|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 24, 2005 1:00:45 GMT -5
Are you fucking serious? How is that NOT a endorment of religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:04:20 GMT -5
DAILY TRIBUNE Royal Oak, Michigan December 22, 2005 Berkley modifies nativity ACLU drops lawsuit threat by Christy Strawser BERKLEY, Mich. — The city blinked in its nativity scene standoff with the American Civil Liberties Union, as a conservative group known for fighting human rights ordinances across Oakland County offered to battle on Berkley’s behalf. Berkley officials decided Wednesday to move a red and white Santa mailbox closer to the nativity scene, which includes a holiday tree and Star of David. The secular Santa was enough to appease the ACLU, which dropped its lawsuit threat. “We’re definitely taking it seriously,” said Wendy Wagenheim, a spokeswoman for the ACLU. “We’re going to be meeting with them on Feb. 6 to discuss a long-term solution. But they’re going to add a Santa’s mailbox and at least one snowman and they’ll leave that up until the end of the season. For right now, that’s enough.” The American Family Association, headquartered in Tupelo, Miss., had urged the city not to surrender to the ACLU in an e-mail to city officials that said its legal staff would defend the Christmas display — for free — in court. If Berkley accepted the offer, the AFA said it may take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. But that’s apparently not necessary. “There has to be a balance, and we will take it into consideration in early January to find out where we go in subsequent years,” Mayor Marilyn Stephan said. If the nativity issue had gone to court, City Council would have had to decide whether to accept help from the AFA, a group controversial for its anti-gay stance. The AFA fought human rights ordinances successfully in Royal Oak and Ferndale in 2001 and unsuccessfully in Huntington Woods. The AFA was drawn to Berkley when officials refused to accept the ultimatum from the ACLU, which said the city violated the U.S. Constitution with its 65-year-old traditional Christmas display. Berkley officials tossed around the idea of adding Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman to make the display more secular and rejected the notion Monday. “Thank you for refusing to be intimidated, bullied or bluffed by the American Civil Liberties Union’s annual anti-Christmas campaign,” Gary Glenn, AFA-Michigan president, wrote to city officials. Then city officials changed their position. “It’s more convenient for little children anyway when Santa’s mailbox is in the front (of City Hall),” Stephan said. Okay, I swore off of this debate, but I had to chime in here. I grew up in Berkley, Michigan. Well, I lived there until I was seven at least, and then stayed close enough (in Huntington Woods and Oak Park) to remain in Berkley schools all the way through high school (I'm a Berkley Bear, class of 2000). My mom currently lives in Ferndale. And yeah, I can definately promise you, there's no war on Christmas in Berkley. It's a very, very Catholic town. It's interesting--despite the change in the nativity scene at town hall, there are Christmas decorations all over the city! People have their homes covered in Christmas lights, you can see Christmas trees through windows. And you know who's trying to stop this? Absolutely no one! Yeah, Christmas is alive and well there, despite the fact that the city government has changed its endorsement of the holiday. Crazy isn't it? Again, you're proving nothing other than the fact that government endorsed religion is not protected in the same way as individual religious expression. Once people in Berkley are prevented from decorating their homes for Christmas, or going to church on Christmas (remember church? Isn't it weird that someone would mention church as a potential place to celebrate Christmas. The people of Berkley will be observing it at Our Lady of LaSallette), then I'll believe that there is a war against Christmas in Berkley. The fact that moving a fake mailbox was enough to drop the lawsuit is pretty telling of just how weak the case is for people trying to destroy Christmas in Berkley. And for the record, I don't know what ordinance that group fought successfully in Ferndale in 2001, but that's by far the most gay-friendly city I've ever heard of, so whatever it was, I'd be pretty certain it passed in subsequent elections, as Ferndale has passed pretty much every pro-gay rights ordinance within the state Constitution within the last few years. Also, on an unrelated note, my brother used to have a delivery route for the Royal Oak Tribune. It's a pretty shitty paper. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:07:12 GMT -5
Oh, and that Novi article is total bullshit. The issue in that case was NOT that it was a nativity scene at all. The issue was that that particular subdivision has bylaws banning ALL lawn ornaments. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with garish decorations making the neighborhood look trashy. No one involved in that took issue with the content of the display, just with the fact that it violated their local bylaws.
Dammit, I just can't help myself with this ridiculousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 24, 2005 1:07:16 GMT -5
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.
DED, how is displaying a nativity scene once a year considered an establishment of religion? If that were an establishment of religion that would mean that EVERYONE would have to display nativity scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:11:19 GMT -5
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. DED, how is displaying a nativity scene once a year considered an establishment of religion? If that were an establishment of religion that would mean that EVERYONE would have to display nativity scenes. And how is anyone's free excercise of religion prevented by a government not putting up a Christmas display? Interesting that you blew right by the previous clause in that amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Apparently that doesn't mean anything to you. In what way is a GOVERNMENT ENTITY putting up a nativity scene the same thing as EXCERCISE OF RELIGION? Who is excercising their religion at the city hall's nativity scene? Find me a person who was expressing their religious convictions there, and who cannot now. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:12:32 GMT -5
That thing in Berkley is kind of weird anyway, because the whole time I was growing up there and around there, the mailbox WAS right in front of city hall. I wonder when they moved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 24, 2005 1:13:16 GMT -5
No one is prohibiting the free excerise thereof for individual citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 24, 2005 1:13:38 GMT -5
Oh, and that Novi article is total bullshit. The issue in that case was NOT that it was a nativity scene at all. The issue was that that particular subdivision has bylaws banning ALL lawn ornaments. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with garish decorations making the neighborhood look trashy. No one involved in that took issue with the content of the display, just with the fact that it violated their local bylaws. Dammit, I just can't help myself with this ridiculousness. hhmm that seems rather odd, I mean if what you are saying is true why did the subdivision send a letter of retraction and apology? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 24, 2005 1:15:38 GMT -5
Oh, and that Novi article is total bullshit. The issue in that case was NOT that it was a nativity scene at all. The issue was that that particular subdivision has bylaws banning ALL lawn ornaments. It had nothing to do with religion, it had to do with garish decorations making the neighborhood look trashy. No one involved in that took issue with the content of the display, just with the fact that it violated their local bylaws. Dammit, I just can't help myself with this ridiculousness. hhmm that seems rather odd, I mean if what you are saying is true why did the subdivision send a letter of retraction and apology? Becuase some christian group pitched a big hissy and threatened to sue and it was easir to back down then fight it? I'm guessing. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 24, 2005 1:16:12 GMT -5
No one is prohibiting the free excerise thereof for individual citizens. Do you not consider the employees of a city or county office building to be individual citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:18:08 GMT -5
Do you not consider the employees of a city or county office building to be individual citizens? When they're working, on the job, in a government capacity, they are not private citizens, they are government employees, and therefore public workers. Plus, what you're talking about here is not a person wearing a shirt with a Christmas tree on it (individual expression), but the actual government building being decorated (who is the individual involved in this expression? Exactly, its not an individual, its the government entity itself). When they clock out, they can celebrate their religion any way they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Dec 24, 2005 1:18:25 GMT -5
Yes and no one prohibiting there freedom of expression...unless you can find a case they are unable to celebrate Christmas in their own homes as well. The issue here is THE CITY, not it's employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:18:26 GMT -5
Becuase some christian group pitched a big hissy and threatened to sue and it was easir to back down then fight it? I'm guessing. Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Dec 24, 2005 1:23:52 GMT -5
Our Congress opens their sessions with prayer, is this an establishment or endorsement of religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Dec 24, 2005 1:28:01 GMT -5
Here's a rather self-congratulatory article from the Detroit News from right after that shitstorm got cleared up. And of course you will not be suprised by who was representing the family in this matter, but also pay attention to what, specifically, the ordinance in question was all about. It had nothing to do with battling Christmas:
Novi sub backs off, baby Jesus stays put
Neighborhood association backs off after blizzard of support for family
Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News
It's away with the manger
NOVI --Baby Jesus will sleep in peace in the front yard of a Novi family after all.
In the face of a deluge of support for the Samona family on Web sites and reaction from people throughout Metro Detroit, the United States and abroad, the homeowners association that sought to ban the nativity scene backed off.
"We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or distress this confusion has caused you and your family," said a letter from homeowner association manager Dean Williams to homeowners Betty and Frank Samona.
The change of heart came after The Detroit News published a front-page story about the plight of the Samonas and their son Joe, who were ordered by the subdivision management group to remove the holiday display.
"As a demonstration of our regret over this incident, we would ask you to please accept a holiday gift basket as a token of our remorse, in the spirit of this holiday season," the letter said.
"We hope you understand that, on occasion, mistakes in proper intrepretation are made and we have learned from this mistake."
The Samonas placed the 7-piece plastic nativity scene and another seven outdoor figures on the front lawn just days before Thanksgiving.
The issue touched off a heated debate among readers and on radio and TV about the rights of property owners to display religious and holiday materials outside their home. The News received more than 250 e-mails on the subject.
Finding themselves at the center of the controversy, the Samona family spent the day fielding phone calls from strangers heralding their cause, requests for media interviews and offers from law firms and religious organizations to defend the family in their fight to display their plastic creche.
"Everyone is saying 'Keep it up.' It feels great. We are going to face the challenge and it's great to have this kind of support," said Betty's son, 16-year-old Joe.
The Thomas More Law Center represented the family in their fight against the community association regulations that prohibit lawn ornaments, statues or outdoor art from being placed on the lot without prior approval of the board of directors.
On Nov. 21 the family received a letter asking them to remove the nativity scene but said nothing about the other numerous figures on the lawn, including a holiday Minnie Mouse and Winnie the Pooh along with a Santa and Mrs. Claus.
The letter from Williams on Tuesday said the intent of the regulation is to control permanent statues and is not intended to apply to temporary holiday decorations.
Edward White, trial counsel for the Thomas More center, said the family contacted his office Monday for help. The Ann Arbor public interest law firm is not charging a fee.
"I think they are within their rights as private citizens to have a beautiful nativity scene on this property," White said.
White said the management company admitted its first letter was an error and that provisions of the bylaws do not apply to holiday or religious displays.
Callers to The Detroit News said they were exasperated at what they saw as an overbearing reach by the homeowner's association into a personal freedom of expression.
Anthony J. Dickow lives in the same Tollgate Woods subdivision as the Samona family and says the story has "stirred my blood and I am outraged!"
"Let's say I wasn't a big fan of Halloween. Why the heck was my neighborhood decorated with all of that nonsense? I didn't see anyone complaining about that!.... I'm so mad, I plan on going to Wal-Mart after work, buying the largest most elaborate nativity scene and placing it on my front lawn!" Dickow said.
Rachel Korth of Chesterfield Township said she would be doing the same.
"I'm totally outraged that this association is asking this family to do this," Korth said. "It's very, very disturbing that we live in a country that was founded on Christian principles and there is such a war going on that is trying to destroy those principles."
Kevin Cooper, a 51-year-old financial analyst from Trenton said the incident shows that Americans' rights are being taken away.
"You don't see them pulling down the American flag on every house or these Halloween displays. It's a bunch of garbage," Cooper said.
Linda White said people who are offended by a display that goes up once a year should put blinders on and move forward.
"These people aren't hurting anybody. They are just showing their beliefs. Please let these people know we support them," White of Canton Township said.
|
|
