School puts up Ten Commandments display. Student complains, prompts ACLU to file lawsuit. The school - Polidicks

[quote]A judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a display of the Ten Commandments in a Giles County school Monday, setting the stage for a long legal battle. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski said there are too many unknown facts about the case to immediately throw it out for legal reasons. "Facts matter, so how can I grant a motion to dismiss?" the judge said. "You can't just apply a one-size-fits-all because the facts are very different" in prior court cases involving the Ten Commandments in public buildings. The ruling is a setback for the Giles County School Board, which had sought a quick end to a lawsuit filed in September over a display of the Ten Commandments in Narrows High School. An unnamed student at the school contends the school board's vote to allow the framed document on a hallway wall amounts to a governmental endorsement of religion that is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Urbanski delayed ruling on a second issue -- whether the student and a parent who joined in the lawsuit can remain anonymous -- while lawyers try to work out an agreement. The case has stirred such acrimony in rural Giles County that identifying the student would subject him or her to harassment or worse, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit. But keeping the names secret runs counter to the fundamental principle of open courts, an attorney for the school board said. "You can't simply defend a case in the dark," said Mathew Staver of the Christian-based Liberty Counsel. "You can't shadow box when you don't know who's punching." Staver objected to a protective order suggested by the ACLU that would allow the plaintiffs to keep their current pseudonyms of Doe 1 and Doe 2 and allow them to avoid a court appearance by testifying through deposition. Although the school board's legal team would know the plaintiffs' identity, the ACLU wants a protective order that would bar them from sharing that information with the board. "Don't you think that might be appropriate when you have the chairman of the board of supervisors calling these people anonymous cowards?" Urbanski asked Staver at one point during two hours of oral arguments in which he peppered both sides with questions. "That didn't just come from a man on the street, that came from a public official." The judge was referring to a comment made by supervisors Chairman Eric Gentry during a school board public hearing, that Giles County "won't let an anonymous coward tell us how to run our business." In seeking the protective order, ACLU lawyer Rebecca Glenberg cited a number of other comments made either during public hearings or in heated emails to her organization and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which also represents the plaintiffs. "Keep up the good work, you'll have a special place in Hell," one person wrote. Said another: "Sure sounds like non-Christians ought to move out of Giles County before things get ugly over there." Although Urbanski gave attorneys 14 days to work out the details of a protective order, he made it clear that he favors some kind of safeguard for the plaintiffs. "I am here to tell you that this court will tolerate no harassment, no efforts to interfere with the rights of these individuals to raise these constitutional issues," the judge said. In denying Liberty Counsel's request to dismiss the lawsuit, Urbanski set in motion a discovery process in which lawyers will discern more details about the display and the history behind it. A key area of inquiry will be whether religious intentions were the basis of the school board's vote to allow a private citizen to put the Ten Commandments in Narrows High School along with nine historical documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. The school board's lawyers argue that, taken as a whole, the display is more of an open forum on American law and government than it is an endorsement of religion by the board. But in previous cases, courts have relied heavily on the history of a governing board's decision to allow the Ten Commandments to be placed in a public building. After the display was taken down in December following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, school officials put it back up, took it down, and then went with the current multidocument display. According to the ACLU, the school board's final vote to allow the Ten Commandments was in direct response to community outrage and thus was motivated by religion. With details about the student still a secret Monday, Urbanski voiced concerns that he or she could graduate before the case goes to trial and lose standing to bring the lawsuit. For that reason, the judge asked that a trial date be scheduled before June 1 of next year.[/quote] [url]http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/301716[/url]

Do what every student does when they see something they don't like, Tear it down

fuck them.

The kid should get the hell over it. I understand that it's "unconstitutional" but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards other religions or anything. Is there any need for a [I]lawsuit?[/I] [editline].[/editline] Wow I just realized how dumb that sounded

[QUOTE=153x;33561339]The kid should get the hell over it. I understand that it's "unconstitutional" but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards other religions or anything. Is there any need for a [I]lawsuit?[/I][/QUOTE] "Sure it's unconstitutional, but I'm not personally offended by it so I'm unable to empathize with those of differing opinion."

I see stupid on both sides. Especially with the irony in calling the student an "anonymous coward", as if intimidating him/her would make that student come out of anonymity. So very stupid.

[QUOTE=153x;33561339]The kid should get the hell over it. I understand that it's "unconstitutional" but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards other religions or anything. Is there any need for a [I]lawsuit?[/I][/QUOTE] i understand that it's "illegal" but god why is he being such a little bitch about it lmao [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] i bet you'd be singing a different tune if they posted the islamic equivalent of the 10 commandments at the school

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33561352]i understand that it's "illegal" but god why is he being such a little bitch about it lmao [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] i bet you'd be singing a different tune if they posted the islamic equivalent of the 10 commandments at the school[/QUOTE] Because he lives in the bible belt, and saying anything against god there is like tying your own nous. You would not believe how adamant people are in the bible belt when it comes to ostracizing someone who "disgraces" their religion.

We actually just talked about a very similiar situation about another school displaying the 10 commandments in our Current Events class. I think they tried to get away with it by putting up other 'important documents' and claiming them part of 'our nations culture' (included other documents like the Constitution etc) You can very easily get past any lawsuit by simply displaying other religious texts (or none), having and representing only one religion, it seems like this should be a pretty simple case.

He's remaining anonymous because he knows what would happen if he came forward (favoritism, personal attacks, blind eyes).

[quote] "won't let an anonymous coward tell us how to run our business."[/quote] I'm pretty sure that 'public school' isn't really a business. [quote]The school board's lawyers argue that, taken as a whole, the display is more of an open forum on American law and government than it is an endorsement of religion by the board.[/quote] Except that the 10 commandments aren't part of American law. [QUOTE=153x;33561339]The kid should get the hell over it. I understand that it's "unconstitutional" but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards other religions or anything. Is there any need for a [I]lawsuit?[/I][/QUOTE] "That girl needs to get the hell over it. I understand that it's rude to put up a giant poster in the hallways saying "Be a man, be strong and smart", but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards women or anything."

My school had a shrine to President Obama after his election (It's since been turned into a history shrine, although Obama's "hope" poster is still the centerpiece), and we also currently have one about gay pride. I don't really mind the latter, but the former had me rather upset, since it was promoting a certain political party and ideology over another. Having been in a similar situation as the kid in this article, I suppose I can see where he's coming from, although calling the ACLU instead of politely contacting the principle is where I digress.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33561484]My school had a shrine to President Obama after his election (It's since been turned into a history shrine, although Obama's "hope" poster is still the centerpiece), and we also currently have one about gay pride. I don't really mind the latter, but the former had me rather upset, since it was promoting a certain political party and ideology over another. Having been in a similar situation as the kid in this article, I suppose I can see where he's coming from, although calling the ACLU instead of politely contacting the principle is where I digress.[/QUOTE] Yeah but if he would have contacted the principle, what asteroidrules said would have probably happen: [QUOTE=asteroidrules;33561463]He's remaining anonymous because he knows what would happen if he came forward (favoritism, personal attacks, blind eyes).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;33561409]Because he lives in the bible belt, and saying anything against god there is like tying your own nous. You would not believe how adamant people are in the bible belt when it comes to ostracizing someone who "disgraces" their religion.[/QUOTE] I live in north Arkansas, an extremely religious area. You can't drive for 5 minutes anywhere without seeing 3 or 4 Church of Christs. Having lived here for 8 years of my life, I've never been one to announce my lack of faith openly, but there are instances when I had to admit I was Atheist, and it was terrible.

I'd consider the 10 commandments a historical document that would be fine to put on display in a learning environment but thats just my two cents

[QUOTE=Face Melter;33561584]I'd consider the 10 commandments a historical document worth putting on display in a learning environment but thats just my two cents[/QUOTE] If it was in a classroom dealing with history, not in the hallway it would be fine imo. Actually, its not really that bad, just if they allow 1 thing to go, then someone can put up something else that goes against people, and the defense can use this case of saying "Well they were allowed this up, we should be allowed this up."

[QUOTE=Face Melter;33561584]I'd consider the 10 commandments a historical document worth putting on display in a learning environment but thats just my two cents[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, for a [I]learning environment[/I] it's fine. Putting it next to other religious things or as part of a display of things from old countries / empires where Christianity was the official religion makes sense. Putting it next to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and saying "THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY AS THESE OTHER TWO, DESPITE ONE OF THEM BLATANTLY SAYING IT ISN'T" does [I]not[/I] make sense.

Personally I don't see something like this worth complaining about and possibly ruining my school years over. I'm not saying the kid is wrong. I'm just saying that it probably wasn't the smartest thing he could have done.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33562644]Personally I don't see something like this worth complaining about and possibly ruining my school years over. I'm not saying the kid is wrong. I'm just saying that it probably wasn't the smartest thing he could have done.[/QUOTE] Making sure the government upholds the constitution seems like it's always a smart thing to do

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33562664]Making sure the government upholds the constitution seems like it's always a smart thing to do[/QUOTE] It is yeah I agree but at some point you have to consider if it's worth the risk to yourself

It won't ruin his/her school years if s/he remains anonymous

Somehow this sounds exactly like something I would expect from my area.

the way they framed it seems like idolatry god smite them smite them now

I hope god wins and crushes down the kid!!

[QUOTE=153x;33561339]The kid should get the hell over it. I understand that it's "unconstitutional" but it's not an offensive motion by the school towards other religions or anything. Is there any need for a [I]lawsuit?[/I] [editline].[/editline] Wow I just realized how dumb that sounded[/QUOTE] I hate to bring this up already, but what if someone put up a display with a Swastika, and a picture of Hitler in it, saying Nazism is great? It's only a personal belief held by the creator, and people who may be offended could just ignore it, right? Religion, as well as extreme political views alienate people, and that's not the point of any government institution. By supporting any single religious view, you're effectively making outsiders of those who don't agree with that viewpoint.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33562727]god smite them smite them now[/QUOTE] Why are you talking to yourself again?

[quote]"Keep up the good work, you'll have a special place in Hell," one person wrote. Said another: "Sure sounds like non-Christians ought to move out of Giles County before things get ugly over there."[/quote] "If you don't like our unconstitutional behavior and don't hold the same opinions as a lot of us then you ought to move out of town!"

He gets a special place in hell, a place filled with hot demon chicks and parties. And satan smoking weed. After all it's ok to do it in hell. And gays and other cool and smart people.

I love how forceful they are with their opinions. Harassing students because you did something blindly one sided, unconstitutional and against his basic human rights is cowardly and technically sinning yourself into hell (Wrath, pride, etc). You're [B]NOT[/B] supposed to judge people like that, in a believer perceptive, it'd only make sense that you don't judge because 'god has the ultimate judgement over all', you're not the one to judge people, god is, basically. So to throw your own religion down as fact and force it upon people is insanely hypocritical and makes me doubt you truly believe in god, because if you really did, you wouldn't be such a magnificent cunt. A true believer in 'God' would be loving, not because he has to, because it's the right thing to do. But he'd also be unforgiving and harsh against people that are forceful and over-proud, smugly so.

Fundamentalists follow Christianity about as well as US senators follow the US constitution.