A man from Tennessee filed a lawsuit recently against Johnson County commissioners saying that a three-foot by three-foot plaque of the Ten Commandments displayed in the public forum of the courthouse lobby is illegal.

Ralph Stewart filed his case after his own display was rejected, Canadian Press said.

Stewart said in his complaint that the Ten Commandments plaque (which has been on display in the courthouse for many years), is an illegal government endorsement of Christianity, the AP reported.

The Ten Commandments is posted in a “public forum” area of the courthouse as part of American law history. Along with the Ten Commandments are displays of quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution, the AP said.

There is also a pamphlet entitled, the “Johnson County Historical Display” featuring essays from local preachers and saying, “the United States of America was founded on Christian principles,” according to the AP.

However, Stewart wanted his own display to hang in the public forum area as well, Canadian Press reported. One of Stewart’s posters says, “The Ten Commandments Are Not the Foundation of American Law.”

The other poster says, “The primary source of American law is the common and statuary law of England, NOT the Bible and NOT Christianity,” and “America’s seminal documents do not even mention the Bible, Christianity or the Ten Commandments,” the AP said.

Only viewpoint differs

Stewart’s posters also have quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers and the U.S. Constitution, according to the AP. However, his proposed displays were rejected last June, the lawsuit said, because, “Mr. Stewart’s display covers the same subject matter—and quotes from many of the same sources—as does the Second Ten Commandments display. The only material difference is the viewpoint expressed,” the AP reported.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State in the U.S. District Court in Greenville filed Stewart’s case, according to Canadian Press.

 Original display

According to Stewart’s suit, originally only the Ten Commandments plaque was displayed with the words, “The Historical Foundation of American Law, Moral Values, and Code of Conduct,” from 1999 to 2008, the AP said.

In August 2008 Stewart sent a letter of complaint about the plaque through his attorney, the AUSCS. In response, then County Mayor Dick Grayson contacted the Alliance Defense Fund, according to the AP.

The ADF told Grayson the Ten Commandments could be displayed if it is part of a larger public forum that celebrates the history of American law. As a result, the public forum was set up with quotes from the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and quotes from the founding fathers, according to the AP.

In his lawsuit, Stewart is seeking a permanent injunction ordering that his posters are displayed in “a location as prominent as the location of the Second Ten Commandments display.”

As an alternative, Stewart requested that the public forum be completely removed, including the Ten Commandments, according to his complaint.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

U.S. Constitution, page 1

ACLU attorneys in Florida have been naughty. They’ve been endlessly pursuing the defendants in a Santa Rosa School District freedom of speech case without having any plaintiffs to represent.

This is a fact the courts should have been made aware of – because it would make the ACLU’s position moot and could have changed the outcome of the case.

But I’m still waiting for the ACLU to have their hand slapped.

The Santa Rosa School District had entered into a “Consent Decree” that demanded an end to the freedom of speech for Christian students and teachers. This resulted after the ACLU had approached the School District on behalf of two atheist students who alleged that Christian teachers were forcefully witnessing during class time and within class lessons. “Evidence” of this was subjective and sorely lacking.

The atheists further demanded that the Christian school personnel should not even be able to pray at off-campus, privately sponsored events. More information about the initial case can be seen in previous Underground articles here and here .

School personnel were forced to sign the Consent Decree to cease and desist any Christian free speech on school grounds, and the case could have ended there.

But soon, two school administrators found themselves facing a lawsuit for praying at an off-campus privately sponsored event. They were criminally charged for being “in violation” of the decree.

A school district employee who asked her husband to pray at an event, because she wasn’t allowed, was still included in the suit because – after all – he was her husband.

All were eventually cleared of those initial  charges.

However, as time went by, it turned out the unlawful ordinance was still being enforced – because it’s so worded that the ACLU and the School District are constantly trying to find charges against Christian teachers, other school personnel, students, volunteers and even outside associates for not following demands like these:

• The school board could dictate to local pastors how to seat their audiences for private religious services held at their houses of worship, if the events involve school faculty or students.
• Students could no longer say “God Bless” in any situation – they were told to say “Good Luck.”
• School personnel could not be seen praying, even to themselves – anywhere in public.
• Teachers could not answer parents’ e-mails if anything about God was in the parents’ text; nor could parents and teachers conduct God-led conversations.
• School volunteers could not answer any questions regarding religion.
• Christian groups weren’t allowed to rent school facilities for private religious functions if it involves benefiting the students in any way.
  

A snag in the case for the ACLU:
By this point in time, the ACLU had no clients! The atheist students had graduated, and therefore no longer had legal standing as plaintiffs the last time the case was in court. Without clients, by law, the ACLU should have been barred from continuing litigation. But the ACLU never informed court officials.

Thankfully, Liberty Counsel (legal firm for the defendants) found out about this and brought it to the attention of the District Court. In March, 2010 the Court began demanding an explanation from the ACLU about why they continued to pursue the enforcement of the Decree.

Furthermore, the defendants now have a case against the Santa Rosa School District for the illegalities in the Consent Decree and violations against the students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel states on the law firm’s latest press release that the constitutional violations in the ACLU’s court order have been outrageous; that it directly conflicts with previous United States Supreme Court opinions, and that schools are not religious-free zones.

An injunction against the further persistence and enforcement of the Consent Decree has now been requested.

As these types of things happen more and more around the country, we as Christians can stand firm and pray. While peacefully exerting the avenues we have to petition the government with our grievances (another First Amendment right), we can know that God is with us.

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Luke 12:11-12, NIV).

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

The Texas State Board of Education approved recently a new social studies curriculum that has angered leftists and liberals.

The new standards came into consideration after the board appointed a panel of experts last year to make recommendations.  The 15-member board voted 9-5 in favor of the new standards for textbooks and teaching history, economics and other civics classes that will take effect in August 2011.

The new curriculum will teach free market principles, explain how government taxation and regulation can restrict private enterprise, emphasize the achievements of Republican leaders such as President Ronald Reagan, and lend more focus on the biblical and Christian traditions of the country’s founding fathers, among others.

Other changes:  The U.S. government will be called a “Constitutional Republic” rather than a “Democratic society.”  There will also be a “Celebrate Freedom Week” where Texas students learn the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Critics charge that the standards are a blatant attempt to insert an ideological and political agenda into Texas classrooms.  Among the readers’ comments to the article posted on ABC News, one person compared the board members to the Taliban “by imposing their distorted beliefs on the majority.”

However in Nightline’s Daily line, another reader’s comment said, “At last a state that has the guts to teach their children the true history of this country.  Way to go, Texas!”

The curriculum has earned controversy because Texas has 4.7 million public school students.  As a result, textbook publishers often tailor their curriculum according that of the Lone Star state.

Board member Don McLeroy said, “It’s imperative that our children be taught the original direction of our country.  All we’re doing is …completing the story. We’re restoring the balance,” he said.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Mississippi has become the most recent state to join 13 others in pursuing a “Personhood Amendment.”

A press release by Personhood Mississippi states they already have enough votes to put their measure on the 2011 election ballot as an Amendment to the Mississippi Constitution.

Fetal sonogram

What is a Personhood Amendment?
“Personhood” amendments are pro-life measures being proposed at state-level legislatures.

The goal is to recognize, within the states’ constitutions, that every unborn child has the same inherent rights, dignity and value as every living human from the beginning of their biological development.

Another aspect being pursued in some states is to assure dignity and human rights to every physically or mentally disabled or elderly person; to prevent the notion of involuntary euthanasia.

The “Personhood Movement” is an official nationwide pro-life movement.This  website clarifies that Personhood Amendments can also be called Human Life Amendments.

A list of participating states and where they are at in the process can be seen here at Personhood.Net – a subsidiary of the Georgia Right to Life Committee. Georgia was the first state with such a proposal in 2007. It hasn’t resulted in being placed on a voters’ ballot.

Joining those states that have already constructed or proposed Personhood Amendments between 2007 and April 2010, approximately 26 other state legislatures are taking action to draft similar wording.

Additionally, Personhood.Net carries information regarding ongoing attempts to get enough petition signatures to file a Federal Personhood Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In September 2009, The Underground reported on Florida’s “Personhood Amendment” movement .

Update: The Florida movement continues to press forward. The proposed Personhood Amendment, if enough votes are collected, would be placed on the next Florida election ballot for citizens’ votes.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

In mid-January, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lost another case against 10 Commandment monuments on public display.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant in ACLU v. Grayson County, Kentucky.

This public display of the Ten Commandments among other documents in a Leitchfield, Ky. courthouse was the subject of one of the ACLU’s  many lawsuits against Bible-based items in public venues.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit governs Kentucky, Ohio, Tenn.  and Michigan. The Court, in this case, ruled that the presence of the Ten Commandments did not violate separation of church and state.

In 2002, a federal judge ruled against the display but the county did not give up the fight, as the display is identical to those in previous cases where the ACLU was ruled down.

The ACLU hasn’t prevailed in a Court of Appeals case against the Ten Commandments since 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, the ACLU has lost their lawsuits against Ten Commandment displays in the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Courts of Appeals.

Attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel represented Grayson County. In an open Press Release, Staver said, “The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape the law. It defies common sense to remove a recognized symbol of law from a court of law.”

“I am sure the ACLU will not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case. The ACLU has been running from the Supreme Court since 2005 and has taken loss after loss on the Ten Commandments.”

Liberty Counsel’s “Defend the Ten” Web site explains: “Public acknowledgment of religion is not establishment of religion.”

The Leitchfield display is identical to others in two 2005 ACLU lawsuits, where the Ten Commandments also won the right to stay on display amid other historic documents of the United States such as the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact.

At U.S. Supreme Court level, the Court does sometimes rule against the Ten Commandments when the display seems purely of ‘religious intent,’ but often finds in favor of the Ten Commandments as part of America’s foundation when amid other documents.

For example, the Supreme Court reviewed a lower court’s decision in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County, Kentucky. Whereas the lower court ruled for the ACLU, the Supreme Court found the following:

-The Constitution Does Not Prohibit the Inclusion of the Ten Commandments in Historical Displays on Government Property (p. 17).
-The complaints were facially inadequate because no plaintiff specifically claimed to have visited either courthouse, let alone to have actually seen the displays (p. 15).
-Plaintiffs here have failed to allege a “concrete” or “actual” injury (p. 14).
-The Ten Commandments appeared inconspicuously among a series of other historical documents… Defendants offered a legitimate secular purpose for the displays (pg 12).

The Supreme Court found similarly in the Texas case of Van Orden v. Perry. They upheld a Ten Commandments monument surrounded by other historical documents; although this was just a preliminary injunction to prevent removal of the monument.

Be Sociable, Share!

•