Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, 2 April 2013

American Atheists Lose Lawsuit Over 9/11 Cross

A federal judge has ruled that the display of an iconic cross-shaped steel beam in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum doesn't violate the constitutional and civil rights of atheists.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts concluded Thursday that the 17-foot-high cross, which became a spiritual symbol for workers at ground zero, does not amount to an endorsement of Christianity, according to Reuters.

New Jersey-based American Atheists Inc. filed a lawsuit in 2011 against the planned presentation of the cross-shaped beam, arguing it will impose religion "through the power of the state."

"No reasonable observer would view the artifact is endorsing Christianity" because the cross is to be accompanied by placards explaining its meaning and surrounded by secular artifacts, the judge wrote. "The Museum's purpose is to tell the history surrounding September 11, and the cross … helps tell part of that history."

The museum, which is scheduled to open in 2014, will display artifacts including photographs, mementos, two fire trucks, an ambulance, part of the World Trade Center's facade and the last column that was removed from ground zero.

The cross, made up of two intersecting steel beams found intact amid the rubble of the Sept. 11 attacks, was moved from the side of St. Peter's Church in Lower Manhattan and installed at the 9/11 memorial.

Joe Daniels, president of the memorial foundation, was quoted as saying that he was glad the court agreed the display of the cross "is in fact a crucial part of the 9/11 Memorial Museum's mission."

David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said his group intends to appeal. "They're trying to Christianize 9/11 with this cross and it's not American and it's not fair," he was quoted as saying.

The museum had argued that it is an "independent nonprofit corporation," and not a government body. It also said the cross is an "important and essential artifact" that "belongs at the World Trade Center site as it comprises a key component of the re-telling of the story of 9/11."

Silverman responded by saying the shrine is a cross that was "picked up, trimmed, polished, the word 'Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated."

Many individual atheists openly spoke against American Atheists after it filed the lawsuit. Susan Jacoby, an atheist contributor of The Washington Post, described the group as having "an unerring nose for the scent of publicity," their suit "nonsense," and their leader, "obtuse."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also defended the display of religious symbols, including the World Trade Center cross, at the museum after the lawsuit was filed. "A lot of people looked to religion for strength after the attack," he said. "My personal opinion has always been you shouldn't tell people what religion to practice or whether to practice a religion but you shouldn't also prevent people from practicing a religion they want in any ways they want."


SOURCE http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-lose-lawsuit-over-9-11-cross-92950/

Friday, 29 March 2013

The Obama Administration's "Brave New World" in Refusing to Defend DOMA

There's a lot of debate on how the Supreme Court will rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. Following two days of oral arguments on the topic, there is one thing that is very clear: the Obama Administration's approach to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a federal law that is being challenged - is unusual and troubling.

After DOMA had been on the books for years, President Obama and Attorney General Holder decided in 2011 that DOMA was unconstitutional. And, while the Obama Administration enforced the measure, it failed to defend it. That's right - the Obama Administration made a determination on which federal laws it will defend - and which it will not.

So, the Attorney General of the United States, who took an oath to faithfully defend our federal laws, failed to do so in the DOMA case. There was no Justice Department representation before the high court defending a measure that President Clinton signed into law in 1996.

In fact, that posturing brought criticism from Justice Antonin Scalia who said the legal system appears to be "living in this brave new world" in which the Justice Department can pick and choose which laws it will defend.  "It's only when the president thinks its unconstitutional?" Scalia asked. "Or could the attorney general, or the solicitor general, impose the same determination?"

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, the Obama Administration acts like our country is a monarchy, instead of a republic.

Veteran attorney Paul Clement, who defended DOMA before the high court, said the executive branch has "vacated the premises" on the case. In fact, instead of defending the federal law, Justice even filed a motion to dismiss the case in a lower court.

The Obama Administration's actions on this issue prompted Justice Anthony Kennedy to note: "That does give you intellectual whiplash."

Jay Sekulow


SOURCE http://aclj.org/writers/jay-sekulow