Supreme Court Asked To Stay Lower Court Order To Remove the Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, Jun 29, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, this morning, filed an emergency application in the U.S. Supreme Court asking Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to stay a lower federal court decision that orders the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross by August 1st or face fines of $5,000 a day thereafter. The City has indicated that unless the legal situation changes, it will comply with the lower court order to remove the cross and will begin plans to implement that order beginning in the first week of July.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the emergency application for stay on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization that spearheaded the highly successful referendary petition drive that resulted in the City Council repealing its March 8, 2005 vote not to transfer the memorial property to the federal government.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center commented, “The legislative actions of area Congressmen and the grass roots efforts of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial have kept the cross atop Mt. Soledad. We are now, however, at a critical stage, and time is running out.”

The Law Center’s emergency application explained that this case presents a serious question regarding the place of religious symbols in the public life of our nation.

The Law Center argued, “Removing the memorial cross, which has been displayed continuously in its present location since 1954, would destroy the integrity of the Veterans Memorial, undermine the state court proceeding, and cause irreparable harm to Applicant, the citizens of San Diego, and the many family members, friends, and comrades of the nearly two thousand veterans who are honored by this memorial for their sacrificial service to this country. It would be a national tragedy to tear down the memorial cross, which is scheduled to occur on or before August 1, 2006, absent a stay.”

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The Mt. Soledad Cross and Memorial represents the sacrifices our veterans and their families have made and the gratitude that we, as a community and a nation, have for them. They fought hard for our freedoms. We will fight hard to preserve them.”

In addition to the emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Law Center is also involved in appeals to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeals, to save the cross.

On Monday evening U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced House Bill 5683, which mandates the federal government take over the memorial and transfer it to the Defense department. Representative Darrell Issa and newly elected Representative Brian Bilbray are co-sponsors of that legislation. However, it will be a difficult undertaking to move the bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate for signature of the President before the August 1st deadline.

In addition to the numerous legal steps the Law Center is taking to prevent removal of the memorial cross by August 1st, the Law Center is also asking all Americans to join in the effort to urge President Bush to immediately use the federal powers of eminent domain to take the land on which the cross and memorial sit by signing a petition to the President contained on its website at: www.thomasmore.org.

Explained Thompson, “Our legal team is pursuing every possible legal option to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, including an appeal to President Bush and Congress to take the land under the federal powers of eminent domain. Our veterans deserve it.”

War Hero Urges President Bush to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial
Tue, Jun 27, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Retired Navy Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, former POW and former U.S. Senator, in a personal letter sent on June 14th, asked President Bush to save the Mt. Soledad cross, which is the centerpiece of a national war memorial honoring our veterans. Rear Admiral Denton urged the President to consider saving the cross by means of the federal government exercising its power of eminent domain in order to maintain the land as a National monument.

Rear Admiral Denton serves on the Thomas More Law Center Citizens Advisory Board and is responsible for developing strategy. The Thomas More Law Center has been leading the fight to save the Mt. Soledad cross since 2004 after it learned that the 15 year old lawsuit brought by an atheist was about to be settled by the defendants agreeing to remove the cross.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center commented, “Faced with unsympathetic California judges at both the state and federal level, and the fact that the City of San Diego has been given until August 1st to remove the cross or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter, President Bush’s intervention may be the only way to prevent removal of the cross. We owe it to our veterans and fallen heroes to do everything we can to preserve this national memorial erected in their honor. Of course, even after federal intervention, the court battle will most likely continue.”

Rear Admiral Denton first came to the American public’s attention in 1966 as a POW during a televised interview by his Communist captors. Before the interview, Denton was tortured and threatened with more torture if he didn’t properly answer their questions regarding alleged American atrocities. Despite those threats, Denton responded in front of the gathered Communist dignitaries, and glaring camera lights, “Whatever the position of my government is, I believe it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live.” During the televised interview, Rear Admiral Denton blinked his eyes in Morse Code spelling out the message “T-O-R-T-U-R-E,” which was the first confirmation Naval Intelligence had that American POWs in Vietnam were being tortured.

Of the nearly eight years as a POW, Denton served over four years in solitary confinement. As spokesperson for the first group of returning POWs in1973, as he stepped from the plane he was asked to make a statement on behalf of the group. He turned to the microphones and said, “We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our Commander-in-Chief and our nation for this day. God bless America.”

In his book, “When Hell was in Session,” which chronicles his experience as a POW, Denton describes the importance of his only personal possession as a POW, a cross woven of bamboo strips by a fellow prisoner. Throughout his book, Rear Admiral Denton describes the importance of his Christian faith to his survival as a POW under horrific conditions. The importance of that faith underscores Rear Admiral Denton’s desire to save the memorial cross.

In addition to the numerous legal steps the Law Center is taking to prevent removal of the memorial cross by August 1st, the Law Center is also asking all Americans to join in the effort to urge President Bush to immediately use the federal powers of eminent domain to take the land on which the cross and memorial sit by signing a petition to the President contained on its website at: www.thomasmore.org.

 
Thomas More Law Center Continues Battle to Prevent Desecration of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial
Mon, Jun 26, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, filed an emergency motion to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this past Friday, seeking to reverse Federal District Court Judge Gordon Thompson’s May 3rd order to the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial cross by August 1st or face fines of $5,000 per day.

The Law Center’s emergency motion to intervene was filed two days after the Ninth Circuit denied San Diego’s request to stay the removal of the cross. The Court instead expedited the appeal, ordering briefs to be filed by July 19th and setting oral argument for the week of October 16th, two months after the Cross is supposed to be removed. The Law Center filed its emergency motion to intervene so that it can participate in the expedited briefing schedule and argument.

The Law Center also has pending before the Ninth Circuit its own emergency motion to stay the removal of the memorial cross pending resolution of its appeals in both the Ninth Circuit and a parallel state court case. The Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on this stay request.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “We have made a pledge to fight this battle to the end, and we are doing that. Our heroic veterans continue to fight for our freedoms. We owe it to them and their families to continue to fight to preserve this national memorial that was erected in their honor.”

The Law Center’s emergency motion to intervene was filed on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization responsible for Proposition A, a hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the memorial to the federal government. Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote in a special election held in July 2005. However, a state court judge halted the implementation of Proposition A, claiming that it violated the California Constitution. Atheist Philip Paulson, the one who challenged the cross in the federal lawsuit, is also challenging Proposition A in the California courts. The Law Center is also appealing the state court ruling.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “We will not give up this fight. We will exhaust all options to save the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial. This memorial and what it stands for are too important to lose.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Ninth Circuit Decides: The Mt. Soledad Cross Will Come Down
Thu, Jun 22, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A three–judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross pending an appeal. Thus, the City of San Diego must remove the Cross by August 1, 2006, or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. In its decision, however, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments on the matter for the week of October 16, 2006, weeks after the Cross is to be removed. The 43- foot Cross was erected in 1954 and currently is the centerpiece of a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been fighting to save the Cross since 2004 when it received information that the private memorial association operating the memorial site and the City were about to agree to settle the case, which had been on going for 15 years, by removing the Cross.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented on the recent order: “It is an outrage and insult not only to Christians, but people of all faiths, that this memorial site to our veterans and fallen war heroes would be desecrated by removal of a universally recognized symbol of sacrifice just because one atheist was upset about it. We will continue our legal fight to save the cross. A quick answer to the current legal challenge would be for the federal government to step in and take the land under its power of eminent domain. So far they have remained silent.”

Continued Thompson, “The Cross and memorial honors those Americans of all faiths who have given their lives to preserve our religious freedom; we are now called upon to do whatever it takes to prevent the courts from destroying the Cross that symbolizes our religious heritage and their sacrifice.”

Rob Muise, a Law Center trial counsel who has authored many of the pleadings in this case, indicated that further legal action will be taken to preserve the cross and memorial. Said Muise, “Friends, comrades, and family members of thousands of our fallen veterans have chosen the Mt. Soledad memorial as a place to honor and remember their fallen heroes. As a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, I am sickened by the thought of the pain that these court decisions must be causing for these grieving families. Our veterans deserve better than this.”

In December 2004, as a result of legal research and urgings by the Thomas More Law Center, Congress and the President designated the Mt. Soledad Cross, the land on which it stands, and the granite memorial walls surrounding it a national veterans memorial. The congressional action authorized the Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the property. The Secretary of the Interior would administer the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, giving the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association the right of continued maintenance of the Cross and surrounding granite memorial walls and plaques.

However, despite widespread support, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation. As a result, a religiously diverse, grass roots organization, “San Diegans for the Mt Soledad War Memorial,” headed by Jewish businessman Philip Thalheimer, obtained more than 100,000 signatures on petitions, calling on the council to reverse its decision. In response, the City Council opted to place the question authorizing the transfer as Proposition A on the July 2005 special election ballot.

Plaintiff Paulson’s attorney filed a second lawsuit, this time in state court, seeking to stop the vote. Despite the fact that the ballot proposal passed by an astonishing 76% of the vote, State Court Judge Patricia Cowett ruled that Proposition A violated the California constitution. Her order is being appealed as well.

Federal Court: Public School Children Not Allowed to Recite Pledge
Wed, Jun 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, has filed a friend of the Court brief seeking reversal of a decision striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school children in California because the Pledge includes the phrase “One Nation, Under God.” The decision was rendered late last year in the second lawsuit challenging the Pledge brought by nationally known atheist Michael Newdow.

In striking down the Pledge, federal district court judge Lawrence Karlton held that he was bound to follow the decision in Newdow’s favor rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002--even though the Supreme Court had reversed the Ninth Circuit in 2004. When the Supreme Court’s reversed the Ninth Circuit it held that federal courts should not reach the merits of Newdow’s first challenge to the Pledge because that challenge was advanced on behalf of Newdow’s daughter and Newdow’s right to represent his daughter’s interest were doubtful under California law. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Pledge, leaving that issue for another day. In the aftermath of this reversal, Newdow filed a second suit on behalf of himself and others, which produced the ruling now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Patrick T. Gillen, who wrote the brief for the Center, called Judge Karlton’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s earlier opinion as “plainly wrong” and noted that it undermined the authority of the Supreme Court. According to Gillen, when Karlton erred he gave binding effect to a “deplorable decision at odds with the history and traditions of our nation as well as the more enduring and cogent principles used to interpret and apply the Establishment Clause.”

The Center’s brief concluded that the Ninth Circuit should consider Newdow’s challenge as if writing on a blank slate and conclude that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because it contains the phrase “One Nation, Under God.” The phrase does not represent an establishment of religion but simply acknowledges the common conviction that this nation exists under God, a conviction that engendered the very protection for religious liberty that Newdow and the other Plaintiffs enjoy.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Ironically this God-given freedom expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance is what endows Mr. Newdow with the right to voice his opinion that there is no God.”

Newdow, a practicing physician as well as lawyer, has directed his legal energies towards removing all religious expressions from the public square. In addition to his challenges to the Pledge, Newdow has sued to remove our national motto, “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency, prohibit the President from ending his inaugural oath with “So help me God,” ban invocations at inaugural ceremonies, and prevent Congress from hiring legislative chaplains.

Federal Judge Dismisses Case Challenging National Motto
Tue, Jun 13, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A California federal trial judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, “In God We Trust.” Newdow is the atheist who achieved national attention in his previous unsuccessful attempt to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools because it includes the words “one nation under God.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had filed a friend of the court brief seeking the dismissal of Newdow’s national motto lawsuit.

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center’s trial counsel who submitted the friend of the court brief, commented: “Our national motto does not have the constitutionally impermissible effect of establishing a religion. Rather, it acknowledges our nation’s rich religious heritage, which informed the founding of our nation.”

The federal trial judge ruled that the national motto has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion. The judge noted that the use of the national motto is patriotic and has no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Ninth Circuit To Halt Destruction of the Mt. Soledad Cross
Tue, Jun 6, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Today, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, filed an urgent motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking a stay of Federal District Court Judge Gordon Thompson’s May 3 order to the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day. Unless the Ninth Circuit stays this court order, the City will be forced to remove the cross by August 1.

The Law Center’s motion was filed on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization responsible for Proposition A, a hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the memorial to the federal government. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote. However, a state court judge recently issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that it violated the California Constitution. Atheist Philip Paulson, the one who challenged the cross in the federal lawsuit, is also challenging Proposition A in the California courts.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “This case is reaching a critical stage, and we are exhausting all legal options to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, which includes the centerpiece cross. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the Ninth Circuit to allow the destruction of the cross without considering how changed circumstances since 1993 when the court upheld the injunction have impacted the legitimacy of that decision.”

The Law Center is asking the Ninth Circuit to stay the order to destroy the cross pending the resolution of the constitutionality of Proposition A. That transfer could render Judge Thompson’s order ineffective because the City will no longer be responsible for the memorial cross, it will belong to the federal government. This case is in the California appellate courts, and the Law Center is involved in that action as well. The Law Center is also asking the Ninth Circuit to halt the destruction of the memorial cross so that the court can consider changed circumstances that demonstrate the constitutionality of the memorial.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “It would be unjust for the Ninth Circuit to allow the destruction of the memorial cross without considering the impact of Proposition A and the changed circumstances that warrant a reversal of the decision to remove it in the first instance. We will continue to press the fight and are hopeful that justice will prevail.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Seeks Supreme Court Review Of Court Decision Allowing California Public School To Teach Twelve Year-olds How To Become Muslims
Mon, Jun 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has requested that the United States Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that it is constitutional for a California public school to engage in a three week intensive course for seventh graders on how to “become Muslims.”

For three weeks in 2001, impressionable twelve-year-old students were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups, took Islamic names, wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, which is the symbol of Muslims, were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls.

A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit determined that these practices did not violate the Constitution.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This case cries out ‘double standard.’ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that held our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the phrase ‘under God,’ and yet they allow a three week intensive course on how to become Muslims, including class memorization of Islamic prayers and participation in Islamic religious rituals.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s trial counsel handling the case, commented, “Although a public school may teach about religion, the school district here went far beyond an explanation of the historical or literary significance of Islam and placed these seventh graders into the position of becoming trainees in that religion. These young children were indoctrinated in Islam, which the Constitution forbids.”
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will decide whether to review this case within the next few months.

Parents of Fallen War Hero To the President: Save The Mt. Soledad Cross
Tue, May 23, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – “There is no better place to honor our fallen heroes than under that cross, overlooking the country they fought and died to preserve.” These were the words of the parents of Marine Captain Michael D. Martino who was killed in action in Iraq, contained in a May 15, 2006 letter to President Bush, urging him to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.

On November 2, 2005, Captain Martino was killed when his Cobra helicopter was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. This past week, Captain Martino’s Camp Pendleton Unit—a Marine air squadron that had just recently returned from Iraq—dedicated plaques at Mt. Soledad to honor him and his fellow pilot, Major Jerry Bloomfield, for their heroic service. Over three hundred fellow Marines stood in line for over three hours to meet and pay their respects to Robert and Sybil Martino, the parents of Captain Martino.

Captain Martino’s father told the Thomas More Law Center, “I cannot express the sincere feeling of emotion we felt for our heroes and those Marines. We were truly glad that there was a place where you felt such peace under the cross, which overlooked the beautiful country they died to protect.”

“In bitter irony, the very freedoms Captain Martino and Major Jerry Bloomfield died to protect are being perverted by the ACLU and atheists to deprive them and their grieving families the honor and solace they deserve,” said Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which has been working around the clock to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.

Law Center trial counsel Robert Muise, a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, commented from first hand experience, “I am deeply moved by the sacrifices made by men like Captain Martino and the thousands of others in our armed services. I have witnessed them myself. Unfortunately, while these brave men and women are heroically fighting to protect our Constitution, the ACLU and activist judges are taking it apart. For the sake of our fallen veterans, we must fight to keep this memorial intact. Our veterans deserve it.”

As a result of a lawsuit brought by atheist Philip Paulson, with the help of the ACLU, on May 3, 2006, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the City of San Diego to remove the cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day. The removal of this cross and the concomitant destruction of this national veterans memorial will be a national tragedy and an affront to the many proud Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for this Country. One grieving family’s story tells it like it is.

The May 15, 2006, letter urges President Bush to take the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial under federal ownership and preserve the cross. The letter stated, “Our son loved his country and the many rights and liberties it provided . . . . Our son died with a strong belief that he was fighting to preserve the freedom of all Americans. Please let us have OUR freedom from activist judges and their personal interpretation of our Constitution.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org. Please sign the petition on the website urging President Bush to save the Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial.

Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Defended In The United States Supreme Court
Mon, May 22, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a brief with the United States Supreme Court supporting the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Joining the Thomas More Law Center in the friend of the court brief are the Catholic League and the National Pro-Life Alliance.

The appeal to the Supreme Court involves a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nebraska that found the federal Act to be unconstitutional. Two other federal courts of appeal, the Second Circuit in New York and the Ninth Circuit in California, have also ruled the Act unconstitutional.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally 20 weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is nothing other than infanticide, and this barbaric procedure must be stopped.”

In the brief, the Law Center exposes the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement, which is designed to distract the public and the courts from the reality that each time an abortion is performed, a human life is destroyed. As medical science demonstrates, life begins at the moment of conception, and abortion advocates have tried to blur this reality in an attempt to sedate the public into believing that the atrocity of abortion is acceptable.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we request that the Supreme Court find the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to be constitutional. We also request that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to reconsider and reject its ‘abortion rights’ decisions, such as Roe v. Wade. The time has come for the Supreme Court to stop the grave injustices that have resulted from those decisions.”

The Thomas More Law Center is currently involved in several other pro-life initiatives, including defending the State of Michigan’s statute banning partial-birth abortions, and a petition drive for a Michigan constitutional amendment that defines a person as existing from the moment of conception and thus protected by Michigan’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Thomas More Law Center was also involved in the 2004 South Dakota attempt to criminalize abortions and directly confront Roe v. Wade, an attempt that lost by one vote in the South Dakota legislature.

Thomas More Law Center Takes Legal Action to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, May 18, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed papers in the U.S. District Court in San Diego, California, asking Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson to allow them to intervene in the case challenging the display of the Mt. Soledad cross. The motion to intervene is the first step by the Law Center towards an appeal and stay of Judge Thompson’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross within 90 days.

The San Diego City Council is scheduled to vote next week on whether they will appeal Judge Thompson’s order to remove the cross.

The Law Center filed the papers on behalf of the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, an organization that was formed in March 2005 to save the national veterans memorial, including its centerpiece cross.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “We have pledged to do whatever we can to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. This Memorial and the centerpiece cross stand as a tribute to all veterans. The Memorial represents the sacrifices our veterans and their families have made and the gratitude that we, as a community and a nation, have for them. They fought hard for our freedoms. We will fight hard to preserve them.”

On May 3, 2006, Judge Thompson ordered the City of San Diego to remove the cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day. The Law Center is seeking to intervene in the case in order to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the judge’s order pending resolution of a state court case that could render the order void. The state court case involves the constitutionality of Proposition A, which transfers the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial and the property upon which it rests to the federal government.

San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, a grassroots community action group, was responsible for the hugely successful Proposition A petition drive. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote. However, a state court judge recently issued an order halting implementation of proposition A, claiming that it violated the California Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center is representing San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in an appeal of that state court order in the California appellate courts. The outcome of the state case will likely impact the federal case because the federal judge’s order to the City of San Diego will no longer be valid since it was based wholly on state law grounds and it was directed to the City of San Diego. Once Proposition A takes effect, the property will belong exclusively to the federal government.

The 17-year battle between the City of San Diego and the atheist Philip Paulson has reached a critical stage. Unless the judge’s order is reversed or stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the City of San Diego will be required to take down the cross this August.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, stated, “Because America’s veterans fought and died for our freedoms, we should at least be allowed to honor them with a universal symbol of sacrifice—a cross high atop a mountain. That’s why our legal team is pursuing every possible legal option to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, including an appeal to President Bush to take the land under the federal powers of eminent domain. Our veterans deserve it.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

National Petition Drive Launched to Save Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, May 11, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – In an effort to save the famous 43-foot Mt. Soledad Cross and the granite memorial walls surrounding it as a National Veterans Memorial, the Thomas More Law Center has launched a national petition drive requesting President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain. The petition will be sent directly to President Bush.

The petition requests the President to direct the Secretary of the Interior to “immediately begin legal proceedings” to take the land by eminent domain.

The petition quotes from a May 22, 2001 letter from President George W. Bush describing the Soledad site as a “place to reflect on our past, be inspired by true American patriots, and offer war veterans our heartfelt gratitude for the freedom we all enjoy today.” You are invited to view and sign the petition by clicking here.
For the latest information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center: The Federal Government Should Take the Land to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross
Wed, May 10, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Because both California state and federal courts are thwarting the will of San Diego citizens as well as Congress and the President regarding the Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial, the Thomas More Law Center is proposing another legal alternative—urge President Bush to direct his Secretary of the Interior to acquire the land under federal powers of eminent domain.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “Congress has vested statutory power in federal officers to acquire land for valid public uses, and the courts have held that acquiring land for national park purposes is a taking for public use and is constitutional.”

Thompson added, “This is just one of the many legal alternative we are pursuing to save the Cross as part of this national veterans memorial.”

The 17-year battle between the City of San Diego and the atheist Philip Paulson is reaching a critical stage. On May 3rd, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered San Diego officials to remove the historic Mount Soledad Cross within ninety days or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. The 43-foot Cross was erected in 1954 and currently is the centerpiece of a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars.

On December 8, 2004, due in large measure to the efforts of the Thomas More Law Center, the United States Congress passed a law designating the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, including the land on which it stands and the granite memorial walls surrounding it, a national veterans memorial. The federal law also authorized the Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the Memorial from the City of San Diego.

Despite widespread support, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation. As a result, a group of local citizens, “San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial,” obtained the necessary signatures to place the issue on the July 2005 special election ballot as Proposition A. The ballot proposal passed by an astonishing 76% of the vote.

Nonetheless, Paulson’s attorney, seeking to thwart the will of the citizens of San Diego and circumvent the democratic process, convinced a state court judge to rule that the pending land transfer violated the California and United States Constitutions. Charles LiMandri, the west coast regional director of the Thomas More Law Center, is representing San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in an appeal of this decision.

Robert Muise, one of the Law Center attorneys involved in the case, commented, “The battle to save this Cross is far from over. The Law Center is exhausting all options to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, including urging the President to acquire the property through condemnation proceedings. This would be a win-win situation. The will of the citizens of San Diego, who overwhelmingly supported transferring the land to the federal government to preserve the Memorial, would win, and the will of Congress would be achieved. We must be as aggressive and relentless to preserve our freedoms as those who seek to destroy them.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center: “Judge’s Order To Remove The Mt. Soledad Cross Is Not The End Of the Story”
Mon, May 8, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Following a 17- year battle between the city of San Diego and the atheist Philip Paulson, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered San Diego officials to remove the historic Mount Soledad Cross in accordance with an order he issued in 1991 within ninety days or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. The 43- foot Cross was erected in 1954 and currently is the centerpiece of a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been intimately involved in defense of the Mt. Soledad Cross and National Memorial. In 2004, just weeks before the Cross was to be removed, the Law Center devised the legal blueprint to designate the land a national veteran’s memorial, which the area’s congressmen implemented in a federal omnibus appropriations act on December 8, 2004. Transfer of the land from city ownership to federal ownership, which would negate the constitutional basis for any order removing the Cross looms as the bone of contention.

Just days before Judge Thompson’s order to remove the Cross, Charles LiMandri, the west coast regional director of the Law Center, hand delivered a supplemental legal memo on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt Soledad National Memorial pointing out how recent federal court decisions supported keeping the Cross where it is.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented on the order: “I understand that after seventeen years, Judge Thompson would want to get this case off his docket. But what is troubling, to do so he not only ignored the change in the law and facts since his 1991 order, but he ignored the will of Congress and the United States President that made the Mt Soledad Cross a part of a national memorial, and he ignored the will of San Diego citizens of all faiths who overwhelmingly voted to maintain the Cross as the centerpiece of this memorial.”

Chuck LiMandri added, “The judge’s order is not the end of the Mt. Soledad saga. We are looking at several options: asking President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain; again offer our legal services free of charge to San Diego in the appeal if they should choose to further contest the matter; intervene and seek a stay of Judge Thompson’s order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so that appeals of the order under current law can take place. In a nutshell we will do everything we can to correct this miscarriage of justice to Americans of all faiths who have been honored by this memorial.”

In December 2004, as a result of urgings by the Thomas More Law Center and area congressmen, Congress and the President designated the Mt. Soledad Cross and the land on which it stands and the granite memorial walls surrounding a national veterans memorial. The Congressional action authorized the Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the property. The Secretary of the Interior would administer the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, giving the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association the right of continued maintenance of the cross and surrounding granite memorial walls and plaques.

However, despite widespread support, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation. As a result, a grass roots movement fueled by area Talk Show hosts to overturn that council decision was spearheaded by a religiously diverse group of local citizens “San Diegans for the Mt Soledad National War Memorial.” headed by Jewish businessman Philip Thalheimer. “Within 3 weeks, the group obtained more than 100,000 signatures on petitions calling on the City Council to reverse its decision. In response, the City Council opted to place the question authorizing the transfer, as Prop A, on the July 2005 special election ballot.

Paulson’s attorney filed a second lawsuit, this time in state court, seeking to stop the vote. That case was assigned to San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett who initially allowed the vote to take place, but ordered the proposal had to pass by a supermajority of 66 % in order to be effective. The ballot proposal passed by an astonishing 76% of the vote. Judge Cowett then ruled that Prop A violated the California constitution. While her order was being appealed, Paulson’s attorney went back to Judge Thompson’s court to enforce the 1991 order.

Richard Thompson commented, “ Just as the Cross and memorial honors those Americans of all faiths who have gave their lives to preserve our religious freedom, Americans are now called upon to do whatever it takes to prevent the courts from destroying the Cross that symbolizes our religious heritage and their sacrifice.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the link located at the upper right hand corner of the Thomas More Law Center website at: www.thomasmore.org.

 
Thomas More Law Center Files Brief Asking Court to Dismiss Case Challenging National Motto
Mon, May 8, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A California federal district court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on May 19, 2006, in a case challenging the constitutionality of our national motto “In God We Trust.” Michael Newdow, the well-known atheist who almost succeeded in having the Pledge of Allegiance recited by California school children declared unconstitutional, filed the 162-page complaint against the President and Congress.
 
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a friend of the court brief in the federal district court in Sacramento, California, supporting the United States government’s motion to dismiss Newdow’s current lawsuit. Two years ago, the Law Center had also filed a friend of the court brief in the United States Supreme Court successfully urging the Court to reverse a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the Pledge unconstitutional.

In support of the National Motto, the Law Center’s brief argues that “This nation and its form of government were founded upon an essential idea: individuals have God-given rights that the government may neither bestow nor deny.”

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Newdow’s attempt to eliminate the mere acknowledgement of our religious heritage by our National Motto has no basis in constitutional law. Even the Supreme Court, in past decisions, has understood there is an unbroken history of official invocations of Divine guidance beginning with our Founding Fathers and continuing to our present day leaders.”

San Francisco's Hateful Anti-Catholic Resolution Prompts Lawsuit
Tue, Apr 4, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A virulently anti-Catholic resolution unanimously passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives prohibiting gay adoptions has prompted a federal lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens, challenges the anti-Catholic resolution as a “startling attack by government officials on the Catholic Church, Catholic moral teaching and beliefs, and those who adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

The March 21, 2006 resolution alludes to the Vatican as a foreign country meddling in the affairs of the City and describes the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” “insensitive[] and ignoran[t].” The resolution calls on the local Archbishop to “defy” the Church’s teachings and describes Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals of the Church throughout the Catholic world, as “unqualified” to lead.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “The demagoguery and virulent words of this resolution are reminiscent of the anti- Catholic bigotry of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings, which marred our Nation’s earlier history. San Francisco may as well have put up signs at the City limits: ‘Faithful Catholics Not Welcomed.”

Catholic doctrine proclaims that allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. Therefore, such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households.

The lawsuit claims that the First Amendment “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.” The lawsuit states that this “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this matter, commented, “Our constitution forbids hostility toward any religion. In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco are abusing their authority as government officials and misusing the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church. This egregious abuse of power is an outrage and a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Decision Approving Anti-Catholic Display to Stand
Wed, Mar 8, 2006

Ann Arbor, MI— This week the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal involving a constitutional challenge to an anti-Catholic statue depicting a Roman Catholic bishop with a grotesque facial expression wearing a miter that resembles a phallus. The statue was entitled “Holier than Thou” and included a plaque with a denigrating and derisive statement about the sacrament of penance. It was placed at one of the busiest locations on the campus of Washburn University, a tax supported public university located in Kansas.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who handled this case, commented, “Incredibly, during the course of this litigation, university officials admitted that they would never permit an anti-Jewish, anti-black, or anti-gay/lesbian statue on campus. Discrimination against the Catholic faith apparently promotes the educational mission of Washburn University. And while the federal judiciary may have turned a blind eye to this outrage, many Catholics did not.”

Many prominent Catholics criticized the statue as anti-Catholic as soon as the university began the display on September 20, 2003. Catholic Archbishop James Keleher of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas wrote an open letter to the University President strongly urging the university to remove this symbol of anti-Catholicism. He wrote, “I am extremely disappointed at this present situation that is an affront to me, to many Catholics and to others who value decency and respect. I am particularly concerned for your many Catholic students who see their faith ridiculed and they themselves embarrassed.”

Other prominent Catholic leaders and organizations, such as William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the Kansas State Knights of Columbus, the president of the Archdiocesan Conference of Catholic Women, and the Catholic Campus Center at Washburn University expressed similar concerns about the offensive display.

Nonetheless, the University’s President defended the display as art that has the purpose of engaging the community intellectually and emotionally, and refused to remove it.

As a result of the refusal, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Thomas O’Connor and Andrew Strobl. Dr. O’Connor, a professor of 39 years at Washburn, and Strobl, a senior at Washburn at the time of the filing of the case, are both devout Catholics. The lawsuit alleged that Washburn’s display of this anti-Catholic symbol conveyed the impermissible state-sponsored message of hostility toward the Catholic faith in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The case was dismissed by the federal district judge who ruled that Washburn had a secular purpose for displaying this sculpture because “[i]t functions to aesthetically enhance Washburn’s campus[,] broaden the educational experiences [and] increase the intellectual capacities of Washburn’s students.” The judge concluded that the presence of “Holier than Thou” on “Washburn’s campus would [not] cause a reasonable observer to believe that [Washburn] endorsed hostility towards the Catholic religion.”

In July 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Washburn University did not violate the constitution even though it prominently displayed a statue supported with public funds that mocks the Catholic faith.

The Thomas More Law Center asked the Supreme Court to revisit its confusing and inconsistent Establishment Clause jurisprudence and noted that this “hostility to religion” case would be a case of first impression. The Law Center argued that an evenhanded application of its present muddled jurisprudence compelled the Court to find that this display was unconstitutional.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is disappointing, and it reaffirms the double standard and hypocrisy spawned by the current Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Despite giving lip service to the concept of neutrality towards religion, many federal court decisions have in fact bristled with hostility to all things religious, especially those that are Christian. This double standard is also applied by our nation’s public universities, which have refused to allow school newspapers to show the recent controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed because it was insulting to Muslims.”

Supreme Court Asked to Hear "Nuremberg Files" Case
Wed, Mar 1, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with the American Catholic Lawyers Association based in Fairfield, New Jersey, has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court requesting that the Court review, what has become known as, the “Nuremberg Files” case.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This case presents the Supreme Court with vitally important First Amendment issues that have significant implications to the pro-life movement.”

This case has had a long history in the court system. The case is based entirely on the publication of two Old West style wanted posters and a nonparty’s website (the so-called “Nuremberg Files”) alleged to be “threats” against the named abortionists in violation of FACE and RICO. In 1999, a Portland, Oregon, jury punished the fourteen pro-life advocates with an aggregate verdict of $120 million, nearly all of which was for punitive damages.

In 2001, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict because the First Amendment protected the pro-life advocates’ speech.

The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which voted six to five in the case. The five dissenters, who represent the political spectrum of conservative to liberal, noted that the majority’s decision was “bad law” and that the decision “will haunt dissidents of all political stripes for many years to come.”

The Supreme Court refused to review the case and returned it to the district court to reconsider the punitive damage award. The district court found the $108.5 punitive damages award to be proper.

The Ninth Circuit, however, in September 2005 disagreed with the district court and reduced the amount by 96%, from $108.5-million to $4.7-million. Although the Ninth Circuit dramatically reduced the punitive damages award, the Ninth Circuit refused to apply new Supreme Court case law that would have caused the reversal of the verdict or, at a minimum, a new trial.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, stated, “Although this is our second cert petition, the Supreme Court can review all issues in this case, even those that we raised in our first petition. Our clients never harmed anyone in this case and were punished for exercising their First Amendment rights. We trust the Supreme Court will review this case and rule in favor of our clients.”

Thomas More Law Center Asks Full Court To Rehear Case Involving Discriminatory Anti-Christian Ban of Nativity in New York City Public Schools
Mon, Feb 20, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has petitioned the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to rehear a case challenging an anti-Christian policy promulgated by the New York City school system, the largest public school system in the Nation.

Recently, a sharply divided, three-judge panel of the circuit court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting and encouraging the display of Jewish menorahs and Islamic star and crescents during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

The legal challenge to this policy was brought by the Law Center on behalf of a Christian mother, Andrea Skoros, and her two children who attend public elementary schools in New York.

According to their petition for rehearing filed last week, “Review is necessary because this case presents a question of exceptional importance to public education in this country.” Noting that the decision “provides support for those who would seek to enact and enforce such discriminatory policies in our Nation’s public schools,” the Law Center’s petition concluded, “[T]he majority’s decision creates precedent that is too dangerous to permit.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, called the decision another offensive example of the double standard applied by the federal courts to discriminate against Christians. Said Thompson, “The United States Supreme Court has told federal courts that they must be particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools, resulting in these courts banning moments of silence, graduation prayers, student prayers at football games, Bible readings, and the display of Ten Commandments. Yet, when it comes to policies that discriminate against Christians, these same courts turn a blind eye.”

Circuit Judge Straub issued a lengthy dissenting opinion that criticized the majority on this very point, stating, “In failing to examine [the policy] from the perspective of the students, the majority pays only lip service, and indeed, effectively turns a blind eye, to the significant impact of the students’ impressionability and youth.”

The policy at issue allows the display of the Jewish menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan, but officially excludes the Christian nativity scene during Christmas. The City defended its policy by arguing that the menorah and star and crescent were permissible symbols because they were “secular,” whereas the nativity scene had to be excluded because it was “purely religious.”
Despite the fact that the appellate court disagreed with the City’s characterization of the Jewish and Muslim symbols, it nonetheless, upheld the policy.

Robert Muise, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case, commented, “This is a case that must be heard by the full court and reversed. It is so starkly contrary to basic, constitutional principles that it calls into question the integrity of our federal judiciary on matters affecting religion, and, in particular, Christianity.”

Thomas More Law Center’s West Coast Director Wins Prestigious “Ambassador of the Year Award”
Wed, Feb 8, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — Charles S. LiMandri, an affiliated attorney with the Thomas More Law Center and Director of the Law Center’s west coast regional office in San Diego, was recently honored for his professional achievements and selfless service in defending Christian values.

The award was presented last week by Legatus (Latin for “ambassador”), a prominent Catholic organization of business executives who dedicate themselves to spreading Christ in the workplace. The prestigious “Ambassador of the Year Award” is presented annually to one of 4,000 Legatus members throughout the country who have demonstrated exceptional diligence in rebuilding our culture through social action. The award was presented to LiMandri at Legatus’ annual conference in Naples, FL this past week.
LiMandri gained national recognition for his involvement in fighting to keep the Mount Soledad Cross and War Memorial where it is as it is. The 43-foot Mount Soledad Cross has stood high atop Mount Soledad in San Diego since 1954.

Aside from honoring LiMandri for running a successful and thriving civil litigation practice, LiMandri was honored for offering his firm’s time and talent to assist the Thomas More Law Center. Acting as the Center’s West Coast Regional Director, LiMandri is involved in some of the nation’s most important moral issues of today such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and most notably for his role in defending Christian symbols in the public square.

The Thomas More Law Center is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented on the award, “I join all Legatus members in congratulating Mr. LiMandri for his dedication to restoring our Christian heritage. Chuck LiMandri has demonstrated remarkable leadership abilities and legal talent in defending the Mount Soledad Cross. We are honored and privileged to have him as part of our legal team.”

Sharply Divided Court Upholds City’s Anti-Christian Ban of Nativity in New York City Public Schools
Fri, Feb 3, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — A sharply divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that it is constitutionally permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

The legal challenge to this policy was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Ms. Andrea Skoros and her two children, who attend public elementary schools in New York.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, called the decision another outrageous example of federal courts discriminating against Christians. Said Thompson, “Many federal courts are using the contrived endorsement test to cleanse America of Christianity. This unprincipled test allows judges to impose their ideological views under the pretext of constitutional interpretation. Thus, the majority opinion says it is legitimate to discriminate against Christians in the largest public school system in the country, with over one million students enrolled in its 1200 public schools and programs. This should be a wake-up call for Christians across this nation.”

Judge Straub was equally critical in his dissenting opinion. In his separate and lengthy, 46-page dissent, Judge Straub stated, “It is my view that the policy of the New York City Department of Education to arrange for the children to celebrate the holiday season in schools through the use of displays and activities that include religious symbols of the Jewish holiday of Chanukah and the Muslim commemoration of Ramadan, but starkly exclude any religious symbols of the Christian holiday of Christmas, fails under the [Constitution], both on its face and as applied.”

Judge Straub concluded, “I find it clear that the current policy and displays violate the Establishment Clause insofar as a reasonable student observer would perceive a message of endorsement of Judaism and Islam and a reasonable parent observer would perceive a message that Judaism and Islam are favored and that Christianity is disfavored.”

The policy at issue expressly states that the display of “secular holiday symbol decorations is permitted,” and it lists as examples the menorah and the star and crescent. The policy specifically excludes the display of the Christian nativity scene. The City defended its policy by arguing that the menorah and star and crescent were permissible symbols because they were “secular,” whereas the nativity scene had to be excluded because it was “purely religious.” Even though the majority recognized that the City’s argument was fallacious, stating that the policy “mischaracterizes” these symbols, it still upheld the discriminatory ban on the Christian nativity.

Judge Straub strongly disagreed with the majority, arguing that this aspect of the policy was itself a violation of the Constitution. He noted that the nativity scene or crèche “depicts a historical event and thus, has some non-religious aspects to it.” He concluded that the City’s “action in defining a menorah and star and crescent as secular, and a crèche as ‘purely religious,’ is impermissible insofar as it takes positions on divisive religious issues.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case, commented, “This is a shocking decision and Christians should be outraged by it. We strongly believe that the majority decision is fundamentally flawed, as pointed out by the dissent, and we intend to take this fight to the next level. This battle is far from over.”

Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Hostility to Religion Case
Tue, Jan 24, 2006

Ann Arbor, MI—The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court, asking the court to review an Establishment Clause case involving a religious display that was hostile to Catholics. In addition to asking the high court to revisit its confusing and inconsistent Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the petition notes that this would be a case of first impression. The Supreme Court has yet to decide a “hostility to religion” case under the Establishment Clause.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The Supreme Court’s modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence is in hopeless disarray. Despite giving lip service to the concept that the Establishment Clause prohibits both the promotion of and hostility towards religion, this and several other recent decisions by federal judges have demonstrated that there is a double standard. The Ten Commandments and the Nativity scene are out and public schools can’t mention intelligent design, but an overtly, anti-Catholic display is permissible because it allegedly enhances aesthetics. Apparently, the Establishment Clause protects atheists and secular humanists, but affords no comparable protection for Christians. This disturbing trend in our federal courts must be reversed.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, affirmed a ruling by a district judge in Kansas that Washburn University did not violate the constitution by publicly and prominently displaying a sculpture that mocks the Catholic faith. The sculpture at issue depicts a Roman Catholic bishop with a grotesque facial expression wearing a miter that resembles a phallus. It was entitled “Holier than Thou” and included a caption with a heretical statements about the sacrament of penance. The sculpture, which was supported with public funds, was displayed outside of the student union, one of the most traveled areas of the campus.

The lawsuit was brought by the Law Center on behalf of Dr. Thomas O’Connor and Andrew Strobl. Dr. O’Connor, a professor of 39 years at Washburn, and Strobl, a senior at Washburn at the time of the filing of the case, are both devout Catholics. The lawsuit alleged that Washburn’s display of this anti-Catholic symbol conveyed the impermissible state-sponsored message of hostility toward the Catholic faith in violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court and the Tenth Circuit disagreed, holding that “under the circumstances,” the display of this symbol did not constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of an anti-Catholic message.

According to Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, “This case should give the Court an opportunity to clarify its decisions and provide much needed guidance for the lower federal courts, particularly with regard to hostility claims. The Court could decide to dispense with its current, muddled jurisprudence and return the Establishment Clause to its original meaning, which would also be a welcomed result.”