Tag Archives: Topic: Monuments

News from The Associated Press: A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Washington, D.C., planned to file its petition Thursday . . .

GoBlueRidge.net: The Town of Newland is being threatened by a national group over the posting of the Ten Commandments at the town hall.

Freedom From Religion Foundation: FFRF has readied a legal complaint and plans to file it shortly in federal court in Montana. In an official memo released today by the US Forest Service, it announced it will reauthorize a special use permit for the Knights of Columbus to maintain a Jesus shrine in Flathead National Forest for the next decade.

News from The Associated Press: The U.S. Forest Service says it will re-authorize a permit for a 57-year-old statue of Jesus that had been facing eviction from a northwestern Montana ski resort.

Latimes.com: However the Supreme Court rules, members of Congress have their own obligation to abide by the 1st Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. The bill passed by the House would put Congress’ imprimatur on displays on public property that give preference to a single religion. The Senate should reject it.

Baptist Press: To show support for a Tennessee town facing legal action against a cross atop its water tower, area residents carried a 12-foot cross nine miles to Whiteville, where it was presented to city representatives during a rally that drew about 350 people.

News from The Associated Press: The House has passed a bill confirming the use of religious symbols at military memorials. It was also voting on legislation to order that a prayer issued by Franklin Roosevelt on D-Day be installed at the World War II memorial in Washington.

WLBT 3 – Jackson, MS (includes video): Two lighted crosses on a city-owned water tower in Bentonia have been turned off and one disgruntled resident has raised the ire of the entire town.

Military.com: California Rep. Duncan Hunter has waded into the battle over the so-called Camp Pendleton cross — put up by leathernecks in honor of four buddies killed in Iraq — by asking the commander of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to let the cross stay.

10News.com: A Marine widow has joined the fight to keep a cross at Camp Pendleton, saying it is the only place she can mourn the loss of her husband, who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Roanoke.com: The student who is suing to have a copy of the Ten Commandments removed from a hallway wall at Narrows High School will continue to be known only as Doe 1.

WorldNetDaily: Atheists and their compatriots are putting a bull’s-eye on another cross memorial, this time attacking the idea of replacing a fixture at the U.S. Marine base in Camp Pendleton, Calif., that was erected to honor soldiers killed in Iraq.

KGTV San Diego: The crosses were removed by workers from the California Department of Transportation in August after receiving complaints from citizens about religious symbols on state property. Since then, they’ve been stored in a Caltrans warehouse. In a statement from the National Center for Law and Policy, attorney Dean Broyles wrote: “The crosses should never have been removed — especially after receiving only a few e-mail complaints from disgruntled ‘bah humbug’ citizens.’”

NYTimes.com: Hiram Sasser, a lawyer for the Liberty Institute, a conservative legal advocacy group, said that because the ski resort is already leasing much of the mountain from the Forest Service, the federal government has no right to ban the statue merely because some people might not like it.

Roanoke.com: A judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a display of the Ten Commandments in a Giles County school Monday, setting the stage for a long legal battle.

StarTribune.com (includes video): Despite opposition at City Hall, a St. Paul resident said he hasn’t been officially told to remove the monument from its river-bluff perch.

San Antonio Express-News: Controversial crosses on a tower at the new Texas A&M University-San Antonio campus have been removed.

Standard-Examiner (AP): Over the past week, the 12-foot-high Roman crosses have been stripped of the brown and gold beehive-shaped logo of the Utah Highway Patrol, association attorney Frank Mylar said . . . “We’re hoping we can keep the memorials as much intact as possible but change them so that it complies with the (court),” Mylar said. “They really feel strongly that that without the cross there’s no memorial.”

ADF Attorney Joe Infranco appeared with Cy Kellett on KCEO (Catholic Radio San Diego). | MP3 audio 21:54 mins

Religion Clause: The long-running battle over the the cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert Veterans’ Memorial is back in the news.

Christian Post: The county was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that frequently takes up the case of Decalogue displays on public property.
Nathan Kellum, the ADF legal counsel who took the Johnson County case, did not return phone calls by press time.

The Baptist Standard (Religion News Service): The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the Supreme Court to consider the case, was disappointed. “Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Byron Babione said.

Liberty Counsel: Today Liberty Counsel filed its Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Virginia against the Giles County School Board, after Narrows High School posted a display on law with eleven equal-size frames, one of which includes the Ten Commandments.

Religion Clause: Another battle over government recognition of religion appears to be developing in connection with H.R. 2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011. The proposed law would add a plaque with Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington.

Religion Clause: The Summum organization has been attempting for several years to obtain permission to put up a Seven Aphorism’s monument in a park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah.

UPI.com: The U.S. Supreme Court turned its collective face from two linked cases last week, rejecting them without comment other than a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who caustically told the rest of the justices their guidance in religious display cases was a mess.

Fox News: Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The New American: ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione expressed his disappointment in the High Court’s refusal. “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families,” he said. “Thirteen heroic men fell, leaving their survivors to mourn and memorialize their loved ones, and now those widows, children, parents, colleagues, and many more must suffer through losing the very memorials that honored those heroes. Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors.” [more]

Frank D. Mylar at The Salt Lake Tribune: Justice Thomas sees the Supreme Court’s non-decision here as yet another contributing factor to an “Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles,” where no one really understands how the court might rule in a given case with memorials that can be interpreted by some as “religious.” It represents a shift further from the objective rule of law and what America’s founders intended, and instead makes us more vulnerable to the whims of the most easily offended observers — like those who see an effort to “establish” religion in memorials like the crosses in Utah . . . Frank D. Mylar, a Salt Lake attorney, was co-counsel for the Utah Highway Patrol Association with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org).

Linda Greenhouse at NYTimes.com: The dissent was a vivid tour through the incoherent landscape of the court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Here are a few choice morsels, omitting the numerous citations not only to Supreme Court decisions but also to decisions issued by lower courts as they have struggled to understand and apply the Supreme Court’s cases . . .

Baptist Press: “It is baffling that the Supreme Court did not take this case, in light of the fact that just last year they said that roadside memorials to fallen troopers would not violate the establishment clause,” said Byron Babione, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.

American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ: In just a few short hours, more people have taken a stand for the war memorial statue of Jesus that sits atop Big Mountain in Montana than the entire membership of the atheist group seeking to have it removed.

How Appealing provides more information on the suite and links to news reports.

David L. Hudson at First Amendment Center: One may believe that Justice Thomas is an outlier with his establishment-clause position. But his latest dissent hits the mark when he identifies that the Court is inconsistent when fielding church-state separation questions.

FRC: On Thursday, Family Research Council Action’s (FRC Action) Values Voter Bus Tour will make a stop in Murray, Utah next to a roadside cross that is now facing removal in the court case, Utah Highway Patrol Association vs. American Atheists. FRC Action and Congressional candidate Carl Wimmer will express deep disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to hear the case.

Crosswalk ReligionToday News Summaries: Justice is not well-served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” said ADF senior counsel Byron Babione. Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, also harshly criticized the court’s decision, saying it rejected “an opportunity to provide clarity” to an area of law that was “in shambles.”

OneNewsNow.com: But Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione tells OneNewsNow that American Atheists claimed the memorials are “a state establishment of religion.” . . . “It is baffling that the Supreme Court did not take this case in light of the fact that just last year they said that roadside memorials to fallen troopers would not violate the Establishment Clause,” the attorney laments.

Christianity Today: The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione said, “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is baffling in light of its comments just last year that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers do not amount to a government establishment of religion.” Babione and the ADF helped represent those who paid for and maintained the crosses . . . According to the ADF’s brief, that the crosses were memorials and symbols of sacrifice; they did not represent Christianity. “The [Utah Highway Patrol Association] chose the cross shape because it is the only symbol, given its historical use, that could simultaneously communicate messages of roadside death, commemoration, and highway safety,” the ADF brief said.

WorldNetDaily: The Alliance Defense Fund has been fighting on behalf of the Utah Highway Patrol Association to memorialize fallen troopers “in a way they see fit . . . ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione argued “one atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families.” “Thirteen heroic men fell, leaving their survivors to mourn and memorialize their loved ones, and now those widows, children, parents, colleagues, and many more must suffer through losing the very memorials that honored those heroes,” he said.

Ken Klukowski at the Washington Examiner: The Utah Highway Patrol Association participated in the case as intervenors represented by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The ADF’s lead counsel for UHPA, Byron Babione, said, “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by highway patrol officers and their families.” ADF would continue to fight to protect these memorials, he added. The slight silver lining in this denial is that Thomas’s dissent suggests that the High Court might not have seen the 10th Circuit’s judgment as covering all roadside crosses, instead regarding it as covering only roadside crosses bearing government insignia (which are presumably rare).

Joseph Infranco at National Review Online: The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would not review an important case on whether displaying a memorial cross is an unconstitutional “establishment” of religion. Justice Thomas issued a 19-page dissenting opinion noting that “the Court reject[ed] an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles.

The Washington Post: The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the court to consider the case, was disappointed. “Justice is not well served when unhappy atheists can use the law to mow down memorial crosses and renew the suffering for the survivors,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione.

FRC: Family Research Council (FRC) strongly criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to let stand one of the worst religious assaults in all of American history.

U.S. Supreme Court allows ruling against memorial trooper crosses to stand

The Washington Post: Air Force Major General Cecil Richardson shared the unique life of a military chaplain during special services at Arlington National Cemetery this week to dedicate monument honoring 14 rabbis who died while serving in the U.S. military.

WREG: Town’s residents have placed hundreds of crosses in their yards around the city

WREG: The mayor of the town complied in his own way, having one arm of the cross removed as a form of protest.

Calgary Sun: Normally, it’s Jesus who does the saving. This time though, it’s Canadian tourists being called upon to save Christ — or, rather, a six-decade-old statue of Jesus being threatened by a zero-tolerance atheist group just south of the border.

SignOnSanDiego.com: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Tuesday delaying the effect of its ruling from January, which said the cross violated the constitutional separation between church and state.

World Net Daily: “Although we are disappointed that the Ninth Circuit denied requests to have the full court rehear this case, we are encouraged that five of the judges agree with us and believe the cross should stay,” said Kelly Shackelford, attorney for the memorial . . . Joseph Infranco, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, also praised the 23-page dissent.”The political agenda of secularist groups should not be allowed to uproot memorials that honor the sacrifices of America’s fallen heroes and their families,” he said. [more]

The State Column:
Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today urged the United States Forest Service to reconsider its denial of a permit extension for an historically significant World War II Memorial statue of Jesus that has been located in the Flathead National Forest near Kalispell, MT since 1953.

KXLH.com | Helena, Montana: The Flathead National Forest Supervisor is withdrawing his earlier decision on the Knights of Columbus special-use permit for the statue of Jesus on Big Mountain near Whitefish.

NBC Montana: A Flathead service group is fighting the US Forest Service over a statue of Jesus Christ built half a century ago on public land.

The case could be the third major controversy involving such crosses to head to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years and is the fourth recent federal case–all of which has led to increased public discussion on the subject.

The Salt Lake Tribune: The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to make a decision about whether to hear a case involving the appropriateness of placing 12-foot-high crosses on public property in the Beehive State to memorialize state troopers killed in the line of duty.

Religion Clause: On Friday, the 9th Circuit refused to rehear the case and also refused an en banc rehearing. However 5 judges, in an opinion written by Judge Bey, dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing. In Jewish War Veterans v. City of San Diego, (9th Cir., Oct. 14, 2011), Judge Bey wrote in part . . .

WPRI.com: Cranston city officials and the Rhode Island ACLU will go before Federal Court Judge Ronald Lagueux Thursday at 2 p.m. in Providence to argue over the banner that’s hung in the gymnasium of Cranston High School West for decades . . .

Roanoke.com: A student perturbed by a display of the Ten Commandments at Narrows High School should not be allowed to sue under a veil of secrecy, attorneys for the Giles County School Board say.

The Jackson Sun | jacksonsun.com: The Board of Aldermen voted last week to let the Alliance Defense Fund look into the town’s options for responding to the complaint about the cross. The board meets the first Monday of each month.

Beliefnet News: The town council has voted to consult with the Alliance Defense Fund about their legal options, “This is their cause in life – to ride up and down the highway and find small towns that maybe have a religious symbol somewhere on public property,” he said.

Fox News: However, the town council voted to consult with the Alliance Defense Fund about their legal options.
“This is their cause in life – to ride up and down the highway and find small towns that maybe have a religious symbol somewhere on public property,” he said. “I have to admit it – checking their website, they’re batting 100 percent on this stuff.”

OneNewsNow.com: Geoffrey Surtees of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), who represented Judge DeWeese, contends that the “‘Philosophies of Law and Conflict’ display, which includes the text of the Ten Commandments, is simply not an Establishment Clause violation. It was our hope that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity [to] correct the lower courts on this point of law, but for whatever reason, it chose not to do so.”

Freedom From Religion Foundation: A national state/church watchdog has put town officials in Whiteville, Tenn., on notice that if they don’t remove the illegal cross atop the town’s water tower, it will file suit.

SignOnSanDiego.com: he California Department of Transportation has released copies of the complaints that led to the removal last month of three crosses from a desert-view vista off state Route 79 outside Julian.

wdbj7.com: The Ten Commandments are still up at Narrows High School despite a lawsuit over it. According to Superintendent Terry Arbogast, it is the only Giles County school that has the Ten Commandments on display along with other documents like the Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact.

The Republic: Civil-liberties groups are suing a southwest Virginia school board for posting the Ten Commandments, contending that the display violates the Constitution’s guarantee of separation of church and state. | ACLU press release and link to the complaint

Pulaski sends check to ACLU in commandments case | The Courier-Journal | courier-journal.com: Sharp said McCreary County has not yet sent a payment and that the ACLU plans to hold both counties equally liable for the full amount, which Sharp estimated at just over $463,000.

ADF Attorney Doug Napier at Human Events: Two days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, smoke was still rising from the twisted and burnt material that used to be the World Trade Center. Untold numbers of first responders from around the country were converging on New York City to help look for survivors trapped in the rubble, and the nation as a whole was still somewhere between fear and unmitigated anger: somewhere between “woe is me” and “woe is thee.”

ADF attorneys Joe Infranco and Byron Babione at The American Spectator: The plain fact is that a memorial cross at this site does not “establish” a religion. The agenda of a few atheists should not diminish the sacrifice of the heroes and victims of 9/11. The place of this potent symbol of our shared tragedy and courage should remain for all time.

OneNewsNow.com: The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an Ohio Ten Commandments case that deals with an issue that one attorney says is “constitutionally permissible.”

AP: Dixie County officials and residents say support for their monument is unanimous and they accuse outsiders of trampling on their way of life.

The New American: For over 10 years Ohio judge James DeWeese (left) has fought for his constitutionally guaranteed right to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. And during that entire time he has been thwarted by a series of federal court rulings fueled by manipulative arguments of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Now, with the help of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Judge DeWeese will try to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ACLJ: We filed our Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the high Court a couple of months ago. Now, we have filed a reply brief arguing that the ACLU has no legal standing to bring a challenge against an Ohio courtroom display containing the Ten Commandments. An appeals court declared unconstitutional a poster displayed by Judge James DeWeese that included the Ten Commandments as part of an exhibit on legal philosophy.

Mercatornet: Seriously. This is their legal complaint. Just like the American Center for Law and Justice, the Alliance Defense Fund is getting used to this.

Christian Post: Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) also insist that the cross’s placement in the museum is legally sound, and claim that the American Atheists’ lawsuit “is completely out of step with the Constitution.” “One atheist group’s agenda shouldn’t diminish the sacrifice made by the heroes of 9/11,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione in a statement on the group’s website. “A cross like this one simply does not amount to a government establishment of religion under either the U.S. Constitution or the New York Constitution.” Babione added, “Nothing in the Constitution authorizes atheists to scour the landscape on a mission to seek and destroy memorial crosses.”