Berkley Nativity Update
Posted on November 24, 2006
Cross Posted from Revealing the ACLU: Last month I wrote about a group called STAT (Stop The ACLU Tyranny), who was fighting to preserve the Nativity Scene in the city of Berkley. The city Nativity Scene, like so many others, had come under attack from the ACLU.
Well, Monday Night The Berkley City Council voted on this issue.
The Berkley City Council voted 6-1 Monday night to give the city’s nativity scene to the Berkley Clergy Association for display at local churches.
The council’s options, narrowed from five originally, were either give the Christmas display to the clergy or secularize the nativity.
Before the vote was cast, the council listened to about two hours of citizen comments, including arguments on Supreme Court precedence, religious freedom, community acceptance of others beliefs, watering down Christmas, decoration dollars, minority rights, national agendas, and individual civil liberties.
Berkley clergy members spoke against secularizing the display, saying that only adds fire to flames of an already watered down Christmas.
While I agree with core statement by the clergy involved, I cannot think that the resolution is acceptable. This was not a win for the conservative side of establishment law, as the ACLUs ultimate desire of removing Christian symbols from public property has succeeded. The rights for a church to have a Nativity was never in question.
I do agree that it should be moved rather than secularized. In a move the core message is maintained. When secularized the core meaning of the Christian symbol is removed, and it becomes meaningless.
I am glad that STAT, who supported the Nativity on Public property, agreed and kept with the fight until the end.
The leader of the group Stop the ACLU Tyranny, Georgia Halloran, showed up with a lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center to renew her side of the debate, that she believed the nativity should remain on city property.
“I would say the city capitulated to the ACLU, no matter what was said up there,” she said after the vote. Her group has some options that were mentioned during the meeting, such as a ballot referendum or lawsuit against the city.
“We are not finished,” Halloran said.
I am glad STAT is intending to fight on, and that they now have some high quality support in the Thomas Moore Law Center. However, now that the City has made a decision, the battle has become exponentially more difficult.
» Filed Under ACLU, Christmas, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “Berkley Nativity Update”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I must correct the notion that Berkley had to secularize the nativity scene. In fact this area has always had secular items along with the nativity & star of David. I have lived in Berkley for 37 years & can never remember just the nativity standing alone.
As to the “clergy” -I told the ad hoc committe “the clergy in this town does not speak for me or most of the citizens in this town”. A liberal minister that promotes the gay & lesbian community is not a spokesman for me. The ACLU had a real friend in him I believe. His attach on Thomas Moore says it all -”TMLC was using Berkley to promote a national agenda of fighting the ACLU”
We will fight on with the help of Thomas Moore Law Center and hopefully the towns nativity will return to city hall property.
Such as?
Large Season Greetings sign, two lite Christmas trees, a gazebo decorated with greens & lights,four trees with lights, banners & lights on the light poles, Santa’s mailbox, and close by but not on same piece of city land is a 20 foot Santa. Trees on main streets all have lights & all poles have banners. A reasonable person would look at the city of Berkley as a whole as one celebrating the season.
This seems to be a reasonable outcome given the circumstances. If the city council voted 6-1 it hardly seems like tyranny by the ACLU rather it is democracy in action and reflects how America is changing as far as celebrating the year end holidays. Why would anyone be surprized by that outcome? If singular sectarian religious symbols on public property are unconstitutional in other parts of the country why would they be any less so in Berkley?
In the end there will still be the same number of nativity scenes on display, they will just be more appropriately displayed at and by religious institutions rather than the City of Berkley which is not.
It is not what I call democracy . Six cowards backed down to the threats & bullying of the ACLU plain & simple. The will of the people be damned. And you seem to forget the ones that have been ruled constitutional. And why should we have to bow to the secularist of this country? Maybe some of us would of like to keep celebrating Christmas the way it was in the past. I guess you think our rights don’t matter just because “times are a changing”.
Salinsouth,
The United States is a government by the people which is supposedly run for the people. If the people want to show religious symbols then it is the freedom to do so under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that allows them Free Exercise of religion. The ACLU and its supporters are a bunch of tyrants who want to force their Atheistic beliefs on the rest of America.
Kerwin, I have to disagree with you again. The prevailing interpretations say that the free expression clause applies to individuals and the establishment clause applies to governments. I know you disagree with that interpretation, but until you succeed in getting it changed, schools and governments are asking for trouble anytime they highlight a particular religion.
This is my first experience of posting on a blog & I just want to say the rants & ravings I see posted here and on other blogs by the left is unbelievable. They have no reasonable position on anything and can only spew hatred-a sign of an uneducated & ignorant person.
Jeff Molby,
I understand your apparent hero worship of the Elites but they do not deserve it.
Even if we focus on the free expression clause and ignore the fact that statute law trumps court law every time and instead pretend what you say is true, your statement is irrelevant for the simple reason, the government of the United States is a government by the people and so the government is merely an extension of the people. That was decided by the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia.
If you actually wanted to go by the wording of the First Amendment then it does forbid the People to have laws passed which would show respect to a particular religious establishment.
“establishment
n
1. establishing something: the act of establishing something or the condition of being established
2. commerce something established: something that is established as a business, institution, or successful undertaking
3. commerce business premises: a place of business
4. or es·tab·lish·ment or Es·tab·lish·mentpeople in power: a group of people who hold power in a society or social group and dominate its institutions
5. veteran staff: the staff of a permanent organization, institution, or department, especially in the military or government. Used particularly in relation to the size and deployment of staff.
6. household: a place of residence, or the household that occupies it
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I figure they were probably using the second definition and were probably referring to an organization like the Church of England, The Catholic Church or various other specific denominations.
respect
vt
1. esteem somebody or something: to feel or show admiration and deference toward somebody or something
2. not go against or violate something: to pay due attention to and refrain from violating something
3. be considerate toward somebody or something: to show consideration or thoughtfulness in relation to somebody or something
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I also figured the first definition in this group.
Can you reasonably construe the First Amendment to be hostile to religion instead of tolerant of a multitude of religions even on government property?
Jeff Molby,
I missed that last part of your comment. The whole purpose of me sharing my interpretation is to convince other it is correct and that the judicial branch is corrupt. The question is what will people choose to do even if they believe my claim. That is where I have to wait and see.
Obviously, I don’t support you, but I do respect your goal and your efforts towards it.
However, I’m still confused by the following statement:
How is it tyrannical to bring lawsuits based on the prevailing interpretation?
Its funny how the religious side proponents of these arguments are the ones who always throw the hate speech like calling people you don’t know ignorant and stupid.
No one is trying to force any views on peoples free exercise of their religion just keep it out of the government. If you want to display a nativity scene just rent some space on Mainstreet in Anytown USA and put up a nativity scene no one will stop you for evercising your free speech and practice of religion.
Moreover the year end season has a rich and complex history that does not just involve Christians.
Christmas was not even an official holiday in America until the middle of the nineteenth century. It was even illegal to observe Christams in Massachussets and other parts of New England early in Americas history.
Christmas was not even an official holiday in America until the middle of the nineteenth century. It was even illegal to observe Christams in Massachussets and other parts of New England early in Americas history.
If you are going to go back that far in our history, Sailnsouth, you will lose your argument on all points.