Special Session of Palm Beach Town Council Refuses Nativity Request
Tue, Dec 23, 2003
ANN ARBOR – The Town of Palm Beach, Florida will not allow the public display of the Christmas Nativity alongside existing Jewish Menorahs on Town property. In a special session of the Town Council held Tuesday morning, Town officials declined to vote on a request to allow Nativity displays alongside town-sanctioned Menorahs.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center that filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Town expressed his disbelief at the Town’s continued arrogance. “The Town of Palm Beach has refused for months to review requests to display the Christian Nativity, and now under pressure from a federal judge has again refused to rule on the request.”
Thompson emphasized that requests made by residents have specifically asked for the Christian Nativity to appear equally alongside the Jewish Menorahs. “Our clients have requested from the beginning to have the Nativity displayed alongside the approved Menorahs. The double standard used by the Town is as shocking as it is offensive.”
The decision by the Town Council comes a week after a federal lawsuit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Palm Beach residents Maureen Donnell and Fern deNarvaez. The lawsuit alleged that the Town of Palm Beach is discriminating against Christians by refusing to allow the Christian Nativity to be displayed alongside the Menorahs. Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to display the Nativity, and held the session Tuesday only after being compelled by a federal judge.
Brief Filed in Supreme Court Argues Pledge is Constitutional
Thu, Dec 18, 2003
ANN ARBOR – Urging the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, the Thomas More Law Center filed a brief today with the Supreme Court arguing that the Pledge acknowledges our nation’s rich religious heritage and encourages continuing recognition of the idea of God-given freedom. The brief was filed on behalf of the Catholic League, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.
In its brief the Law Center argues that the phrase “under God” acknowledges the undeniable religious belief regarding God-given freedom, the very principle that unites Americans as a people. This ongoing acknowledgement, the brief argues, “serves a beneficial secular purpose and is completely compatible with the Establishment Clause.”
Assisting in the brief was the Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, the Law Center’s western regional office in Rancho Santa Fe, California.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “The court decision to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance signifies perhaps more clearly than any other case the relentless effort to eliminate all forms of religious expression from our public life. Our brief makes clear that the people of this country are not going to allow the public acknowledgement of the very heart and principle of our nation to be destroyed.”
Federal Judge Orders Town of Palm Beach To Rule On Nativity Display
Wed, Dec 17, 2003
ANN ARBOR – Federal Judge Daniel Hurley issued an order Tuesday afternoon asking the Town of Palm Beach to explain why he should not force them to rule upon the multiple requests from two residents to display a Nativity scene. Citing a federal case that held constitutional Free Speech rights could be violated by inaction, the judge indicated that the refusal by Town officials to respond to multiple requests by two Palm Beach residents poses constitutional questions that must be resolved. Palm Beach has been given until Thursday at 5:00 PM to submit their response.
Judge Hurley’s order came in response to a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, alleging that the Town of Palm Beach is discriminating against Christian residents who have requested to have a nativity scene displayed. Palm Beach has permitted the public display of Jewish Menorahs at various prominent public locations, but Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to have Christian Nativity scenes displayed alongside the Menorahs.
The lawsuit alleges, the Town’s inaction demonstrates hostility toward Christians, and impermissibly conveys the message of disapproval of the Christian faith. The suit also alleges that the Town has unconstitutionally deprived the plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution. An immediate temporary restraining order has been sought that would allow a nativity scene to be erected on Town property in the same manner as the Menorah displays.
Exclusive Palm Beach, Florida Sued in Federal Court For Discrimination- Allows Jewish Menorahs, But Not Christian Nativity
Mon, Dec 15, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI — Refusal by the exclusive Town of Palm Beach, Florida to allow the display of Christian Nativity scenes even though they allow the Jewish Menorah to be displayed on public property has prompted a federal lawsuit by two of its residents against the Town and its officials. The lawsuit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Maureen Donnell and Fern deNarvaez.
Donnell and deNarvaez, both residents of Palm Beach, seek an immediate temporary restraining order that would allow a nativity scene to be erected on Town property in the same manner as the two Menorah displays.
The lawsuit filed Monday morning alleges that for the past two years the Town of Palm Beach has permitted the public display of Jewish Menorahs at various prominent public locations, and that Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to have Christian Nativity scenes displayed alongside the Menorahs. This policy and practice, the suit alleges, demonstrates hostility toward Christians, and impermissibly conveys the message of disapproval of the Christian faith. The suit also alleges that the Town has unconstitutionally deprived the plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution.
As early as September of this year, Palm Beach resident Fern deNarvaez requested that the Town permit a privately financed display of a Christian Nativity scene to be displayed with the Menorahs. In addition, resident Maureen Donnell made four subsequent requests in October and November, finally requesting that the Town respond by December 1st. Town officials did not respond to these requests.
In a statement issued Monday morning Donnell indicated, “It is not our intention to remove the Menorahs, but to have a Christmas Nativity scene equally displayed alongside the Menorahs to acknowledge the celebration of Christmas. The refusal to review my repeated requests is discriminatory and an insult to every Christian in this town.”
Plaintiff deNarvaez was equally disturbed by the Town’s inaction. “The Nativity scene represents the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated by Christians around the world. I simply cannot accept this double standard being applied to the Christmas holiday.”
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center that filed the lawsuit commented, “By refusing to respond to the repeated requests of its residents, the Town of Palm Beach has demonstrated a hostility towards Christianity during one of its holiest seasons. Christian residents of Palm Beach are being denied the right to express their religious message in a public forum that is open to other religious faiths, and the Thomas More Law Center has filed this lawsuit to stop this injustice. This is but another example of the national movement to remove Christ from Christmas.”
The Law Center filed a similar lawsuit last year against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish Menorah, and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but prohibits students from displaying Christmas Nativity scenes. A ruling on that case is expected soon.
Federal Judge: Public Schools Cannot Discriminate Against Christian View on Homosexuality
Mon, Dec 8, 2003
ANN ARBOR – In a strongly worded opinion issued late Friday, Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality during her high school’s “Diversity Week” program that was designed to promote the homosexual agenda. The case involved a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the 2002 “Diversity Week” program held at Ann Arbor’s Pioneer High School.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, applauded the opinion. “Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda.”
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, commented, “This is a victory for Christian students who desire to speak the truth about homosexuality in their public schools. And it is a warning to public school officials across this country: stop silencing the Christian view of homosexuality and stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the homosexual agenda.”
During the 2002 Diversity Week program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel, and they censored a speech she was asked to give on the topic, “What Diversity Means to Me.” School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school’s pro-homosexual “religious” belief to sit on the panel, and they denied Hansen’s request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexuality.
Judge Rosen’s 70-page opinion began with blistering criticism of the school:
“This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcomed’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of ‘one-way diversity,’ unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling—both constitutionally and ethically—by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student’s speech about ‘what diversity means to me,’ removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.”
“All of this, of course, raises the question, among others presented here, of what ‘diversity’ means and whether a school may promote one view of ‘diversity’ over another. Even accepting that the term ‘diversity’ has evolved in recent years to mean, at least colloquially, something more than the dictionary definition, the notion of sponsorship of one viewpoint to the exclusion of another hardly seems to further the school’s purported objective of ‘celebrating diversity.’ In this context, it would do well to recall the Supreme Court’s admonition in another school speech case:
In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. . . [and] students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.” (quoting from Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)).
The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleged that school officials violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the constitution.
Judge Rosen held that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also concluded that the school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-gay clergy to hold a panel on “Homosexuality and Religion.” Rosen instructed Hansen’s attorneys to file with the court an application for attorneys’ fees, which could cost the Ann Arbor Public Schools up to $100,000.
Religious Freedom of Students At Stake as Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Scholarship Case
Tue, Dec 2, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments today in a significant case involving the religious freedom of college students who receive state scholarships. The case grew out of a dispute between Joshua Davey, the recipient of a state scholarship, and the state of Washington after Davey chose Pastoral Ministry as a double major along with Business Management/Administration. Because he chose to study Pastoral Ministry, Davey was stripped of his state scholarship.
The Thomas More Law Center filed a brief in support of Davey because it is involved in a similar case pending against Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on behalf of Ave Maria College student Teresa M. Becker. Becker, who had been receiving financial assistance through Michigan’s Competitive Scholarship Program for the past two years, was stripped of that scholarship when she declared a major in Theology. At issue in the Michigan case is a state statute that expressly prohibits distribution of scholarship funds to students who major in “theology, divinity or religious education”. A federal district judge ruled in July that Michigan’s law constitutes “unlawful viewpoint discrimination” and that Becker will likely win her case pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the upcoming Davey case.
The Law Center brief filed in the Davey case with the Supreme Court argued that the State of Washington’s policy wrongly disqualifies students from receiving scholarship funds if they choose to major in theology taught in a way the State of Washington deems unacceptable. The brief further pointed out that this view rests upon an arbitrary and perverse assumption that the few thousand dollars a student receives will be used to pay for Theology instruction—as opposed to the countless secular expenses a student incurs in pursuing their undergraduate degree.
Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center attorney who authored the brief observed, “Essentially, the State of Washington creates a perverse and irrebuttable presumption that students like Davey will use their scholarship funds to pay for Theology instruction in order to justify its claim that providing scholarships to students like Davey constitutes unlawful state support for religion. Washington’s policy, like Michigan’s, blatantly violates the constitutional rights of religious students by allowing the state to discriminate against them when they choose to study religion.”
Law Center Applauds Justice Roy Moore As a Man of Conscience and Courage Despite Panel Ruling
Thu, Nov 13, 2003
ANN ARBOR – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan announced its unwavering support of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, despite the fact that a court panel votedto remove him from office. The nine-member Court of the Judiciary based its ruling on the failure of Justice Moore to obey a federal judge ordering him to remove the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel commented shortly after the decision to remove him from office was announced. “Justice Roy Moore is a profile in courage, and should be commended for his refusal to compromise his conscience. Today’s outrageous decision is an illustration of how far established authority has come in tearing down the religious foundations of our nation. It is shameful that the panel based its decision on the argument that man ‘is a creature of the law.’ That may very well be why the panel was so upset with Justice Moore’s acknowledgement of God. Today’s ruling demands that citizens in private and public law must unquestionably follow the decrees of the court, without regard to the dictates of conscience. Hopefully Justice Moore appeals this unjust decision.”
The Thomas More Law Center had filed briefs on behalf of Justice Moore in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and recently in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of his public display of the Ten Commandments.
Birth of Jesus Denied By New York School System to Justify Ban on Christmas Nativity Displays
Tue, Nov 11, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI — The historical fact of the birth of Jesus was denied by the New York School system in pleadings filed with a federal court to justify their total ban on Christmas Nativity displays in New York’s public schools. New York’s legal briefs disputed the claim that the Nativity scene depicts a historical event, and that this event is the basis for the celebration of Christmas.
At issue in the federal lawsuit filed last year by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is New York’s policy on religious displays, which prohibits public school displays of Christmas Nativity scenes, while at the same time encouraging the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during their respective holidays. Federal Judge Sifton will hear oral arguments this week on the Law Center’s motion to temporarily restrain the City from enforcing its ban on Nativity scenes.
Pursuant to the policy, City schools display the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan, but not the Nativity scene during Christmas. One public school principal issued a memo encouraging teachers to bring to school “religious symbols” that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions. No mention of Christianity was made in this memo. At times, teachers would have students make the Jewish Menorahs that would often adorn the halls of the schools as part of the “authorized” displays. However, the students were not allowed to make and similarly display Nativity scenes. When a parent wrote to her son’s teacher to complain about this, the teacher responded by sending the parent a copy of the school’s “Holiday Displays” policy.
The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two children, who are both elementary school students in the New York City schools, against the City of New York and several school officials. Ms. Skoros and her children are devout Roman Catholics.
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case observed, “This case will decide whether public school officials can enforce a policy that shows preference for Judaism and Islam, but disfavors Christianity. Can Christianity be erased from a public school? Can “Christ” be removed from Christmas? We will soon find out.”
According to the Law Center’s motion, New York’s policy promotes the Jewish and Islamic faiths while conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2003, in the federal court in Brooklyn.
In December 2001 and again in 2002, Catholic League president William Donohue attempted to get school officials to change their discriminatory policy, with no success. School officials dismissed requests to display the Nativity scene and instead would only allow Christmas trees, erroneously claiming that Supreme Court precedent prohibited them from including the Nativity scene as part of their holiday displays.
Remarkably, schools officials permit the display of the Jewish Menorah and Islamic star and crescent, claiming that these are “secular” symbols.
According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Thomas More Law Center, “New York City’s policy seeks to de-Christianize Christmas and redefine our Nation’s religious heritage. The Thomas More Law Center is determined to protect the important celebration of Christmas from such discrimination and censorship. ”
Supreme Court Rejection of Ten Commandments Case Reveals Court Hostility Towards Religion
Mon, Nov 3, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments was greeted with disapproval and disappointment by the Thomas More Law Center. The news of the rejection of the highly publicized case was announced early Monday without comment from the Court.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, expressed his disappointment shortly after the court announced its decision. “The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its hostility towards religion and missed an opportunity to clear up confusing lower court decisions dealing with the public display of the Ten Commandments. Not only is the Court disregarding the plain text of the Constitution, the intent of our Founding Fathers, and the history of our nation, but by its action is disregarding the very words of our Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges that we are a nation under God. We as a nation will pay the penalty for the Court turning its back on God.”
In its brief filed with the Supreme Court, Law Center attorneys argued that the attack on the Ten Commandments is based on the 1980 Supreme Court case of Stone v. Graham, holding unconstitutional a Kentucky law that required posting of the Ten Commandments on public school walls. In reaching its “cavalier” opinion, the Court did not have the benefit of briefs or oral argument. Yet lower federal courts have used this decision to remove Ten Commandment monuments throughout the nation. To date, the Supreme Court has not decided a case involving the Ten Commandments outside of a public school context.
“We remain undaunted, and will continue to work aggressively to defend the Ten Commandments until the Court gets it right,” continued Thompson. “This battle is far from over.”
Law Center Files Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Justice Moore In Ten Commandments Fight
Thu, Oct 23, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, announced today that it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore petitioning the court to review the historic case involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. The Court is expected to announce its decision on whether it will hear the case on Monday, November 3rd.
The brief argued that the attack on the Ten Commandments is based on the 1980 Supreme Court case of Stone v. Graham, holding unconstitutional a Kentucky law that required posting of the Ten Commandments on public school walls. In reaching its “cavalier” opinion, the Court did not have the benefit of briefs or oral argument. Yet lower federal courts have used this decision to remove Ten Commandment monuments throughout the nation.
To date, the Supreme Court has not decided a case involving the Ten Commandments outside of a public school context.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “Justice Moore’s fight over the monument is symbolic of a much larger battle over the future of religion in America. His act of courage in refusing to remove the monument has awakened Americans to the hostility towards Christianity and the religious heritage we are being forced to abandon.”
“The injustice being perpetrated against Christians, and the denial of the historic role of Christianity in this country is disgraceful,” continued Thompson. “The Ten Commandments have always been considered fundamental to the development of morality and law in this country. Yet groups such as the ACLU have worked recklessly to dismantle that tradition. It’s time for the Court to set the record straight.”
ACLU Flip Flops — Admits Florida Ten Commandments Are Constitutional
Wed, Oct 8, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – Just two days after the Thomas More Law Center publicly vowed to defend Polk County, Florida’s display of the Ten Commandments against a threatened ACLU lawsuit, the ACLU’s Tampa Chapter reversed itself Friday announcing they will not mount a legal challenge.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center personally addressed a public meeting of the Polk County Commissioners last Wednesday, denouncing threats of a lawsuit by the ACLU. Thompson offered the legal assistance of the Law Center, without charge, promising that no taxpayer funds would be expended in defending the monument.
In an October 2001 statement on the Polk County monument, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida claimed that, “the Ten Commandments is a religious text, and regardless of how it is displayed, it is not constitutionally appropriate.” Despite Howard’s statement and similar statements from other ACLU officials, ACLU representatives were quoted in the October 3rd issue of the Orlando Sentinel as saying they would not challenge the monument. In his acknowledgment that the ACLU would not take on the monument, Simon reversed himself conceding, “context is everything.”
Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s Chief Counsel, stated “The Polk County Commissioners are to be commended for their refusal to capitulate to the attempted intimidation by the ACLU. Too often governmental entities succumb to ACLU demands to remove their Ten Commandments displays because of the financial costs involved in defending a lawsuit. The ACLU was called on their bluff by Polk County, and they surrendered.”
Thompson further noted, “If the ACLU believed they could have won in court, they would have filed a lawsuit already. Their decision is proof that displays of the Ten Commandments are legally protected by our Constitution, and municipalities should not be intimidated by the ACLU’s baseless threats.”
Law Center Chief Denounces ACLU Threats Against Ten Commandments Monument in Polk County, Florida
Wed, Oct 1, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center personally addressed a public meeting of the Polk County, Florida Commissioners on Wednesday, October 1st denouncing threats of a lawsuit by the ACLU concerning the County’s new American Heritage Foundation Rock monument. Thompson offered the legal assistance of the Center, without charge, promising that no taxpayer funds would be expended in defending the monument, which contains an inscription of the Ten Commandments as a part of its display.
The County’s American Heritage Foundation Rock was unveiled during a special patriotic ceremony on September 11, 2003, marking the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. In addition to the Ten Commandments, the monument contains excerpts from the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Florida Constitution, and other historic documents.
In his brief statement to the County Board of Commissioners, Thompson argued that the ACLU has absolutely no justification for its opposition to the monument. “If any public display of the Ten Commandments is constitutional, this one is it,” said Thompson, noting that the inscription of the Ten Commandments is displayed in historical context with other documents.
Thompson applauded the county’s courageous decision to install the monument despite ACLU threats of suing both the county and individual commissioners. “Our government is not of the ACLU, by the ACLU, and for the ACLU,” he said. “We must not allow the ACLU to implement their anti-religious agenda by use of legal intimidation and financial threats.”
Thompson was invited to address the Commissioners by County Chairman Randy Wilkinson after the Law Center offered to help defend the new monument without charge. Commissioner Wilkinson noted that the Law Center was founded and is funded in part by the Ave Maria Foundation, established by Thomas S. Monaghan, former head of Domino’s Pizza and the Detroit Tigers, which holds its spring training in nearby Lakeland, Florida. Monaghan is well known and respected by Polk County citizens because of his history with the Tigers, as well as his announcement earlier this year of plans to build a new Catholic university and adjoining town just outside Naples.
Law Center Acclaims New Limbaugh Book, “Persecution”
Fri, Sep 26, 2003
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI today praised the newly released book by David Limbaugh, “Persecution – How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity,” as a wake-up call to the assault on Christianity by America’s cultural elite.
The 416 page book chronicles the growing hostility towards Christianity with evidence, facts, and a remarkable collection of examples of censorship, discrimination, and all out war on Christian believers and values in America. In a word — Persecution.
Beginning with our nation’s Founders and recounting the early history of our nation, Limbaugh correctly explains how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted and misapplied in such a way that Christianity is often assumed to be dangerous, if not illegal. Citing egregious examples from across the country, including several cases handled by the Thomas More Law Center, Limbaugh demonstrates how our cultural elites are working overtime,