Michigan Man Sues for Right to Put Back Nativity Scene on Public Median

Michigan Man Sues for Right to Put Back Family's Nativity Scene on Public Median

www.foxnews.com

A Michigan man has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated when he was ordered to remove a Nativity scene from the median of a public road — a creche that his family has displayed at the location for 63 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Edited Title for Clarity

[edit on 10/29/2009 by semperfortis]

This is getting ridiculous. It seems we are becoming more and more like a 3rd world country in MHO...

What... are we going to start having religious wars now here in the United States just like it is in the Middle East? Apparently, we aren't to far away from that!

Looks to me like the dark ages are upon us!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by x2Strongx


Two things are ridiculous about this

1. IT"S NOT EVEN HALLOWEEN!!!!!! No one has any business putting up Christmas decor...

2. It's a PUBLIC median, which means he doesn't own it alone, everyone owns it... so as long as he doesn't have a problem with some other symbols right next to it... satanic included, then it's all good.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Ya, I didn't really get why the dude is putting up christmas decor in October.. hell, I'd put a Satanic symbol next to it just to spite him.

But anyways, I do agree the State has no right to remove his religious display, it is a suppression of Religious rights, and use of Public land... however, I also agree with you that anyone should be allowed to put their decor up as well, so long as it is not an obstruction to traffic.

Honestly, it's a stupid place for a nativity scene anyways..

If he has been doing it for 63 years.....in plain sight.....without permission from the state, then his lawsuit has a lot of merit!!

There are still "homestead" laws on the books in most states, and it ranges from 7-15 years to stake a claim to someone's land. In general, you have to have used the land continously, in plain sight, and without the owner's permission for that time frame to have a claim!

So, the state can probably come along and say that his driver's license was his "permission" to use the land, and that they are now revoking that permission, or they may use Eminent Domain laws to take back possession, but I think this will at least be an interesting case!

Star and Flag

reply to post by x2Strongx


Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

A median is not a place to place nativity scenes. Next thing you know, everyone is going to be placing their political or relgious beliefs on the median and you won't be able to see oncoming traffic.

If I want my child to see a nativity scene, I will take him to a church. When he asks something, I am going to have to explain something I dont' want too.

Now if someone had put up Islamic or pagan symbolism, I wonder if you all would be so quick to protect religious rights? Or are you really just protecting the propagation of Christianity?

reply to post by nixie_nox

A Michigan man has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated when he was ordered to remove a Nativity scene from the median of a public road — a creche that his family has displayed at the location for 63 years.

Me personally, I could care less what people believe or what they put on display. As long as it isn't a safety issue as far as in the way of traffic, etc...

Me personally, I don't belong to any affiliation of religious beliefs. If someone wants to believe in anything or put it out on display... by all means feel free.

reply to post by nixie_nox

A median is not a place to place nativity scenes. Next thing you know, everyone is going to be placing their political or relgious beliefs on the median and you won't be able to see oncoming traffic.

Nixie, I totally agree on this one!!

A median is no place for any private display, if this were allowed, then next thing you know the state will be putting billboards there!!

I really hate those little memorials and crosses, and teddy bears, and constant reminders of people that died every 50 feet on the road as well! I think those should be banned! I don't need to be reminded every other minute of someone's dead kid or mother or friend! That is what cemetaries are for!!

reply to post by HunkaHunka

1. IT"S NOT EVEN HALLOWEEN!!!!!! No one has any business putting up Christmas decor...

reply to post by Rockpuck

Ya, I didn't really get why the dude is putting up christmas decor in October.

Actually, if you read the article, it says the incident took place last DECEMBER but the suit is just now making its way to the news apparently.



More than anything, I'm worried about it being a traffic hazard. The article says the display is 8 foot by 8 foot. That is huge and I have a difficult time believing that is not an obstacle to the vision of motorists.

But in a general sense, I have no problem with people putting religious displays on public property. As long as it is not sanctioned or endorsed by the government, public land is THERE to be enjoyed by all. And because we have the right to religious expression, those rights do not end because it is public property. Public property is everyone's property. We have a right to religious expression- not a right to be free from offense.

But again, more than anything, I'm concerned about its size. 8x8 sounds way too big to be on a traffic median. I get upset when my neighbors hedges get too large and I can't see when pulling out of my driveway so that would pose the same hazard it sounds like.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by AshleyD]

Oh look. FOX is dragging out something from last year to start it's simpering whining and wailing about the "war on christmas."

'Cause god knows, if Christians aren't allowed to use public property for free advertisement, they're being oppressed and it's - according to the OP - "like a third-world country"

You know, for a bunch of people who honestly, truly believe they will end up in eternal paradise simply for saying "I believe in jesus" at least once in their lives, they seem awfully insecure. Wonder why that is...

reply to post by AshleyD


HAHA, thanks for pointing it out.

But I gotta say, restricting the size is just as bad as restricting the placement. If it's a disruption to traffic safety I understand.. perhaps they should look at mortality rates of crashes located within a hundred yards of this giant nativity scene. If it were found the nativity scene was the cause of many deaths, it would put an ironic spin on the whole tale.

You aren't allowed to encroach on other people's freedoms in order to promote your religion. Not here.

Why can't he just put it in his front-yard like everyone else? Or find a local business that would like to host in front of their offices? The City wouldn't be able to remove it then.

However, demanding that he be allowed to place a religious display upon Public Municipal Land is outrageous. The City was correct in removing the display from the median, and denying his subsequent request to display it on the median.

Do you think that it would be acceptable in placing a large gold statue of Buddha on the steps of Congress and then suing when your display was removed? What about an Islamic diorama of the Kaaba?

Public Property in the United States is not for religious display. That's what Private Property is for!

When a City (or any other government agency) in the United States takes away a person's right to erect religious displays on Private Property, then we can break out our pitchforks and torches. However, there is no need to riot when they did not violate his Constitutional Rights, but protected the Constitutional Rights of everyone by keeping the Wall of Separation between Religion and Government.

A tradition destroyed by godless cry babies called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, that just sucks.

Have you see the billboard that the freedom from religion foundation has on the side of the road?



I would choose a nativity scene over that billboard any day.

Personally, I think the FFRF should stop sticking their nose in everyone's business. Just look at their wins and looses in court.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wins

FFRF v. Indiana Family & Social Services - May 2, 2007 challenge of the creation of a chaplaincy for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). The FSSA hired Pastor Michael L. Latham, a Baptist minister, in 2006, at a salary of $60,000 a year. In September 2007, in response to FFRF's suit, Indiana ended the program.[3]

Overturning a state Good Friday holiday - plaintiffs included Foundation staff and state employees

Winning a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools

Removing Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public land

Ending the U.S. Post Office's issuing of religious postage cancellations

Ending certain types of Bible instruction in public schools[4][5] (objective historical analysis of the Biblical texts is legal, but it is illegal to present religious beliefs as viable or true).

Losses

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation - A case before the Supreme Court over taxpayer standing to challenge White House faith-based programs. (defeated in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling)

Challenged a Congressional proclamation calling 1983 "The Year of the Bible" (dismissed as moot)

Challenged a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in La Crosse, Wisconsin (dismissed)

Filed a federal lawsuit to stop the building of a chapel at the Illinois statehouse (lost in appeals court)

Went to Colorado state court to remove a Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds in Denver (lost in State Supreme Court)

Challenged "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency in Colorado (lost in 10th Circuit Court)

Tried to block the state of Wisconsin from granting $100,000 to assist building a center at St. Norbert Catholic College, DePere, Wisconsin (lost in appeals court)

Challenged a lighted nativity scene in a public park in Waunakee, Wisconsin (lost in Wisconsin Supreme Court)

Sued over the removal of its banner, "State/Church: Keep Them Separate," from the rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol (lost in federal court)

Went to federal court in Missouri to sue over the phrase "So help me, God" on tax forms (case was dismissed, then was lost after refiling). [6]

They are a bunch of crying babies...

As far as I am concerned, not believing in a God is a belief system also known as a religion. So the FFRF are religious hypocrites.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

A median is not a place to place nativity scenes. Next thing you know, everyone is going to be placing their political or relgious beliefs on the median and you won't be able to see oncoming traffic.

A median is no place for any private display, if this were allowed, then next thing you know the state will be putting billboards there!!

You know, it is really hard sometimes to tell if your being serious or not.

Billboards are on the side of the road, and many feet up so they are not blocking view of traffic. And churches are allowed to pay to advertise in that certain designated spot. And usually billboards are far enough on land that many are on private property.

But no one is saying they can't be equally as annoying.

I really hate those little memorials and crosses, and teddy bears, and constant reminders of people that died every 50 feet on the road as well! I think those should be banned! I don't need to be reminded every other minute of someone's dead kid or mother or friend! That is what cemetaries are for!!

Someone mourning is not the same as someone with a religious or political agenda. And again, those are (unfortunately) on teh side of the road. Grieving and death is pretty much a certainty for everyone, and no one can avoid it(despite best efforts) but religious advertising, no one is teh same religion.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Now if someone had put up Islamic or pagan symbolism, I wonder if you all would be so quick to protect religious rights? Or are you really just protecting the propagation of Christianity?

yea, like a Christmas Tree.

I agree that this should be done in his own yard. But for all the atheists boo hooing about having to look at something religious, let me know when it burns your retinas out, until then look the other way.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


And Christians are not a bunch of crybabies everytime they are told they have to take paraphenalia down?

Again, if this were a Satanic symbol, buddah, or a pentacle, would you feel so strongly about this? Or would you actually be cheering?

reply to post by x2Strongx


Personally - i hate medians.

Where i live, they have the big 8 inch tall concrete medians that can't be driven over...so you have to drive around the block in order to park in your drive way.


Oh...this was about Christmas stuff ...yeah he does not own that median. He should be thankful that he got 63 years without someone standing up for their own individual rights.

reply to post by nixie_nox


LOL, I wasn't kidding! I know the billboards are on the side NOW, but if they start allowing displays in the median, then pretty soon, the state will see a revenue source, and next thing you know we have all kinds of crazy stuff in the medians!

And, I see PLENTY of those little grieving memorials in the medians, they are not always on the side of the road! I think many people put them right where the car lands!

If you see my original reply, I think there is some legality to this man's claim, but I am certain the state will wriggle out of it! I am all for Nativity scenes at churches and in yards and on private property, but I don't think the middle of the road is the right place!

Personally, I get offended when I see people doing charity drives on the side of the road. There is a special provision in the Florida Statutes for Firemen and Shriner's to be able to "panhandle" but everyone else is breaking the law when they stand at stop lights and sell papers, or ask for handouts. This includes Red Cross, United Way, or bums! If they haven't gotten the correct permission, they shouldn't be doing it!

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

And Christians are not a bunch of crybabies everytime they are told they have to take paraphenalia down?

Being told to do something in a free country is something to battle cry over. But when a foundation goes out of it's way to harm a tradition that wasn't harming anyone, that foundation is a bunch of crying babies.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Again, if this were a Satanic symbol, buddah, or a pentacle, would you feel so strongly about this? Or would you actually be cheering?

If it was a Satanic symbol, buddah, or a pentacle, I would just ignore it and go about my own business because I understand that FREEDOM should be equal for everyone. FREEDOM OF RELIGION is in the Constitution.

FFRF is destroying peoples freedom. To be free from religion is a personal issue, because you can just ignore religion, ignore the symbols, ignore the people that believe. To go around and file lawsuits to have religious symbols removed just so you can be free from religion is just outright selfish and wrong.

Take away someone else's freedom so you can have your own??