Thou shalt not parse the First: The Connellsville Ten Commandments decision |

Thou shalt not parse the First: The Connellsville Ten Commandments decision

Whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it is a metaphysical conundrum. But a federal court ruling that says a Ten Commandments monument on school property in Fayette County violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, but doesn’t order the monument’s removal because the objecting family doesn’t frequent the school anymore, is a constitutional non sequitur.

It’s as if Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry, sitting in Pittsburgh, thinks someone has to be present and openly offended for the clause’s prohibition to be applicable.

It was in 2012 that a mother and her seventh-grade daughter sued Connellsville Area School District with help from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They objected to the monument, donated in 1957 by the Connellsville Eagles, outside the junior-high auditorium entrance.

Judge McVerry’s ruling, which ordered the district to pay $1 in damages, does no one any favors while doing the Constitution a substantial disservice.

Having ruled the monument unconstitutional, McVerry should have, as a matter of law, ordered the monument’s removal. Case law provides ample basis for doing so. Instead, McVerry left the matter unnecessarily unsettled — with each side able to claim victory and district taxpayers exposed to further costly litigation if the monument remains.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.