What Fresh Hell Is This?

February 23, 2017

New Kensington Commandment Follow-up (Todd Starnes, A Fox News Snowflake, Is OFFENDED!)

I'd like to do a short follow-up to yesterday's blog post.

First let me congratulate Marie Schaub for standing up for the Constitution.  That's the most important part of this story.

Let me also congratulate her for offending a Fox News snowflake named Todd Starnes.  He wrote:
A Pennsylvania school district capitulated to the demands of a militant atheist who filed a federal lawsuit demanding the district remove a Ten Commandments monument erected on a public high school campus.

New Kensington-Arnold School District agreed to remove the massive monument within 30 days – ending a lawsuit filed in 2012 by self-avowed atheist Marie Schaub.

Schaub claimed the 6-foot stone monument erected outside Valley High School was a religious symbol and therefore was a violating of the U.S. Constitution.
Wow.  She gets called an "atheist" twice before she's even identified by name.  Nice and subtle on the religious bigotry, Todd.

But look at that third sentence.  Does Todd Starnes think the 10 Commandments isn't a religious symbol?  How can it not be?  And since it simply isn't, the Supreme Court already said thirty seven years ago that:
the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Todd's also not pleased with the school district for not fighting harder (after fighting for five years and losing $160,000).

But this is the most interesting part of Todd's tiny tantrum: he obviously hasn't done his homework on this.

Take a look at this attack on Schaub:
Schaub also claimed the monument was offensive to her and her daughter. I can only imagine which commandment she found to be most offensive. Maybe it was the one about graven images. [Emphasis added.]
Now take a look at the letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation that triggered this whole thing:
It is our information and understanding that a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments is prominently displayed at Valley High School. It is our further understanding that this monument sits between two footpath bridges that lead from the parking lot over a small stream to the main entrance of the school. Because of the numbering and missing commandment against "graven images," the monument contains a historically Roman Catholic version of the Ten Commandments. [Emphasis added.]
Aw snowflake, had you just gone with "keeping the sabbath holy" or "bearing false witness" no one (and I mean no one) would have known that you didn't do much research before writing this little screed of yours.

How embarrassing this must be for you.  Tripped up by your own lack of proper research.

8 comments:

Marie Schaub said...

Thank you for your support!

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

"after fighting for five years and losing $160,000"
Yet when Law Enforcement pays more to settle a 42 U.S. Code § 1983 lawsuit, you are not allowed to judge that they did anything wrong.

Dayvoe said...

Hey, look. Look over there. The troll has nothing interesting to say so he/she/they just blurts out some English words in a more or less grammatically correct order hoping to make some sort of point.

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

You are the one implying that the $169,00 means they would have lost in Court.
The Supreme Court has a display of the 10 Commandments.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8a.htm

Oh look a Supreme Court case on the matter that disagrees with Dayvoe. Wonder why he did not cite it. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry

kim nath said...

Good grief is DOS getting lesson from Kellyann on how to obfuscate the facts?

SamStone said...

DOS is most certainly on thin ice and apparently never read related Supreme Court ruling, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005), which says that displaying the Ten Commandments in at a public school is an unconstitutional breach of the separation of state and church. They go so far as to "dismissing the school district's proffered secular purposes as shams".

Deplorable Omega Supreme Cuck said...

Is DOS DOSC?
SS from your Wiki link
The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5–4 decision, that the display was unconstitutional. The same day, the Court handed down another 5–4 decision in Van Orden v. Perry with the opposite outcome. The "swing vote" in the both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.

Based on Dissent of Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas; Kennedy I would guess it would be decided the other way with the Supreme Court Justice that "stolen from Obama".

I ignored it as they "posted large and readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses" and did not Erect a monument.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/religiousdisplays.html

Dayvoe said...

I blogged on this a few years ago. Breyer was the swing vote and he said that the context of the placement of the monument was enough to change his vote. While a Decalogue in a high school was ALWAYS unconstitutional, a Decalogue grouped with other "historical law" displays is enough to make it OK, in some settings.

I think I blogged on this sometime in 2013.