Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote:

:|
:|
:|On Tue, 21 Dec 2004

:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|> Atheist legal groups seek
:|> >:|> to remove God from not only government but the public space around any
:|> >:|> atheist (out of personal conviction).
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Prove it. And while you're at it, please list how many cases are brought
:|> >:|on behalf of religious clients and atheist clients.
:|>
:|> Not too long ago Carol Smith and I actually, in replying to
:|> Ken Pangborn or whatever his name is, did that very thing. I don't know if
:|> I can find it again or not quickly but anyways there were very few cases
:|> brought be anyone that could be identified as an atheist.
:|> The vast majority of cases brought were brought by religious folks
:|
:|AH, I've been gone for a while. Is this it below or is there more?
:|(Thanks!)

That is it below. One could reserach other cases but I think Carol and I
established our point with the following:

[Carol Smith]
The Schempp family (Abington v. Shempp) were Unitarians.

Litigants in Boerne v. Flores were Catholic and Mormon.

LeVake v. Independent School was brought by a Christian.

Ken Pangborn is invited to prove what I said above is *****.


As previously noted, there are many cases brought by people of faith.

Lee v. Weisman (1991) was brought by Jews.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe was brought by Catholics and
Mormons.

Don't forget, Kenny, everytime a suit is brought by ACLJ on behalf of a
kid who says he couldn't hand out candy with slogans or religious tracts,
that is a "separation case."

What about Raymond Raines who claimed he was prevented from praying?

Separation case.

Shall we make a list of those cases?

Sorry. I meant Santa Fe case, not Boerne.


Here are more cases involving religious people:

[ Carol and me ]
ENGEL v. VITALE
The man who who was the organizer was Lawrence Roth who was Jewish He
managed to get the following to join him in the suit which the ACLU
brought on their behalf: David Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Leonore Lyons,
and Steven Engel. The
plaintiffs were listed alphabetically, so it was Engel's name that would
identify the suit. This case eventually made its way through the court
system to the U.S. Supreme Court, changing the law of the land.

Cases involving Jehovah's Witness & Religious Liberty

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

Jones v. Opelika I (1942)

Jones v. Opelika II (1943)

Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2001)




http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case...

included Victor Carpenter, a Unitarian minister;
Ronald Nakasone, a Buddhist priest;
James Lowder, a Baptist preacher;
Rabbi Allen Bennett, executive director of American Jewish Congress for
the Northern Pacific Region;

Plaintiffs in the Mt. Davidson (CA) case included
Victor Carpenter, a Unitarian minister;

Ronald Nakasone, a Buddhist priest;

James Lowder, a Baptist preacher;

Rabbi Allen Bennett, executive director of American Jewish Congress for
the Northern Pacific Region;

buckeye-...@nospam.net

A common myth advanced by some on the radical religious right is that
atheists are the ones who file church state cases in court, especially
church state separation cases, to a lessor degree some claim free exercise
cases as well.

The facts do not bear this out.
Here is some information gathered so far.
THE BULK OF THE FOLLOWING INFO CAME FROM
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
http://atheism.about.com/

*************************************************************
BACKGROUND:

There had been earlier efforts to challenge the practice of unison prayer
recitation in the public schools and other abuses of state-church
separation. In DOREMUS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1952), members of the United
Secularists of America contested school prayer but their petition was
rejected by the Supreme Court.

Ironically, three federal cases in 1940, 1941 and 1943 brought by
members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect held to create judicial guidelines
for the separation of government and religion; and these decisions would
have ramifications two decades later as suits like MURRAY v. CURLETT,
ABINGTON TOWNSHIP v. SCHEMPP, and ENGEL v. VITALE wound through the courts.
***********************************************************
COURT CASES BROUGHT BY ATHEISTS, FREETHINKERS, ETC.

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
By a 6-1 vote the Supreme Court agreed with Mrs. McCollum, an atheist
mother, and disallowed the practice of having religious education to take
place in public school classrooms during the school day.

Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
In a unanimous decision, the Court found that Maryland's religious test
for public office violated Torcaso's right to religious freedom.

Murray v. Curlett (1963)
The Court ruled 8-1 against requiring the recitation of Bible verses
and the Lord's Prayer.

Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1980)
Roger Florey, an atheist, filed suit against a local school district's
holiday programs, claiming that singing of religious carols during
Christmas concerts, like "Silent Night" and "O Come All Ye Faithful," were
a violation of the separation of church and state.

Ganulin v. United States (1999)
Is it constitutional for the United States government to recognize
Christmas as an official paid holiday? Richard Ganulin, an atheist lawyer,
argued that it isn't and filed suit, but a U.S. District Court ruled
against him.

ESA v. Rylander (2001)
A Texas district court ruled that a nontheistic Ethical Culture Society
deserved a religious tax exemption. The Court rejected State arguments that
religion must be defined by a belief in a "Supreme Being."

FFRF v. Faith Works (2002)
A federal district court decides that the state government cannot give
direct, unrestricted funding to a "faith based" drug counseling program
which also includes a heavy dose of religious indoctrination.

Newdow v. U.S. Congress (2002)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the addition of the words
"under God" to the Pledge of Allgiance back in 1954 was unconstitutional.

FFRF v. Rhea County Board of Education (2002)
A federal district court decides that a public school cannot have
students from the local Bryan College come in to teach Bible classes.
****************************************************************
SOME CASES BROUGHT BY NON ATHEISTS:

Jehovah's Witness & Religious Liberty

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
The Court ruled that the statute requiring a license to solicit for
religious purposes was a prior restraint that vested the state with
excessive power in determining which groups must obtain a license.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
In an 8-1 Court Decision, the Court ruled that a school district's
interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require
students to salute the flag.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses for
engaging in a public parade without a license.

Jones v. Opelika I (1942)
The Court upheld a statute prohibiting the selling of literature
without a license because it only covered individuals engaged in an
commercial activity rather than a religious ritual.

Jones v. Opelika II (1943)
The Court ruled the practice of charging a flat fee for people
distributing literature was unconstitutional. The freedom of press was not
to be restricted only to those who can afford to pay the licensing fee.

Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)
The Supreme Court refused to prevent the City of Jeannette,
Pennsylvania, from threatening prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses who were
violating a law requiring the licensing of people selling books even while
that law was being challenged before the Supreme Court.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
The Court found that the Jeanette ordinance requiring solicitors to
purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the
Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
The Court ruled 8-1 that a school district violated the rights of
students by forcing them to salute the American flag.

Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)
Should people who earn their living by selling or distributing
religious materials be required to pay the same licensing fees and taxes as
are expected of those who sell or distribute non-religious materials? The
Supreme Court held that such licenses are unconstitutional.

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
In a 5-4 Court Decision, the Court upheld Massachusetts' restriction on
the abilities of children to sell religious literature.

Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2001)
Should people going door-to-door for solicitations, canvassing, etc. be
required to get a permit first? The Jehovah's Witnesses don't think so, and
challenged just such a law in the Village of Stratton, Ohio. The 6th
Circuit Court decided against them, but the case will soon be decided by
the Supreme Court.
**************************************************************
THE MORMON CASES '
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Davis v. Beason (1890)
**************************************************************
Abington School District v Schempp was brought by a Unitarian

Animus against Atheists - and Madalyn Murray in particular - ran so high 35
years ago that even the Supreme Court itself seems to have indulged in a
spiteful act in the very process of publishing its decision. Despite the
fact that the Murray case had been given an earlier docket number than the
Schempp case (119 vs. 142) and presented oral argument earlier (Feb. 27 vs.
Feb. 27-28, 1963), the Murray name was expunged from the legal records by
the simple artifice of combining the Murray case with the Schempp case and
referring thereafter to the combined cases as Abington School District v
Schempp rather than as Murray v Curlett - as priority would normally
require. But Unitarians, such as the Schempps, were (and still are) more
respectable than Atheists.
**************************************************************
ENGEL v. VITALE
The man who who was the organizer was Lawrence Roth who was Jewish
He managed to get the following to join him in the suit which the ACLU
brought on their

behave:

David Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Leonore Lyons, and Steven Engel. The
plaintiffs were listed alphabetically, so it was Engel's name that would
identify the suit.
This case

, Engel v. Vitale,
would eventually make its way through the court system to the U.S.
Supreme Court and one day change the law of the land.
***********************************************************
LeVake v. Independent School was brought by a Christian.
Once again, a court found that a school teacher does not have a right to
teach religion under the guise of creationism and that the teaching of
evolution is a valid course in public schools.
***********************************************************
Lee v. Weisman (1991) was brought by Jews.
...
Here is more for him to chew on

If you can't determine the religious affiliation of those filing the suit
you can sometimes get some insight by who filed briefs for and against in
the case.

************************************************************
FLAST v. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) 392 U.S. 83

Appellant taxpayers allege that federal funds have been disbursed by
appellee federal officials under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to finance instruction and the purchase of educational materials
for use in religious and sectarian schools, in violation of the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Appellants
sought a declaration that the expenditures were not authorized by the Act
or, in the alternative, that the Act is to that extent unconstitutional,
and requested the convening of a three-judge court. A three-judge court
ruled, on the authority of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), that
appellants lacked standing to maintain the action. Held:

1. The three-judge court was properly convened, as the constitutional
attack, even though focused on the program's operations in New York City,
would if successful affect the entire regulatory scheme of the statute, and
the complaint alleged a constitutional ground for relief, albeit one
coupled with an alternative nonconstitutional ground. Pp. 88-91.

2. There is no absolute bar in Art. III of the Constitution to suits
by federal taxpayers challenging allegedly unconstitutional federal taxing
and spending programs since the taxpayers may or may not have the requisite
personal stake in the outcome. Pp. 91-101.

3. To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a
federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake
as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III
requirements. Pp. 102-103.

(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and
the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to
allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an
essentially regulatory statute. P. 102.

(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the
precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show
that the statute exceeds specific constitutional [392 U.S. 83, 84]
limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply
that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by
Art. I, 8. Pp. 102-103.

4. The taxpayer-appellants here have standing consistent with Art.
III to invoke federal judicial power since they have alleged that tax money
is being spent in violation of a specific constitutional protection against
the abuse of legislative power, i. e., the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment. Frothingham v. Mellon, supra, distinguished. Pp. 103-106.

271 F. Supp. 1, reversed.

Leo Pfeffer argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were
David I. Ashe, Ernest Fleischman, and Alan H. Levine.

Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for appellees. With him on the
brief were Assistant Attorney General Weisl, Alan S. Rosenthal, and Robert
V. Zener.

Sam J. Ervin, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for Americans for
Public Schools et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Melvin J. Sykes and
Sanford Jay Rosen for the Council of Chief State School Officers et al.; by
Henry C. Clausen for United Americans for Public Schools; by Norman Dorsen
and Charles H. Tuttle for the National Council of Churches; by Franklin C.
Salisbury for Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, and by Arnold Forster, Edwin J. Lukas, Joseph B. Robison,
Paul Hartman, and Sol Rabkin for the American Jewish Committee et al.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by J. Albert Woll,
Laurence Gold, and Thomas E. Harris for the American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations; by Julius Berman and Reuben E.
Gross for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, and by
Herbert Brownell, Thomas F. Daly, and William E. McCurdy, Jr., for Spira et
al. [392 U.S. 83, 85]
*****************************************************
VALLEY FORGE COLLEGE v. AMERICANS UNITED, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)
Respondents, an organization dedicated to the separation of church and
State and several of its employees, brought suit in Federal District Court,
challenging the conveyance on the ground that it violated the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, and alleging that each member of respondent
organization "would be deprived of the fair and constitutional use of his
(her) tax dollars." The District Court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that respondents lacked standing to sue as taxpayers under Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , and failed to allege any actual injury beyond a
generalized grievance common to all taxpayers. The Court of Appeals
reversed, holding that although respondents lacked standing as taxpayers to
challenge the conveyance, they had standing merely as "citizens," claiming
"`injury in fact' to their shared individuated right to a government that
`shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,'" which
standing was sufficient to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of
Art. III. [454 U.S. 464, 465]

Held:

Respondents do not have standing, either in their capacity as taxpayers or
as citizens, to challenge the conveyance in question. Pp. 471-490.

Solicitor General Lee argued the cause for the federal parties as
respondents under this Court's Rule 19.6 in support of [454 U.S. 464, 466]
petitioner. With him on the briefs were former Solicitor General McCree,
Deputy Solicitor General Geller, Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro, Leonard
Schaitman, and Bruce Bagni.

Lee Boothby argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was
Robert W. Nixon. *

[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by
Nathan Z. Dershowitz and Marc D. Stern for the American Jewish Congress et
al.; and by Leo Pfeffer for the National Coalition for Public Education and
Religious Liberty et al.

[American United is an organization that has a open membership policy, but
I know for a fact that the vast majority of members are members who are
affiliated with some religion or religious denomination. There are all of
the mail stream Christian denominations represented, a good number of the
members are Jewish. There are Quakers, Unitarians, members of Unity
churches, etc. Obvioulsy there wewre be some who were agnostic and
atheist.]
****************************************
ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

This litigation concerns the constitutionality of two recurring holiday
displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. The first, a
creche depicting the Christian Nativity scene, was placed on the Grand
Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse, which is the "main," "most
beautiful," and "most public" part of the courthouse. The creche was
donated by the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic group, and bore a sign
to that effect. Its manager had at its crest an angel bearing a banner
proclaiming "Gloria in Excelsis Deo," meaning "Glory to God in the
Highest." The second of the holiday displays in question was an 18-foot
Chanukah menorah or candelabrum, which was placed just outside the
City-County Building next to the city's 45-foot decorated Christmas tree.
At the foot of the tree was a sign bearing the mayor's name and containing
text declaring the city's "salute to liberty." The menorah is owned by
Chabad, a Jewish group, but is stored, erected, and removed each year by
the city. Respondents, the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union and seven local residents, filed suit seeking permanently
to enjoin the county from displaying the creche and the city from
displaying the menorah on the ground that the displays violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to state
governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied relief,
relying on Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 , which held that a city's
inclusion of a creche in its annual Christmas display in a private park did
not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals reversed,
distinguishing Lynch v. Donnelly, and holding that the creche and the
menorah in the present case must be understood as an impermissible
governmental endorsement of Christianity and Judaism under Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . [492 U.S. 573, 574]

Held:

The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cases are
remanded.

Fn [492 U.S. 573, 578] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed
for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Deputy Solicitor General
Ayer, and Michael K.
...