Attorney argues suit over monument should be dismissed
Attorneys representing a Westmoreland County school district — sued like Connellsville Area School District over a Ten Commandments monument on school grounds — argued in court papers that the monument is not a religious endorsement, and should stay where it is.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), on behalf of five Does, sued the New Kensington-Arnold School District and the Connellsville Area district separately in September, alleging that the Doe residents of each district felt Ten Commandment monuments displayed at their respective schools amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Both districts have displays of the monument that was donated by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles.
Attorney Anthony Sanchez, who represents both districts, filed a motion in federal court to dismiss the suit against the New Kensington-Arnold district. Because the Connellsville suit was filed at a later date, a motion to dismiss has not yet been filed in that case.
“The complaint contains not one allegation of an official or policymaker of the district doing anything in modern times to highlight or celebrate the monument’s existence. There are no allegations that evidence a school district official or policymaker advancing a religious faith, attempting to suppress a nonreligious belief, coercing a student or the public, or endorsing any particular religion,” Sanchez wrote.
He argued that a U.S. Supreme Court case supports the district keeping the monument outside of the district’s high school.
The brief cited a 2005 case where a man sued in Texas, asking that a similar Ten Commandments monument outside the Capitol violated his constitutional rights.
The court found that because the monument was within a group of other monuments and historical markers, it did not violate the establishment clause.
That clause, cited in the suits brought against both school districts, essentially hold that government can’t mandate religion or show preference to one religion over another.
The court found that while religious beliefs cannot be forced onto anyone, religious traditions do have a place in history.
“VanOrden clearly stands for the proposition that a longstanding display of an Eagles’ Ten Commandment monument on government property does not violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment,” Sanchez wrote.
He also noted that the monument in Westmoreland County stood for nearly 50 years, and the one in Texas was there for 40 years before anyone complained.
The Supreme Court felt that the length of time it took to have it challenged led credence to the belief that most people did not view the monument as forced religion, Sanchez wrote.
The suit also claimed that the monument coerces people to believe in a specific religion. Sanchez disagreed sharply.
“Simply put, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to support that the Eagles’ Ten Commandments monument compels them to participate in religion or its exercise,” Sanchez wrote.
“The facts that have been alleged are threadbare recitals and conclusory statements of the coercion test, which are insufficient to state a cause of action.”
Sanchez went on to argue that the court has to consider why the Eagles presented the monuments across the country.
“It was the Eagles’ belief that disseminating the message conveyed by the Ten Commandments would help to persuade young men and women to observe civilized standards of behavior, and would lead to more productive lives. It is clear that the district’s decision to display the Eagles’ Ten Commandments monument was not motivated by a purpose to advance religion, but rather by the shared purpose of inspiring youth, curbing juvenile delinquency, and otherwise advancing the monument’s history,” he wrote.