Voters in Berkley to Vote on Nativity
Posted on October 30, 2007
I got several emails on this one. Power to the people taking back the rights that rightfully belong to them! Saying no to the bullies at the ACLU. WND has a good summary.
When Berkley, Mich., residents to go the polls next week it’s thought to be the first time that voters will have decided the fate of a Nativity display in a municipal setting, according to campaign organizers. And at least three former mayors are endorsing the restoration of the display that was pulled down last year after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit.
The organizing committee, Berkley Vote Yes, is boasting of support from former Berkley Mayors Maybelle Fraser (1995-1997), John Cassise (1987-1991), and Kenneth Roth (1969-1974). Supporters also confirm hundreds of families have put signs of support in front of their houses and about $5,000 has been donated for the effort.
In announcing the 2007 Nativity Project, which encourages the display nationwide of the scene from the biblical Christmas story, Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition said religious freedoms have eroded in the United States.
“This is especially true during the Christmas season where there is an open hostility toward public expressions of faith. We must constantly remind our public officials that the Constitution promises freedom ‘of’ religion not freedom ‘from’ religion,” he said.
The experts at the Thomas More Law Center have been advising the Berkley campaign, which was launched after the city council last winter gave in to threats from the ACLU, and ordered the Nativity removed.
Residents, however, were upset enough to assemble behind resident Georgia Halloran as the “Berkley Citizens Vote YES to Christmas Holiday Display” organization. They mounted a successful petition drive to bring the issue to the ballot.
Now the campaign to encourage voter approval of the plan is running in earnest, with support come from as far away as Edgewater, Colo.
From there, a Jewish refugee-immigrant who was carried out of Nazi Austria by his parents submitted a donation and some words of encouragement.
“I thought you might want to know that I am Jewish, a refugee-immigrant carried out from Nazi Austria by my parents to this great and glorious nation, and that I want to help honor and protect my Christian brethren,” the donor wrote Nativity supporters. “I wish that I could give more, but my pension is limited.”
This donor, Halloran said, “had firsthand experience with oppression against people of the Christian and Jewish faiths, and we are moved and inspired by his message of tolerance and support. It inspires us to stand against the ACLU’s Grinch-like demand that our community Nativity scene and the Star of David both be removed from the traditional holiday display at city hall.”
Power to the people of Berkley! These citizens are an example America should follow!
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Christmas, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Voters in Berkley to Vote on Nativity”
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
Glad to hear there are some public citizens willing to stand up to them.
Jay, you couldn’t be more wrong on this one. That Worldnutdaily articles leaves out all the relevant information. They’re framing this as a battle between the good Christian folks of Berkley who want a nativity display and the evil atheists at the ACLU who want to destroy all nativity displays. Utter nonsense. Here’s what they leave out:
1. The nativity scene that has been there all along is still there. In fact, it’s on more prominent display now than it was on city hall grounds. The city council sold it for $1 to the Berkley Clergy Association, which includes all but two churches in that city, including all the conservative churches. They voted unanimously to take the scene and display it every year on a piece of land between the United Methodist church and the Post Office.
2. The choice is not between having a nativity scene and not having one, it’s between having one on public property that must be watered down with secular symbols (the referendum being pushed specifically says it has to meet the Supreme Court’s legal standards, which means it has to have non-Christian symbols like reindeer, candy canes and Santa Claus statues thrown in) or having one on private property that is purely Christian and not diluted with such symbols. Again, the Christian clergy in the town voted unanimously that they prefer the latter. Why any Christian would choose the first is beyond me.
3. The group that claims to want to avoid a victory for the ACLU is actually the one giving them a victory. The ACLU came in two years ago and demanded that the nativity scene be brought in line with the Supreme Court rulings and that is exactly what the referendum being voted on does. The first year the city council went along with that and added a bunch of secular symbols to the display, but it was the clergy in town who objected to that and said they would rather the display be kept a sacred one. That’s why the council voted to keep it pure and Christian and move it to private property.
It is absolutely baffling to me that any Christian would prefer a government-controlled, watered-down, partly Christian and partly secular nativity scene over a purely Christian, sacred nativity scene. It’s baffling to the Berkley Clergy Association too, many of whom I’ve spoken to for this story. They put out a public statement that said:
The other side is motivated solely be a desire to stick it to the ACLU, but the irony is that they’re actually demanding exactly what the ACLU demanded two years ago. The whole situation is ridiculous.
In reply to Mr. Brayton’s post-from Georgia Halloran-who spearheaded the grassroots effort to get this on the ballot and has huge amounts of support from the citizens of Berkley-
1. The nativity was not sold to the clergy-it was given as a gift and it’s to be rotated among the churches.
Many of which are on the inside streets where nobody would ever see them. They did not vote to have it at the Methodist Church every year. The clergy association does not include all the churches of Berkley. Nor does it include all the conservative churches. One pastor of a conservative church signed the agreement without the approval of his board & I know the majority of his congregation is voting YES as are many of the people from the Catholic Church whose priest signed the agreement. I guess the ministers do not speak for the citizens of Berkley!!
2. The nativity at city hall has ALWAYS had secular items with it in the city hall area! For years our 15 foot Santa stood right behind the nativity. Santa, mailbox, trees, lights, seasons greeting sign, Star of David, (I know-it should be a menorah) are among the items that have ALWAYS been there. The large Santa is now on the blvd. within view of the nativity. Along with the banners on our light poles, banners, & lights on the trees along the city roads. Our city gives the appearance that the city as a whole, to the reasonable person, is seen as a city celebrating the national holiday of Christmas in an historical & traditional way.
So the claim we are “watering down” the nativity is just plain bogus! Besides - where were these clergy for the past decades?? I didn’t hear them complain before the ACLU came to town. And if they and the mayor believe religion doesn’t belong in the public square, do they also think we should sandblast the biblical figures on our government buildings in Washington D>.C.?? Or get rid of “under God” in the pledge? Or “In God we trust” on our money? Or get rid of our city seal that has a church steeple? How about our prayer before council meetings?? People here see the big picture-it is not only the nativity, but it is anything Christian has to be gotten rid of in America.
3. If I remember right it was the ACLU’s attorney who suggested at a council meeting the nativity be turned over to the clergy. Of course this was after closed door meetings with the city’s ad hoc committee the summer of 2006. So these bogus talking points of “keeping it pure” & we can’t “clutter up baby Jesus” the vote no crowd, council, mayor & clergy is spouting is just that, BOGUS! Remember, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SURROUNDED BY SECULAR ITEMS. I personally thought we were always in compliance with the laws but the city attorney said he would feel more comfortable with a few more items added to area. We said fine-if it makes you feel better.
Yes, the citizens of Berkley want the ACLU to know we do not appreciate them coming into our town-and it was a complaint letter from the Detroit office of the ACLU-and demanding we get rid of a decades old tradition. Two Berkley residents who happen to be ACLU lawyers, who wanted the nativity gone, got their wish because a city council & mayor kowtowed to the ACLU. Our main objective is to get our nativity back on city hall property where it has been for decades with no complaints. We are a city celebrating the national holiday of Christmas & we want the world to know there are Christians in this town who celebrate the birth of Christ-After all that is what Christmas is all about isn’t it? Government is not to be hostile towards religion & we feel this city council, mayor & yes even the clergy are being hostile to the Christian citizens of Berkley.
So, Mr. Brayton, if you are getting your information from John DuLong, the agnostic ACLU member who started the vote no group (who by the way are called Christians for Religious Freedom , huh?) , the press, or Charles Gaba, you are getting false info and I suggest you get the facts straight before you write any more.
As a side note-Last Sunday the clergy had a meeting to “discuss” the issue. Some of the yes voters went and were subjected to a hostile crowd-where is the tolerance?-guess it only applies to us being tolerant of them- anyway, towards the end of the meeting one man suggested that since they were in a church he would close in prayer. Well, you can imagine how that went over-heckled & shouted at by the no voters. No minister there prayed. The Methodist minister said something to the order we all can pray to a god but he offered no prayer.
If readers want to see the history of our battle here, you can go to our website & read the letter the ACLU sent to the city and some of the comments the councilmen, mayor & attorney http://www.berkleyvoteyes.com.
Great points, Georgia. I wish this could run in the local main-stream media…but we know how they feel about things religious.
I would just like to reiterate that the clergy of this town does not speak for me or my family.
We want the true meaning of Christmas represented in the annual holiday display.
Vote YES November 6th.
Ms. Halloran–
Since the election is now over, and the people of Berkley have decisively rejected the proposal, I suppose it’s a bit pointless to respond (especially in this forum), but since you addressed me by name (for the first time that I know of since this whole thing started), I thought it only fair to reply to at least a couple of points.
First, the name of our organization is “CITIZENS for Religious Freedom”, not Christians, which is hardly an easy mistake to make, seeing how it’s on every page of our website and in all of our mailings or posts. The fact that after three months of clashing with our organization you’re confusing “Citizens” with “Christians” is very telling to me, in the same self-centered way that your quote on FOX News about how “WE (you) DECIDED that the people of Berkley were upset” about the compromise is.
Oh, and by the way, I have some news for you: It was a devout Christian Republican who came up with our official name, not some left-wing athiest ACLU type. (To be frank, I figured we’d just go with the opposite of your group–”Berkley Citizens Vote No” or something similar, since that’s who we are).
Secondly–and I realize that neither you, nor most of the regulars of this website can grasp this concept–but not everyone who opposed your ballot initiative likes the ACLU, nor were we “cowed” by them. Your own daughter (I believe–Christine Trimpe?) admitted on WDET that you were actually SUPPORTING the ACLU’s position (adding a bunch of secular stuff around the display).
If anything, by defeating this poorly-thought-out proposal, WE (ironically) have effectively denied the ACLU one of the high-profile lawsuits that they love to bring, which should make the regulars of this website *pleased* with the outcome.
I could address many, many of your other misleading statements, but I think that we’ve ALL wasted enough of our time on this incident. The people of Berkley made their voices heard loud and clear (in what was, I believe, the highest off-year turnout in the city’s history? I could be wrong about that; it was around 4,100 people).
Good luck to you and yours, and have a very Merry Christmas, in all sincerity.
Dear Mr. Gaba,
If you had been involved in the process from the very beginning, you would know that the YES folks had always been asking for the display to remain compliant. The problem arose when an ACLU rep pointed out that our display was not compliant (false). Our contention was that it has always been compliant. Not one person during this whole thing ever stated (besides the ACLU rep) that the display was a purely religious display. It’s difficult for anyone to deny a 15 foot Santa’s existence for the past however many years…at least since I was a kid…and that was in the 70’s & 80’s. Yes folks did not want the true meaning of Christmas stripped from the public square. We agreed with the city attorneys statement in which he believed that it was in compliance, but would feel a bit more comfortable to add an item or two. Fine. Most of us display these secular items around our home, too, in addition to our nativity scenes.
And I believe that Mrs. Halloran had a typo when she typed the name of your organization. We are well aware of your group name. People make mistakes, Mr. Gaba, and it’s so very interesting how one’s enemy attacks at every opportunity.
Well, anyhow, at the end of the day, it’s obvious that our country is torn on this issue. Unfortunately in Berkley the Yes folks had an uphill battle going against the establishment of the city council and the clergy association that were working hand in hand with the ACLU and their agenda. Cooperating with the ACLU and ignoring the citizens in the very beginning. It’s a sad commentary on our culture when citizens of a town are scared of a lawsuit just because they want to include a historical symbol of a holiday.
So what is next for Berkley? Who knows? I see our handcrafted signs that include a church and traditional family coming down soon, no prayer to open the council meeting, and no pledge of allegiance…I see these things happening all over our country. Very sad indeed.
Dear “Yes voter”,
I’ve been aware of this issue since it first came up a couple of years back. While I wasn’t directly involved until the ballot proposal issue arose earlier this year, I was aware of the developments prior to that.
The City Council stated that IF the proposal had passed, aside from the likely lawsuit (over the religion-specific WORDING of the proposal, not necessarily the display itself), they would indeed follow the lead of Clawson, by placing “one more item” than the over SIXTY that Clawson has. Have you compared the relative sizes of the two city hall display areas? Ever since that huge gazebo was added in Berkley, after taking out the area for the sidewalk and other sections which can’t be blocked, there’s barely room for the nativity itself, much less over sixty other pieces of flotsam.
As for Ms. Halloran’s “typo” in the name of our group, using the word “Christians” instead of “Citizens”, I’m sure that’s exactly what it was (or a poor attempt at a joke). Freudian slips commonly present themselves as typos, and this wasn’t just a case of hitting the wrong key (”citizems”), it was a completely different word with a different spelling and different number of letters. I’ll leave it up to others to decipher what that means.
In any event, you once again seem to have missed the point: it was the “Yes” group that was effectively doing the ACLU’s bidding. Groups like the ACLU *and* the Thomas More Law Center PREFER to have high-profile lawsuits like this, as it generates tons of free publicity and donations for both of their organizations. The people of Berkley are the ones who denied *both* of these groups “victory” by pulling the soapbox out from under their feet, so to speak.
In any event, the election is over. I have no idea whether the “Yes” supporters intend on dredging this up again every year, and I can’t speak for anyone else on the winning “No” side, but for myself, I have no intention of challenging any of the other issues you raised.
Merry Christmas to all of you (or whatever other appropriate message you’d prefer).
oh , Please Mr. Gaba!! No more spinning of your sides talking points!! I believe O’dwyer came up with this line — the Yes people were just doing what the ACLU wanted. How many times does it have to be said it was the city attorney that said he would be “more comfortable” with a “few” more secular items. We said from the very first council meeting we spoke at that the city was in compliance! And I was told it was the arrogant councilman Goodcourage that made the childish statement of “one more than Clawson”. Now isn’t that just ridiculous?? No where in the amendment did it say we had to have as many secular iems as Clawson. Again, just another talking point that isn’t true. As to having no room for the items the ATTORNEY wanted to add-there is plenty of room in front of the old firehouse doors. Add a couple of wreaths on the doors, couple of spiral light trees and some gift boxes & the ACLU and the ATTORNEY would of been statisfied. We even gave a simple drawing of such to the city last summer-probably thrown away as they had their minds made up in 2005/2006 where the nativity was going. Remember those closed meetings with the ACLU?? Which I have since learned is agianst MI open meetings act. Just the oppositie of what the city manager told me when I questioned her as to why they were held behind closed doors. She also said no minutes had to be taken at the meeting which is also another violation of the act. That needs to be looked into .
I saw somewhere you have only lived in Berkley for six years. So you wouldn’t remember when the 15-20 foot Santa stood right behind the nativity for YEARS would you? Nobody complained then-clergy where were you?? Another talking point that is bogus. In fact I believe all of the talking points your side had came from an ACLU memo put out in 1998 A Statement on Religious Displays
By John Roberts, Executive Director
ACLU of Massachusetts
“Supporting Religious Freedom” (what a joke)legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00057.html
Remember Goodcourage saying “clutter up ” baby Jesus. The clergy states we are “degrading ” the nativity. All and more in the ACLU’ memo. You can deny all you want but the ACLU was the one who started this action & I believe the city , clergy & vote no was right along side of them wanting to get rid of the nativity off city property where it had stood for 30 years. The mayor even said she was a believer of separation of church & state-another myth. O’dwyer said government should not have anything to do with religion. Excuse me-I thought government was to accomodate religion.
Finally, the city manager admited to two yes volunteers on election day that “there was never going to be a law suit by the ACLU” And if she knew that so did the mayor, councilmen & vote no group. So, I guess that says it all-Your entire campaign was based on a lie-save tax payers money was just a tactic to scare the public.
so, yes the election is over and you won by 414 votes but the battle isn’t. We do not take lightly our rights as citizens being taken away.
Oh yes, I certainly didn’t mean to call your group “christians”–
And yes it is Merry CHRISTmas to us who celebrate the true meaning of the national holiday, the birth of Christ-CHRISTMAS