Pennsylvania School Board Selects Law Center to Fight ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Policy to Make Students Aware of Alternative Theories to Evolution
Tue, Dec 21, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Dover, Pennsylvania school board voted unanimously (7-0) Monday December 20th to appoint the Thomas More Law Center as its legal team to defend them against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenging the school board decision to make students aware of alternative theories to evolution. The Thomas More Law Center agreed to defend the school board against the lawsuit without charge.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center blasted the ACLU’s lawsuit. “The ACLU is now showing its true colors. They are in the business of banning books from school libraries and suppressing academic freedom.” “The Dover school district policy on making students aware of alternatives to the theory of evolution is merely following the congressional intent contained in the conference report from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the specific amendment proposed by Senator Santorum passed by a 91-8 vote by the United States Senate,” said Thompson.
Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, in his statement in the Congressional Record on December 18, 2001 indicated, “The time has come for school boards to resist threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers who teach the scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling controversy.”
Dover is the first school district in the United States to require teachers to make students aware of alternative theories to evolution, including the theory that the complexity of the universe suggests an “intelligent design.” The Dover school board voted 6-3 in October to adopt the new policy. According to polls, Americans overwhelmingly desire to learn more about the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Thompson continued, “Not only is Dover following congressional intent in adopting their policy, but their actions are constitutionally permissible.”
New Jersey School District Sued for Ban on Christmas Music
Mon, Dec 20, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — The controversial music policy adopted by the Maplewood Public School District banning traditional Christmas music including instrumentals, has now become the subject of a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit was filed Friday on behalf of Michael Stratechuk and his two children, who are students in the New Jersey School District, and claims that the policy is unconstitutional.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit arguing that the School District’s total ban on religious music conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion. The lawsuit further argues that because the religious music is banned from the public schools, students are denied the ability to learn about and listen to music that has influenced the social, cultural, and historic development of civilization.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This is another example of the anti-Christmas, anti-religion policy, infecting our public school system. The constitution does not require our public schools to become religion–free zones. Forcing students to strip all religious content from music is like asking them to study art history while excluding paintings from the Renaissance because they contain religious subjects.”
The lawsuit explains that the Maplewood policy was implemented to ban students and student groups form playing traditional Christmas music at events during the 2004 holiday season. Groups such as the Martin Luther King Gospel Choir and the Brass Ensemble have both been banned from performing any traditional Christmas songs and carols including instrumentals.
Law Center Files Supreme Court Brief in Support of Ten Commandments Display
Mon, Dec 13, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center announced Monday, December 13th that it has filed a friend of the court brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Ten Commandments displays on public property. The case will be heard by the high court in February 2005 with a decision expected in June 2005.
The case involves two displays of the Ten Commandments in the lobbies of Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. Both displays originally only included framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.
Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s ruling, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, was “blatantly religious” and therefore “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
According to Edward L. White III, attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, “We trust the Supreme Court will reverse the decisions of the lower courts and permit the public display of the Ten Commandments, which has largely influenced the foundation of American law, and should be displayed in public.” “Our brief addresses the Sixth Circuit’s novel ‘unconstitutional taint’ argument and explains how it runs contrary to the governing law,” said White.
The Supreme Court’s acceptance of a case dealing with the public display of the Ten Commandments is long overdue. Since the Court struck down the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980, the justices have refused to review numerous cases involving the display of the Commandments on public property. Varying lower court decisions on the issue have led to widespread confusion and controversy, highlighted last year by the highly publicized case involving former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.
The high court’s decision in this case could determine how courts will analyze future disputes over the display of other religious symbols on public property, such as nativity scenes and Christian crosses.
The Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories earlier this year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.
Challenging the Christmas “Grinch” in New York and Florida
Thu, Dec 9, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — With less than three weeks to go before Americans celebrate the national Christmas holiday, two prominent legal cases dealing with government policies that discriminate against Christmas religious displays during the holy season have each reached a critical stage. The Thomas More Law Center is fighting two separate cases, one in New York City and the other in Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, over policies that outlaw the public display of the Christian Nativity while permitting the display of symbols of other religions.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented Thursday, “Christmas is under siege throughout our nation, and the cases in New York and Bay Harbor Islands demonstrate the kind of hostility and double standard being used by officials to deny Christians the right to publicly celebrate one of their holiest seasons.”
In New York City, Law Center attorney Robert Muise will present oral argument Monday, December 13th, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Law Center’s case against the New York City Department of Education. The Law Center filed a federal lawsuit, challenging New York City’s policy that encourages and permits the display of the Jewish Menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan in the more than 1200 public schools in the City, but prohibits the similar display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas.
The appeal was filed after Senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton ruled that the City’s discriminatory policy was permissible because it was an accommodation of “multiculturalism” and “an attempt to diversify the season and provide non-Christian holidays with parity.”
Separately, Florida U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga is expected to rule early next week on a request for a temporary restraining order that would require the Town of Bay Harbor Islands to allow a Christian resident to the display the Nativity alongside existing Jewish Menorahs.
The emergency request was filed as a part of a federal lawsuit against the Town of Bay Harbor Islands for its practice of displaying exclusively Jewish religious symbols while prohibiting the similar display of a Christian Nativity. The Town had adorned the lampposts lining its main street with Jewish Menorahs and Stars of David and allowed a Jewish synagogue to display its Menorah in the most prominent, public location at the entrance of the town. However, the town denied a Christian resident permission for the second consecutive year to display her Christian Nativity scenes.
In a hearing in Miami earlier this week, Law Center attorney Edward White argued that Bay Harbor Islands is discriminating against Christians by violating the free speech rights of resident Sandra Snowden, who had been denied the right to display her private Nativity in a public forum. Town attorneys defended their policy, arguing that the Menorah can be displayed because it is a secular symbol and not a religious one, unlike the Nativity.
Florida Town Sued For Prohibiting Nativity Displays
Thu, Dec 2, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Over the past several years during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, the Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, has adorned the lampposts lining its main street with Jewish religious symbols of Menorahs and Stars of David and has allowed a Jewish synagogue to display its fourteen-foot Menorah in the most prominent public location at the entrance of Town. Yet every request by Sandra Snowden, a Christian resident, to display Nativity scenes purchased with her own money in a similar manner during the Christmas season, has been denied by Town officials.
As a result the Thomas More Law Center has filed a federal lawsuit against the Town and its officials for their refusal to allow a Nativity to be displayed, while at the same time allowing the display of Jewish religious symbols in prominent locations throughout the Town. The lawsuit was filed Thursday after Snowden was denied permission for the second consecutive year to display a Christian Nativity.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “As we approach Christmas, we are once again confronted with a Town that believes it is legally acceptable to discriminate against Christian religious symbols celebrating this holy season. This is one of the most outrageous examples of such discrimination.”
Starting last December, after the Menorahs and Stars of David had been displayed, Snowden contacted the Town and requested a more inclusive display of holiday decorations, since only Jewish religious symbols were featured. Then-Vice Mayor Isaac Salver responded in a letter by stating that he did not agree with her ideas about the decorations and commented, “it is sad to see one get deeply offended by something as trivial as holiday decorations.”
On December 8, 2003, Snowden requested at a Town Council meeting to display a Nativity scene alongside the synagogue’s Menorah. Council members responded by again characterizing her request as trivial explaining that the issue was not time sensitive and therefore not necessary for the Council to act upon until after Christmas 2003. When Snowden attempted to explain her Nativity display, Council members refused any further discussion and abruptly adjourned the meeting in protest.
In October 2004, Snowden again requested to display her Nativity scenes alongside the Jewish religious symbols displayed in the Town. The Town again refused her request, and Snowden sued, claiming that the Town has violated her free speech and equal protection rights and also has violated the establishment clause to the United States Constitution.
Law Center attorneys filed a similar lawsuit last year against the Town of Palm Beach, Florida for its refusal to respond to repeated requests to display a Nativity alongside town sanctioned Menorahs. This past May, a federal district court judge acknowledged the importance of recognizing religious holidays and ordered Palm Beach to treat all religious symbols equally.
Elsewhere the Law Center is pressing its case 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.
U.S. Congress Acts to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross – Atheist Blames ‘Jihad Jesus Republicans’
Tue, Nov 23, 2004
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In a surprising turn of events, the United States Congress has joined the fight to keep the 43-foot tall cross atop Mount Soledad in San Diego, California, by designating the land on which it stands and the granite memorial walls surrounding it, a national veterans memorial. The congressional action came as a result of efforts by the Thomas More Law Center.
San Diego area Congressmen, Reps. Duncan Hunter, R–El Cajon, and Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Escondido, inserted the memorial designation as part of a spending bill awaiting approval by President Bush.
Phillip Paulson, the atheist who mounted a successful 15- year legal battle to remove the cross with support from the ACLU, told the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Jihad Jesus Republicans need to understand that the separation of church and state has kept this country from getting into religious wars.” “ If God was powerful, there would not be a need for the government to go in and force a religious agenda on nonbelieving citizens,” he continued.
The ACLU of San Diego also criticized the legislation calling it “political gamesmanship”.
San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri, Director of the Law Center’s western regional office who has led the effort to save the Mt. Soledad cross called the congressional action “an act of God”. LiMandri said Congress was not unconstitutionally endorsing religion because it intended to honor veterans in the same manner as the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center responding to Paulson’s comments, “Those who want the Mt. Soledad cross removed erroneously base their case on the metaphor ‘separation of church and state,’ a phrase nowhere in the Constitution. This cross and memorial, soon to be officially designated a national veterans memorial is constitutionally permissible. It’s time to stop government by the ACLU and for the ACLU.”
Thompson acknowledged the battle is far from over and hopes the City of San Diego and the Veterans Memorial Association will now get behind efforts to keep the cross on top of Mount Soledad, where it has stood for fifty years. “We fully expect further legal challenges to tear down the cross, but we are not giving up either.”
President Bush is expected to sign the bill within the next few weeks.
According to the congressional designation, once the City of San Diego donates the land to the United States, the Secretary of the Interior shall 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.
Petition Launched to Save Mt. Soledad Cross – Sign Today!
Thu, Nov 18, 2004
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In an effort to save the famous 43-foot concrete cross, which has stood atop Mount Soledad in San Diego, CA for the past fifty years, the Thomas More Law Center and other concerned groups and citizens have launched a national petition drive urging federal officials to declare the Mount Soledad Veterans War Memorial a national memorial.
The historic site includes the 43- foot cross and memorial walls containing plaques honoring the service of thousands of American veterans from all wars. The cross has been the subject of a 15- year federal lawsuit brought by an avowed atheist that resulted in a federal court order requiring the Mt. Soledad Cross to be removed. Law Center attorneys believe a successful petition effort to have Mt. Soledad designated a National Memorial would allow the Cross to remain.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “We are deeply disappointed that after 15 years of fighting to keep the cross, the Mt. Soledad Memorial association joined forces with the atheist to remove it. However, by declaring the Mt. Soledad memorial and cross a national memorial, this entire controversy can be put to rest, and I ask that the Association join us in this endeavor. ”
The petition will be presented to a host of government officials whose responsibilities include the designation of historic sites as national memorials. The petition reads in part:
“Whereas, the Mount Soledad Cross and the Mount Soledad Veterans War Memorial represents our collective admiration and respect for veterans from all wars who have honorably served our nation in the Armed Forces…Whereas, a federal lawsuit by an avowed atheist has resulted in a court order requiring the Mt. Soledad Cross to be removed, and designation of the site as a National Memorial would allow the Cross to remain; We therefore, urge you to take the necessary steps to designate the Mt. Soledad Cross and the Mt. Soledad Veterans War Memorial a National Memorial.”
The petition also 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.
Church Accuses Veterans Group of Deception and Betrayal Over Mt. Soledad Cross – Law Center Vows to Keep Fighting
Fri, Nov 12, 2004
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In a bombshell revelation, the pastor of Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church has accused the Mount Soledad Memorial Association of deception and betrayal in the campaign to save the Mt Soledad Cross, and rescinded the offer to explore the possibility of placing the cross on church property.
In a letter to the Memorial Association’s president Bill Kellogg dated November 8th, Pastor Mark Slomka wrote, “We never anticipated that the Memorial Association would surrender the cross by actively campaigning against the only ballot measure that might protect it. We are disappointed that the Memorial Association, whose responsibility it was to guard the cross, chose to ally themselves with those (ACLU and plaintiff) whose intent has always been to remove the cross so that together they might defeat Proposition K.”
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association’s active campaign against Proposition K was responsible for a great deal of voter confusion. The failed ballot measure would have authorized the City of San Diego to sell the land surrounding the historic 43-foot tall Mt. Soledad cross, allowing the cross and memorial to remain while bringing to an end to the fifteen year court battle waged by atheist Phillip Paulsen to have the cross removed.
Instead, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association urged voters to vote against Proposition K, concealing the private agreement they had struck with atheist Phillip Paulsen to have the cross moved in return for a dismissal of the lawsuit against them and allowing them to keep the property. However, prior to the November 2nd vote, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ruled that the Memorial Association was not the rightful owner of the property, and returned the property to the City of San Diego. Without authorization from the voters to sell the land, the City of San Diego will now be forced to act on a court order to take down the 50-year old landmark.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which fought to preserve the cross on Mount Soledad, commented, “ We will continue to explore all options to preserve the cross on top of Mount Soledad where it has stood for fifty years.” One option involves the designation of Mt. Soledad as a national historical park/landmark. Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director of the Law Center has asked Reps. Randy Cunningham, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa to look into the issue, and the Law Center is urging citizens to contact their legislators to have the cross protected.
LiMandri commented Thursday, “We continue to receive calls from citizens outraged by the orchestrated deception to remove the cross. Aside from the fraud perpetrated on voters, the veterans and donors to the Mt. Soledad Association have been utterly ignored. These people were promised that the cross would stay, and yet their own leadership has abandoned them. Time is short, but we will do everything we can to protect this historic landmark.”
The cross was erected in 1954 and today honors veterans of World War I and II and the Korean War. The San Diego landmark was challenged in 1989 by atheist Phillip Paulsen prompting a federal judge to declare the cross unconstitutional. In response, the City chose to place the property up for public sale, a decision approved by 76 percent of the voters in 1992. The sale of the property however was ruled unconstitutional after atheist Paulson objected because he believed the sale indirectly aided preserving the cross.
The City of San Diego attempted a second time to sell the property in 1998, this time to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association. This second sale was also successfully challenged, however not before the Memorial Association made significant improvements to the land including the addition of over 3000 donated plaques honoring military veterans.
Earlier this year, believing they were the rightful owners of the property, the Association privately agreed to move the cross in exchange for an end to the lawsuit and a waiver of attorney fees for which the Association may become liable.
Paulsen’s attorney now will likely demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from the City of San Diego for his work to remove the cross.
Judge Dismisses LA Seal Case As Moot; Citizen Petition Drive Best Hope to Immediately Restore Cross on Seal
Fri, Oct 22, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Finding that the cross on the Los Angeles County seal has been supplanted with a Christian church and the pagan goddess Pamona has been replaced with a Native American women, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero ruled there was no hostility toward Christians and dismissed the lawsuit against the county over their decision to remove the cross from the seal as moot.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Law Center, commented, “This decision makes the voter initiative petition drive sponsored by David Hernandez and Our First Amendment the most immediate and effective way in which the LA County citizens can return the cross to their seal. We’ve heard from the court, and now it’s time to hear from the people.”
The Thomas More Law Center is acting as legal counsel for the citizen petition effort.
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this matter, commented, “The court took the easy route by dismissing the case as moot and dodged the most critical issue presented: whether the Constitution permits the government from removing historical and cultural symbols from the public square simply because they are Christian. The overwhelming protest by the people of Los Angeles County clearly demonstrates that the County’s decision to remove the cross conveyed an impermissible message that the government disapproves of Christianity.”
In addition to the petition drive, a lawsuit was also filed in state court by the Claremont Institute alleging that the County’s decision to remove the cross was an illegal waste of taxpayer funds and violates state and federal constitutional provisions. This case is still pending.
ACLU’s threats of a lawsuit earlier this year prompted the LA County board by a 3 to 2 vote to remove the cross from the LA seal. Several days later, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Mr. Ernesto Vasquez, a County employee, who objected to the removal of the cross because it sends an unconstitutional government message of hostility towards Christians. The lawsuit sought to prevent County officials from removing the cross. Although the County seal also contained the image of the pagan goddess Pomona, neither the ACLU nor County officials objected to the display of this symbol.
While the present litigation was pending, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new County seal that removed Pomona and replaced the cross with a depiction of a Christian mission. In dismissing the lawsuit as moot, Otero ruled, “[T]he Christian cross has been supplanted with a visual representation of a Christian church. In view of this fact, this case is moot and must be dismissed.”
Judge Otero’s ruling raises additional questions about the County Board’s decision to cave in to the ACLU threats. If the court considers a symbol of a Christian church to be an acceptable replacement, why is the Christian symbol of a cross unconstitutional? If the church is a symbol of the Christian heritage of the missions in California, why is the cross not viewed in a similar manner? Will the agreement between the Board and the ACLU prevent another organization from filing a lawsuit challenging the symbol of the church since Otero found it to be a Christian symbol.
The Law Center is reviewing the court’s ruling for possible further legal action.
Second Utah City Within Five Months Wins Ten Commandments Monument Fight
Wed, Oct 20, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI -In a ruling released yesterday, Federal District Judge Dee Benson held that Duchesne City, Utah, acted constitutionally when it sold land on which a Ten Commandments monument sits to keep from having to remove it. This is the second case within the past five months in which two public interest law firms, the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice, have collaborated as co-counsel to prevent the removal of Ten Commandment Monuments in Utah.
The Duchesne decision comes within five months after another federal judge ruled in favor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, allowing a separate Ten Commandments monument to remain on public property. The two public interest law firms acted as co-counsel in that case as well.
Duchesne City’s decision to sell the public land surrounding the Ten Commandments monument to the family who originally donated the monument over twenty-five years ago allowed the monument to remain, while removing the City from the controversy over whether the City was promoting religious speech.
The Summum group, a bizarre organization describing itself as a religion that promotes mummification, objected to the sale of the land on which the Ten Commandment monument stands, and requested that the City transfer a similar plot of land so that it could erect its own monument containing its “seven aphorisms.” After the City refused, Summum sued alleging violations of its First Amendment free speech rights.
Judge Benson explained, “Under all of the circumstances the method the City recently undertook is reasonable. Summum’s demands for a different resolution are not warranted.” Commenting on the likely outcome of granting Summum’s request, Benson wrote: “Any solution of that nature would open the door to another display and then another, and so on, until the city park looks like a NASCAR driver at the Brickyard 400.”
Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who represented the City, explained: “Duchesne City sought a reasonable solution that is constitutionally permissible to keep the Ten Commandments monument where it stands while preventing itself from being forced to display permanent monuments from anyone who asked.”
Judge Rules City of San Diego Rightful Owner of Mt. Soledad – Voters Urged to Approve New Sale to Preserve Historic Cross
Wed, Oct 13, 2004
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA —A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the contested land atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California is rightfully owned by the City of San Diego. Tuesday’s decision effectively puts a stop to plans by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to remove a 43-foot cross that has stood on the mountaintop for over 50 years.
The veterans group had privately agreed with an ACLU backed atheist to remove the cross in exchange for a halt to his 15-year old lawsuit aimed at tearing down the cross. San Diego voters will now vote in November on whether to authorize a new sale of the land to a private owner that would have the option of preserving the cross.
The West Coast Regional office of the Thomas More Law Center had filed a brief in federal court challenging the attempt by the Memorial Association to remove the cross. The Law Center’s brief was filed on behalf of a former Navy fighter pilot who is enlisting the support of other veterans to oppose removal of the cross.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the judge’s ruling, “We are tremendously pleased with the Judge’s decision. Hopefully, the Memorial Association will now re-examine its private deal with the plaintiff to remove the cross, and join the fight to preserve it. It would be the right thing to do.”
The cross was erected in 1954 and today honors veterans of World War I and II and the Korean War. The San Diego landmark has been the subject of a fifteen-year court battle between an atheist and the City of San Diego. The City has twice attempted to sell the land containing the cross, the second time to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association in 1998.
After taking pos