Court to hear arguments in challenge to Ten Commandments display

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Augusta Free Press

Court to hear arguments in challenge to Ten Commandments display
Posted by afp on Nov 25, 2011

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski will hear arguments on Monday, Nov. 28, in the ACLU of Virginia and Freedom from Religion Foundation’s challenge to the posting of the Ten Commandments at Narrows High School in Giles County.

The court will consider arguments in the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case and plaintiffs’ motion to proceed using pseudonyms.

The ACLU and FFRF argue that the use of pseudonyms protects the plaintiffs from the vitriol of community members who support the School Board’s decision to have the display.

“The community has already expressed considerable animus toward these plaintiffs,” said ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg. “If their identities are revealed, there is no doubt they will become the targets of much more direct harassment.”



Read more: http://augustafreepress.com/2011/11/25/court-to-hear-arguments-in-challenge-to-ten-commandments-display/

[pangaia]

1. “The community has already expressed considerable animus toward these plaintiffs"

Well, how Christian of them.

[russspeakeasy]

2. I'm saving all my animus for the baby in the cradle and the

guys in the robes display.

[Angry Dragon]

3. I say if they want to hang anything in the schools it should be

the Declaration of Independence and the complete US Constitution
Religion has no place in school except as a subject and then all religions need to be taught......

[castnet55]

4. Court to hear

This is always a contentious issue with so many people. I think that since these people feel it's important enough of an issue to sue then they ought to at least be made to have their names on the suit. There are many federal government building that have the Ten Commandments hung inside, they are a part of this nations history. Try as some might Our history is what it is. Many died coming here and living here to be able to express their faith.
Many will disagree with my thoughts and I can understand your points of view, I just don't support it.

[PSPS]

5. At least get your facts straight before your pizza arrives.

Why name the people and subject them to the whims of our domestic taliban?

Also, you say, "There are many federal government building that have the Ten Commandments hung inside." Please name one.

The ten commandments are no more "a part of this nation's history" than Spongebob. If we start hanging the ten commandments to mollify the christian fanatics, shall we also begin installing portraits of Spongebob everywhere now to mollify the Spongebob fanatics?

You also say, "Many died coming here and living here to be able to express their faith." I think it might be more accurate to say that is was really to be able to escape having "to express any faith" at all.

Finally, you say, "Many will disagree with my thoughts and I can understand your points of view, I just don't support it." That's fine, but you have no right to make the taxpayer support your point of view by exhibiting a symbol of your superstition.

[castnet55]

6. My Facts

Oh let's look in the Supreme Court for starters my friend and yes sponge bob is apart of our history too and if you want to hang ol sponge bob I don't care at all it's up to you your next point is a matter of opinion and I won't argue that since you as I have a right to it. Now as far as having taxpayers pay for hanging the ten commandments well why not the government waste much more money doing other things like planting grass and flowers at office buildings all the time and I'm sure that that cost much more than hanging a picture.
And lastly the people in the community have aright to know who is actually doing the suing. I use the example of the supreme courts decision of the names on a petition to have gay marriage law to be used for an election. The people simply have a right to know these things

[GeorgeGist]

7. Your net needs tending.

It's full of holes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. The US Constitution doesn't forbid "planting grass and flowers" so your analogy is full of suckage.

Yes, The Ten Commandments are displayed with Moses on the Supreme Court - along with Confucius and Solon as examples of "law givers" - not as a religious doctrine. If a school, say in a a law class room, wants to post them ALL in context, I'm sure MOST thinking people won't have a problem with it (I exempt freepers and Fox viewers from that "Most People" because they would have a cow if Bill O'Lielly and friends ever pointed out who else is on display).

Lastly, your inane comparison between a PETITION, which, like voter registration, HAS to be open to scrutiny by the public at large for several reasons; most importantly VERIFICATION..... and a civil suit before the court is, well, fucking stupid. All sorts of information is kept, at the Judge's discretion, from public view. Keeping the plaintiff's name from view has no bearing on the facts and law as they are laid before the court.

Fox Viewers: opinions a mile wide and a half inch deep.

[No Elephants]

20. The ten commandments are not on display in the Supreme Court.

[snooper2]

33. Reading the ten commandments every day in school

Sure as hell won't help you learn what a run-on sentence is :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SteveG]

34. The words of the ten commandments do not appear in

the supreme court building. There is an image of Moses holding tablets with the number I through X, but a letter from the artist on file with the national archives states that those numerals do not stand for the ten commandments but the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

[hughee99]

8. Wasn't there a case recently where petition signers wanted their names blocked?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5068271

I believe they were called "chickenshits" for not wanting their names exposed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. Yeah, well, anyone with a functioning brain cell can tell the difference...

.... between a PETITION, which, like voter registrations, needs to be, by its very nature, open to SCRUTINY by the general public and/or the "other side"...... and a civil court case where, often times, information is kept from open public scrutiny at the court's discretion.


Let's walk you through this because, bless your heart, you sound like you need a little help.

Let's say I turn in a million "signatures" for my petition making it a criminal offense for freeper douche-bags to post on DU. Dontcha think the freeper douche-bags and other interested parties MIGHT want to verify those signatures?????


Now let's say I have a civil suit before the court. What compelling interest does the public at large have to ABSOLUTELY know the names of the plaintiffs? Now keep in mind, before you answer, we elect and/or appoint "judges" who do things like "judging" who is before them and who has standing and whether or not the law and facts laid before the court have merit.

[hughee99]

11. I was not aware the the government left the verification of names

on petitions to any group who wanted to do the checking themselves. See, I was under the impression that it was someone in the government's job to verify this information. If they can verify the signatures, why would the names need to be made available to anyone else?

In the case of the petition, no DUer was suggesting that the reason the names needed to be public so we could verify them, they wanted to put names to faces (or businesses) for anyone who would sign this.

I'm all for making the names public in both cases. I guess for some, how acceptable retaliation is depends on who's ox is being gored.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. They do when questions arise and the petitions end up in court.

And I call bullshit on your second statement "no DUer was suggesting".... because DUers were all up and down those threads spelling out the reasoning for open records regarding law-making versus voter privacy at the ballot box.

Furthermore, if you can't tell the difference between suing your government to protect constitutionally enshrined rights and a petition attempting to codify, BY LAW, bigotry of an oppressed minority, I can't help you. Fox News has you convinced all ideas and arguments, no matter how intellectually stunted, are the same. Gored Ox indeed.

[hughee99]

13. So you're saying they want to know the names on the petition so they can verify the

names and NOT for any sort of retaliation efforts?

And on the thread I posted, no one seemed to be defending their rights to be anonymous, if there were people "all up and down" how about some examples?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. That's apparently what the right-wing dick-heads on the Supreme Court found. Imagine that.

[hughee99]

15. No DUers were cheering the decision because

it gave someone the opportunity for someone to verify the names on a two year old failed petition.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. You poor thing.

[hughee99]

17. Thank you for your condesension

and I appreciate your attempts to justify the hypocrisy. It always makes for entertainment.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. Cries of "hypocrisy" are the last bastion of the small mind .....

... that can't grasp a (not so) complicated concept.

[hughee99]

19. Actually, I believe it's personal attacks

that are the last bastion of the indefensible argument. That's why the repukes use them so often.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. You don't have an argument except for ....

....the idiotic reasoning that disclosure regarding state petitions for ballot initiatives should be treated exactly like federal civil court procedures. Two completely different animals.

If you have an argument beyond "whaaaaaaaaaa hypocrisy", I would love to hear it. You have had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate how state ballot petition initiative disclosure should even be mentioned in the same breath as a federal civil trial.

[hughee99]

25. Both are attempts to change the existing law.

Whether via the ballot initiative, or through the courts, both are attempting to make something legal (or illegal) that is currently the opposite (or at least currently legally accepted as the opposite). When what is current accepted as law is to be changed, people should know WHY it's being changed (in any case) and should either be allowed to know WHO wants it changed in BOTH cases, or in neither case. Exposing the names of those who want the law changed may result in retribution in EITHER case, why should they not be treated the same?

While the process may be different in both cases, the INTENT of the initiating party is the same in both cases (to change the current law). Why should they be treated differently?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Why and who doesn't matter one bit once "standing" is determined by the "court."

Especially where Constitutional matters are concerned.

The courts aren't "making" anything legal/illegal. You have a pretty warped up view of the court system(s).

[hughee99]

28. Currently, it seems to be legally accepted

that it's okay to put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse (ask the supreme court, they have one there). The case, if successful, would change this. You can call it whatever you like (a clarification or re-interpretation), but it will change something from legally acceptable, to NOT legally acceptable. And by your logic, once a ballot petition appears on the ballot, what does it matter WHO specifically signed it, so long as the names were checked by the proper government authorities? The question went to the people who voted it up or down.

While I'm only looking for some consistency on this issue, it seems to me in a case that is decided by a judge or group of judges, it's more important to know who specifically is bring the case because of the potential for conflict of interests within the court (see Clarence Thomas, for example).

[No Elephants]

30. The ten commandments are not on display in front of the Supreme Court.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. They are if you watch a lot of Fox News and/or believe right-wing radio... LOL

What a bizarre discussion this has been.

The argument has basically been - nuh, huh, the other side does. It's not fair!!!

I have to keep checking to see if I wandered on to the comments section of a news article (I gave up THAT habit years ago. Wrestling with pigs and all that).

[hughee99]

36. I hate to post from such a site, but they do have pictures

There are several architectural displays in the USSC building depicting the 10 commandments and Moses. I'm not suggesting I agree with the arguments on the page (I don't), but I am willing to accept that these aren't photoshopped or from some other building.

http://morallaw.org/blog/2006/08/the-ten-commandments-in-the-supreme-court-building/

[No Elephants]

21. It's not about oxen. It's about comparing apples and oranges.

[boppers]

24. "they are a part of this nations history"? LOLOLOLOL....

Uh, no. The Ten Commandments were a Sumerian code of ethics folded into mythic Jewish folklore.

It's hard to get much more divorced from the enlightenment founders of our country, many of whom thought that prayer and miracles (and other religious trappings) was a bunch of hokum.

"Many died coming here and living here to be able to express their faith." Wow, that's some "pilgrim story" bullshit. No, that's pretty much not true, in the slightest, even if the religiously-minded want to keep repeating the story. There was a pretty large migration of folks *fleeing* religion, and fleeing the oppression that comes with state religion, which is why we don't have an official national state faith.

[NYC Liberal]

27. The pilgrims fled in order to do the persecuting themselves.

They didn't want religious freedom. They were just as oppressive as the people from whom they fled; it's just that they wanted to be the ones in charge, with their religion being the official one.

[boppers]

29. ...and the Pilgrims weren't the founders.

That came many years later.

[Frank Cannon]

31. Only one state in our nation was founded on the ideals of religious freedom...

and tolerance. Its founders had been persecuted by religious fanatics in Massachusetts.

The state is also the smallest in the country.

[No Elephants]

22. The Court declined to hear a case about the commandments on display in a courthouse.

Trying to discern why the Court refused to hear a case easily can lead to wrong conclusons.

However, I do hope taking this case does not mean the RW Justices think displaying the 10 Commandments is acceptable in a public school, but not in a courthouse.

[Nye Bevan]

35. If people are allowed to sue anonymously out of fear of getting mean looks in the supermarket

then many more lawsuits will be anonymous going forward. After all, lawsuits tend to upset people.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Are you suggesting scorn should be used to deny citizens access to justice?