“A federal judge in Pennsylvania has thrown out a lawsuit challenging the presence of a Ten Commandments monument at a local high school, declaring that the complainants have not suffered injury from the display.”
That’s hardly a good argument. “Plaintiffs … have failed to establish that they were forced to come into ‘direct, regular, and unwelcome contact’ with the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of Valley High School,” wrote U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry.
What if there were people who argued that they came into “unwelcomed contact” with the Ten Commandments? Would that mean the display should be taken down? I come into “direct, regular, and unwelcomed contact” with all sorts of laws every day. The tax code is a good example.
“In 2012, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a lawsuit against the [Ten Commandments] display on behalf of local resident Marie Schaub and her daughter, who complained that they were disturbed by the monument’s presence” at her high school.
I know, laws that demand that people not lie, steal, or murder are disturbing. Maybe the atheist group doesn’t like the fact that the Ten Commandments come from a sovereign God. If there is no God, then there are no laws against lying, stealing, and murdering. That seems to be more disturbing.
Who’s right in the battle over the Ten Commandments?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com