A Suit Is Filed To Defend Religious Slogans On Fundraiser-Bricks

onsider this a case of hosannas and brickbats. In Oswego County, N.Y. three residents with the assistance of the Rutherford Institute have filed suit against a local school for ostensibly violating their right to place religious slogans on bricks sold as a student fundraiser on high school property.

   The Mexico (N.Y.) Academy High School Class of 1999 launched a drive to encourage students, parents and other members of the public to purchase vanity and commemorative bricks for $30 each. A brick would be inscribed with a greeting or message, the only restriction being that it not contain "obscene or vulgar language." One of those taking the school up on its offer was Ron Russell, pastor at the local Mexico Church of God, who along with his family purchased five of the bricks. Inscribed on one was the slogan "Jesus Saves."

   Another resident, Bob Kiesinger, also purchased a brick and had the same words stamped on it. "Jesus Christ Lord" and "Jesus Christ Is the Lord of this School" appeared on other vanity bricks.

    Resident Paul Anderson, who had purchased a brick and inscribed the reference to Jesus as school "Lord" was particularly distressed, though, with what happened next. He told the Palladium Times newspaper last March that he had expected to see his Jesus brick prominently displayed near the school's flagpole, but instead found it -- along with the other proselytizing bricks -- in a section of walkway, presumably obscured by shrubbery.

    Other complaints were voiced, though, pointing out that religious slogans on any bricks on public school property violated the separation of church and state. Elizabeth and David Passer contacted the Oswego County school board and asked that the bricks be removed, charging that they promoted a sectarian religion -- in this case, Christianity -- and conveyed "a clear message that anyone not of that belief system is not valued as much by the school district." District officials disagreed, though, and board president Chad Dawson told reporters, "Messages on this walk are the personal expressions and contributions of the individuals of this community."

    Mr. Passer then purchased a brick, asking that "Keep Abortion Legal" be inscribed on it.

    With the advice of legal counsel, the District voted unanimously on Feb. 10 to remove any bricks bearing political or religious messages. One local pastor, Bill O'Neill of the First Baptist Church criticized the move, saying that the decision had the effect of "putting Jesus in the same category as politicians." Rev. Russell opined, "It's a freedom of speech issue," and added that banning religious slogans on the bricks sent the message that "Jesus Christ is not welcomed in the schools."

    The Oswego County controversy is similar to another case from Chattanooga, Tennessee where a couple purchased a vanity brick and requested that it include the message, "Hope Horne, To the Glory of God." The couple, Melody and Tom Horne, said that the inscription honored their daughter who at the time was in the third grade at Westview Elementary School.

    Westview is moving into a new facility this fall term, and like the Mexico High School had conducted a fundraising event which included the sale of vanity bricks for $50 each. When school officials read the inscription proposed by the Hornes, they consulted the Hamilton County School Board attorney who suggested that the Horne's request be turned down. The Hornes then turned to the American Center for Law and Justice, a litigation group founded by Christian Coalition head Pat Robertson, which filed suit in June alleging that the school board had violated their First and 14th Amendment rights.

   A spokesperson for ACLJ declared, "When school facilities are to be used by the community for public meetings or gatherings, you cannot discriminate or disallow speech to take place because of religious content."

    Complicating the picture was the fact that the school had already approved an inscription on a brick purchased by two other parents, Robyn and Brian Smith. It declared, "Praying for You and Westview," and honored their kindergarten-age son.

    Early last month, the ACLJ reached an agreement with the school district. In exchange for dropping the lawsuit, the district allowed inclusion of the "Glory of God" inscription with the rest of the commemorative bricks and agreed to pay $7,500 in attorneys' fees to ACLJ. The case could have national implications, and affect the dispute in Oswego County, N.Y.

   Courts wrestling with disputes involving religious expression on public property often face a bewildering array of legal precedents, and confusing -- even contradictory -- rulings.

   ¶    Inscriptions which may not appear to endorse a specific religion and instead encourage prayer -- rather than prayer to Jesus, Buddha or some other reverential figure -- may encounter less legal scrutiny. Complaints so far in cases involving bricks or other mottos on public property often focus on the claim that one religion is being promoted over another. Speech that is "spiritual," but not religion-specific or sectarian, is likely to be allowed as an example of "ceremonial religion."

   ¶    Is the area in question a "free speech zone," and are all forms of expression to be permitted? Unless rules carefully stipulate what may be inscribed on bricks, plaques or other commemorative fundraiser items, possible problems could occur. Authorities at Mexico High School were forced to act after Mrs. Passer first objected to the religious inscriptions, then purchased a brick with the phrase "Keep Abortion Legal." When that slogan was rejected, the school superintendent then announced that all controversial bricks would be removed. Subsequently, a new proposal was enacted which prohibits political, religious or profane expressions on bricks.

   ¶    Is the "free speech zone" truly free and open? If Christian or Jewish religious slogans are permitted, messages contrary to faith, or those from unpopular or fringe groups, must be allowed. A quote critical of religion, or a statement from a Wiccan or Pagan sect, must be allowed if other bricks or plaques praise Christian, Jewish or Islamic figures and teachings.

   ¶    Despite the involvement of religious rights litigation groups, some supporters of the religious slogans insist that the issue has little or nothing to do with faith. A spokesperson for the Rutherford Institute, which represents the Oswego County plaintiffs, said that the position of the school board in the Chattanooga case was "absurd."

   "The bricks aren't pushing religion," said Steven Aden, chief litigation counsel at Rutherford. "Separation of church and state is not violated. This amounts to snuffing out religion in the name of political correctness." He pointed to another case concerning free speech in public, CAPITOL SQUARE vs. PINNETTE. It involved a Ku Klux Klan cross which had been erected in a Columbus, Ohio city square. A small sign placed at its food dispelled its religious significance, and the court allowed the display to remain.

    Back in the small town of Mexico, N.Y., Rev. Russell sees the dispute over slogans on bricks as a battle which clearly involves religious rights. He has erected a sign in the front of his church which reads: "Welcome to Mexico. A town where Jesus is not welcome in the schools." He tells reporters that any ban on the brick inscriptions is indicative of declining morals in America. "They pulled prayer out of schools, and the schools have literally gone to hell."

[text only]