School Officials Allow Brick with Bible Reference
When Penn State alumnus James Pursley purchased a brick on the school’s Alumni Walk, he wanted it to include the words “Joshua 24:15.” But school officials rejected his application on the basis of a policy that prevented religious messages. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) successfully brought Pursley’s case to trial and won reached a settlement with Penn State before the case could come to trial.
I’m finding it difficult to disagree with the ADF, despite my utter distaste for their mission (”a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”). Sure, every student should have a right to include a message that holds dear to their hearts. But not everything can past muster. What will Penn State do when a student wants to write “Atheists are going to hell” or “Proud KKK member”? Fellow blogger Lori Lipman Brown commented that this case sets a precedent for bricks that say “Glory to Allah” or “Satan rules!” Would the ADF have a problem with that? (I’d really love to see them representing a Satanist on the basis of religious freedom!)
Penn State had the right to limit messages using an appropriate standard, and while a Bible quote might be harmless enough, this case opens up a can of worms that will make it difficult to stop more dangerous messages like hate speech.
Subscribe to Feed
First of all this case WAS NOT brought to trial. According to the article linked to this post The Alliance Defense Fund reached a settlement with Penn State after filing suit but before it went to trial.
This means the ball is in the ACLU’s court. Will they sue arguing that as a publicly funded university it cannot promote religion and that a brick bearing the inscription of a bible verse constituets promotion of Chrstianity?
I doubt very seriously that The Alliance Defense Fund would defend a Satanist. As a private organization they can pick and choose whatever cases they want to pursue. I am sure that if a Satanist approached The Alliance Defense Fund for legal assistance they would repsectfully decline. After all, Satanism is not the “truth” they hope to promote.
The settlement does not open the door for hate speech for a few reasons:
1. There was no court decision that would compell them to allow such speech.
2. Penn State, its alumni association and any of its affiliates can continue to refrain from accepting donations for bricks from people that want to include messages that they find objectionable.
In this case that is exactly what they did. All that happened was that the school reconsidered its initial judgement and worked things out with its alumnus.
I do agree with the author that I have a hard time disagreeing with the ADF in this case. I hope that this is the end of the whole affair…but I doubt it.
This author stands corrected; a lawsuit was filed, but a settlement was reached before the case went to trial. I have corrected this in the original post.
[...] While you think about that, this about this story, courtesy of Rant & Reason. [...]
To me this doesn’t seem very different from a religious message on a tombstone in a public graveyard. The message is paid for by the alum and so clearly the speech of an alum, not the school, that I am not bothered by it.
If the school is publicly funded or if the school receives government money to build any buildings on campus then there can be an arguement made that the brick constitutes a promotion of religion.
For example, if a private group pays for a Ten Commandments monument and gets permission to install it in a courthouse it becomes a promotion of religion.
Incidently I agree with you but I still would not be surprised if the ACLU took action.