Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Humanists sue: Church Polling Places are Unconstitutional

2006-11-30

(Washington, DC, November 29, 2006) The American Humanist Association (AHA) today launched the first nontheistic legal center in the nation's capital, the Appignani Humanist Legal Center (AHLC), by filing what is expected to become a controversial church-state separation case.

The litigation emerged as a result of practices during the recent midterm elections as monitored by thousands of AHA members nationwide. Churches are the most common polling locations in America. Some churches cover their religious symbols at this time out of respect for the principle of government neutrality on religion. But not all do so. Humanists decided it was time to learn to what extent religious proselytizing took place at the polls. "We put out a call to our members whose polling places were churches, asking them to report what they saw," said AHA President Mel Lipman. "The response was shocking."

"An Illinois member voted in a church that displayed a four-foot wooden crucifix right above the election judges," said AHLC attorney James Hurley. "Another member in California was confronted with a large marble plaque dedicated to the 'unborn children' who are 'killed' by abortion and containing a quote from the Bible justifying the notion that the soul is alive in the womb. And a New York member voted in a room featuring large religious slogans on the wall behind the voting machines."

Hurley, along with attorney Barry Silver of Boca Raton, Florida, is taking one of the most egregious and well-documented cases, that of plaintiff Jerry Rabinowitz who was assigned to vote at Emmanuel Catholic Church in Delray Beach, Florida. The case, Rabinowitz v. Anderson, alleges that, to enter the polling place, Rabinowitz was forced to walk past a church-sponsored "pro-life" banner framed by multiple giant crosses before even entering the church to cast his vote. Then, in the voting area itself, he observed many religious symbols in plain view, both surrounding the election judges and in direct line above the voting machines. He took photographs that will be entered in evidence.
Warning! The following image may not be suitable for all nontheistic viewers. Some of the content may shock you. Atheist viewers are encouraged to continue only at their own discretion.
See: PHOTOS

I admit. I looked. I'm scarred for life.

The Appignani Humanist Legal Center consists of over two dozen humanist lawyers from around the country, backed by thousands of humanists from coast to coast, who seek to have humanist values represented in the legal arena. This launch is in direct response to recent influence exerted by the religious right under the Bush administration to damage Jefferson's wall of church-state separation.
And just whos to blame for this centuries old travesty?

Wait for it...

"George W. Bush

The Devil incarnate! Shaytan himself, borne up from the Bowels of Hell to torment the...humanists

has been busy appointing conservative Christian judges who don't support the separation of church and state," said AHA Executive Director Roy Speckhardt. "And year after year we're seeing government intruding further and further into the religious sphere."

"The Appignani Humanist Legal Center will work to make sure that the First Amendment to our Constitution is honored," Lipman added. "More than that, though, the Center will pick cases that highlight our cause to the broader public. By working on these and drawing attention to injustices, the Appignani Humanist Legal Center will educate Americans on the importance of religious liberty and the plight of humanists in the United States."

Posted by:DepotGuy

#9 It's time to begin shooting these idiots. They're producing way too much carbon dioxide and methane, and have no redeeming qualitied (they're lawyers, fergodsake!). Have to limit it to ten each hunter, so we can all have some of the fun. Licenses are not required, but you must have voted in two of the last three elections.

Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-11-30 22:00

#8 We vote in schools and firehouses and I don't see any increases in reading, putting out or lighting fires. What does it matter where people vote as long as they vote.

Posted by: Jim 2006-11-30 19:35

#7 Where do they dig these people up? Hey idiot, vote absentee next time. That way you can vote while running nekkid down the street while barking at the moon.

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-11-30 19:18

#6 Fine, are they are willing to open up their own homes or places of business as alternate locations for voting?

Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-11-30 17:33

#5 Dear Humanists: Vote absentee!
Now, please go FOAD

Posted by: USN, ret. 2006-11-30 14:54

#4 I am shocked! Shocked, mind you, at the very idea of "religious symbols in plain view" in a place that is, ostensibly, a house of worship!

Morons...

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-30 13:59

#3 HEY! WHAT ABOUT ME! YOU REMEMBER ME! YEAH! ME! MICHAEL NEWDOW! DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THESE PEOPLE! LISTEN TO ME! ME! MICHAEL NEWDOW!

Posted by: Michael Newdow 2006-11-30 10:44

#2 As an atheist, I have no problems voting in our local church. I approve the wholesale slaughter of these moonbats. You may commence at noon.

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-11-30 10:28

#1 The Appignani Humanist Legal Center will work to make sure that the First Amendment to our Constitution is honored..

NOT.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything in there that supports the 20th century notion of intolerance of religion?
I see that the federal government will not establish a state religion as was the Church of England or the Catholic Church. I do not see the power to segregate the religious culture of the people from daily interaction of the people on their government. The entire 20th/21st century judicial position on religion is a construct of that branch of government unfounded upon any Constitutional writ other than their own fiat. Of course being not subject to the direct consent of the governed and having spent the last fifty years building more and more power, it is unlikely they comprehend the very foundation of the concept of a democracy or republic. That is a form of government that is to represent the majority of the people and their interests rather than the long history of government by and for a minority. There is a great difference between tolerating and respecting a minority and empowering a minority to have a veto over the majority. The latter is irreconcilable with the classical definition of a democracy or a republic.

Posted by: Procopius2K 2006-11-30 09:55

00:00