Missouri: School Official On Leave Over Ten Commandments
Thursday August 19, 2004
Several court decisions have made it clear that government entities cannot promote the Ten Commandments by erecting displays for them - and this includes schools. In Missouri, Humansville School Superintendent Gregory Thompson has been put on leave without pay for refusing to abide by those court decisions.
Ozarks Newsstand reports:
According to minutes from a special board meeting Aug. 11, the board took action after Thompson advised the board he would not comply with the Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court directives as superintendent of the district. Thompson agreed the board had no choice but to suspend Thompson in order to protect the district given his refusal to comply with the law.
Sounds like Thompson put his personal religious beliefs above his duties and obligations as an educator. Why would any public school ever hire him again?
Amy Jenkins responds to the story and comments on Carrie M. Roat‘s successful lawsuit to get a Ten Commandments display removed from Thompson’s school:
I really hope she sleeps well at night knowing she has done more damage to our children now then those "Ten Commandments" being posted ever did.
If Amy Jenkins thinks that children need the Ten Commandments in order to grow up properly, she should make sure that her own children learn them. She cannot, however, expect the government to promote her religious beliefs by teaching them to other people’s children.
Read More:
Comments
I am the Amy you reference in your article and would like to congratulate you on taking the portion of the letter you wanted and twisting it to fit your blog. My whole point was to support the Superintendent at this school as my children attended there and to point out that having those commandments posted in that cafeteria had not brought any complaints from anyone in that school or any parents living in that school district. The parent that brought the suit may have had a child enrolled in that school and had a residence there, but did not reside in the city and only filed the suit out of a vandetta against the school. I know I am probably not going to get a good welcome here but I felt the need to clear that matter up. I didn’t say anywhere that my children needed that plaque posted in that school to learn or that the school should be teaching religion. I was simply making a point that got taken out of context and twisted around.
If you can support your claim that I have “twisted” your letter, please do so.
1. The absence of complaints about an action does not mean the action is legal.
2. Obviously someone did complain — Carrie M. Roat. You know she complained because you commented on her successful lawsuit.
3. That’s not all you said, so it can’t have been your only “point.”
Really? How did you come to know the motivation of this person so well? And why don’t you think that having a child in the school is a sufficient basis for complaining? Do you realize that unless she had “standing,” her lawsuit would never have been accepted in the first place?
I didn’t say that you said this. What you said was the removing the Ten Commandments damaged the children in the school. If this was not meant to imply that presence of the Ten Commandments is needed by kids to grow up properly, what was it meant to imply?
I notice that you don’t respond to the underlying legal issue: it’s illegal for the government to promote any particular religious beliefs or doctrines and that’s why the poster had to leave. I wonder why you think it is more damaging for the government to obey the law than it is for the government to break the law.