001, Doughty said. Private donations from the school's PTA paid for it as part of a large fund-raising campaign conducted before the new Whitlock Avenue school was built.

Other benches are placed on local school campuses bearing messages that include the names of local businesses and the names of deceased loved ones.

The school system does not have a policy regulating the content inscribed on school structures and school officials do not have plans to consider such a policy, Doughty said.

Berens said the school system tries to keep its policies to a minimum.

"You cannot have a policy to address every contingency that might happen," she said.

School board member Annette Lewis said Bernknopf raised a legitimate question that was aimed at protecting the school from fighting a costly legal battle.

"If I had seen the bench there, I would have asked the question," she said. "It was a legitimate question and one the school system wanted to wait and get a legal opinion on."

Although Bernknopf might not have gotten the response he wanted, he indicated that his efforts were not for naught.

"An informal debate on a topic of this nature is always beneficial," he said.

Copyright © 2005 Marietta Daily Journal. All rights reserved. All other trademarks and Registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

[SittinYonder]

The Person involved, Mr. Bernknof, reminds me of Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

LOL! And he's got a bench to sit on.

[mhking]

I am just a citizen trying to raise a question of my elected officials, help keep my school district out of trouble, and prevent my tax dollars being wasted.

What part of the "establishment clause" prevents a bench from having the words "Jesus Loves You" on it?

Would the bench any less offensive with "Allah Loves You," "Zeus Loves You," "Buddha Loves You," "Cleophus Loves You" or any other saying?

Let's bring it home (and yes, I do live in Cobb County with children in the Cobb County schools). Is this any less like the individual who filed an injunction to prevent the so-called controversial student laptop program (both the litigant [former Cobb Commissioner Butch Thompson] and the lawyer [former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes] in question in that case are Democrats who are obviously trying to make political hay at the expense of our children) from going forward?

Or are you honestly concerned about the physical placement of a bench? If the bench were on the other side of the street (complete with the sentence "Jesus Loves You"), would you have an issue with it?

I don't get it...please elaborate.

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[weegee]

Liberals would like to see all references to God removed. Make the bench say "Nobody Loves You" and they will be satisfied.

[peacebaby]

good, slow sizzle, mhking.

Mr. Bernknofp has left the building, I believe.

Or he could be lurking like a good coward.

[weegee]

"this will be my last contribution"

An opus on signup day?

[Straight Vermonter]

I gave the auhor of the article a little lesson on the frist amendment perhaps you would like to as well.

ccunningham@mdjonline.com

[Straight Vermonter]

frist=first

[retrokitten]

(accompanied by severe chastisement, of course)

And then...the spankings!

[VRWCmember]

In case any of you were wondering about what story this thread was updating, here is a link to the thread. The original story was posted a few weeks ago, and the individual who initially raised the question then signed up and replied to that story and posted today's "update".

School Bench Said Too Religious

[peacebaby]

well, Mr. Bernknogf might as well have said: Thank you, sir, may I have another.

[peacebaby]

I can't understand how Mr. Bernknogfgthbbht managed CNN for years and yet is so gullable as to think he can take us in with his "best interest in the school, WWJD" act.

[retrokitten]

LOL! That's for sure.

[MurryMom]

Thanks for pinging me. Mr. Bernknopf is obviously a very thoughtful person and I don't mind being compared to him after he posted an interesting article posing another First Amendment issue.

If the Marietta School Board is willing to allow benches on its premises inscribed with other religious teachings such as "There is no other God but Allah" or "There is no God" the existing bench may survive First Amendment scrutiny by a court. Otherwise the bench (or at least its existing religious inscription) ought to be replaced. If other concerned Americans raise this issue in a court case I would gladly support them.

[MurryMom]

Or are you honestly concerned about the physical placement of a bench? If the bench were on the other side of the street (complete with the sentence "Jesus Loves You"), would you have an issue with it?

Please, let's stick to the facts as presented by the MDJ. The bench is located on school property and promotes the Christian religion. The MDJ article does not mention inscriptions on any other benches located on school property and promoting non-Christian religions.

Also, please don't forget that others on this board have objected to having an anti-Bush artwork displayed on public property (in California). Why support the Christian advertisement in Georgia and yet object to anti-Bush art in California? Let's not be so blatantly hypocritical, please!

[VRWCmember]

... posted an interesting article posing another First Amendment issue.

Are you talking about the potential use of litigation to intimidate the school district into censoring the free speech of the group that privately funded the bench? That appears to be the only real first amendment issue here. There is clearly no act of congress regarding an establishment of religion here. And while the first amendment restricts congress in what types of legislation it can pass, it has been extended to state governments by overly broad interpretations of the 14th amendment by several courts in direct contradiction of the discussions of how the 14th amendment would apply when it was ratified. However, the idea that the establishment clause should be stretched so far as to prohibit the free speech of privately funded displays on public property due to religious content is an Orwellian abuse which uses one clause of the first amendment to violate another clause (arguably two clauses) of the same amendment.

[VRWCmember]

Also, please don't forget that others on this board have objected to having an anti-Bush artwork displayed on public property (in California). Why support the Christian advertisement in Georgia and yet object to anti-Bush art in California? Let's not be so blatantly hypocritical, please!

To be fair, if I remember correctly, the anti-Bush art was objectionable (at least in part) because it was funded by taxpayers, while this article states pretty clearly that the bench was funded by privately raised funds.

[Paul_Denton]

IN BEFORE THE ZOT!

[Politicalmom]

Well, thanks for using a disgusting term for my city, which happens to be one of the most conservative around, you jerk.

[Politicalmom]

You know what? I am a "transplant", I LOVE Georgia, and I was against this guy from the beginning.

Try not to paint everyone with that broad brush of yours.

[Dont Mention the War]

Well, thanks for using a disgusting term for my city, which happens to be one of the most conservative around, you jerk.

Personal attacks, eh? How pathetic. *yawn*