First Amendment

Atheist Sign In Illinios A Violation of the Establishment Clause?

Submitted by Kyle on February 2, 2010 - 9:08am

The traditional defense from the Religious Right whenever the government places, or allows others to place, a religiously themed message or display in a public building is that such displays are not an "endorsement" of that religion by the government but rather a recognition and accommodation of the citizens' right to freely express their religion in public.

Which makes this latest lawsuit rather unique:

A candidate for Illinois Comptroller has sued the state for allowing an atheist group to post a sign alongside the religious holiday displays in the State Capitol. William Kelly, a Republican, claims Capitol Police unjustly "detained (him) and escorted him from the building" because he turned the atheists' sign face down. Kelly calls the sign "hate speech.

Kelly's federal complaint against the Illinois Secretary of State claims: "In December 2009, a sign was placed in the Capitol Building, approved by the Defendant, that read as follows:

"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Kelly's complaint does not object to the several holiday displays "celebrating various observances" in the State Capitol. He objects only to the atheists' sign, which, he says, stood near a Nativity scene and next to a decorated Christmas tree.

Kelly claims that for the two weeks the sign was displayed, visitors, including young children, could get the impression that the sign is "endorsed" by the state as an "opposing view to the displays."

He says the state's administrative code demands that displays be approved on the basis of "symbolic expression in the exercise of free speech," but that signs are prohibited.

Kelly claims that by allowing the sign, the state approved expression of "hostility towards religion," which he says is unconstitutional.

...

Kelly sued Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, claiming that placing the atheists' sign in the Capitol violates the Establishment Clause.

He demands an injunction prohibiting atheists from "placing or allowing to be placed the sign at issue or any such similar sign in the Capitol Building of the State of Illinois and any other State of Illinois Buildings".

So the presence of a Nativity scence was perfectly fine, but a sign from an atheist group was a government endorsement and violation of the Establishment Clause?

Good luck with that line of argument in court.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

AFA: Religious Tests Are Perfectly Acceptable

Submitted by Kyle on December 14, 2009 - 1:18pm

Last week we mentioned the situation in North Carolina where conservatives are threatening to sue in an effort to keep an atheist out of office, citing the state Constitution:

When Mr. [Cecil] Bothwell was sworn into office on Monday, he used an alternate oath that does not require officials to swear on a Bible or refer to “Almighty God.”

That has riled conservative advocates, who cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina’s Constitution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” The provision was included when the document was drafted in 1868 and was not revised when North Carolina amended its Constitution in 1971.

One opponent, H. K. Edgerton, is threatening to file suit against the city to challenge Mr. Bothwell’s swearing in. “My father was a Baptist minister,” Mr. Edgerton said. “I’m a Christian man. I have problems with people who don’t believe in God.” Mr. Edgerton is a local civil rights leader and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black Southerners.

David Morgan, the head of a conservative weekly newspaper, The Asheville Tribune, said city officials had shirked their duty to uphold the state’s laws by swearing in Mr. Bothwell.

The Supreme Court already ruled unanimously against such religious test provisions back in 1961 in a case out of Maryland:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs ... This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

But Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, while not mentioning the Bothwell case specifically, doesn't seem to a) care or b) be aware of the Court's ruling and says that such restrictions are perfectly constitutional:

Our secular fundamentalist friends are fond of citing Article VI of our Constitution as proof that this foundational document is non-religious in nature. It reads, ""but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It's worthy of note that this applies only to federal offices, for the prior clause makes it clear that the Founders were distinguishing between the federal government - "the United States" - and the legislatures of the individual states, which are referred to as "the several State Legislatures." Both are included in the previous phrase, "all executive Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." (emphasis mine)

This makes it clear that while officers at both the state and federal level were required to support the Constitution, the restriction on the application of a "religious Test" was reserved for officials in the federal government. States were left to apply explicitly religious tests if they chose, and most did.

Almost all states required holders of public office to declare a belief in God, and many went beyond that to require a belief in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments, which in effect limited public service to self-professing Christians. This was just fine with the Founders, who wanted the states to have complete liberty in such matters.

But they were also clear that no religious test was to be applied as a condition of public service at the federal level. What the Founders meant by this, however, was this and this alone: an individual did not need to belong to a particular Christian denomination to be eligible for federal office. That's it.

Of course, we already knew that Fisher had some rather unique views regarding the First Amendment and the separation of church and state and doesn't think that Muslims should be allowed to serve in the military.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Tales From the DART Side

Submitted by Kyle on August 10, 2009 - 9:48am

Last week we noted that Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority has yanked advertisements from local buses that had been purchased by Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers after complaints from residents.

And apparently it wasn't just "residents" who were outraged by the ads reading "Don't believe in God? You are not alone" - so was the Governor:

Gov. Chet Culver weighed in on the controversial Des Moines bus ad that has been yanked after multiple complaints.

“I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent,” Culver said.

The question will likely become a legal battle, Culver said. He deferred questions of whether the group deserves the same free speech rights as Christian organizations to advertise on the buses to the Iowa Attorney General.

Culver also declined to answer if he would also have gotten off the bus had he been a rider, but noted that he would have been offended by the ad’s message.

Despite the fact that they ads personally disturbed the Governor's delicate sensibilities, it looks like they are going back up:

An advertisement promoting a Des Moines atheist group will be put back on buses, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority officials said Friday night.

"By honoring the freedoms protected through our shared civil liberties, DART, like other businesses that accept advertising, will be in the position of displaying messages and images that may be controversial or uncomfortable to some, but legal and protected by civil rights," DART General Manager Brad Miller said in an e-mail.

The decision was made after DART officials met with representatives from the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers group Friday afternoon to discuss the removal of the group's ads from buses earlier this week.

The transit authority had asked the group to consider reviewing an alternate bus advertisement, but the group refused.

...

DART will also be updating advertising policies to clearly communicate its position to uphold both civil liberties and the protection of citizens from material that is obscene or profane, Miller said.

"The Des Moines region and the state of Iowa (are) developing a positive reputation as a place that accepts diversity, new ideas and is civil in its discourse of even the most controversial of topics - for example same-sex marriages. ... It is altogether appropriate for our policies to keep pace with this progress," Miller wrote in the e-mail.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Iowa Transit Authority Removes Atheist Ads After Complaints

Submitted by Kyle on August 7, 2009 - 12:36pm

The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority has reportedly removed advertisements that the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers placed on local buses after complaints from residents:

Some ads rolling through the Des Moines area on DART busses are stirring up controversy. The ads appeared innocent enough, but Monday, DART removed them.

The ads, paid for by the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, say "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

"We wanted to do it in order to let people know -- who are atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists -- that they are not alone, that there are places for them to go and meet people and to be involved," says Randy Henderson, president of the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers.

DART claims it received numerous phone calls from people who were offended by the ads, and that the signs had been installed before the advertising commission had approved them.

IAF says DART has not returned its phone calls and that they're left feeling puzzled and frustrated.

"Very disappointed, very upset, frustrated. We thought we were doing something to reach out to people, to help people, to let people know that they had a place to go that they could meet with people of a common mind," says Henderson.

...

DART has assured IAF that it will refund all of the money for the ads.

DART admits it has run advertisements from Christian churches in the past.

Call me crazy, but I suspect that if the DARTH had removed Christian advertisements from its buses in this manner, they would have found themselves inundated with outraged complaints from Religious Right groups like the American Family Association and lawsuits from the likes of the Alliance Defense Fund or Liberty Counsel

The article says that even "local conservative Christian church leaders have agreed the group should be allowed to run the ads," but I highly doubt that any of the national Religious Right groups are going to come to the defense of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers in this situation ... and frankly wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them actually come to DART's defense should IAF decide to sue.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

The Battle Over Prayer In Lodi

Submitted by Kyle on August 6, 2009 - 9:00am

Last night, Gordon "Chaps" Klingenschmitt and his allies staged a rally in Lodi, California outside the City Council meeting demanding that the council continue to open its meetings with prayers that mention Jesus, where they were met by counter-protesters.

Various local news stations covered the spectacle which, by most accounts, was mostly peaceful:

At Lodi City Hall, you didn't have to look hard Wednesday evening to figure out where people stood on the issue of the wildly controversial call to end prayers before city council meetings.

There were, in large numbers, those in favor of prayer before meetings. Meanwhile, in a more modest, but still prominent showing, others marched in support of a moment of silence during government affairs.

"I think everyone should be able to pray if they want to, just not as part of a government meeting," said Lodi resident Brad Westover.

"I have no problem with these atheist groups," said Gordon Klingenschmitt, a chaplain from Colorado. "I love them all in Jesus' name."

For nearly two hours, both sides protested within feet of each other in front of City Hall and City Council chambers. At the beginning, there was a brief exchange of shouting between several people on different sides of the issue.

Despite some loud debate, cooler heads prevailed and no one was hurt.

"Nobody's been kicked out yet. It's actually been very peaceful," said David Diskin, Lodi resident and rally organizer for the people opposed to prayers before meetings.

His group was outnumbered, but he was still happy with the turnout.

"It's exceeding my expectations by all means," said Diskin, who only two weeks before had begun efforts to organize the rally.

Klingenschmitt had been working on his rally for nearly two months. A resident of Colorado, he regularly travels around the country to organize events in support of Christianity and use of Jesus' name in prayer.

"As long as God blesses our efforts, I'm very pleased," said Klingenschmitt.

The conflict began brewing in May when the Lodi City Council went through with their usual public prayer before a meeting. But during that meeting, someone in the crowd took exception to the display of religion in a government setting.

That person complained to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the complaint soon got back to the city council.

Since then, the prayers have been non-specific to any religion, and the council is still preparing to fully resolve the issue.

You can find more coverage here and here, both including more video coverage of the protests, with the second one containing an odd clip of local resident declaring he does "not believe that a Christian can be lead by anything but a Christian or a Jew." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Interestingly, the issue of the prayer wasn't even on the agenda, so the Council made no decision, though it did schedule a special meeting to discuss the topic on Sept. 30 in a theater that can seat up to 900 people.

So presumably we'll see Klingenschmitt and the others descend on Lodi to do it all again late next month.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Wisconsin Book Burner Makes His Case

Submitted by Kyle on July 24, 2009 - 10:01am

Last month I wrote a post regrading a group of people in West Bend, WI who are trying to get books that they considers to be obscene moved from the section of the library designated "Young Adults."

That fight caught the attention of Robert Braun, head of something he calls the Christian Civil Liberties Union, who then filed a lawsuit seeking $120,000 in damage for having been allegedly caused emotional distress by the book being in the library and the right to publicly burn the library’s copy of the book "Baby Be-Bop"

The entire bizarre battle was picked-up by CNN the other day and so Alan Colmes invited Braun onto his radio program to discuss his lawsuit.

It was, needless to say, highly entertaining.

Braun apparently doesn't understand the difference between racism and censorship, because when Colmes accused him of engaging in the latter, Braun's response was, and I quote:

Let me tell you who's involved in this suit. One of the gentleman with me is Black, his wife is Indian, she's a Comanche, the other one is ... I have Jewish blood in me.

And it just went downhill from there, with Braun declaring that he's going to burn a copy of "Baby Be-Bop" no matter what - not the library's copy, because that would be illegal, but the copy which, for some reason, he apparently owns. Considering that he is suing the library for causing him emotional damage by simply having it in the stacks, it seems odd that Braun would have a copy of the very same book in his own house. Braun went on to admit that he doesn't even live in West Bend and that his Christians Civil Liberties Union has a grand total of zero members.

At one point, Braun accused Colmes of not being a good Christian, which Colmes readily admitted (he's Jewish,) and claimed that Colmes was now causing him emotional distress as well. When Colmes asked him to explain how anyone has been "damaged" by this book's inclusion in the library, Barun responded that he and the other plantiffs "are elderly and it has damaged our moral views."

Frankly, I think the entire thing can be summed up by simply noting that this interview might just contain a world record for the greatest number of mispronunciations of the word "library" in any seven minute interval:

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

We're Offended, So Give Us $120,000 and the Right to Burn Books

Submitted by Kyle on June 10, 2009 - 8:33am

Last week, the Library Board in West Bend, Wisconsin rejected efforts by a local couple to remove book they found objectionable:

The Library Board on Tuesday night unanimously rejected efforts by a local citizen group to restrict access of young adults to books depicting sex among teenagers or those describing teenage homosexual relationships.

...

Ginny and Jim Maziarka of West Bend earlier this year asked the community board to remove books that the couple considers to be obscene or child pornography from a section of the library designated "Young Adults." The couple formed an organization, West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, to promote their views.

The Maziarkas requested such books to be reclassified and placed in a restricted area requiring parental approval before being released to a child. The books also should be labeled with a warning about content, the couple said.

Ginny Maziarka in past interviews described two of the targeted books - "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" and "The Geography Club" - as explicitly sexual. She considers a third book, "Deal With It! a whole new approach to your body, brain and life as a gURL" to be pornographic.

"Sexually explicit content should not be on the teen shelf in the West Bend Library," Ginny Maziarka said.

Now the American Library Association reports that the board is facing a lawsuit seeking $120,000 in damages from people claiming to have been personally harmed by the fact that the books are in the library and who are demanding the right to burn said books:

[B]oard members were made cognizant that same evening that another material challenge waited in the wings: Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library’s copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for “allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public.”

...

Describing the YA novel by celebrated author Francesca Lia Block as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and anti-Christian,” the complaint by Braun, Joseph Kogelmann, Rev. Cleveland Eden, and Robert Brough explains that “the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”

The complaint points out that library Director Michael Tyree has “publicly stated that it is not up to the library to tell the community what is appropriate.” Citing “Wisconsin’s sexual morality law,” the plaintiffs also request West Bend City Attorney Mary Schanning to impanel a grand jury to examine whether the book should be declared obscene and making it available a hate crime.

On a related note, the ALA also reports that the West Bend Common Council voted not to reappoint four library board members because they failed to remove the books, accusing them of “stonewalling.”

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

What About the Original Intent?

Submitted by Kyle on January 13, 2009 - 1:41pm

Last week we mentioned the suit that has been filed by Michael Newdow, the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others seeking to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the oath of office during the Inauguration when we noted Rick Scarborough calling it borderline suidical.

The oath, as set out in the Constitution, reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yet the conventional explanation of the addition of the phrase "so help me God" is that it was added by George Washington ... but as it turns out, there is no historical evidence that that is true. In fact, as far as anyone has been able to determine, the phrase wasn't added unitl 100 years and 20 presidents later:

Beth Hahn, historical editor for the U.S. Senate Historical Office, concurs. "The first eyewitness documentation of a president saying 'So help me God' is an account of Chester Arthur's Sept. 22, 1881, inauguration in the New York Times," she said Wednesday.

Presumably, had the Founding Fathers wanted the phrase included in the oath, they would have added it - but they didn't. Therefore, you'd think this issue would be a no-brainer for a group like the Alliance Defense Fund, which claims it is dedicated to upholding the "original intent" of the Constitution,

Of course, you'd be wrong:

Jordan Lorence and his Alliance Defense Fund organization fight for religious rights in court. Lorence told CBN News he thinks Newdow's suit is groundless.

...

"If a judge were to agree with Michael Newdow that he has a right to basically expunge any Christian references from the public scene, it would be a horrendous shift in thinking about the establishment clause," Lorence predicted. "That instead of the government not forcing people to believe certain ways, it would mean that there's a right for the village atheist to silence everybody from saying anything about God in public.

"It would marginalize Christians and other believers," he continued. "It would be totally upside-down and opposite of what the founding fathers intended."

So the phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and, in fact, didn't find its way into the oath for more than a century - yet, to remove it, according to self-described advocates of "original intent," would be an insult to Christians and the Founding Fathers.

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Condemned to Hell Over a License Plate

Submitted by Kyle on January 7, 2009 - 4:26pm

Via AU's Wall of Separation, we learn that supporters of South Carolina's "I Believe" license plates gathered for a rally last night to voice their opposition to a federal court's injunction stopping production of the plates - and they were not hesitant to declare the decision just the lastest attack in the so-called "war on Christians" and make their outrage known, with one speaker, Rev. Arnold Hiette, going so far as to condemn the plate's opponents to hell:

State and local church leaders Tuesday were joined by South Carolina's attorney general and lieutenant governor for a standing-room-only rally at People's Baptist Church. More than 400 people gathered to protest the Dec. 11 injunction stopping the production and sale of "I Believe" license plates.

Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who first introduced legislation allowing the plate, declared the need for a long-term grassroots campaign for its production, calling Christians the new "silent majority."

"There is free speech for every group in this state besides Christians," Bauer said. "Every citizen has the right to free speech in this country. I don't understand why witnessing in public is considered unconstitutional. You don't even have to be a Christian to believe everyone deserves the freedom of speech."

...

Church pastor Rev. Arnold Hiette warned it's only the start of what could be a prolonged battle ...Red-faced and angry, shaking his fist alongside his Bible, Hiette told the congregation that the four complainants - especially the Unitarian - and one judge who took away the people's right to witness via their vehicle tags "along with the ACLU, they're going to burn in hell."

Kyle's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Blame The Alliance Defense Fund

Submitted by Kyle on December 4, 2008 - 5:12pm

Earlier this week we mentioned that some people were upset about a sign placed in the Washington state Capitol by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that reads "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." The sign sits in the Capitol alongside a Christmas tree and a nativity scene placed there by Ron Wesselius.

Now Bill O'Reilly has jumped into the mix, calling Gov. Chris Gregoire "a coward" for allowing the sign and insisting that "there's no law that says atheists have to have signs up denigrating religion during the Christmas season."

The Governor's office has since been inundated with calls from angry O'Reilly viewers and was forced to release a statement explaining its position:

"The Legislative Building belongs to all citizens of Washington state, and houses the state Legislature, as well as the offices of several state-elected executives, including the governor. The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution’s First Amendment, once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."

The thing about this is that, typical of O'Reilly, he's focusing his outrage on the wrong people. If he's really upset by this, he ought to be blasting the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund which successfully sued the state last year on behalf of Wesselius when he wasn't allowed to place his nativity scene in the Capitol.

As part of the settlement [PDF] it was agreed that:

Plaintiff and all other persons and organizations will be treated similarly to other private members of the public in all respects, including access to the areas in the Capitol Rotunda, pursuant to CCF policy attached as Exhibit A, to display a Nativity Scene during the 2007 traditional holiday season.

The relevant portion of the CCF policy reads:

Public use of capitol facilities may include, but is not limited to, activites such as rallies, demonstrations and vigils related to government issues, performances, community events, activities sponsored by state agencies, cultural, historical and educational activities, exhibits and displays, affairs of state, wedding ceremonies, choral presentations, and memorial services. Authorization for use of capitol facilities shall not be made on a discriminatory basis based on the religious or political content or viewpoint of the public speakers seeking access to the facilities.

So this particular situation arose directly out of the ADF's suit and eventual settlement and the state of Washington is now obligated to ensure that decisions regarding access to the Capitol can not "be made on a discriminatory basis based on the religious or political content or viewpoint."

If O'Reilly and his followers want to inundate anyone with calls of outrage regarding this policy, they should be targeting the Alliance Defense Fund: