Judge: 10 Commandments MUST come down (Ohio Schools); Appeal Expected

The People's Defender ^ | Rory Ryan

[xzins]

June 19, 2002 - SEAMAN - An appeal of last week's ruling on the Ten Commandments monuments outside four Adams County high schools is likely, according to members of the Adams County for the Ten Commandments Committee speaking at a Monday afternoon press conference at North Adams High School.

The Rev. Ken Johnson referred to a quote by Adams County/Ohio Valley Schools Board of Education President Jeff Ryan, who said he is "confident the board probably will appeal" a June 11 ruling by U.S. Magistrate Timothy Hogan of the Sixth District Federal Court that requires the district to remove the three-feet-tall stone tablets at Manchester, North Adams, Peebles, and West Union high schools since August 1997.

The lawsuit was filed against the school district on Feb. 9, 1999, by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Peebles resident Berry Baker, who is opposed to the placement of the Ten Commandments in front of Adams County's four high schools.

In May 2000, the AC/OVS Board of Education voted unanimously to center the Ten Commandments monuments between tablets containing excerpts from historical documents, creating a "Foundations of Law and Government" display. The additional monuments contain passages from the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Justinian Code.

Baker said he does not believe the additional monuments have any bearing on the lawsuit, or the display.

"It's kind of like having an oak tree in the middle of a pasture, and planting pine trees around it. It's still an oak tree, isn't it?" Baker told the Defender.

In 1998, Baker proposed placing a "Center for Phallic Worship" monument at the schools.

Also in May 2000, Judge Hogan ruled that Adams County ministers Ken Johnson, Tom Claibourne, Ron Stephens and Doug Ferguson could join the lawsuit as intervenors and thus become co-defendants with the school board.

At Monday's press conference, West Union attorney Dan Bubp, who represents the ministers, referred to Baker and the lawsuit as a dark cloud hanging over Adams County. "On behalf of the ministers, we intend to file an appeal with the court," Bubp said. "We have urged the superintendent (Roy Hill) and school board to file an appeal. My opinion is that they will appeal...this is the will of the populace."

Bubp also noted that the ministers have collected approximately 10,000 signatures of residents who say they are in favor of keeping the monuments. This included some 7,000 signatures presented to the school board by Sen. Doug White, R-Manchester, at a public rally on Feb. 22, 1999.

The Rev. Ron Stephens, reading from a prepared text, said Monday, "We are obviously disappointed by the June 11 ruling.

"We are disappointed, but not discouraged," Stephens said. " We are disappointed, but not dissuaded.

"We believe that this ruling is merely a temporary setback on a long and exciting journey that has united us with thousands of other patriots and freedom lovers."

"A lot of people said, 'You lost,'" Johnson told the handful of people gathered for the conference. "But we've already won. These four monuments have made a nation(al) impact. We have made an impact, and we continue to make an impact."

The Adams County/Ohio Valley Schools Board of Education is scheduled to meet Thursday to determine whether to appeal Judge Hogan's decision. Frank Manion, a lawyer for school district, said he disagrees with the judge's ruling.

Manion said he will urge the school board to appeal.

Neither the school board nor the superintendent attended the press conference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rory is the Editor and Publisher of The People's Defender.

[xzins]

Note above that the commandments are part of a display that deals with the development of law and government...they are not the SOLE part of the display. They are the ONLY part the Judge has said must come down.

This seems to be a clear FREE SPEECH issue and NOT a church and state issue. This judge appears to be saying that this ancient law code is not permissible HISTORY.

Finally, it says 10,000 signatures were gathered. I'd like to point out that this county has ONLY 30,000 residents total.

That is practically EVERY ADULT in the entire county.

[xzins]

Copy of the displays in front of the High Schools in Adams County, Ohio.

[Frumanchu]

Thanks for posting this. What a crock! Center for Phallic Worship?!?!?!?

Even so, Lord Jesus, quickly come....

[xzins]

Bump for your consideration. This is OUR county. Any ideas, thoughts, suggestions out there? I'll pass them to the committee.

One problem, of course, is that the ACLU has a huge funding source. Our committee has very shallow pockets.

[lockeliberty]

Any ideas, thoughts, suggestions out there?

School Vouchers! Keep up the fight.

[anniegetyourgun]

Isn't this case something that the ACLJ or ADF will take?

With that kind of community support to keep the tablets, perhaps it's worth defying the court to take them down themselves.

[restornu]

Change the name to "Civic Duty" or something!

protest by wearing Ten Commandment T-shirts, and those peach skin jacket

[xzins]

School vouchers would help in a larger metro area. We are an appalachian Ohio county with only 4 public schools. It is a very religious region and does have a Christian school, but only one of those. There are no alternative public schools to these. But as you notice, the school board supports the 10 commandment position as do all of the principals and practically all of the teachers. You couldn't ask for a more wholesome setting for kids in public schools than we have here.

In fact, the biggest crimes in our schools are occasional backtalk and dipping/smoking in the boys room.

It's sort of a throwback to the early 60's, late 50's. When kids get out of line and teachers call parents, the parents nail the kids a second time when they get home.

[xzins]

Isn't this case something that the ACLJ or ADF will take?

Since I just moved here a year ago after retiring from the Army, I don't know if they've ever asked for ACLJ or ADF help. Good idea, though. I'll ask.

[xzins]

Change the name to "Civic Duty" or something!

Change the name of what to "civic duty." Can you explain your idea?

[yendu bwam]

This is just one of the preposterous lengths to which liberals (so insecure about anyone mentioning the word religion in any nice way) will go. The first amendment prohibits the federal gov't. from making a law establishing a federal religion. Despite all the blib-blab from the courts over the years, this situation has nothing to do with the first amendment. (It doesn't involve the federal government, it has nothing to do with a law, and it has nothing to do with establishing a state religion.) It simply shows that the 10 Commandments are part of this country's cultural and historical heritage. The far-leftists are just too insecure to admit such, far too eager to deny this heritage, and are the most intolerant bunch in the country.

[yendu bwam]

It's sort of a throwback to the early 60's, late 50's. When kids get out of line and teachers call parents, the parents nail the kids a second time when they get home.

I envy you!

[xzins]

(It doesn't involve the federal government, it has nothing to do with a law, and it has nothing to do with establishing a state religion.) It simply shows that the 10 Commandments are part of this country's cultural and historical heritage

You have exactly nailed the truth about this display. Not once has anyone suggested overthrowing the county government and establishing a "county church," much less a national church.

All they wanted to do was to show the development of law/government in western culture and particularly America.

[lockeliberty]

Many rural public schools are able to freely practice their rights to religious expression as long as they keep under the radar of the ACLU. Your district made a bold decision to post the 10 commandments which always brings the ACLU dogs out of the woodwork.

In the larger context, School Vouchers is the only viable means to insure freedom of religous expression. There are many fine Christian teachers in the public schools who are able to counter the secular religon endorsed by our federal government. However, true freedom of religous expression is untenable when our government endorses the Postmodern, irrational religon of a subjective moral code. The ACLU would have us believe that they are fighting to keep religon out of schools when in fact they are fighting to keep their religon as opposed to any other religon.

This is a fight about moral philosophy. It is my belief that we take on the ACLU from from an objective moral code as opposed to their subjective moral code. Hopefully the precedent of reason will prevail over irrationality.

[xzins]

The ACLU would have us believe that they are fighting to keep religon out of schools when in fact they are fighting to keep their religon as opposed to any other religon.

Excellent point. I'll pass it on.

[restornu]

The important part is to keep these Character builder Words alive, so it they find the Name Ten Commandments offensive than change the name, call their bluff. They want to separate Church and State.

The Lord wants us to be a civilized people, and the humanist want their way, and the believers know the history of where these Words come from and maybe will cherish them more.

Scriptures have a way of keeping the peace so introduce their concepts, like the Lord spoke parables as so not to content with the wicket.

Fins away to keep the thought alive

[restornu]

Its time to get the businesses of the community that have a religious nature to contribute to a plot of land in town where the Judeo-Christians can have their Holiday decorations so there is a joyful spirit in the air. Oh I pray we get back to those multi-color Lights, the white is so subdue.

You can’t do it on government property so is it not important to have a plot of land, for the special occasions . Well you get the idea !

[vmatt]

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN COURT:
Power And Its Abuse
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
----
Thursday, Mar. 14, 2002

Recently, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case testing whether state government could post the Ten Commandments. At the same time, a federal district court in Pennsylvania held that the government's display of the Commandments violates the Establishment Clause.

As I have noted in an earlier column, serious constitutional problems arise when the government displays the Ten Commandments. The typical defense is that they are the ground for much of our criminal law, and therefore constitute a legal and historical document - not a religious one. But this argument, upon examination, is so weak it ought to be rejected out of hand.

Indeed, the only real question the argument raises is why some courts have found its flawed logic persuasive. To that question, I will offer two possible answers.

Dividing the Ten Commandments In Two

The misguided argument that the Ten Commandments are merely legal and historical treats them as though they are an indissoluble whole. Of course, they are not.

To be sure, the principles expressed in the last six commandments--honor thy mother and father, don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, don't commit adultery, and don't lie--can be found in many laws in the United States. The first four commandments, though, contain directives that no government official in this land of religious liberty may say or endorse on behalf of the government.

Were the President to give a speech (which he, of course, would not) that reminded Americans to obey the first four commandments--there shall be only one God, there shall be no graven images, keep holy the Lord's day, and do not take the Lord's name in vain--there would be a huge uprising in opposition. Those are not messages this government may say, and thank God for that.

Similarly, when the government displays the Ten Commandments, the unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion is patently obvious. This is not a hard case, despite the divisions among the courts that have addressed the issue.

Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

So how does one explain the lower courts' inability to embrace the clear, simple, and obviously true proposition that the Ten Commandments are religious? The answer is that there are two forces at work in these cases that tend to muddy the constitutional waters.

First, the most reviled minority in America is characterized neither by race nor sex nor religion, but rather by a lack of religious belief. When nonbelievers challenge government-backed religious messages, they are typically treated with contempt and often face threats and harassment as well.

For example, in the Pennsylvania case, the female plaintiffs - atheists who brought the suit with the help of the ACLU - were threatened and harassed both before and after the court's decision validating their argument. In Texas, students challenging government-sponsored prayer at football games asked (and were granted the right) not to be named in the lawsuit so they could avoid harassment. Who are the actual and feared harassers? Believers, of course.

This is an unfortunate example of the intolerance of a majority whose members ought to know better. After all, if the believers were to be told by the government that they must stop believing in God tomorrow, they would heat up their lobbying machines and their members to a fever pitch. Their representatives in the state and federal legislatures would self-righteously decry the violation of the believers' rights. Believers know well how to defend, and defend strenuously, their rights to believe as they choose - as well they should.

But when a nonbeliever suggests that the government ought not endorse a religious message, the same believers tell the nonbeliever to "get over it," and move on to another issue. If the nonbeliever, too, must have his view, he should at least drop them, or keep them to himself, when they conflict with the believers' agenda. The believers' attitude is: Commitment and conviction for me, but not for thee. And you can be sure no member of Congress or a state legislature will defend the nonbeliever's rights.

As a believer, I find this all rather embarrassing. I find embarrassing and unfortunate, too, believers' efforts to lobby for government support for their beliefs - whether through the posting of the Ten Commandments or otherwise. Actions like these make all believers look bad.

The Ten Commandments Retain Their Strong Religious Connotation

The second argument that has muddied the waters for courts is the claim, recently repeated over and over, that the Ten Commandments can be displayed by the government, because they have lost their religious connotation. According to this argument, the Commandments are nothing but legal history.

Think about this. Government, pandering to religious voters, goes out on a limb, engaging in expensive and risky litigation, to defend the display of a document that is deeply religious for both Jews and Christians, on the theory that it is no longer truly religious. The very reason that the government is attempting to post the Commandments - because believers so fervently want them posted - belies the claim that the Commandments are not religious.

This is secularization as a cover for the drive to power, and it is too transparent to be believed. The next time a believer complains about "secularization," one might ask who has been pushing secularization the hardest, and for what purpose.

Those who bemoan the "loss" of the power of religion in public life should pause before attempting to drain a powerful, moving, sacred, and overwhelmingly significant religious document of its power by pretending it is not even religious in the first place. Sometimes ends do not justify the means, particularly when the means involve being disingenuous about the very institution one is purportedly defending.

When the Supreme Court finally addresses the Ten Commandments issue, which it very probably eventually will, one can only hope that the Justices take the straight path on this issue. They did so in an earlier, and equally easy decision, when they declared that school-sponsored football game prayers violate the Establishment Clause Because of this precedent, there is good reason to hope.

[maestro]

The U.N. and its Slave-states ABSOLUTELY HATE "Moses"!!!

[RonF]

"This seems to be a clear FREE SPEECH issue and NOT a church and state issue. This judge appears to be saying that this ancient law code is not permissible HISTORY."

Since when is government, as opposed to individuals and private enterprises, guaranteed free speech?