Thomas More Law Center Confronts ACLU Over Berkley, Michigan Nativity Display
Posted on October 11, 2006
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday sent a letter to city officials in Berkley, Michigan, offering to defend the City at no charge should the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sue the City over the nativity scene the City has included in its holiday display each December for the past sixty-five years. The Thomas More Law Center encouraged the City to keep the nativity scene as part of its annual holiday display.
According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “As Christmas approaches, we will see more and more ACLU challenges to Nativity displays and other Christmas celebrations. The ACLU’s agenda is to cleanse the public square of all Christian symbols through intimidation and threats of lawsuits which many local governments cannot financially afford. That’s why we offered our legal services without charge in hopes Berkley will not cave in to ACLU threats of a lawsuit.”Over the past years, the City has included the nativity scene as part of a broad display outside City Hall. The display also includes a Star of David, Christmas trees, a Santa Claus figure, a Santa’s Mailbox, and a “Seasons Greetings” sign.
According to published reports, on Monday, October 16, 2006, the Berkley City Council will consider three options regarding the nativity scene: (1) move the nativity scene to private property, (2) establish a free-speech zone on City Hall property where private parties may erect displays, or (3) give the nativity scene to the Berkley Clergy Association.
In its letter to the City, the Thomas More Law Center stated that what is missing for the City’s list is the most obvious option: keeping the nativity scene as part of the City’s annual display. The Law Center stressed that the City Council should not decide this matter without considering this option and without addressing this option at the upcoming City Council meeting.
The Law Center pointed out to city officials that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Michigan, have upheld holiday displays that include the nativity scene. Moreover, other federal courts across the country have also determined that it is constitutional for a city to display a nativity scene.
According to Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, who sent the letter to the City, “Christmas is a National Holiday. The City of Berkley may legally display the nativity scene in the context of celebrating this holiday. There is no legal prohibition against the display of the nativity scene. The absence of the nativity scene would only demonstrate Berkley’s hostility toward religion and toward Christians.”
Americans see the attacks on Christmas every year from the secular lefts leading light, the ACLU. Last year the ACLU layed low and tried to play the “what war on Christmas?” Looks like they are getting started early this year to make up for lost time last year.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Christmas, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Thomas More Law Center Confronts ACLU Over Berkley, Michigan Nativity Display”
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
Are these the same people that fooled Dover PA into going to trial?
Unless I’m reading it wrong, the ACLU hasn’t said a single word about Berkley.
That’s horrible logic. Does the absence of a menorah demonstrate their hostility towards judaism?
I am glad to hear they are offering their services though. An imbalance of legal power serves no one’s interest. The result of any fight that comes of this will be fair and the result should be acceptable to any reasonable man.
The Dover court ruling violated the First Amendment. They should have appealed the ruling but the people did not support that choice.
According to the First Amendment, the Government is not supposed to favor any religion.
The Dover ruling favored the Secular Atheistic religion and so violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
I call Evolution a secular Atheist tenet of creation, since the assumption that God is irrelevant to Evolution is in fact a Agnostic or Deist tenet, while the vast majority of theist believe it is an untrue statement and therefore back intelligent design.
Ok, so I just re-read the definitions of atheism and religion. Maybe, maybe, maybe you could shoehorn atheism into one of the definitions of religion, but it would be a huge stretch considering that atheism isn’t a set of beliefs and no one “practices” it. It’s simply a disbelief.
Furthermore, your use of the word secular only makes the phrase more meaningless. You couldn’t call a religion secular without stripping atleast one of the words of all its meaning.
Jeff,
Maybe, maybe, maybe you could shoehorn atheism into one of the definitions of religion, but it would be a huge stretch considering that atheism isn’t a set of beliefs and no one “practices” it.
The SCOTUS has ruled that “Atheism” and “Secular Humanism” are both, religions.
Please provide citations.
Looks like I’ll have to revise that and say… Scotus has ruled “Secular Humanism” a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins. The 7th Circuit has ruled “Atheism” a religion, citing the “Torcaso” ruling in KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY.
This is not a correct assessment. I believe you’re referring to this passage:
This statement was an “obiter dictum,” or “said in passing.” Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.
Kaufman v. McCaughtry is another story and I will comment further on Sunday.
This is not a correct assessment. I believe you’re referring to this passage:
Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.
This statement was an “obiter dictum,” or “said in passing.” Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.
Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath “invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.”
The Court in Torcaso rested its decision on “free exercise” grounds, not the “Establishment Clause.” Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.
Footnote 11 concerning “religions founded on different beliefs” contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states:
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society’s application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a “church” or a “religious society” . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since “religious” and “worship” require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as “a religious corporation or society” . . . .
Other Justices have reflected back on the Torcaso opinion …
Justice Scalia wrote:
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to “SECULAR HUMANISM” as a “religio[n].”
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) note 6
Justice Harlan summed it all up:
[Footnote 8] This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized “religions” exist that “do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God,” Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., “Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, SECULAR HUMANISM and others.” Ibid. See also Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957); 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; J. Archer, Faiths Men Live By 120-138, 254-313 (2d ed. revised by Purinton 1958); Stokes & Pfeffer, supra, n. 3, at 560.
Welsh v. United States 398 U.S. 333 (1970) note 8
Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases.
Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to those who objected to war for religious reasons (i.e., because of a belief in God), the Supreme Court turned around and said that Humanists who don’t believe in God are “religious” for C.O. purposes. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 183, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, 746 (Holding that belief in a “Supreme Being” is not a necessary component of “religion,” quoting a Secular Humanist source, “Thus the ‘God’ that we love . . . is . . . humanity.”)
So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion — “for free exercise purposes.”
Loboinok,
“This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized “religions” exist that “do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God,” ”
That makes sense since Atheist would not have standing to sue on first Amendment issues since if they had no religion then there would be no foul.
Thank you for the information.
Jeff Molby,
“You couldn’t call a religion secular without stripping at least one of the words of all its meaning. “
I actually knew that when I stated it, but I was making a point like letting people know the Sahara is a desert by calling it the Sahara Desert. Secularism means non-religion which automatically exclude every theist religion and thus leaves Atheism, at least if you believe Atheism is not a religion. I then called it a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment it is a religion. In truth, Secularism is an impossible state because sincere theist live their religion and those who are not living it are simply Atheist pretending to be theist. Atheism does not in itself have any set of beliefs, so Atheist will adopt a variety depending on personal preference.
Is the defining moment for Christians seeing figures (including a mailbox to Santa) on a busy street in front of a meaningless office building?
Why are we wasting our time and energy promoting this “idol worship” that demeans what we believe in?
Would Jesus want his life of redemption, trust and peace to be expressed through people doing good deeds?
What if we and the ACLU celebrated the real “holidays” by living outside for a week together and reenacting what the Berkley Divinity Scene was trying to portray? Through a diversity of activities we can better promote peace, brotherhood, acceptance and diversity as an actual appreciation for what Christ did for us. No idols, just action.
Anyone interested?