It sounds like a lawsuit meant for harassment rather than one that will succeed as the federal government has made similar arrangements with religious organizations.

Jeff, You may have a point about the Michigan Constitution but that was grounds of the lawsuit according to Davef’s post.

With only 24 shopping days left until Christmas (yikes!), we announce the launch of THE ONE blog, the ONLY BLOG in the WHOLE BLOGOSPHERE dedicated solely to probing the soft under-belly (yuck!) of the over-zealous, over-reaching, loud-mouthed ext ……

People wonder why the Iraqi army hasn’t taken all of the fight on need to remember a few little things. First we are building an army from nothing, no leadership, and very little equipment, along with tanks and armored personnel carriers or APC’s.

I think your complaint just muddies the waters. The complain, which you can find here, never seems to address any equal access or equal protection issues. The sole stance of the Atheists in the complaint is the use of tax dollars going to a religions organization.

Thank you for the link. I many (most?) jurisdictions, you interpretation is accurate. The prevailing interpretation of the US Constitutions establishment is that government can show neither preference, nor malice towards religious organizations, so as long as it was an open process, the church would have been eligible for reimbursement.

But according to the complaint, the Michigan Constitution is much more strict (which I didn’t know until a few minutes ago).

16. The Michigan Constitution provides in Article I (Bill of Rights):

Section 4. Every person has a right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support, against his will any place of religious worship, or pay any tithes, taxes or other rates, for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion.

17. The Michigan Constitution provides in Article I (Bill of Rights):

Section 5. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or theological or religious seminaries.

There really isn’t much wiggle room there. It’s a shame the way things went down, but this isn’t an obscure law we’re talking about. Both parties should have been aware of it.

I think your complaint just muddies the waters. The complain, which you can find here, never seems to address any equal access or equal protection issues. The sole stance of the Atheists in the complaint is the use of tax dollars going to a religions organization.

I agree with the core premise, however. The exercise to beautify the city should be open where there is a need with little consideration to the mission or religious preferences of the building owners. The goal being to improve the city experience not to redirect taxpayer money.

The converse needs to be equally true. We cannot discriminate against religions organizations just because they have beliefs that others do not hold.

If my last trip to Detroit is a far reference, the city needs some enhancing of its visual appearance.

Actually, that is, and has been, a beautiful church for quite some time.

In fact, the couple square miles surrounding those stadiums is quite nice didn’t require any visual enhancements. It’s the rest of the city that’s a stinkhole and they didn’t do anything to change that.

What dose “enhancing the visual appearance” have to do with the Establishment clause? The City of Detroit is taking steps to beautify its city and nothing more.

Depends on how they went about it. Was this a widely available development or did the city offer the funds directly to certain organizations? Did the nearby mosque and kingdom hall have a similar opportunity to “enhance their visual appearances”?

If the answers are no then it is far from frivolous to suggest that the contract amounts to “religious preference.” If the answers are yes, then the church would probably be justified in suing the city for breach of contract.