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

Fox ^ | October 28th, 2009

[Ol' Sparky]

Noboby has a right to use public property to display personal, political or religious messages.

And, anti-religious bigots have no right to demand the city remove it, either, if the city wants to continue to display it.

What's next? Are the same bullies going to demand the Liberty Bell be removed from public property because it has a Bible verse on it?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

63 years?

Sounds like they could make a case for adverse possession and REALLY get the bureaucrats riled up.

[SJSAMPLE]

I believe that the use of the land is up to the city’s discretion. I have no problem if they used it for a religious purpose, because they’ve “made no law”.

But, again, it’s up to the city, not one individual.

The case for the Liberty Bell would be its historical significance. It isn’t there because of the verse, but because of it’s contextual significance.

[Eagle Forgotten]

You’re right, that is unusual, and interesting.

I don’t have a problem with it. The public highways are there for transportation purposes. The feature you describe aids transportation, because people don’t have to drive to the next exit, get off the Turnpike, and double back to their destination. That the people benefited are going to church, as opposed to some secular destination, makes no difference. The government should treat religion and non-religion equally.

I don’t see how historical documentation could help the creche guy. Just because something improper has been going on for a long time doesn’t mean it should continue. Ronald Reagan changed a lot of things that had been going on for a long time.

[Alberta's Child]

I don’t see how historical documentation could help the creche guy. Just because something improper has been going on for a long time doesn’t mean it should continue.

Right. But I was thinking along the lines of a written agreement or even a deed/covenant that permitted the creche to be placed there in the past under certain terms/conditions. That's what happened in the case of the church on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. When they built the Turnpike through that area back in the 1920s they needed to take some of the church's property under eminent domain, and the parking area and pedestrian access were built as part of the agreement for transferring the title to the property.

[andy58-in-nh]

We lived for nearly 200 years without any sane person thinking a town nativity scene constituted a state establishment or endorsement of religion. We respected people's rights to express their faith in public.

Times have changed. Are we a better, freer country now?

[grellis]

If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks grellis.

additional:

Lawsuit challenges new ban on 63-year-old Michigan roadside nativity display
cna | October 27, 2009
Posted on 10/27/2009 8:36:34 AM PDT by NYer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2372001/posts