School District’s Ten Commandments Monument Stirs Controversy

NEW KENSINGTON (KDKA) — Officials with the Valley School District in New Kensington are bracing for a legal battle with an atheist group that’s threatening a lawsuit if a Ten Commandments monument is not removed from school property.

For years the monument has been a fixture outside of Valley High School without any complaints or controversy.

But now, the district is coming under fire to remove it or face a possible lawsuit.

The Valley School District recently received a letter from the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation claiming the Ten Commandments monument violates the principles of separation of church and state by being on high school property.

“The one thing that’s very, very important that people realize is that there is no way that our school district is trying to promote or impose religion on our students,” said Dr. George Batterson, the Valley School District Superintendent.

“I don’t see what the problem is with the Ten Commandments being there,” added Jacob Knapp, a student. “It’s not like the school is forcing us to read them or follow them and it was a gift to the school district when it was built.”

The foundation says the monument was brought to its attention by a student who does not attend Valley High School.

Dr. Batterson says it was a gift many years ago from a community organization and it’s not going anywhere.

“This is just a monument that was donated by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles way back in 1957 and we see this having more historical significance than religious,” said Dr. Batterson.

A spokesman for the Freedom from Religion Foundation says his group has a lawsuit against a school district in Virginia that has a similar monument. The next step is up to the foundation now that the district is standing firm on plans to keep it.

More News from New Kensington
More News from Westmoreland County

More from Bob Allen

One Comment

  1. unclebs says:

    If the U.S. has to put up with atheists, then it stands to reason the atheists have to put up with others…but no one said atheists reason.

    1. mrtelco1948 says:

      Okay Students…Please read the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Now………..What “law” did Congress (that would be the “federal” government) make? I believe that should settle the matter. Years ago, the SCOTUS incorrectly ruled that “Conress” referred to “ALL” governments in the U.S. Anyone with half a brain can read the amendment and see that it very plainly and clearly applies to Congress only!!

      1. mrtelco1948 says:

        That would be Congress!

      2. mshawntyler says:

        You’re neglecting to factor in the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine which extends the Bill of Rights to the states.

  2. billslycat says:

    I happen to be an atheist, but it is not my religion. These atheist are fundamentalist atheists with a totalitarian bent, otherwise they simply wouldn’t care one way or another about the stone in front of this school. Our nation was founded on freedom, and that includes freedom of beliefs. I’m proud to be born and live here…among Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I expect all religions to celebrate their holidays and display their beliefs. Only when those beliefs run counter to law and decency, such as extremists who preach that you can beat your wives, etc., should the government intervene. Leave this stone alone, leave menorahs and crosses alone, and tell these self righteous idiots to get a life.

    1. combatdba says:

      BillSlyCat 2012 !!!

    2. iodiner says:

      As a Christian, I’m impressed by your comment.

    3. mshawntyler says:

      What about parents who are Hindu and raise their children as such? As a Hindu I would be very upset if my children’s school had another religion’s commandment list that implicitly condemned my religion (don’t worship other gods, don’t create graven images).

      Prior to the 14th amendment extending the 1st amendment to the states, displaying the commandments might have been allowed depending on the state, but with the 1st amendment now being applicable to the states doing so seems to be a clear violation to me.

      When you mention cases in which the government should intervene you seem to imply that the government is intervening with someone practicing his or her religion. How is removing the commandment stone from a government building preventing anyone from practicing his or her religion? Indeed, children are allowed to bring their bibles to school and pray with groups of other students on campus as long as the school or staff isn’t coordinating. (Some schools have mistakenly tried to stop these other activities they’ve been shot down by the courts and FFRF has not tried to stop such activity as it’s not sponsored by the school.)

      1. rjdenbyesq says:


      2. mshawntyler says:

        rjdenbyesq – One need not be from India to be a Hindu. I happen align myself closely to Buddhism, which is derivative of Hinduism. My point was that some of the commandments implicitly condemn others’ religious beliefs, so it’s not just “fundamentalist atheists” that may be offended and one can’t say that people from all religions would agree with all of the commandments.

        Your resorting to ad hominem (“naive white self-imposed…”) and yelling (all caps) strongly hint at your ability or lack thereof to maintain a calm and reasoned perspective on the matter.

      3. missbitsyb says:

        America was not founded by Hindus, was never a Hindu nation. India is. So…

      4. captainjim1 says:

        missbitsyb – am I to understand that you believe christians should have preferential treatment over non-christians because some of the foundinf fathers were christian themselves?

    4. smb12321 says:

      I cannot agree more. As an atheist it infuriates me that the “fundamentalists” act exactly like their religious counterparts. They must understand that we live in a pluralistic society where expressions of faith (or non-faith) are acceptable as long as they do not threaten or are not coerced. If they think the 10 Commandments display is their big problem, then THEY have a problem.

      1. Strange and Away says:

        So where to you put the line? Why not open everyday with the Lord’s Prayer? The Supreme Court has been very, very clear. Leave religion to the churches and leave religion out of public schools.

  3. ccodyc says:

    Maybe someone aught to file a lawsuit against the schools and public properties for not allowing freedom of speech and expression if they think about taking down Christian symbols. Of course only when there are pending lawsuit to remove them. This way these entities don’t just take these symbols down to avoid a lawsuit. It doesn’t matter which way they choose to go they will face a court battle, so they might as well stand up against the stupidity of this false belief of separation of church and state rhetoric that has come about just so people are not reminded of our Christian foundations.

  4. captainjim1 says:

    Freedom from religion is very simple to understand when you frame it in someone else’s point of view. Imagine your christian child goes to a school that has a shrine to Allah or the Koran in front of it. How do you feel? On public property funded by tax payers dollars religion has no place.

    Now, all of that being said, I personally have no real issue with the statue/stone, but the law is the law and this would be considered as the state endorsing a religion which is a big no-no.

    1. ccodyc says:

      Well since I live in a Christian founded country and our schools are paid by a majority of Christian people, I guess I should not have to worry about that, but the public school system is teaching Allah and the Koran anyway. I have a problem with it. It’s not like their can’t be different schools anyway for general. Most of the time when someone complains about something religious being on a school site, they are so much in the minority for that district they should have found a place to live with a school district more to their tastes.
      As far as the law being the law, the separation of church and state is not the law. The law of freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion is, so that does trump this push to remove everything religious. It is the people that should decide and not a push-down executive order from someone that doesn’t live in the area.
      I believe that best solution it to dissolve all of these gov’t agencies and form independent groups to locally decide on proper education of our own youth. The top-down approach has not worked and will not work. We should get our freedoms back from the minority ruling class.

      1. captainjim1 says:

        The issue is that religion and public education should not be mixed. Religion is a personal belief and has no place is the education system… it should be taught at your church, at home, or at a religious private school.

        You are correct that “separation of church and state” is not LAW, but it is heavily implied most notably in the 1st Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Clearly this means that there is no “national religion” and that or government can not endorse any particular religion over another. We can all agree on that, right? The following line in the 1st Amendment ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is exactly what you said – people may freely practice their own religion, but you have to still follow the first part of the 1st Amendment. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Again, everyone is free to practice their religion, but the government cannot endorse any one religion over another and a christian monument on public grounds is doing exactly that. If this goes to court the school system WILL lose because the law is the law — this type of case has been decided upon many, MANY times.

        Finally, the first thing you said needs to be clarified. This nation was founded by many Christians, deists and non-believers, but it is most certainly NOT a “Christian Nation”. If this nation was intended to be a Christian nation Christianity would be everywhere in the constitution. Instead, it is 100% absent. Look no further than the Treaty of Tripoli (the first treaty we signed as a country (1797), Article 11… “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. You may not have been saying that we are a Christian Nation, but this fact needed to be pointed out.

      2. vangrungy says:

        Look no further than the Treaty of Tripoli (the first treaty we signed as a country (1797), Article 11… “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
        read that Barlowe translation again.. THE GOVERNMENT.. that is not the people or the nation.. America is a Christian Nation.. as John Adams said

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        John Adams

        he didn’t mean Shariah following muslims when he said that.

        btw.. Article 11 is a fraud.. there is no Article 11 in the Arabic and Italian original treaties.. look it up if you don’t believe me.. The Treaty of Tripoli is null and void due to the Article 11 fraud..

      3. captainjim1 says:

        vangrungy – Yes, the govt as opposed to the people, but that’s all of the difference right there. Yes, we are a nation of almost entirely christians, but that does not make us a “christian nation” as it is used by fundamentalists today. The govt is secular. It seems you’re not arguing that. Using that FACT and applying it to the original story about the monument in the school, it’s a no-brainer that the school’s monmument is illegal and a violation of the first amendment and the establishment clause.

        Re: the inconsistencies in the Treaty of Tripoli. The Senate in 1796 voted unanimously for the English version of the treaty (which includes article 11) and the english version is what was signed. Missing text in the arabic version, true or not, does not make a bit of difference over the legality of of the treaty seeing how the english version contained it, was read aloud, voted on and signed by the POTUS. The facts are there — you can deny them to fit your vision of what you think this country is, but the facts are ultimately the facts,

      4. vangrungy says:

        fraud negates any contract. that is fundamental to rule of law. the Senate was deliberately misled.

        it’s a certainty that muslims would never sign an Arabic language treaty with that fraudulent article in it.
        “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

        no muslim would sign that. that would be blasphemy against the quran.

        in any case, under shariah law any ‘peace treaty’ is technically a hudna. with a ten year limit. look it up.

      5. captainjim1 says:

        Blah blah. You have no understanding of the law. REGARDLESS of the legality of the treaty, the intention of the senate and president is clear. They voted unanimously and the POTUS signed it. You think they were tricked? You live on another planet.

    2. jmbreland says:

      Ccaptainjim1, as a Christian, I would feel just fine. I lived in Cairo, Egypt for two years, and my youngest children attended an Egyptian preschool. The school celebrated all the Muslim holidays, and the Quran was, of course, revered.

      I was not at all offended. I believe what I believe, as do my kids, and the fact that the school celebrated a different cultural outlook was no problem for me. The problem with people who go around filing lawsuits like the one described here is that “offense” is not the real issue. What we’re really dealing with is an effort by a minority to sabotage the dominant culture.

      “Multiculturalilsm” and “separation of church and state” are nice terms, but they don’t fit the goals of groups like the “Freedom from Religion Foundation.” The FFRF types don’t want multiple, co-existing cultures; instead, they want to eliminate all belief systems that disagree with their own.

      Billslycat said it best. Groups like FFRF are fundamentists, just like radical Islamists. Atheism, for them, is a religion, and all competetors must be stamped out. The only difference between FFRF and Al Queda is that FFRF isn’t using bombs and beheadings to advance its goals. Not yet, anyway.

      1. captainjim1 says:

        jmbreland – I applaud you for your acceptance of other religions. Traditionally, people in this country who are fanatically Christian and wish to have religion in schools are vehemently against Islam, etc. I have to disagree with you thought about the intent of people filing these lawsuits. People who are of a different belief system can feel threatened if they don’t “conform” with others religions. Children of different faiths should not fear “not fitting in” because it appears their school endorses Christianity as opposed to their faith. As I have said before, religion has NO place in the public education system. As an atheist I do not want my children going to a school that is endorsing something I don’t believe. People need to keep their religion to their homes, churches, and other religious groups. Put up a cross in your front yard, I don’t mind at all. .. but don’t have my tax dollars funding a place that is endorsing a religion I don’t believe in.

      2. vangrungy says:

        simple solution

        get government out of schools..

        you should fund your own atheist schools to indoctrinate your children as your atheist community sees fit..

        how does that sound? You can have your Government God for yourself

      3. captainjim1 says:

        If you’re taking govt out of schools you’d have to take govt money (ie taxpayers dollars) out of the schools. Doesn’t sound too feasible now does it. I don’t need an atheist school because schools should not be a place for any religious teachings… that’s what churches and the home are for. Seriously, why must your religion permeate everyone else’s life?

    3. ginger777 says:

      It’s not only a no-no, it’s unconstitutional. Ask (former judge) Roy Moore about that. For that matter, check what happened to the Cranston RI school district & what it cost them to try to break the law. If this school district has so much money and its kids are so well educated that they can afford to throw that kind of money away defending the indefensible, then they can have at it. Stupid & illegal can get expensive, though.

    4. peterkuck says:

      Nice attempt at spin Captainjim1. In our constitution it is freedom of religion NOT freedom from religion. This is nothing more then a continuing attept to destroy our culture. Please read the first ammendment to the constitution. Words have meaning and when the meaning of those words change there is no longer aqny law.

      1. ginger777 says:

        The first what? I agree, words do have meaning. You don’t even know how silly that comment is, do you?

  5. eliotdennis says:

    I have to wonder which one of the commandments this group objects to; thou shalt not commit adultery? Or maybe thou shalt not bear false witness? How about thou shalt not steal? These commandments gave us the foundation for civilization and are the basis for a healthy, productive, peaceful society. If this group doesn’t like it, maybe they don’t like being told that what they are doing in their private lives is wrong. Hmmm?

    1. captainjim1 says:

      Probably #1 – Thou shalt have no other gods before me (because they don’t believe)… #2 – No graven images (because they don’t believe and dont see this as a problem)…. #3 – You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (because it’s a meaningless to a non-believer), #4 – Remember the Sabbath day (because they want to do whatever they want to on Sunday)… in fact non-believers can rightfully disagree with all of them except #6, #7, and #8 (murder, adultery, theft) … so, yeah…and what they’re doing in the private life is wrong? If I go to work on Sunday is that wrong? Hardly…

    2. ak4mc says:

      No, they’re just scared of the God cooties they’ll get from walking too close to a monument nobody’s forcing them to look at.

      1. ginger777 says:

        That’s silly. It’s unconstitutional. That is the problem.

      2. rjdenbyesq says:

        It is only in the past few years that the Attack Lawyers from hateful people have teamed up against Good Human Values, both here and other “Western” cultures….Strength of ALL Cultures is from Good Common Respect and Values. Why do you oppose good moral values? What kind of person does not instill good common values in their children. RELIGIONS CANNOT BE OFFENDED, BECAUSE ALL RELIGIONS HAVE THE SAME BASIC COMMANDMENTS…DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!

      3. captainjim1 says:

        rjdenbyesq – you seem to misunderstand the entire concept of “freedom of religion”. To have freedom of religion you must ALSO be able to have freedom FROM religion. I’m not sure where you get your wacky ideas about public property … I suppose public property at it’s heart is “owned” by the public, but go set up a tent at the white house or try to have a birthday party at the town park without a permit. There are rules that extend well beyond things “that are deemed inappropriate).

        These court battles are not new as you seem to believe. McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948) – look it up. That was 64 years ago and it’s one of first to deal with religion in a public school. There are cases prior that have to do with religion on public grounds. No one in the world wants their children to be given “bad morals”, but your version and my version of what “good morals” are differ — and mine certainly don’t come from a 2000 year old book. It’s not up to your religion to tell my kids what are good morals at a public school. And yes, other religions will be offended. The 10 commandments are clearly christian – Commandment #1 – You shall have no other gods before me. .. how will a Muslim or Hindu feel?

      4. captainjim1, just curious since you brought it up, where do you get your version of good morals from?

      5. captainjim1 says:

        commentcentral — that’s a very good question without a good answer. I believe that morals are a simple extension of wanting for others what you want for yourself. I don’t want to be killed so I understand that others don’t want to be killed. Almost every creature on the planet tends to their young and will defend them with their lives. If this response was not built into them (and us) then the species would very quickly die out. So, in a sense, it’s natural selection. Those who protect their children and their community have a better chance of surviving. Animals everywhere show a ‘moral’ side to themselves. I don’t have any reason to believe that morals were instilled in me by a god. That’s just silly. However, I cannot point directly at something and say “this is how I get my morals”, because I simply do not know…. but I don’t NEED an answer and again, have no reason to believe it comes from a god.

      6. captainjim1, natural selection might be fine for animals where the dominate male kills all the offspring that aren’t his, but that wouldn’t work so good for us humans.

        This is an oil and water argument. Neither side will be able to function totally in the other world. The best way is to let the small stuff just slide. This 10 commandments thing is small stuff.

      7. captainjim1 says:

        The 10 commandments thing might be a small issue to you, but it’s not to others. This isn’t a conversation about where morals come from so I’m not going to even go into your misunderstanding of natural selection and evolution…

  6. gfsomsel says:

    Make them fight it. While the court battle may be a burden for the local jurisdiction, the number of such incidents is spread among numerous locales. The entire burden of pursuing the suit will rest upon the atheist organization and therefore be a larger burden for them. Additionally, it is entirely possible to win the suit and then make a claim against the atheist organization for malicious prosecution.

    1. captainjim1 says:

      Hardly – do you know how many cases like this come up? They always rule in favor of the atheist group because the law is the law. The govt cannot endorse a religion over another which is what is happening here…. check this out for more info…
      “Top Five Court Cases That Changed Religion in School”

      1. ginger777 says:

        Well done. Yep, the anti-constitutional fores lose & it’s expensive & pointless. It’s a loser of a case for those determined to violate the Constitution. Too bad.

      2. gfsomsel says:

        Yes, the law is the law, but the law does not spea of a SEPARATION of church and state as commonly held. That was an interpretation foisted on the Constitution by Justice Black who was a former clansman and enemy of the Catholic Church in particular. He based that on a LETTER of Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in which he was assuring them that the Federal government would not interfere with their religious practices (you might say the whole thing has been stood on its head). The correct position is that there is to be no ESTABLISHED religion. Various colonies had their own religious practices. Massachusetts was Congregationalist; Maryland was Catholic; Virginia was Church of England. The only thing promoted by the non-establishment clause is that the state shall not sanction one particular religion. It does not support the concept that there is to be no religion in the public square.

    2. mshawntyler says:

      I challenge you to find a recent case (last 20-30 years) when a school has won such a case and it wasn’t reversed on appeal. It is only “entirely possible” if the Constitution were to be amended.

      By the way, malicious prosecution applies to criminal, not civil cases.

  7. combatdba says:

    “… claiming the Ten Commandments monument violates the principles of separation of church and state …”

    Only problem is, “principles” don’t make make “laws”. They can talk all they want about the “principle” of church and state, but until they can show me the “law” regarding church and state, I’m afraid they need to STFU.

    The only mention it gets in the Constitution is the bit where it says that Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with the religious establishment. That’s CONGRESS. Not School Disctricts. Not firehouses. Not State Courthouses. CONGRESS.

    The principle of Separation of church and state is just that: A principle. One might call it also an idea, maybe even an ideal. Perhaps a concept. Almost certainly it could be called a doctrine. But one thing that ideas, ideals, concepts, and doctrines are NOT… They are NOT LAWS.

    c’mon, Ahteists. I thought you guys were “rational thinkers?”

    1. captainjim1 says:

      If the “principle” hasn’t been explained through law via the first amendment then why do things like this always get won by the non-religious groups? Because the first amendment, when applied, disallows a publicly funded operation (ie a school) to endorse a religion. Don’t you realize how many times this type of case comes along? Keep religion out of school and in the church. It’s not that hard,

    2. mshawntyler says:

      When you point out that it only applies to congress and not state institutions you ignore the 14th amendment, which extends the 1st amendment as applicable to the states.

  8. If these people were really atheists, the ten commandments would look the same as any other large stone. The words would be irrelevant to them.

    But yet it bothers them. And it’s because they feel guilt. They don’t want to be reminded about how they are rebelling against God for their sinful nature.

    1. ginger777 says:

      Sorry, but you are wrong. It is unconstitutional for a public institution to promote a religion. It has nothing to do with which religion it is. Your guilt tripping fails.

      1. Show me where in the Constitution that says it is illegal to have a statue at a public school, whether it is the 10 Commandments, the lyrics to “it’s a small world”, or a statue of Robocop. Below is a link you can use to search. Let me know what you find. Thanks.

      2. captainjim1 says:

        joshuadhunter – The law doesn’t forbid statues – it forbids the endorsement of a religion over another by a public institution (ie a school). Read all about the establishment clause at the wikipedia page…
        ….there’s an entire section at the bottom about religious displays. This type of thing has been heard over and over by the courts and the non-religious groups always win. Keep religion in the churches, not in the schools. It’s as simple as that!

      3. captainjim1 – Regarding the establisment clause, the Constitution says:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        There’s a reason the establishment clause is the very first clause in the Freedom of Speech amendment. It’s because free expression of religion and free speech are the exact same thing.

        For example, let’s say you have a school with a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. Most people don’t oppose that. But what if an angry white supremist filed a lawsuit saying that the MLK imposes a religion counter to his own beliefs. It’s the same principle with the 10 Commandments. Free speech is free speech regardless if some consider to be “religious”. The government has no right to deem what is and isn’t religious.

        As long as people are free to express that they don’t believe in the 10 Commandments, no law has been established, per the 1st amendment. People will continue to be free.

        Your proposal and previous rulings to ban the 10 Commandments on public property actually goes AGAINST the 1st Amendment. A law or ruling like that would, “prohibit the free exercise” of religion/speech. It’s a dangerous slippery slope. But it’s not unlike the government to take away our liberties for special interests. They already have with the NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. Think carefully about if you really want to give the government the power to decide what is and isn’t religious.

      4. captainjim1 says:

        Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court consistently disagrees with you. There has to be a control somewhere that determines if something is religious or not… just as their is a control to determine if something is murder or not (maybe it’s manslaughter). Think about any law concerning religion and the consequences if ANYTHING could be deemed religious.

        Your MLK example is silly, but I’ll humor you. If a white supremist wanted to challenge an MLK statue at a school as religious the courts would deem that the MLK statue was non-religious in nature (even though he was a minister) and that it was not an endorsement of a religion.

        I’ll use the same example I’ve used many times now… how would you feel if you child’s school had a monument at the front doors with “PRAISE BE ALLAH” inscribed on it? Apply those thoughts and feelings to yourself and you’ll understand how everyone non-christian feels about the 10 commandments.

    2. Oh, I know the Supreme Court disagrees with me some times. That doesn’t make them correct.

      As for a school with “Prasiing Allah”, no I wouldn’t care. Of course, I probably wouldn’t be living in that area anyway.

      But clearly you are a person who likes government. You like that they have the power to define what is and isn’t religious. I just don’t think they should have that power. To me, all speech is free speech.

  9. shurtle says:

    This is nothing but fear mongering. Using the law to cause people to be afaid of sharing their beliefs. The ten commandments are common sense for a moral society. If any other faith has decent beliefs let them put it in a stone and share it. These people are trying to control not respect others. Go to stop HHS and sign the petition.

    1. ginger777 says:

      No. If a lawsuit is brought, the advocates for the intrusion of religion into the secular public space will lose, as usual. Hopefully, this school will not follow down the path of Cranston, RI, whose deliberate refusal to remove a prayer banner from its auditorium failed expensively. ::shrug:: Maybe VHS has more money to throw away than RI does.

      1. shurtle says:

        The law is being applied incorrectly. Tolerance is at the core is this law. Again this is fear mongering. Common sense is being removed from the equation.

    2. captainjim1 says:

      How do you decide “decent beliefs”. A muslim may think a decent belief is to defend Islam at all costs. Maybe this includes blowing something up. Obviously that is something we don’t agree with, but the point is you cannot have a “decent beliefs can be shared” rule and expect it to work. What you think is decent and what I think is decent can easily be in contrast. Public property should not be used to endorse any one religion. That’s not to say that you can’t be public with your religion, but don’t use places like a school to promote yours.

  10. marcusporcius says:

    This is another example of liberals inventing a “right” which is NOT in the Constitution.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    Please find the words “separation of church and state” in there. Oops. Not a constitutional right. Instead, a right invented by liberal Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the Everson case. Now instead of protecting us from the ESTABLISHMENT of a State religion, the First Amendment is being used by atheists to bludgeon all religion anywhere in public view.

    It’s sickening.

    1. captainjim1 says:

      What are you considering the ‘public view’. I drive past churches and synagogues every day.. that’s very public. I see religion on tv all of the time. A couple of Jehovah’s witnesses were at my door last weekend. This is all very public and I don’t have a problem with any of it(aside from the JW who think they can convert me with a pamphlet). Religion should not ever be endorsed by a public entity – whether it’s a govt official speaking in his role, a piece of public property, or a state or fed law.

      You are correct – “Separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. No one is arguing that those words are in there. Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are one in the same. How would you feel if your child’s middle school had a statue at the front doors with the text “PRAISE BE ALLAH” written on it? You would most likely be outraged. Again, the govt, including public spaces, should not be endorsing any one religion over another. It’s not a difficult concept.

  11. vangrungy says:

    A high priority for Cultural Marxism is the destruction of religion — but not like Stalin. While Marxists would need to enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in a nation, that would not work unless they could successfully target Marxism’s greatest enemy — the Christianity that had created and still pervaded Western culture in all its forms, activities, and expressions. They would have to “change the residually Christian mind … so that it would become not merely a non-Christian mind but an anti-Christian mind” (Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 250).

    .americanthinker dot com/2012/03/how_the_left_moved_into_religion dot html

  12. vangrungy says:

    A high priority for Cultural Marxism is the destruction of religion — but not like Stalin. While Marxists would need to enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in a nation, that would not work unless they could successfully target Marxism’s greatest enemy — the Christianity that had created and still pervaded Western culture in all its forms, activities, and expressions. They would have to “change the residually Christian mind … so that it would become not merely a non-Christian mind but an anti-Christian mind” (Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 250).

    Search: How the Left Moved into Religion

    1. captainjim1 says:

      You’re right .. this is a Marxist plot to destroy religion. You .. are paranoid.

  13. iambicpentamaster says:

    Atheists, alright.

    Who else would be trying to ban free speech and remove/burn books and other forms of the written word?

    1. captainjim1 says:

      What is with this insane nonsense that this is a banning of free speech? Everyone is still free to promote their religion and display the 10 commandments on their own private property. This is about the state endorsing a religion. A public school is public property and any display of a religious monument is deemed as endorsing said religion… and book burning? Now you’re just talking crazy,

  14. iratenate says:

    What in God’s name is wrong with these idiots, and what has this country come to that we allow this ridiculousness to continue? Atheists and progressives share a common, ugly, and asinine quality by self-righteously foisting of their beliefs upon the rest of society. Truly disturbing.

    1. captainjim1 says:

      “by self-righteously foisting of their beliefs upon the rest of society” — couldn’t the exact same be said about people who insist that the 1 commandments be at a school? This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. “what has this country come to that we allow this ridiculousness to continue” — couldn’t the same be said about religion in schools. As an atheist I am sick of the ridiculousness and it’s about time it’s ended.

  15. dagdthompson says:

    The “Freedom From Religion” group needs to understand that this Nation was founded on the principle of Freedom OF Religion, NOT from Religion. People will always be offended by something, get over it and Grow Up, or as some would say “Man up”. The Constitution was meant to say what the Federal Government could and couldn’t do. These people would have a hard time living in Thomas Jefferson’s day, when he went to Church Service at the House of Representatives.

    1. captainjim1 says:

      Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are one in the same. Jefferson advocated for a separation of church and state.. if you don’t know that you don’t know anything. People will be offended by things and you’re right, most of the time they need to “get over it”, but as I’ve said countless times – a publicly funded school has no business endorsing one religion over another. The constitution says this through the 1st amendment and the supreme court has upheld it many many MANY times. All that happens now is schools end up wasting tax payer dollars on a case that has been decided. Why must your religion be in a school I support with my tax dollars? How would you feel if your tax dollars supported the local mosque. Keep your religion at home and in the church.

  16. mrdavehardin says:

    If we are going to allow religion in school, we should require thought in church. If only Christians were really created in the image of their god…silent and invisible.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS Pittsburgh

Play It
Get The All New CBS Local App

Watch & Listen LIVE