John Satawa filed a lawsuit last week to reclaim the right to rebuild this nativity scene originally built by his late father in 1945.
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 ...
John Satawa filed a lawsuit last week to reclaim the right to rebuild this nativity scene originally built by his late father in 1945.
What legal right did somebody have to tell him he can’t display it?
I’d say a city is well within its legal rights to remove non-city property from city-owned/controlled property.
Same thing for all the memorials to people that were killed on city streets. Noboby has a right to use public property to display personal, political or religious messages.
He wants to put it on public property
On the one hand, I can understand why there is a question of why this can’t be set up on the parish property instead of on the public right of way nearby.
On the other, I can’t understand how the same people who can vehemently insist that gay public sex must be protected in public places, can’t live with a simple nativity scene that is displayed for a few weeks out of the year.
Not the question: the question is why the commission caved. I mean after 63 years? The problem is that public agencies cave whenever the atheists threaten to sue because they don’t want to spend money defending the rights of the people. But they will give tons of money to some contractor for a “study.”
He can display whatever he wants on his own property. But he wants to put his personal display on public land.
There are private companies that buy or rent roadside land, erect billboards, and collect money from people who want to disseminate a message. This guy wants the government to provide him with a space to disseminate his message, free of charge.
Then, of course, there’s the question of what to do when someone wants to adorn a different stretch of highway median with a sign saying “All hail Satan, praise the Dark Lord.”
No, the question is why the Commission has jerked back a right they had given to this family. He has as much right to the use of this property as the complainers.
My question is about the permit process. If the Road Commission has a permit process and allow some people to use the public median, then how does the government censor free speech and religious expression.
Who can get a permit and for what purposes? That may be where the case is.
Let me ask......Who owns the “Public Land”? Does not the public own it? Is this man not part of the “Public”? The land does not belong to the city. It belongs to the citizens of the city.
Well, since it was on public land, I would imagine the city, if they're the property owner.
Riiight...
Ping.
>>On the one hand, I can understand why there is a question of why this can’t be set up on the parish property instead of on the public right of way nearby.<<
I live about 15 minutes north of this.
The parish across the east side of the street has had it’s property diminish with the expansion of Mound Road. This started as a two lane highway and was expanded to a six lane with a large median running down the middle. The median is where the Nativity set has been for 65 years.
This whole affair derives from a gross, willful misreading of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Bill of Rights was passed for the sole purpose of limiting the Federal Government, not state governments. However, at the time, there was a minority who thought that someday the Bill of Rights would be twisted to limit the rights of the states. They were right. If the ratifiers of the Constitution could have seen ten years into the future, the Constitution would not have passed ratification.
Even as a limitation on the Federal Gov't, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, such as a state-run (e.g., "Anglican") church. Religious symbols were regularly seen in government buildings for many years after the Constitution was ratified.
The atheist lawyers cite Supreme Court rulings as a basis in the various states. Lemon v. Kurtzman is probably the best known and most egregious. What we have lost track of is that the Supreme Court's scope is limited. For instance, SCOTUS can say a Wisconsin law is unconstitutional, and according to the original arguments for the Constitution, Wisconsin can say "SCOTUS, go to hell" and ignore the ruling. Thanks to Andrew Jackson's threat of war on South Carolina for doing just this (the Nullification Crisis), states have long since forgotten they have this option.
The term “public” refers to “The Public”, at large.
Not one individual, but all individuals as a collective group. The city, as the incorporated representative of the public, most certainly owns that property.
Try building your next home in a state park and let me know how that works out.
It would be interesting to see if there is some kind of historical documentation that might be used in his favor.
Out in western Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a special area along the shoulder of the highway where people can park their cars and use a pedestrian overpass to get to a Catholic church up on a hill overlooking the highway.
This has to rank up there as one of the most unusual features of the U.S. Interstate Highway System.
The whole basis of the suit is that this was a community project, and according to an absolutist—or French—reading of the First/Fourteenth Amendments no government agency is allowed to display any religious symbols. The problem is that this goes against four hundred years of history, dating back to the founding of this nation. This is iconoclasm pure and simple. Something again to the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban.
Furthermore, one can say that his is IS a private right issue, because in effect the commission devolved him his family the right to construct this building. The argument must then be that the commission never did have this right. But surely time limits ought to apply. The nativity scene stood unchallenged by hundreds of thousands of passersby, many, many of them with standing to sue. So why NOW? Because local agencies are used to caving to pressure exerted by well-funded anti-Christian entities. IOW, they don’t care.
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.