The Washington, D.C.-based United Coalition of Reason filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, describing an ad-buying effort that started in 2011. Late that year, according to the complaint, the organization reached out to Port Authority and asked to place on buses an ad that “consisted of a background of blue sky and white clouds with the following text: ‘Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,’ and the website address of a local group.”
According to the complaint, Port Authority attorney Michael Cetra rejected the proposed ad, indicating that the agency doesn’t run “non-commercial” material.
If you click on the above link, you'll see a Port Authority bus bearing an informational advertisement for Pennsylvania's suspended Voter ID law. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "non-commercial" material.
And that's why the Port Authority should just run the UCR's ad, because they're very likely to lose the lawsuit.
Members of a grassroots group in Connellsville installed the first of 14 Ten Commandments monuments in front of a local club on Saturday.
The Thou Shalt Not Move group was formed after the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to remove a Ten Commandments monument at Connellsville Junior High School.
The group sold yard signs to raise money for the new granite monuments.
The first monument will be placed outside the Fraternal Order of Eagles on South Arch Street.
They can place these things all they want on private property. The issue is when they're placed on PUBLIC property. They can erect thousands of these on private property, and no one would care. Keep them off public property. Get it?
Oh, and how many hungry could you feed, and how many poor could you clothe, how many sick could you heal, with the money you spend on this project? Read your Bible much?
Margaret Doughty, an atheist and permanent U.S. resident for more than 30 years, was told by immigration authorities this month that she has until Friday to officially join a church that forbids violence or her application for naturalized citizenship will be rejected.
Doughty received the ultimatum after stating on her application that she objected to the pledge to bear arms in defense of the nation due to her moral opposition to war. According to a letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by the American Humanist Association on Doughty's behalf, officials responded by telling her that she needed to prove that her status as a conscientious objector was due to religious beliefs.
So, in order to have a deeply held belief, you must have a religious foundation?
There really isn't enough information in this short article for me to decide if this is an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion or not.
MADISON - The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is warning a middle school in southern Ohio about a Jesus portrait hanging in its halls.
The local school district’s superintendent of schools says he won’t remove the picture with an order from the school board or a judge. He says the display comes from a student’s initiative, which makes its permissible for display.
The question is thus: Is this a permanent, or temporary display? If its a temporary display of student artwork, and displayed in conjunction with other student artwork, I'd contend that the display meets Constitutional muster. If, however, its a permanent display, then it matters not if it was done by a student, it falls into the same category as the Rhode Island "prayer banner."
What puts the county in a more hazardous legal position, IMHO, is that the resolution only allows holiday displays owned by the county to be displayed, and the county only purchased decorations that are Judeo-Christian themed. A county is, of course, a governmental agency, making their decision one that endorses a certain religious viewpoint. They'd been on firmer, but still shaky ground if they allowed outside groups to put up displays (of course, that was the antebellum norm, which the resolution seeks to subvert), but again, if they did that, they'd have to open the grounds to anyone who wants to put up a display, and Resolution 58-10 appears worded specifically to exclude displays that do not conform to the Judeo-Christian norm.
If a lawsuit is filed, I do not see how any sane or sober judge could wind up ruling for the county.