Seizing on the Baby Jesus as a weapon in the culture war is downright, well, un-Christian.
Was Santa Claus present in Bethlehem when Jesus was born? Some people in Berkley, Mich., may get that idea if a town referendum passes.
On Nov. 6, voters in Berkley will cast their ballots on a Charter Amendment that requires the local government to display a Nativity scene and other Christmas symbols on city hall property from the Monday after Thanksgiving until Jan. 6.
The amendment is quite specific, mandating a display of “symbols and objects that depict or relate to the national holiday of Christmas and that includes a depiction of a nativity scene, which at the minimum includes figures of the infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The overall nativity scene display shall not be smaller in size than 4 feet by 4 feet. The symbols and objects that comprise the Christmas holiday display shall be exhibited in a reasonably comparable and proportional manner and shall be reasonably observable to the passing public.”
Fearing a lawsuit, the amendment instructs the city to throw in a few non-religious items to make the exhibition seem a little less sectarian. The display, it says, “may be modeled after the Christmas holiday display appearing in the City of Clawson, Michigan, that was ruled constitutional in Doe v. City of Clawson, 915 F.2d 244 (6th Cir. 1990), and that included, among other items, a nativity scene, gift packages, colored lights, a ‘Seasons Greetings’ sign, and a Santa Claus figure.”
The referendum is the result of a fight in Berkley over the city council’s decision to take down a Nativity scene at city hall rather than run the risk of a church-state lawsuit. The move was supported by local church leaders who agreed to display the Nativity scene on church property.
Resident Georgia Halloran, however, wasn’t satisfied with that reasonable and happy outcome and has manipulated the issue onto the ballot.
“We were angry with the City Council for backing down from the ACLU last year,” Halloran told the Daily Tribune. “Sometimes you have to stand up for the right things. This nation was founded on Christian principles.”
Miss Halloran is quite wrong, of course. The United States was not founded on “Christian principles;” it was founded on the constitutional principle of church-state separation. Christians of all denominations are free to practice their faith here, but so are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and those of other beliefs. (Non-believers are protected too.)
The government represents and protects them all and favors none. A Nativity scene, therefore, belongs on church or other private property, not the city hall lawn that belongs to everyone.
But there are other factors to consider here.
In the first place, seizing on the Baby Jesus as a weapon in the culture war is downright, well, un-Christian. Turning the “season of peace” into the “season of interfaith hostility” is hardly a good expression of the Golden Rule. It’s impossible to imagine that Jesus, who advised praying privately rather than in public so as to be seen by others, would approve of Miss Halloran’s little crusade.
It also seems less than certain that putting up a Nativity scene alongside Santa Claus, gift boxes, colored lights and other secular items does anything to advance Christianity. It sounds more like an advancement of the materialistic Christmas shopping orgy that many Christians find excessive and even repugnant.
When council members were discussing ways to avoid a lawsuit originally, Frosty the Snowman came into the Nativity scene picture. Some thought that was, at best, undignified. It was.
A group called Citizens for Religious Freedom has formed to fight the Charter Amendment, and we wish them every success.
© 1947 - 2009