Update on Marietta bench story

The Marietta Daily Journal ^ | August 2, 2005 | Candice Cunningham

[SittinYonder]

The Person involved, Mr. Bernknof, reminds me of Forest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

LOL! And he's got a bench to sit on.

[mhking]

I am just a citizen trying to raise a question of my elected officials, help keep my school district out of trouble, and prevent my tax dollars being wasted.

What part of the "establishment clause" prevents a bench from having the words "Jesus Loves You" on it?

Would the bench any less offensive with "Allah Loves You," "Zeus Loves You," "Buddha Loves You," "Cleophus Loves You" or any other saying?

Let's bring it home (and yes, I do live in Cobb County with children in the Cobb County schools). Is this any less like the individual who filed an injunction to prevent the so-called controversial student laptop program (both the litigant [former Cobb Commissioner Butch Thompson] and the lawyer [former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes] in question in that case are Democrats who are obviously trying to make political hay at the expense of our children) from going forward?

Or are you honestly concerned about the physical placement of a bench? If the bench were on the other side of the street (complete with the sentence "Jesus Loves You"), would you have an issue with it?

I don't get it...please elaborate.

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[weegee]

Liberals would like to see all references to God removed. Make the bench say "Nobody Loves You" and they will be satisfied.

[peacebaby]

good, slow sizzle, mhking.

Mr. Bernknofp has left the building, I believe.

Or he could be lurking like a good coward.

[weegee]

"this will be my last contribution"

An opus on signup day?

[Straight Vermonter]

I gave the auhor of the article a little lesson on the frist amendment perhaps you would like to as well.

ccunningham@mdjonline.com

[Straight Vermonter]

frist=first

[retrokitten]

(accompanied by severe chastisement, of course)

And then...the spankings!

[VRWCmember]

In case any of you were wondering about what story this thread was updating, here is a link to the thread. The original story was posted a few weeks ago, and the individual who initially raised the question then signed up and replied to that story and posted today's "update".

School Bench Said Too Religious

[peacebaby]

well, Mr. Bernknogf might as well have said: Thank you, sir, may I have another.

[peacebaby]

I can't understand how Mr. Bernknogfgthbbht managed CNN for years and yet is so gullable as to think he can take us in with his "best interest in the school, WWJD" act.

[retrokitten]

LOL! That's for sure.

[MurryMom]

Thanks for pinging me. Mr. Bernknopf is obviously a very thoughtful person and I don't mind being compared to him after he posted an interesting article posing another First Amendment issue.

If the Marietta School Board is willing to allow benches on its premises inscribed with other religious teachings such as "There is no other God but Allah" or "There is no God" the existing bench may survive First Amendment scrutiny by a court. Otherwise the bench (or at least its existing religious inscription) ought to be replaced. If other concerned Americans raise this issue in a court case I would gladly support them.

[MurryMom]

Or are you honestly concerned about the physical placement of a bench? If the bench were on the other side of the street (complete with the sentence "Jesus Loves You"), would you have an issue with it?

Please, let's stick to the facts as presented by the MDJ. The bench is located on school property and promotes the Christian religion. The MDJ article does not mention inscriptions on any other benches located on school property and promoting non-Christian religions.

Also, please don't forget that others on this board have objected to having an anti-Bush artwork displayed on public property (in California). Why support the Christian advertisement in Georgia and yet object to anti-Bush art in California? Let's not be so blatantly hypocritical, please!

[VRWCmember]

... posted an interesting article posing another First Amendment issue.

Are you talking about the potential use of litigation to intimidate the school district into censoring the free speech of the group that privately funded the bench? That appears to be the only real first amendment issue here. There is clearly no act of congress regarding an establishment of religion here. And while the first amendment restricts congress in what types of legislation it can pass, it has been extended to state governments by overly broad interpretations of the 14th amendment by several courts in direct contradiction of the discussions of how the 14th amendment would apply when it was ratified. However, the idea that the establishment clause should be stretched so far as to prohibit the free speech of privately funded displays on public property due to religious content is an Orwellian abuse which uses one clause of the first amendment to violate another clause (arguably two clauses) of the same amendment.

[VRWCmember]

Also, please don't forget that others on this board have objected to having an anti-Bush artwork displayed on public property (in California). Why support the Christian advertisement in Georgia and yet object to anti-Bush art in California? Let's not be so blatantly hypocritical, please!

To be fair, if I remember correctly, the anti-Bush art was objectionable (at least in part) because it was funded by taxpayers, while this article states pretty clearly that the bench was funded by privately raised funds.

[Paul_Denton]

IN BEFORE THE ZOT!

[Politicalmom]

Well, thanks for using a disgusting term for my city, which happens to be one of the most conservative around, you jerk.

[Politicalmom]

You know what? I am a "transplant", I LOVE Georgia, and I was against this guy from the beginning.

Try not to paint everyone with that broad brush of yours.

[Dont Mention the War]

Well, thanks for using a disgusting term for my city, which happens to be one of the most conservative around, you jerk.

Personal attacks, eh? How pathetic. *yawn*