Plaintiffs in Ten Commandments suit argue for monument’s removal
The attorney representing the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit seeking the removal of a religious display in front of a public school wants the judge to rule in their favor, arguing the school district is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
“When the Ten Commandments monument at the heart of this dispute was placed prominently on the grounds of what was then a senior high school (in 1957), the Connellsville Area School District was statutorily obligated to begin each school day with readings from the Bible,” wrote Marcus B. Schneider, attorney for Jane Does 4 and 5 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
“While many in the Connellsville community longingly view this monolith as a beacon of the bygone era of school prayer,” he went on, “the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence defines it as an unconstitutional vestige from that time.”
Schneider contended the court need not enter into a lengthy examination of the history of Establishment Clause litigation to determine whether this case should end in favor of the plaintiffs; rather, the examination could be limited to a factual comparison with a 2011 case in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dealing with a similar question of religious endorsement by a public school board.
In that case, he wrote, the Third Circuit reviewed the Indian River School Board’s practice of praying at school board meetings, which were attended by students. The practice began in 1969 and continued without any formal written policy regulating the practice for 35 years, he wrote.
“In determining that the history of the practice revealed that it violated the Establishment Clause, the court focused on the actions and comments of the school board and community in response,” wrote Schneider.
“The court noted the presence of religious leaders — and their faith-based supporting comments — at board meetings; the presence of more than 100 people who saw the complaints as a ‘move to stifle [the community’s] religious freedom and to degrade the moral fiber of the community;’ and the discussion by board members at a special meeting regarding the fact that ‘their constituents did not want the board to change its practice of opening the meetings with a prayer,'” he wrote.
Similarly, Schneider argued, in Connellsville, “the district’s purpose for continuing to display this striking religious symbol is tainted by the religious viewpoint of the Connellsville community and the monument’s original donors, the Eagles.”
“During the dedication ceremony, community leaders and Eagles representatives alike praised the value that the word of God would have upon the Connellsville students,” he wrote.
“When plaintiffs recently demanded that the monument be removed, the district initially intended to comply, stating that it could not overcome compelling case law,” wrote Schneider, drawing on comments to the media by District Superintendent Dan Lujetic who, on Sept. 7, 2012, said the district would not fight litigation it would not win, and the following day, after a school board meeting heavily attended by the public, said the district would “continue to fight this battle the best we can.”
Schneider noted the Connellsville community “reacted quickly and passionately, demanding that the monument’s religious message be preserved” by attending school board meetings, holding a vigil, removing covers from the monument, and establishing a committee for the preservation of the monument, spearheaded by a local pastor.
“Ultimately, the district deferred to the majority of the Connellsville community and elected to keep the monument,” Schneider wrote. “In doing so, the district trampled the rights of the community’s minority and entangled itself in the endorsement of religion.”