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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yup, I know..

Just like the case the Freedom From Religion Foundation lost before:

en.wikipedia.org...

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

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Thank you for you amateur interpretation of The Constitution!
Too bad the Courts don' t agree! Too bad you don't get it!

Say again?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by InvisibleObserver


SURE! Why not! Let's just suspend the Constitution if it makes "some guy happy!.
I can think of several laws I'd like suspended, it would "make me happy">
OK by you?

Originally posted by OldDragger
Thank you for you amateur interpretation of The Constitution!

What law is being made that respects the establishment of religion? How does this eyesore in the middle of the road go against the Constitution?

Too bad the Courts don' t agree!

What courts?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

HUh?
I thought you were familiar with seperation?
Are you kidding?
By allowing a religious display, the government is tacitly endorsing it by allowing it's display.
Thats why kindly Judge Moore was fired!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
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...

Actually I dissagree here with you if the nut want to put up his nativity scene ON HIS PROPERTY I could care less if its there all year.

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.

EXACTLY. Its on public property. This guy is looking for publicity and I could care less if he has done it for the lat 100 years. Im betting that if it was a Jewish or Muslim display this guy would be raising cain.

reply to post by getreadyalready


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!!

I don't see them more as a reminder to people to not act the fool and have a wreck rather than a reminder of dead people. Although, I am sure the people that put them up do it to remind them of someone they cared about died there.

Originally posted by OldDragger
By allowing a religious display, the government is tacitly endorsing it by allowing it's display.

Thanks for your response. I am familiar with separation and I believe strongly in it, but what's happening in this story doesn't have a legal ground.

Let's talk about that phrase in the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

No where does it say that the state shall not allow religious displays or anything like that. What WOULD be against the law is if someone put a star of David, a big honkin' menorah or a Sigil of Baphomet beside the creche and the state took THEM down, but left the creche.

I don't know who Judge Moore is. Sorry.

reply to post by OldDragger


I'm pretty sure you have no clue what you are talking about.

The term "separation of state" is derived from the First Amendment of the Constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What that does is prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion in general.

Placing a religious display on a public property does not imply a direct connection to the state, nor is there a direct connection.

Forcing a removal of a temporary religious symbol is against the free exercise clause.

The only reason the court was able to remove a religious symbol from a public property in the past was because that symbol was permanent and attached to a building which somehow implied a direct connection to the state. Temporary displays are totally different.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


You know, I was in Target tonight and the halloween section was being broken down and Christmas trees were up. This is getting out of hand.
I say a new law, no Christmas till at lease after Halloween.

reply to post by getreadyalready


See I have no problem with the little memorials. Accidents have become so commonplace it is almost like a part of modern ecology. And it reminds people that it is still tragic. And I also feel that the US is very cold when it comes to grieving, and that people need to grieve and should be allowed to grieve openly. I think it is awful that if you lose a loved one, a close loved one, you only get 5 days off work in a lot of cases. I think that is a crime.

Though I do see some sites that get to be a little too much and distracting.

reply to post by ALLis0NE





LOL Always has to be a veiled insult. Good ol ATS!
Guess you missed the prohibition of Nativity Scenes on public property ALL OVER THE NATION FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS!
There is no legal distinction between temporary breaking the law ( The Constitution) and permantly breaking the law.
God. Where do you people come up with this stuff!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH! Look into this a little deeper. While I may not always agree with you, you are ( in my opinion) one of the more rational people here.
I suggest you look up Judge Roy Moore and the State of Alabama.
Seems the Judge posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, refused to take it down. The Alabama Supreme Court threw him out on his illegal ***.
Read and learn!

As for the people who claim mediums have trees, bushes, hedges, walls and everything else.....

those are put there and maintained by the state. Don't forget wildflowers.

they are there...by design. And what is chosen to be put there, is also by design.

For noise dampening, accident control, light control, whatever. Engineers figured it out a long time ago.

No, mediums are not normally used to be driven on. But they do act as buffers for accidents. While a bush may seem innoculous, they control lights, but also act as a light buffer if a car crosses over, without having the impact of a solid wall.

But to put up a non condoned contraption, and I don't care if it is the nativity, star wars, or a big golden buddah, is actually running a safety risk. Lets say that nativity has a wooden frame, you could run the risk of someone crossing and hitting it, and now you have flying shrapnel.

Or what if Mary weighs 100 lbs and goes flying into oncoming traffic? They have every right to not tell people they can't put stuff there.

Yes you see business signs, they weigh half a pound and are flimsy plastic, and you won't see them stay up to long. In fact I think even those are illegal, I see county going by and collecting them. You won't see a sign that is sturdy with a nice wood frame, again, safety problem.

Traffic signs are securely put in, and meet standards, They are in a lot of concrete. That is why if one is hit, it is usually just bent over or or slides somewhere.

reply to post by OldDragger


I'm not saying lets suspend the Constitution and go nuts. All I am saying is this little thing which is foolish to begin with shouldn't even be a concern and can make a exception for and be allowed, he has been doing the same thing every year for 63 years and nobody had a problem with it before. Then some group from another state, I will say it again, a group from another state decided to ruin his holiday cheer because they don't agree with his view. That Wisconsin based group should stick to their own yard and not worry about some city across the lake in another state. How long has that group been around? I am sure the man and his family have been putting up that display well before that little group came to be, that display is probably older than the majority of the people in that group, grandfather clause anyone on that display? The crazy thing is I believe this man will win his lawsuit and I hope he does. It is getting ridiculous what some people cause a fuss over these days. Like I said before I am hearing more and more of these Nativity scenes not being allowed, these displays are as traditional in December in the United States as baseball in the summer, along with another thing, sorry off topic but I am hearing more stories about the American Flag not being allowed to fly at some apartments,condos and in a few subdivisions, along with a fire fighter getting in trouble over having an American flag sticker on his locker all on the United States soil, come on that is crazy. One day its a nativity scene the next day the American flag, what will be next?

I so wish I had lived in Michigan while it was still on display. I would have killed it with fire.

Also, why is this guy complaining? It's God's will that it's been taken down.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by reasonable]

reply to post by reasonable


What an amazing interpretation. I wonder if he'd accept your take?

Give unto caeser.

It's a shame that Government thinks they need to protect us from ourselves all the time. You cannot make everyone happy all the time. If this was the case... I would think we would have a utopia by now.

If we were to pass a law or dictate what someone does every time a person or group of people is offended... then we wouldn't be allowed to do anything.

What's the solution... I have no idea. Big Government/Big Brother is definitely part of the problem in MHO.

Originally posted by OldDragger
Guess you missed the prohibition of Nativity Scenes on public property ALL OVER THE NATION FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS!

If we missed it, maybe you can provide a link. I have searched and can't find it. All I find are stories and cases allowing it.

This nativity scene is privately owned and displayed on public property. It does not belong to the government and is not being displayed by the government (unlike the case of the Ten Commandments that you mentioned). This letter explains it.

If the nativity scene on public property is a private one, the law is much more straightforward. So long as the display is truly private and allowed on equally neutral terms in a public forum (that is public property that is open for use by the public either by tradition or by policy) there are no restrictions on how the religious symbol may be displayed. Most local governments will already have a policy in place that allows private groups to apply to use the property. The government must treat those wishing to erect the nativity scene exactly the same way it would treat any other applicant.

As I said, they never should have denied it for its CONTENT. That's discrimination AGAINST religion, something we don't (and legally can't) do here.

Originally posted by OldDragger
BH! Look into this a little deeper.

I have. I suggest you do the same. Post some links and maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong. I welcome it. Really. I abhor gaudy, public displays of religion. I would love to be wrong on this.

While I may not always agree with you, you are ( in my opinion) one of the more rational people here.

Well, thank you.

I suggest you look up Judge Roy Moore and the State of Alabama.
Seems the Judge posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, refused to take it down. The Alabama Supreme Court threw him out on his illegal ***.

That was on government property. Erected by a government official. To show that God's Law is above man's law. A very different situation.

Judge Moore stated,

“The people of the State of Kentucky have the right and the duty to acknowledge God as the source of governmental authority and human rights, and no federal court has any authority to interfere with that right and duty.”

Source

Read and learn!

I have.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by nixie_nox
But to put up a non condoned contraption, and I don't care if it is the nativity, star wars, or a big golden buddah, is actually running a safety risk. ... They have every right to not tell people they can't put stuff there.

I totally agree. But when the man applied for a permit, it was refused because of the specific content. It was refused because it was religious. That's the legal stickler in this case. And it's documented. The state cannot do that. They should have reused it on safety grounds or because it's an eyesore or even because they don't want other people following suit and lining the median with contraptions of all sorts. ANYTHING would have been a better reason than, "because it's a religious display". Someone didn't know what they were doing.

This case will make the rounds. The state will lose, the man will put up his monster and then 50 other people will put up their 8x8 foot contraptions (which the state must, by law, allow) and then they WILL become a traffic hazard and they will all have to come down.

People like this man make me sick. How selfish and insecure must a person be to want to display his beliefs and make a statement like this? It's truly incomprehensible to me.

reply to post by nixie_nox

I say a new law, no Christmas till at lease after Halloween.

In general, I hate any new laws, but I would vote for that one!!

Last year one of my favorite radio stations switched to 24 hr Christmas music on November 1st!! I called and complained several times, and then I vowed to never listen again, and I have stuck to it!

I actually like Christmas music, but not for 2 whole months!!