Mayor offers private donation of Nativity

Recently I read Warren’s Mayor Mark Steenbergh privately donated a nativity scene to Warren City Hall (click HERE). The premise is that the government cannot display religious decorations, but private individuals can donate them. I appreciate his labor and effort and recognize his right as an individual to express his ideas. Therefore it would be appropriate to display the nativity scene in his front yard, at a mall, or a church. However, it should not be displayed in any place that is maintained with public tax money, that is, City Hall, a police station, or public schools, etc.

The Mayor was quoted of saying "I think this is by and large a Christian community of many denominations." Does that give the government the right to ignore the First Amendment? The law doesn’t recognize exceptions based on personal observation. Government buildings should not display religious items, PERIOD. It does not unite our community, it DIVIDES us. He also said "We as Christians have a right, I believe, to also express ourselves." That is true, but not on government property. A nativity scene at City Hall has the effect of saying to the public that Christian ideas are given preferential treatment by this government. The Founding Fathers recognized this and insisted on the complete separation between church and state.

Would City Hall welcome decoration that espouse a minority point of view? Would they display decoration donated by followers of the Satanic Bible? Would they display offerings from Wiccans? But even if all those answers are yes, it begs the question of whether they SHOULD. If we all cram our different points of view into the lobby of City Hall, doesn't it then become nothing more than a tax-supported forum of expression? Do we want to PAY for that? There is a certain cost involved with maintaining the real estate necessary to display all these decorations. That cost is paid by taxes applied to all people regardless of whether they want to display decorations or not.

Government prescribes law that applies to all people within their jurisdiction.  They maintain order and public safety, they insure our rights are upheld.  Holiday decorations promote none of these concepts.  In fact, by the very nature of this essay, holiday decorations on publicly funded land is divisive.  Religious expression is an INDIVIDUAL expression, not a CIVIL expression...even when a MAJORITY of the community shares a viewpoint.  It therefore should be limited to being expressed on an individual's property.  If so many people want a public-facing property with which to display their sentiments, they should be free to seek that out, but it should be funded by the participating parties, not imposed on the community as a whole.
 

An interesting side note.  This holiday season I noticed the St. Martin De Porres church on Hoover just north of 13 Mile Rd. had Christmas decorations that were of a secular nature.  The words "Merry Christmas" appeared on the building itself, but the rest of the decorations comprised of stylized lighted Christmas trees.  Where was the nativity scene celebrating the birth of their savior?  Isn't Jesus the "reason for the season?"  It would have been much more appropriate for Mayor Steenberg to donate his nativity scene to a church clearly in need.
 

Relevant Quotes:

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The opinions expressed here are mine alone.  Care to comment?  Click HERE

back to Essay Index