Another Frivolous Lawsuit - from the "left" this time

[Pah]

Church-state separation group to challenge missions-restoration law
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14468

By The Associated Press
12.02.04
WASHINGTON — An advocacy group announced a lawsuit yesterday over legislation to restore California’s aging Spanish missions, arguing that the law violates the principle of separation of church and state.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said it would file suit against Interior Secretary Gale Norton on behalf of four California residents. Norton’s department would distribute $10 million in federal funding under the law, which President Bush signed on Nov. 30.

“The act on its face advances religion in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” says the lawsuit, which seeks to get the law struck down. Americans United was set to file the suit today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that "seemely" religious support is permissible for historic purposes. Do these advoctes think it is easy to overturn a previous decision?

Obviously, this group knows more about law than I do but what am I missing here?

Bob

 

[Sasquatch]

So the left fires up another bogus lawsuit. It's been happening for a long time. Why so surprised?

The problem is that too many people don't recognize the difference between "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom from Religion".

I wonder how much money we all would have if there weren't so many sue-happy lawyers out there, waiting to pounce on any chance to make money or a name. Like John Edwards.

 

[Jaymes]

Because malpractice lawsuits are sooooo frivolous...

 

[Pah]

So the left fires up another bogus lawsuit. It's been happening for a long time. Why so surprised?

'"Bogus", in my mind, is the frivilous lawsuit that has no chance of being won. We are where we are just because the "left" has won their cases as a statement of rights and freedoms. I have really seen no other action from the "right" in this matter but a continuence of retro-thinking to stonewall progress.

The problem is that too many people don't recognize the difference between "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom from Religion".

I don't see a difference if you frame the issue as freedom of choice in regard to religion.

I wonder how much money we all would have if there weren't so many sue-happy lawyers out there, waiting to pounce on any chance to make money or a name. Like John Edwards.

This seems off-topic - would you like me to start another thread?

Bob

 

[Scuba Pete]

Everyone in America is a victim. Just ask them. How restoring historical buildings is going to "hurt" someone is beyond me. I am thinking that there must be someone wanting to raze the churches to build another shopping mall.

But I tend to be pessimistic at times about people's motives.

 

[desi]

Acknowledinging God in any way gives credibility to his existance which gives credit to some people being wrong. Since the wrong people don't want to hear it they plug all our ears in the name of political correctness.

 

[Pah]

Acknowledinging God in any way gives credibility to his existance which gives credit to some people being wrong. Since the wrong people don't want to hear it they plug all our ears in the name of political correctness.

Hardly! Proof that Christianity exists does not prove christ exists. A church building only acknowledges that some believe Christ exists.

It is precisely the case here that the missions should be restored for historic purposes (which I support).

Bob