# 50 Grand for 'historical context' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2000, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290 "2000-10-09T17:54:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/41 "2000-10-10T18:48:07Z")
Kimstu: You make a strong point. But, on behalf of Mr. Baker, be it for good or ill a lot of people are going to get hurt, and ultimately education will suffer. I doubt the intent of the ten commandments was to oppress anybody. It was an ill considered decision, no doubt about it. Ultimately a compassionate and responsible individual needs to decide if this is worth it. One needs to measure the affront to Mr. Baker’s sensibilities against the damage that will be created by trying to force a stubborn and pig-headed school board to change its decision in a court of law. Now if the religious right was holding Mr. Baker hostage, or not allowing him basic civil rights I’d say the damn the cost, this has to be fixed. This is not the case. He just sees something that personally pisses him off. I see nothing constructive to be gained by destroying this town’s board of education, and bankrupting its school district. Bonds may have to be issued, and taxes raised. The quality of education is going to suffer. Who will be helped by this? If we really care, let them have it under protest. Eventually those ten commandments by the doors will become a badge of dishonor to the community. Then they will come down. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/42 "2000-10-10T18:50:46Z")
People want to be good. You back them into a corner this way, and they’ll have to fight. You lose flexibility of thought, and the defense mechanism becomes ingrained. If people truly care, they will not do this. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/43 "2000-10-10T19:30:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*\ The 10 commandments are too historical, just as the Bible as literature is every bit as worthy as study as the Iliad. > > The 10 commandments on the front steps might not be the best idea, as that does seem to clearly be the government endorsing one religion over another, but religion is a part of who we are as humans. It’s how we first came to seek answers for the world we live in. religion is a part of who we are as humans. \\*\* _“The 10 commandments are too historical”_ Yeah, and so are dinosaur footprints in mud. _“religion is a part of who we are as humans”_ **Who the flock are you to tell me that your religion or any other is a part of my existence?** How are you entitled to make a blanket attribution about what is, and what is not a part of my life? It is exactly this sort of inductive reasoning and theistic bigotry that so often makes most religious people come across as total morons on this point. Come on **Scylla** , give the Bible thumping a rest and post some more recipes at my thread. At least those were fairly palatable. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/44 "2000-10-10T19:51:55Z")
Zenster: Seeing as you grill your steaks I’m also unsurprised at these fallacious comments. I expect as much from your kind. 😉 Where am I thumping a bible? I am simply recognizing the existence of religion. I’m a lapsed and lackadaisical Catholic. When I say religion is a part of you, what I’m saying is that it’s a part of you in the same sense that human history is a part of you, A John Doeesque “Ask not for whom the bell tolls” kinda thing. It’s been a major force in human history. People care about it deeply. If you insist on forcing people to drop it arbitrarily(even in circumstance where you are correct,) they will surely dig in their heels, and fight to the bitter end. If you weren’t such a damn lobster boiler you’d understand this. ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/45 "2000-10-10T19:56:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla_ > \*\*Ankh\_Too > > I talked about a specific potential compromise in my previous post to the one you quoted.\*\* My apologies, somehow I misinterpreted your mention of compromise to mean something in that post. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla_ > \*\*I find the idea that the school district is being denounced for defending a lawsuit ridiculous. Of course they are. Why don’t we denounce the group that’s making us waste taxpayer dollars by attacking the school? Oh yeah, they are saving us from oppression. \*\* Actually, I think many in here believe that they are doing just that. You also seem to assume that the ACLU gallopped over to find someone to files suit without any intermediate steps. Obviously, none of the details have been shared at this point, but isn’t it just as easy to assume that there was some attempt at dialogue between the two sides before the complaintants went to the time and effort of filing suit? One of the things that bothers me about the entire episode is that it is so obviously and demonstrably unconstitutional. [STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%25LINKURL%25%3E&graphurl=%3C%25GRAPHURL%25%3E&court=US&case=/us/449/39.html) is exactly on point in this issue. In part the Court found: > [@](#): > > While the state legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that “[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States,” such an “avowed” secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment… The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function. The addition of the other documents to provide ‘historical context’ isn’t substantially different than the ‘required notation regarding secular adoption’ in the above case. The posting of the Ten Commandments in a public school setting is, as a matter of law, unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > _Originally quoted by Scylla_ > **…or not allowing him basic civil rights I’d say the damn the cost, this has to be fixed. This is not the case.** This is exactly the case. As quoted from the case above, the posting of the Ten Commandments in this setting is a direct violation of a citizen’s civil rights. > [@](#): > > _Originally quoted by Scylla_ > **I see nothing constructive to be gained by destroying this town’s board of education, and bankrupting its school district. Bonds may have to be issued, and taxes raised. The quality of education is going to suffer.** I’m sorry, but I simply don’t understand your reasoning behind this statement. The school board and district bear as much of the responsibility for the cost they will incur by insisting on refusing to recognize their error. The fact that they cannot afford the expense is _not_ a reason to allow them to violate the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Scylla\* > **If people truly care, they will not do this.** And the implicit comparison here is that anyone who does pursue what they consider to be the right thing in this instance doesn’t care. I feel that’s an unfair and unwarranted generalization. People do care and the fact that they reacti so strongly is an indication of just how mucht hey care. Please remember that your priorities are not theirs. Not only do I hope that the school board drops the entire idea to allow them to apply the money they would have used to the more concrete benefit to their students, I hope that other school districts take notice of the situation and not engage in the same folly. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/46 "2000-10-10T20:23:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Kimstu: > > You make a strong point. But, on behalf of Mr. Baker, be it for good or ill a lot of people are going to get hurt, and ultimately education will suffer. I doubt the intent of the ten commandments was to oppress anybody. It was an ill considered decision, no doubt about it.\*\* \*\*I can’t imagine people being hurt more than by having their education compromised by those who would intentionally usurp the Constitution for the sake of promoting their own personal religious views. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Ultimately a compassionate and responsible individual needs to decide if this is worth it. One needs to measure the affront to Mr. Baker’s sensibilities against the damage that will be created by trying to force a stubborn and pig-headed school board to change its decision in a court of law.\*\* Again, I think it is far more important to estop any publicly funded organization from promoting an exclusively personal agenda. This is the real damage in question, the net result of appeasing such repression is more repression. > [@](#): > > \*\*Now if the religious right was holding Mr. Baker hostage, or not allowing him basic civil rights I’d say the damn the cost, this has to be fixed. This is not the case. He just sees something that personally pisses him off. \*\* Mr. Baker **is** being held hostage by a bunch of intolerant religious bigots who place their own views above the education of their community’s children. If such favoritism and exclusionary conduct **doesn’t** piss you off, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. > [@](#): > > \*\*I see nothing constructive to be gained by destroying this town’s board of education, and bankrupting its school district. Bonds may have to be issued, and taxes raised. The quality of education is going to suffer. \*\* It is the school board who has taken an indefensible stand and will not back down from it. How is the community to benefit from complicity in a direct violation of our constitution? Allowing religion to be brought into the public schools causes the quality of education to suffer by misdirection of the proper emphasis on learning. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Who will be helped by this? > > If we really care, let them have it under protest. Eventually those ten commandments by the doors will become a badge of dishonor to the community. Then they will come down. \*\* An old saying best sums this up: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” To merely protest something that desecrates the Constitution is to give short shrift to the very principles our nation was founded upon. Is such conduct acceptable in any form? ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/47 "2000-10-10T20:39:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ankh\_Too \*\ > I’m sorry, but I simply don’t understand your reasoning behind this statement. The school board and district bear as much of the responsibility for the cost they will incur by insisting on refusing to recognize their error. The fact that they cannot afford the expense is _not_ a reason to allow them to violate the Constitution. \ \*\* Bravo **Ankh\_Too** , I am fairly confident that you are a lawyer. If so, you are the type that I would like to have on my side in a court case. Your powers of incisive observation are superb. Please contribute to any of my threads whenever you feel like it. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/48 "2000-10-10T21:03:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > > \*\*Perhaps you’re right. I don’t particularly favor the 10 commandments on the front step, but it doesn’t particularly bother me, either. It seems that we’re telling people that they SHOULD be offended about this. \*\* No, we are telling people it is unconstitutional. Some people don’t find this offensive. I happen to. YMMV. > [@](#): > > \*\*If we are truly fighting for PEOPLE then we should consider whether going in and wrecking a town’s budget and causing it National Aprobrium is worth it. Are we doing more damage by going after this, than it’s causing in the first place? I think it’s pretty obvious we are. \*\* Then people shouldn’t be spending tons of money trying to come up with new and unique ways to break the rules, wouldn’t you think? > [@](#): > > \*\*That’s a two for one argument, straw-man and slippery slope. \*\* My example was neither, and I suggest you leave the debating fallacies out of it since you don’t know what you speak. I showed a real example of people who did not take the view that you suggest - that if it’s not affecting them directly, why is it there problem? - and made a change for the positive. It’s called an analogy. A straw man is setting up a false scenerio that easily falls down and that is not the case. I am not saying that civil rights is analagous to posting the 10 Commandments, I am saying the actions of those folks are analogous to the actions of outsiders everywhere who want to fight for what they believe is right. And as for a slippery slope, I would like to know how you got that idea, because it is nothing of the sort. I never said that something would lead to something else enevitably, now did I? Simply put: You say that if it’s not there problem, they should stay out of it. I say, others did not take that attitude in other matters throughout history and positive change happened. > [@](#): > > \*\*The obligatory ad hominem. \*\* :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m sure the school board sees this as defending themselves from the crazy east coast liberal lawyers who want to run their lives, and thinks they’re absolutely justified in doing so. \*\* Well, if the school board would simply see that they are wrong to begin with… This isn’t rocket science here. A public school cannot endorse a religion. The 10 Commandments are a religious document. Posting it in any way, shape or form is endorsing a religion. [quote] **It’s like instituting the death penalty for a parking ticket. In short, will the outcome be constructive for the pwople of the community, or will it be increasingly divsive and damaging. The latter, I’m sure.[/qu0ote]** And if the school board didn’t try and break rules which are set up in the Constitution, none of this would happen. But you somehow find fault with the people who are trying to uphold the Constitution instead. > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, a slippery slope. \*\* No, it’s not a slippery slope to say that saying “well, nobody is being hurt” is not the right way to go about things here. It is not a slippery slope to say let’s not wait for this thing which is unconstitutional anyway to actually result in a kid being made to feel like shit or a family to have a cross burned on their yard. It is simply illogical to say “if nobody is hurt, ignore that it’s been proven unconstitutional.” It’s already wrong and by extension “hurting” the rights of every American, whether you think it should be legal or not. > [@](#): > > \*\*The ten commandments I’m sure have a less ostracizing effect than an attack on a school district. \*\* This must really be a tough thing for you to grasp. I’ll try again, really slowly this time: It is unconstitutional. They should not do things which are unconstitutional. When someone does something unconstitutional, people will challenge it. When this happens, it is not the fault of those challanging it, it is the fault of those who violated the constitution to begin with. And if the people who violated the constitution did so knowing full well they were in violation of it, I have no sympathy for them. They did it to themselves. Is this clear? > [@](#): > > \*\*Or, are we being stubborn and making an example? \*\* The same thing can be said of a school board who knowingly does something unconstitutional, don’t you think? This whole thing is “oh, the ACLU is making such a big deal about this,” and that’s bullshit. They are reacting to people knowingly breaking the laws of this country. You are saying, “I can’t believe that they are making a mountain out of a mole hill” about people protecting your rights, while not even acknowledging that the people who don’t give a fuck about your rights are doing this intentionally, are doing it knowing full well they are wrong about it, and will still do it again. Here’s a newsflash: If the isiotic school boards didn’t start petty shit, the ACLU (and others) wouldn’t be wasting their time on petty shit. * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) _I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Six months, one day, 19 hours, 8 minutes and 5 seconds. 7391 cigarettes not smoked, saving $923.99. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 15 hours, 55 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/49 "2000-10-10T21:46:42Z")
Satan, you really shoot yourself in the foot near the end of your last post. If this brouhaha and similar actions by other school boards really constitutes “petty shit,” then why should the ACLU or anyone else with sense worry about it? If these actions are, in fact, assaults on the Constitution, the foundation of American law, then they would not be petty shit, would they? ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/50 "2000-10-10T21:49:48Z")
The Peyote Coyote Maybe you’re not familiar with why I have my user name… * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) _I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Six months, one day, 19 hours, 54 minutes and 8 seconds. 7393 cigarettes not smoked, saving $924.15. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 5 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/51 "2000-10-10T21:55:42Z")
**Santa** was already taken? ---
**Author:** ![red\_dragon60](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@red\_dragon60](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/red_dragon60)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2000, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/52 "2000-10-10T22:03:24Z")
Why not post the Pnaktonic Manuscripts and De Vermis Mysteriis? They have a clear historical basis. They also teach children about how people wrote back then. It also gives them a good sense of imagination as they dream of Cthulu coming from beyond the Elder Gates. While we are at it, a nice pentagram in ram’s blood conviniently placed on the school playground would give kids a wonderful place to play hopscotch! ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/53 "2000-10-11T00:05:58Z")
# OK, I’m gonna try to catch up here the best I can. I’m going in order, so if somebody already covered some of these, well, too bad. 🙂 **picmr** said: > [@](#): > > Or it was an attempt by some to centralise power by gulling the fearful and feeble-minded into welcoming their status and ignorance in return for the comfort of unquestioning obedience. He then followed it up in the next message by saying: > [@](#): > > On second thoughts that last post of mine was pretty graceless. I apologise for its unwarranted insulting tone. Ah, but we learn something from this. If people want religion taught in the public schools, there are those who hold this position. Some of them may be teachers. While they will certainly do their best to keep their private views out of the classroom, some will be unable to succeed (I know that some Christian teachers are unable to do that). Do Christians really want to take a chance at getting one of these teachers to tell their kids about religion? **Scylla** , in a vain attempt to “strike back,” said: > [@](#): > > I wonder if the parents of any of the actual students have a problem with any of this, or if it is just a bunch of outsiders worrying about oppression. Neither of us have specific information, obviously, but in general it is local objection. In fact, when it comes to lawsuits, the courts generally will only accept locals, although they can get help from the ACLU or some such group. The fact is that you simply aren’t going to get an area that is in 100% agreement on something like this. > [@](#): > > I find the idea that the school district is being denounced for defending a lawsuit ridiculous. Of course they are. Why don’t we denounce the group that’s making us waste taxpayer dollars by attacking the school? Oh yeah, they are saving us from oppression. Yes, exactly. The school is wasting taxpayer dollars to fight a lawsuit that goes against the very fabric of the Constitution. If you can’t see how they are to blame in this, I’m going to have to rethink my rather high opinion of you. > [@](#): > > You call me optimistic in my assessments, but God save me from people trying to save me. Funny, that’s probably **exactly** what the parents and students may be thinking about the Board trying to erect the 10 Commandments… > [@](#): > > To me the fact that they chose the 10 commandments says that they were trying to be inclusive, not exclusive. The 10 commandments are something beleived by both Jews and Christians. Oh, well, that’s great. Except that the Jews and Christians tend to use a different set of “10 Commandments.” Which do you think they’ll use – the Jewish version or the Christian version? The Catholic version or the Protestant version? And, of course, you presume that only Jewish or Christian people are involved, such as when you say: > [@](#): > > Show me the Hindustani or atheist kid that’s being oppressed and I may take this seriously. Somehow I doubt it. You seem to think that there is so little possibility that there is a non-Christian, non-Jew in the area, that you can just ridicule the notion. Well, I find that position ridiculous in and of itself. > [@](#): > > Until then I see the mistake being made by the school district as relatively minor compared to the world of grief they are being subjected to because of it. I see this as the same kind of mentality that creates mandatory sexual harassment classes and other PC bullshit. You can see it any way you want. You’ll be wrong, but you can see it that way. > [@](#): > > This knee jerk response against religion in any aspect is ugly. Corporate sponsors fund programs at schools, and exchange they may get a soda machine or some free advertising. Show me the clause about an establishment of corporation in the Constitution and then we can discuss that. Until then, your just throwing out straw men. And you’re normally better than that… ☹ > [@](#): > > This is the way the world works. This is a community, and before we going jumping in there so cocksure of ourselves on our crusade for right and freedom from oppression I think it’s incumbent that we actually figure out whether anybody is being actually oppressed, and whether we will ultimately do more damage than good. What we need to figure out is if the action is Constitutional. Since it is not, we already know where to go from there. You seem to be ignoring this rather important point. > [@](#): > > Take That!! Take it where? I would suggest the garbage can, which is the appropriate place for it, I’m afraid… Later, Scylla continued: > [@](#): > > I dunno. Perhaps the elected school board for the community should figure out. They may have a better shot of doing it justly and in the best interest of the community, then some outside lawyers. They had their chance. They blew it. That’s why we have a Constitution – to protect us from the illegal actions of government “representatives.” ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/54 "2000-10-11T00:41:44Z")
For those of you who want background on this particular case, [here](http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-k=&sp-q=adams+county+ten+commandments&sp-a=00060b68-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=any&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-x=any&sp-c=10&sp-m=1) are the results from a search on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s site. It includes opinion peices, which, strangely, mostly seem to mirror Scylla’s arguments. Sigh. I hate that fucking newspaper. [Here](http://enquirer.com/editions/1999/02/24/loc_commandment_foes.html) is an article about how the fight started. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/55 "2000-10-11T01:20:20Z")
Since the opposition seems to be in unusaually firm and unanimous agreement on a wide variety of points allow me to summarize and respond en masse. If I miss something improtant point it out. Bad judgement on the part of the school board? Yup. Unconstitutional? Yup. Unfair? Yup. Stupid to attempt to defend? Yup. Are they going to try to defend it anyway? Yup. I think it is safe to assume that the school board is dug in pretty tight. It’s stubborn and personal. They are not going to give up. Everybody seems to agree that the ultimate effect is that a lot of taxpayer dollars are going to get spent to the detriment of education. After a long drawn out battle the ACLU wins. The commandments come down. The ACLU leaves. We now have a divided and bitter town from the interference, and a school district in financial trouble. Maybe they float some bonds, or raise taxes, but guess who’s gonna suffer ultimately? The poor kids. It is in this environment also that recriminations occur. There is the matter of degree. Yes it’s unconstitutional. Is it on the same level with an inquisition a crusade or imprisoning people for religious beleifs? No. The bottom line is that some probably well-intentioned people wanted to give a gift to the school. I can just see a bunch of little old ladies on some joint Church board commisioning this thing probably to give these youngsters a sense of respect. The school board stupidly accepts it, and suddenly everybody’s on their back for trampling the Constitution. The hackles are up and nobody’s going to back down. If there is one thing that I’ve learned during my time on this board it is that being right isn’t everything. I’m sure I don’t need to go into detail about the terrible things done for just causes. One must also be compassionate and constructive. Destroying a school district is neither. If this battle goes the distance then the ACLU will be a party to what follows. I see no way around that. In this instance, there may in fact be better battles to fight. I see the addition of the Magna Carta and such as transparent, but it’s also a step towards capitulation. That needs to be recognized, and not attacked. Perhaps a workable compromise can be found that everyone can live it. The back of my dollar bills still say “IN GOD WE TRUST,” the Pledge of Allegiance still says “One Nation Under God,” Are these things any more Constitutional? Doesn’t this whole thing seem a little crazy in that light? That’s why I don’t take the Constitutionality of this particular issue very seriously. We’re going to destroy this one little school district and community over this while the Federal government does THE EXACT SAME THING. It is hypocritical and unfair to pursue this issue in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/56 "2000-10-11T01:21:52Z")
DavidB said: " ``` quote: You call me optimistic in my assessments, but God save me from people trying to save me. Funny, that's probably exactly what the parents and students may be thinking about the Board trying to erect the 10 Commandments..." ``` That’s VERY good. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/57 "2000-10-11T01:30:43Z")
black455: Very interesting links. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/58 "2000-10-11T01:42:07Z")
Well, the US House of Representatives doesn’t seem to have any problems with that pesky ole Constitution either ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/59 "2000-10-11T03:17:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **I think it is safe to assume that the school board is dug in pretty tight. It’s stubborn and personal. They are not going to give up. Everybody seems to agree that the ultimate effect is that a lot of taxpayer dollars are going to get spent to the detriment of education. After a long drawn out battle the ACLU wins. The commandments come down. The ACLU leaves. We now have a divided and bitter town from the interference, and a school district in financial trouble. Maybe they float some bonds, or raise taxes, but guess who’s gonna suffer ultimately? The poor kids.** None of which is the fault of either the ACLU **or** the citizen who brought forth the suit. There responsibility for denying the students those limited resources lies with the people who are **allocating** the resources. > [@](#): > > **The bottom line is that some probably well-intentioned people wanted to give a gift to the school. I can just see a bunch of little old ladies on some joint Church board commisioning this thing probably to give these youngsters a sense of respect.** Respectfully, I would suggest you research the facts before hazarding a guess such as this. [Adams County for the Ten Commandments](http://www.4the10.net/), the website of the organization which provided funding for the additional ‘historical’ documents states: > [@](#): > > \*The project was initiated by the **Adams County Ministerial Association** and a number of residents of Adams County concerned about the lack of a firm moral foundation expressed by students in the county. It was entirely funded and is maintained by donations from private citizens and businesses. > \* Furthermore, the [page devoted to the **ACMA**](http://site.yahoo.com/10commandments/acma1.html) website has the following discription: > [@](#): > > \*The Adams County Ministerial Association (ACMA) is a voluntary ecumenical organization representing a wide array of denominations and ministries in Adams County, Ohio. We have no legally binding relationship with the churches of Adams County, nor with Adams County for the Ten Commandments. We are bound in common ministry to and with the people of the county. > > The Association was formed over 25 years ago and has sponsored or participated in many community activities both religious and secular. We are especially committed to developing and building understanding among members of the Christian community of Adams County, and between Christian and non-Christian organizations. > \* This does **not** seem to bear much of a relationship to the the ‘group of little old ladies’ whom you hypothesized to be responsible for the original sculptures. They seem to be able to mount a serious social outreach program, for which they should be justly lauded. However, a small group of ‘interested citizens’ they are not. The exclusionary nature of the original endowment is certainly visible in the following from the [Adams County for the Ten Commandments](http://www.4the10.net/), > [@](#): > > \*Nevertheless, ethical monotheism itself, the theological and philosophical orientation of the Ten Commandments, is shared by **most religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All other world religions have similar orientations.** > > Moreover, Jews and Christians also acknowledge that the Ten Commandments are the bedrock of a universal moral code relevant to **all people in all places at all times, religious orientation notwithstanding.** > (emphasis added) > \* Those statements are much more than simply an attempt to instill a ‘sense of respect’ in the students. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If there is one thing that I’ve learned during my time on this board it is that being right isn’t everything. I’m sure I don’t need to go into detail about the terrible things done for just causes. One must also be compassionate and constructive. Destroying a school district is neither.\*\* Once again, the complaintant is **not** the one who is ‘destroying’ the school district. Your statements sound like a terrorist who holds a gun to the head of a hostage, telling the police, “You’re making me kill him.” No matter how the terrorist tries to shift the onus onto the police, **he** and he alone bears the responsibility. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If this battle goes the distance then the ACLU will be a party to what follows. I see no way around that. In this instance, there may in fact be better battles to fight.\*\* Of course they will be a party to it, they are involved. They will not, however, bear the responsibility for depriving the students of that school district even one penny. That responsibility belongs to the school board and pastors who insisted on dragging this out, even though the issue is **black letter law.** > [@](#): > > **I see the addition of the Magna Carta and such as transparent, but it’s also a step towards capitulation. That needs to be recognized, and not attacked. Perhaps a workable compromise can be found that everyone can live it.** As was made clear by the article first cited by black455 in the OP, the addition of the other historical documents **is** the attempt by the supporters of these displays at a compromise. Unfortunately, even as a compromise, the case I sited in my earlier post [STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%25LINKURL%25%3E&graphurl=%3C%25GRAPHURL%25%3E&court=US&case=/us/449/39.html) shows it to be not only unconstitutional, but **flagrantly** unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The back of my dollar bills still say “IN GOD WE TRUST,” the Pledge of Allegiance still says “One Nation Under God,” Are these things any more Constitutional? Doesn’t this whole thing seem a little crazy in that light? That’s why I don’t take the Constitutionality of this particular issue very seriously. > > We’re going to destroy this one little school district and community over this while the Federal government does THE EXACT SAME THING. It is hypocritical and unfair to pursue this issue in this way.\*\* Actually, in the cases you cite, there is a difference. In [ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%25LINKURL%25%3E&graphurl=%3C%25GRAPHURL%25%3E&court=US&case=/us/374/203.html)Justice Brennan wrote, in his concurring opinion: > [@](#): > > - > > Activities Which, Though Religious in Origin, Have Ceased to Have Religious Meaning. - As we noted in our Sunday Law decisions, nearly every criminal law on the books can be traced to some religious principle or inspiration. But that does not make the present enforcement of the criminal law in any sense an establishment of religion, simply because it accords with widely held religious principles. As we said in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 , “the `Establishment’ Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” This rationale suggests that the use of the motto “In God We Trust” on currency, on documents and public buildings and the like may not offend the clause. It is not that the use of those four words can be dismissed as “de minimis” - for I suspect there would be intense opposition to the abandonment of that motto. The truth is that we have simply interwoven the motto so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits. \* Personally, I’m not in love with it. But it does show a distinct difference between those examples, and the example of the Ten Commandments, which the organization who funded the display feels are **are the bedrock of a universal moral code relevant to all people in all places at all times, religious orientation notwithstanding.** On another, more amusing note, Zenster, no I’m not a lawyer,I just play one online. But that’s going to be my sig, thankyouverymuch. (or at least part of it) [Fixed link --Gaudere] [Edited by Gaudere on 10-10-2000 at 10:39 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2000, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290/60 "2000-10-11T04:20:01Z")
Ankh\_Too I think I love you… * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) _TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Six months, two days, 2 hours, 20 minutes and 21 seconds. 7403 cigarettes not smoked, saving $925.49. Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 55 minutes._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/50-grand-for-historical-context/36290.md?page=4)