Thursday, April 23, 2009

Elmbrook Lawsuit Followup

The unintended humor and general ignorance on this thread is worth the read.

Perhaps the best one is from "Ralph" of Brookfield, who claims that he was "forced" to attend a graduation at Elmbrook church.

Really, Ralph? Who, exactly, "forced" you to attend? Storm-troopers? Mafia enforcers? The Brookfield Police Department's heretofore super-secret God Squad? Yo--Ralphie!! We want documentation!!

Another loose nut suggests that the graduation should be held at the nearest local mosque or synagogue--because, after all, the Elmbrook Church deal is really a sinister Christian Plot, and if the Christians were all forced to go to a mosque, THEN things would change...

Yah. That's it.

Some woman from Nekoosa chimes in, also referencing the "Christian Plot" to destroy the 'separation of church and state,' which plot has been ongoing for........years!!!

And "Ed Formerly of New Berlin" wonders why some children will be "forced" to have their last picture from HS "taken under a cross"--which tells us that Ed is grossly ignorant about the ceremonies and picture-taking protocols.

Matt Gibson is correct; the school system's use of the Elmbrook facility is strictly for secular purposes, is amply justified by space, comfort, and convenience factors, and is perfectly Constitutional given those arguments.

And that "anonymous" senior-class member who filed the suit? Not really "anonymous." The name's in circulation, and has been for about 180 days.


Cindy K. said...

Come on, Dad, drop the name!

Dad29 said...

From what I've heard, it's a BCHS twit--last one in the family to graduate.

Also from what I've heard, the MOTHER is the problem, not the father.

TerryN said...

I doubt right wing conservatives would protest having their graduation ceremony in a Mosque, Synagogue or Temple. It would be a learning experience and a way to show respect for others of different backgrounds. But the tolerant compassionate left wing liberals have their own way of expressing themselves.

John Foust said...

Imagine if a school decided to hold their graduation ceremony in their gym but decided to erect a large Cross on the wall behind the speaker's platform. In this case, I think we'd agree that this was a deliberate act by the school officials that would no doubt be an Establishment Clause violation. Yet when the school officials deliberately choose to move the ceremony to a church with a large Cross at the front of the room, you want to say it's not a violation. I think the school officials are responsible for making the choice either way.

And what if a school actually decided to hold graduation in the Devil's Workshop? I can imagine other situations where school officials should be just as sensitive to places that might violate their other policies. They wouldn't hold it in a hall with a 30-foot tobacco or alcohol advertisement, or in a political hall with a 30-foot Obama poster on the wall. They wouldn't hold it in a theater at a casino if we all had to walk past the gambling. They wouldn't hold it in a place with 30-foot Satanic symbols on the walls, would they? They wouldn't hold it in the Freethought Hall if it had a 30-foot "There is no God" banner, would they?

Dad29 said...

John, to be as kind as I possibly can, you are daft.

FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES are what determines the application of the 'separation' law.

In the case AT HAND (not in your fevered imagination), Elmbrook is using a facility which:

1) accomodates 3x the number of people that would be able to get into the school gymnasium;

2) accomodates all the requisite parking needs for the event(s);

3) is air-conditioned and has comfortable seating;

4) is proximate to all the families involved (unlike the PAC, downtown; and


Please remain on topic, John.

John Foust said...

I think you forgot the facts about the church. Those doesn't matter, right, because the decision aligns with your religious beliefs?

You think my post was off-topic? I think it's directly on point.

Where's that "Let them sit on the wood risers in the non-air-conditioning gym like I did when I was a kid, it didn't hurt us any" kind of anti-public-skool spirit?

Dad29 said...

Actually, John, Elmbrook Church and I are quite divergent, theologically.

But that is irrelevant to the FACTS I outlined above--which will be the FACTS at issue in the pleadings, and are the FACTS which will determine the outcome.

Can you say "FACTS", John? Or will you continue your irrelevant (and quite immature) rants?

TerryN said...

Funny how liberals formulate all these what if's to try and make a point over an issue they're against but if it's an issue they're for, like gay marriage, there are never any what if's.

John Foust said...

There's a big cross-shaped fact and probably a bunch of other religious-theme items around the church, no? Or are they one of those touchy-feely churches that doesn't have kneelers?

You think the judge will focus on the First Amendment issues, or will they be judging the quality of the seating?

TerryN said...

I hope the judge does focus on the first amendment. You know the one I read says freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.

I also read today that my neighbors who brought this suite wish to remain anonymous. How proud they must feel...

John Foust said...

Here's AU's press release, with a link to the injunction.

Brett said...

If a Christian prayer at a public graduation in a public place runs against Amendment numero Uno (and I'd like to think I'm remember Con. Law 101), this one isn't even close.

Dad29 said...

Well, yah, Brett.

There is no prayer at all during these graduations (except the thanksgivings from the graduates themselves...)

There is no "there" there in the lawsuit. The venue is chosen strictly for licit secular purposes, period.

Scot1and said...

Take the Obama approach and cover all of the religious symbols.

There the problems is solved.


Brett said...

The venue is chosen strictly for secular purposes? I'd like to see the laundry list of other secular places they considered for secular purposes before they jumped to a temple. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Dad29 said...

OK, Brett, follow this carefully.

Start with cost; Elmbrook Schools does not want to spend a small fortune to get a room.

With that in mind:

1) The church is NEAR the district, unlike the PAC, or the Midwest Express Center--AND, unlike them, has lotsa on-site parking at no charge.

2) The church accomodates 2500 people in relative comfort. The District's gymnasiums accomodate 1000 (or a little less), UNcomfortably. With a graduating class of 400, that means grad, mom, dad--and NO other family members.

3) A/C actually IS a factor--not present in the school's (too-small) facilities.

Even the Marcus super-theater out here does not have capacity for 2,000+ in one of its theatres.

So: reasonable cost, adequate seating, A/C, proximity, parking, COST.

Where do you see a "non-sectarian" purpose in that list, Brett?

Brett said...

Please reread the comment.

Dad29 said...

I'd like to see the laundry list of other secular places they considered for secular purposes before they jumped to a temple what?

That may well be part of the pleadings (or whatever they're called) when this goes to prelim.

I just gave you the list of requirements, which leaves a VERY small universe of acceptable venues.

Exactly one, matter of fact..