Posted on 10/29/2009 10:02:08 AM PDT by TaraP
A Michigan man has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated when he was ordered to remove a Nativity scene from the median of a public road a creche that his family has displayed at the location for 63 years.
John Satawa, of Warren, Mich., filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Friday in an attempt to be allowed to put back the 8- by 8-foot nativity scene his late father built in 1945.
After receiving a complaint by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation last December, the Road Commission of Macomb County told Satawa to remove the holiday display, citing incomplete permits. Satawa's permit application was later denied because it "clearly displays a religious message" and violated "separation of church and state," Macomb County Highway Engineer Robert Hoepfner wrote.
Satawa says he simply wants to restore the "tradition" on the median between Mound and Chicago Roads outside of St. Anne's Parish Church.
"The Nativity display has been a tradition not just for my family, but for the whole community for 63 years," Satawa told Foxnews.com in a statement. "I am disappointed the Road Commission would not stand up for our community and our Constitution and that is why I was compelled to file this lawsuit."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
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?
Sounds like they could make a case for adverse possession and REALLY get the bureaucrats riled up.
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.
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.
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.
Times have changed. Are we a better, freer country now?
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.