U.S. Supreme Court: Adventist Denomination Joined Case About Religious Signs
From ANN, Jan. 17, 2015: Religious liberty issues were argued in a case this week before the United States Supreme Court and the Seventh-day Adventist denomination was among many organizations to have taken sides in the dispute. The case began in 2007 when the pastor of a small, nondenominational congregation in Arizona objected to the regulations the town placed on his signs inviting people to worship.
Is it legal under the Bill of Rights in the American constitution for a town council to require that a sign announcing a religious event be smaller than a sign promoting a political candidate? That is the issue was argued on Monday (Jan. 12) before the nation’s top court.
The legal office of the General Conference (GC) of the Adventist denomination filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the nondenominational pastor in the case entitled Reed vs Town of Gilbert. The Adventist lawyers said municipalities could unfairly restrict religious speech on signs or in door-to-door book sales if the Supreme Court does not overrule a lower court’s decision on the matter.
Clyde Reed, pastor of the Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona, placed temporary signs announcing worship services at an elementary school, where the congregation rented space at the time. His signs violated a local ordinance stating that temporary signs must be no larger than six square feet and be up no longer than 14 hours. Signs that do not announce events, including political campaign signs, can be larger in size (up to 32 square feet) and left up for many months. Reed filed a lawsuit claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional, but the ordinance was upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Adventist administrators feel that if the decision is not overruled it could embolden more cities to limit some methods of religious outreach. In some cities, religious groups such as Adventists are required to obtain a permit to sell religious books door-to-door while other groups are under no such obligation, for example the Girl Scouts selling cookies.
Local laws regulating door to door sales are popular in many communities in the United States because the vast majority of middle class suburban residents dislike this kind of activity. The market research firm Percept Group, Inc., found that two out of three Americans prefer not to be contacted by local churches going door to door.
Todd McFarland, an associate general counsel for the GC, said speech on religious matters is entitled to as much constitutional protection as any other kind of speech under the U.S. Constitution. “If a local government wants to implement speech restrictions on time, place and manner, those can be acceptable, but they need to treat all kinds of speech the same,” he told ANN. “We were concerned about the [Circuit court] interpretation about what is and is not a content-based restriction,” McFarland added. “It could limit religious speech in favor of other types of speech, such as political speech and public service announcements.”
Reed was first cited for posting roadside signs in 2005 and the town council has made several changes in the local law since his 2007 ticket which started the current litigation, according to The Arizona Republic newspaper. The town argued that the modifications in the law should be taken into consideration and has the support in the case of the National League of Cities and some similar organizations.
The top attorney for the U.S. government has said in court papers that the local law “was clearly unconstitutional because it favors one type of speech over another,” reported Reuters. A decision on the case is expected by the end of June.
The Adventist News Network (ANN) is the official news service of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.
In the “land of the free” where “God bless America” and “in God we trust” is commonplace; not forgetting the massive Christmas hype and celebration that reaches fever pitch every year even to an overkill, in which the day is set aside by secular authorities as a public holiday, yet we find that the same secular authorities seem to be bent on severely restricting the religious activities of those who believe and trust in God. Did I mention abortion?
Surely, there must be more doctrinal issues to introduce when the topic is addressing only one in particular?
There should be no such discrimination regarding size of signs; this is blatantly unconstitutional. A city has the right to designate sites that are “off” for all signs but this was not the issue.
I happened to hear some of the Supremes’ discussion on this issue. The senior citizen woman seemed to me to be quite frail.
Filing an Amicus Curiae was the correct course for the SDA church.
Maranatha
You turn things upside down! Should the potter be thought to be like clay; that the thing made should say about him who made it, “He didn’t make me;” or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding?” Isaiah 29:16 – Hebrew Names Version
In Cole v. Seaside, 80 Or. 73, 84 (156 Pac. 569), it is said: ` * * The logical deduction from the precedents hitherto established is that, until by its own action it surrenders its authority over the roads and highways, the state’s power is paramount over any of its subordinate arms of government. If state control is to be given up to any subserviant municipality, the initiative must come from the legislative department of the state, and not from the lawmaking power of the locality. The creature cannot control the creator.’ La Grande v. Municipal Court et al., 120 Or. at 112.
“The major reason why Sabbath Adventists [the Church of God group and the Seventh-day Adventists] split into two groups was the visions of Ellen G. White. … According to the Seventh-Day Adventists, Mrs. White’s visions were to “perfect the church and bring them to the unity of the faith Ephesians 4:13.”2 The visions were said to correct members from wrong practices or beliefs. ¶ Early opposers to the Whites, including the Church of God in Marion, Iowa, saw the visions in a different light: they were primarily feigned to enable the Whites to gain control of the church.” Richard C. Nickels, History of the Church of God Seventh Day, ch 4.
The high pressure campaign led by the Whites to organize Sabbath Adventists under the name “Seventh-Day Adventists” was ostensibly conducted with the purpose of holding church property in a corporation instead of being deeded to individuals. Michigan had recently passed a law allowing churches to organize, and an “official” organization was said to be an encouragement for increasing the membership.10 10. Review, March 19, 1861. Richard C. Nickels, History of the Church of God Seventh Day, ch 3.
In short, the SdA denomination is a corporation created by secular government. Therefore it is a secular social club subject to the whims of secular government. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
The fact the lower court upheld the sign ordinance created by the city is proof there are secular people in place of authority who are perfectly content in restricting the rights of religious organizations.
I am glad to see Christians pushing back against this discrimination. This is not an issue whereby we should, “turn the other cheek”. This is satan using secular means to restrict the gospel. It begins with a small matter like this and then continues and mushrooms into larger issues if left unattended.
The next step may have been passing an ordinance preventing churches from renting school or other city owned buildings under the pretense of separation of church and state.
We must remember there ARE people in position of authority who hate religion. They are there and they will use any means to restrict churches from having influence in their respective communities.
I’m certain satan is now furious to think it will get a much larger audience. He was most likely hoping to halt the process before it left the lower court.