Freedom FROM Religion Group Attacking 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights

(Conservative Report) - For some time now, people who don’t like organized religions have been figuratively & literally attacking the people’s right to express their faith. The First Amendment and specifically, the establishment clause is being used as the weapon in the radical left’s war on religion. Whether it be a cross at ground zero, which was actually part of the building, or nativity scenes all over the country—the use of public land to display Christian themes has become ground zero on the war on Christianity.

One of the big players in this battle is a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), their stated purpose is to enforce the “separation” of church and state. But what they actually are is a group of litigious atheists who are bent on the destruction of anything resembling religion in the United States. The secular movement personified. It would be helpful at this point to once again read the very short and simple first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How exactly does a group of lawyers get this simple statement so wrong? Look at the first line. How much clearer can the words be. the key words are right there, “Establishment” and “or prohibiting”. What this group is actually doing is creating a litigious environment where municipalities and states limit free speech out of fear. Lawsuits are expensive Yet somehow this group of attorneys seem to be able to continually threaten these entities and actually fight for years to get what they want. The town of Warren Michigan can tell you that.

First the organization attacked a private display on public land that has been there for 60 years. They fired off a letter warning the local government that a display of a nativity that had graced the median strip every Christmas for 60 years was a violation of the “separation” clause of the first amendment.

The Roads Commission sought advice of council and got bad advise, here from the court transcript.

“I’ve contacted Ben Aloia and asked him to research [whether the Board should grant Satawa’s application]. Ben has informed me that we should not allow this nativity scene to be installed, and he has given me some language that I should [sic] respond to this permit. I intend to do that.” Ben Aloia is a lawyer.

I am sad for Ben Aloia who obviously never reviewed any Supreme Court decisions on private displays of religious themes on public land, Had he done so he would have found exactly what the Michigan court of appeals had found and everyone should be aware of.

Once again, from the Supreme Court’s decision transcript.

The question we face, then, is whether Satawa’s private expression of religious beliefs on the Mound Road median would violate the Establishment Clause. “And we do not write on a blank slate in answering it.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 762. Time and again, the Supreme Court and this court have considered cases where a private individual seeks to express religious views in a public forum.

See, e.g., Pinette, 515 U.S. at 761–63 (holding that allowing KKK to erect unattended cross on Columbus’s Capitol Square would not violate Establishment Clause); Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. at 395 (holding that use of school facilities during off-hours for religious film would not violate establishment clause); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271–76 (1981) (holding that University’s allowing religious student groups to use school facilities would not violate Establishment Clause); Chabad of S. Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cinncinati, 363 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming grant of preliminary injunction against City of Cincinnati’s enforcing ordinance prohibiting display of menorah in traditional public forum during Chanukah); Ams. United for Separation of Church & State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F.2d 1538 (6th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (holding that privately funded menorah, displayed during Chanukah in traditional public forum did not violate Establishment Clause); Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 923 F.2d 458 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that city could not show likelihood on success of merits in challenge of injunction requiring it to keep menorah displayed in public square lit).

Where, as here, “[t]he State did not sponsor [the religious] expression, the expression was made on government property that had been opened to the public for speech, and permission was requested through the same application process and on the same terms required of other private groups,” the government would not violate the Establishment Clause by granting the permit. Pinette, 515 U.S. at 763. The Board’s interest in preventing an Establishment Clause violation, therefore, was not compelling. Its decision to deny the permit does not pass muster under strict scrutiny.

The Supreme Court time after time have reinforced the rights of private citizens to display religious items on public land. The Freedom From Religion Foundation lost the constitutional argument in a Michigan courtroom.

So fearful are these municipalities of this leftist religion hating organization that the town actually tried to change the argument in the middle of the court proceedings. Remember the FFRF sent a letter about the religious nature of the display and the town listening to a shaky attorney banned the display for that reason. Even sending the family a letter summarizing that finding. But once in court the story changed.

The Supreme Court decided to use the traffic safety argument. The nativity scene would create a blind spot. Not just a big blind spot but as one traffic engineer would put it. There had to be two very specific traffic violations occurring for any accident to occur due to this display.

Sadly for this argument in the 60 year history of this Nativity Scene not once have those criteria been met. That’s right there have been no reported accidents at the intersection while the display was assembled and in place. But here is the real rub on this argument. Take a look at this picture.

Do you see those three trees? The town, in defending their decision, tried to say they were less of a hazard than the display. They span across the entire median strip.

Needless to say the private citizen with the help of the Thomas More law Center won the case and hopefully that Nativity scene is being assembled right now.

Rest assured that the FFRF is not finished. They have already filed another suit against the town of Warren, Michigan for various holiday displays in the lobby of city hall. There are secular winter wishes and another nativity scene sponsored by a private civic group. Even a non denominational prayer area. Not good enough for FFRF They want a sign placed in the lobby that says this.

At this season of
THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.
There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but
myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.

The town told them the message was too negative for the joyful season. FFRF took them to court and lost that one too!

Stand up for the Constitution and the first amendment. When it is threatened by folks with an agenda of destruction fight the good fight. Seek help for organizations like the Thomas More law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Both organizations are fighting for the Constitution and religious freedom.

Later we will discuss the Court rulings and how those very things are still under attack.