Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is the report I filed for Michigan Messenger:
A standing room only crowd that overflowed the meeting room, spilled out into the hallway and even down the stairs leading to the second floor of Frankenmuth city hall on Tuesday night witnessed a tense and emotionally-charged city council meeting as a local resident asked the council to remove a Lutheran cross from the city shield and a number of local citizens demanded that the cross stay where it is.
There was nothing unusual about the scene that played out; indeed, for those who have followed church/state battles in other communities it might almost have seemed like actors reading from the same script they've seen rehearsed a thousand times before. Invariably, the resident who believes that his government's use of a religious symbol is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion that sends a message of exclusion to those who don't share that particular faith is in the minority, usually a tiny minority. Lloyd Clarke knew that long before he stepped to the podium to make his request.
Just as invariably, the majority of local residents, especially in a community where nearly everyone at least nominally shares the same religious faith, dismiss such objections as mere whining - or worse. A sizable portion of nearly every community that has gone through similar battles reacts with a great deal of emotion, even anger, and views the request as an attack on their community, their religion and even on themselves personally. Frankenmuth on Tuesday evening played out that same script, the lines almost identical to those heard in front of countless school boards, city councils and county boards of commissioners in similar circumstances.
Clarke, a large man who would be quite imposing if not for his soft-spoken and calm, even placid, demeanor, was the first to speak. There was little rhetoric in his speech. He cited two previous cases, one in Missouri where a federal court ruled that a Christian fish symbol on a city seal was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and one from Los Angeles County, where the county commission voted to remove a cross from their seal at the request of the local ACLU. He was careful to say that while he knows the city council that approved the seal with the cross on it were well-meaning, that decision still sends a message of exclusion to those of a different faith, or none at all, and he asked the council to remove it from the shield.
After Clarke spoke, Arlene-Marie, the director of Michigan Atheists, rose to speak on the subject. She spoke of such battles dividing communities and urged the council not to let it go so far as requiring a court case to be filed. After her, Hal Downs, state director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took to the podium. He noted that in matters of church and state, majorities do not rule, the constitution does. And he cited a nearly identical case in Zion, Illinois where a court ruled against the city. He noted that the city made an identical argument to the one being made in Frankenmuth, that the religious symbol is merely an acknowledgment of the history and tradition of the town, but the court rejected that argument.
The city council, sitting in front of no fewer than three representations of that shield behind them -- one on a flag, one on a white plastic hanging and one a beautiful and intricate woodcarving of the shield -- listened politely, if tersely. After each of the three speakers Mayor Gary Ruprecht responded only with "your comments have been noted," a response he would not repeat after any of the residents who spoke against Clarke's request. In fact, the city council had already made up its mind about the issue and after the first three speakers had their say, the mayor read the following statement:
The city government is firmly committed to protect (sic) our Frankenmuth shield in its entirety. We believe from a historical perspective that our shield accurately reflects the 1845 founding of our community. We have utilized it on a local, national and international basis to reflect the heritage of Frankenmuth for 46 years. Should we be formally challenged, we will vigorously respond and will not waiver (sic) in its defense.
After that statement was read, a number of local residents rose to speak against Clarke's proposal and the emotion began to flow. The first woman, saying that she promised her husband she wouldn't say a word at this meeting but was so overcome that she just had to, spoke passionately if incoherently. She noted that she and her husband are Catholic and when they moved to the community, they were warmly welcomed by the Lutheran majority. But she had some in the room scratching their heads when she said:
"Our boys fighting for your freedom right now, many of them are wearing crosses around their neck. Some of them are Jewish. Maybe they're not wearing a star of David, maybe they're wearing a cross with their star of David. Whatever religion they are, many of them have crosses."
She ended her talk by repeating "the cross is not hurting you" several times while looking at Clarke, accusing him of "trampling on our rights" and telling him that when he dies, he's going to meet his maker. She was greeted with loud applause, which the mayor, to little effect, asked to stop. Such applause would continue after nearly every speaker. She was followed by Mark Brandt, a local minister who has spoken out in the local papers already. Brandt accused the first three speakers of slanting the facts and engaging in "scare tactics."
Though the city's position is that the cross has nothing to do with religion and only has to do with heritage and tradition, several speakers clearly recognized that the core issue is, indeed. religion. "The cross defines my life in Christ," said one. "If I don't have Christ in my life, I am sorely hurt," said another. "My God means a lot to me," said a third. Said another, "They (the founders of the city) came here with a goal, to bring Christianity to what we then thought were savages, the native Americans, in the Saginaw valley"
Others went much further. One resident angrily said, "It's an attack on me, my family and my children" and darkly intoned, "Satan has been dressed up many times tonight right in front of our face." An older resident in a West Point sweatshirt spoke of his days in the military and delivered a rambling speech that brought up the Rothschild family, a powerful banking family in European history, implied that they were communists and somehow tried to relate that to what was going on.
Interestingly, many of the residents spoke with great emotion about the ACLU, yet there was no representative of that group at the meeting. One speaker called the ACLU an "evil organization" that worked through "threats and intimidation." The prevailing opinion, expressed by one resident, was in opposition to "outsiders coming into our community and trying to threaten me and my values." Another resident seemed to support Clarke's point about the shield excluding non-Christians by saying that Frankenmuth was "a haven for anyone who wants to come here and live in peace and believe in God."
Despite the emotional and sometimes angry tone of many of the comments, Clarke says that he's been treated very well even by those in opposition. After the meeting, people were mostly polite, with even some of the people who spoke in opposition to his request shaking Clarke's hand and being perfectly civil. Clarke said he's received many letters and phone calls opposing him, but nothing at all that was threatening or abusive. Hopefully that will continue as the situation develops.
So what's next? The request to remove the cross has been made and the council has made clear that they will not do so. Now the ball is in Clarke's court. If he believes it is necessary, he will have to seek out legal counsel and file a lawsuit in federal court.
Comments
Maybe I'm just insensitive. Or perhaps it's because I wouldn't know my city's shield if it were painted on a billboard. For whatever reason, these city shield cases strike me as picking a fight where there really isn't much to win.
Posted by: Russell | May 9, 2008 9:59 AM
Frankenmuth calls itself Michigan's "Little Bavaria." If they really want to represent their tradition they should have a beer stein on their seal.
The contradiction between the claims that the symbol isn't about religion, but the persistent religious statements of supporters is always sadly amusing. I once referred a high-school student debate about "In God We Trust" on our money. The girl who defended it (and actually did a great job) made the argument that it wasn't really a religious statement, and I--perhaps somewhat meanly--stumped her with the question, "If it's not about Christianity, why does it matter? If it is about Christianiy, aren't you denying God by claiming it isn't?"
Posted by: James Hanley | May 9, 2008 10:19 AM
I had long suspected the Rothschilds would try to find an entry in the midwest. Frankenmuth is a good place to start. Note also that Clinton won Indiana. The Illuminati will fight back, of course
Posted by: kehrsam | May 9, 2008 10:28 AM
As is always the case in disputes like these, any number of "reasonable observers" eagerly take to the podium and affirm, on the record, that the symbol in dispute has the effect of endorsing religion over non-religion, or one particular religious sect over another. Legal counsel usually can (and in this instance clearly did, and quite well) control what the elected officials say, but the rank-and-file townsfolk are always a problem.
If Clarke intends to pursue his challenge, he should immediately request a transcript (or other record) of the meeting before it disappears down the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Dan | May 9, 2008 10:30 AM
Ed's paraphrase of AU's state director Hal Downs' statement made me cringe:
Those who truly love liberty need to respond to tyrannical majority pressure by noting that liberty is not secured by majority rule but instead by prohibiting governmental entities from depriving individuals of their rights. In this case every American's freedom is secured by denying local governments the power to discriminate against non-Lutheran or non-Christians by promoting the local majorities religious beliefs.
Social conservatives love to crow about how they support liberty and individual rights when in fact they are most the active ideological group in America attempting to suppress those very rights when it comes to freedom of conscience matters. Those of us that support the ideal of authentic religious freedom need to be more careful in how we frame our rhetoric.
In some email dialogues I've had with Mr. Downs I've continuously advised him to read Ed's blog regularly to better educate himself on the constitutional matters at stake to improve the quality of his communications. That advice still holds.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 9, 2008 10:40 AM
The phrase "heritage and tradition" need not be the opposite of "religion," nor need it exclude "religion," as in "the heritage and tradition of the Catholic Church." I thought the city's position was not that the cross had nothing to do with religion, but that it represented the city's history of being founded by a religious group. Did the city at some point actually say that its position is that the cross has nothing to do with religion?
Posted by: JuliaL | May 9, 2008 10:43 AM
While that definitely takes the WTF comment of the week I don't think it strays too far from how a lot of people think concerning this issue. I get the impression from actions and words by many of those on the religious side that they just don't have the capacity to understand how it is even possible for people to have different beliefs than themselves. It's not just about accepting and disagreeing with a different view, it's a total lack of ability to understand how a different view is even possible. A Jewish soldier wearing a cross may be a bit of an extreme example, but I don't think the confusion hits too far from home.
Posted by: Rev. BigDUmbChimp | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM
This sort of thing is just so incredibly distressing and frustrating to me. What is an educated, enlightened individual supposed to do when everyone around them is ignorant of the law, and cramming their religious beliefs down your throat? You appeal to your leaders, assuming them to be more educated and enlightened than the general populace, and knowing that they are sworn to uphold the law. But, you find that they're just as ignorant and self-serving as anyone else. So, you take it to the courts, knowing that they are above the fray, so to speak, and unconcerned with popular opinion; they'll uphold the law. Then, one of two things happen: either the court rules in your favor and you are subjected to an enormous backlash from enraged citizens, forcing you to leave the community in order to have any kind of peace, or worse, you find that the courts believe that their responsibility is to support the values and beliefs of the majority, even if constitutional principles have to take a back seat.
What's to be done when the last institutional defense of the Constitution (the Supreme Court) believes its role is to represent the will of the majority (or the will of the executive branch)? Is civil war inevitable, or do we accept the formation of a Christian theocracy? Am I overreacting?
Posted by: Tim Limbert | May 9, 2008 10:51 AM
These losers are so fragile in their faith that the lack of a cross on the city shield is a major blow to them? Talk about having your identity wrapped up in trivial totems! (I don't even know what's on our city crest/shield/whatever -- I can't find it on the official website. Probably something to do with beavers and lumberjacks).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 9, 2008 10:58 AM
We had a similar controversy a few years back when Feminists objected to the local motto ("Men to match our mountains"). Asheville is much larger than Frankenmuth, and other than a few rabid letters to the editor, nothing much happened, they changed the wording to "People" and that was it. Because religion was not involved, no one really cared.
I am a Christian, but this sort of thing is frustrating. It is nothing but tribalism and idolatry. I guess the Third Commandment wasn't clear enough.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 9, 2008 11:27 AM
Tim Lambert wrote:
The answer is to vote into office a President who will nominate (and Senators who will confirm) judges who are more to your liking. Obviously, this isn't a short-term solution because the doctrine of partisan entrenchment (described by Balkin and Levinson) means that members of the judiciary who are appointed for life can influence policy well beyond the term of years of the President and Senate that nominated and confirmed them, respectively. But the political solution (which, by the way, was put in place specifically to insulate members of the judiciary from social and political pressures of the day) can have some immediate consequences, particularly when the composition of a court is unstable due to advanced age, ill health, or a desire to retire (think, for example, of Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter; Justices Scalia and Kennedy are getting on in years, but both love being on the Court and show no signs of slowing down). In a situation like that, a change in as few as one or two members can have substantial and fairly immediate impact.
Posted by: Dan | May 9, 2008 11:47 AM
Tim Limbert wrote:
Well....yes. We are nowhere near a theocracy, nor is there any serious risk of becoming one. We are further from being a theocracy now than we have ever been and religion is weaker in our culture now than it has ever been. Nor do I think cases like this really have anything to do with theocracy. I don't think it does us any good to match the exaggerated rhetoric of our opponents.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 9, 2008 12:45 PM
Ed: "We are nowhere near a theocracy, nor is there any serious risk of becoming one. We are further from being a theocracy now than we have ever been and religion is weaker in our culture now than it has ever been. Nor do I think cases like this really have anything to do with theocracy. I don't think it does us any good to match the exaggerated rhetoric of our opponents."
---
Ok, I'll try to get a grip. I know there was a time when religion was much more deliberately infused into our laws (look at that quote from the judge in the Loving case). However, we can't deny that there is a influential and well-funded bunch of people who would love to institute a system of government in which the Bible is the ultimate authority, and they've got friends in high places. We have the government funding faith-based programs and schools, we have gays denied equal protections based on purely religious arguments, we have elected leaders openly declaring official religion, even the friggin' President says creationism should be taught in science classes. Put these kinds of people on the Supreme Court, and what protection have we got? Religion may be weakening in our culture, but it seems to be growing by leaps and bounds in our halls of power.
(Ok, back to getting a grip.)
Posted by: Tim Limbert | May 9, 2008 1:22 PM
"Our boys fighting for your freedom right now, many of them are wearing crosses around their neck. Some of them are Jewish. Maybe they're not wearing a star of David, maybe they're wearing a cross with their star of David. Whatever religion they are, many of them have crosses."
sigh. Far too many American Christians seem to believe that Christianity and magic are one in the same. They believe that magic talismans can keep you safe from harm and that not carrying said talisman actively endangers you (and so *of course* people would wear a cross, Christian or not... it's a protective amulet).
The sheer ignorance makes me want to shake them for a while before sitting them down and insisting that they pass some remedial courses in: Christian theology, History, critical thinking, and science. Even if they can't make it through the last three (or would actively try not to make it through them), the first two should serve to dissuade them from their ridiculous beliefs. I have personally horrified some of these Christianity-as-magic-charm types by pulling "bible stopped the bullet" stories from the world wars... from both sides... and then pointed out what percentage of dead, from both sides, were Christian (they couldn't have *all* left their crosses/bibles at home that day)
But mostly I just want to shake them.
Posted by: kodiak | May 9, 2008 1:33 PM
One of the local television stations, WNEM, is conducting a poll on whether or not the cross should be removed from the shield. Right now, the voting is 93% no, 7% yes.
http://www.wnem.com/entlinks/index.html
Posted by: MikeD | May 9, 2008 1:49 PM
WNEM is the local Midland, MI news and you can bet if it has anything to do with Christianity then the vast majority of Midland is behind it. All I can say is that I'm glad I moved to Chicago.
Posted by: Chad | May 9, 2008 2:15 PM
Some of these folks might be reacting from genuine distress, but its important not to forget how much time and effort has been put by conservative politicians, media, and think tanks into convincing the basically religious that they are under attack. The average christian doesn't know anything about the history of the religion, or the dogma, or even the basic tenants (as some have pointed out and the issue of magic, in particular, makes clear) they practice it because their parents did before them, and in much the same way. To them, it's an issue of "tradition", of immemorial practice. The "attack" talk comes from a whole sector of society, including everyone from irresponsible local religious leaders to cynical media hacks, who set their authority squarely on the backs of such people and can't stand to see it threatened.
Posted by: Julian | May 9, 2008 2:57 PM
err.. that should be "note" near the end of the first line.
Posted by: Julian | May 9, 2008 2:58 PM
wait... no it shouldn't. My mind's screwing with me today :( *punches brain*
Posted by: Julian | May 9, 2008 2:59 PM
I live in Midland, MI and since it is the "city of churches" I do not go around proclaiming my agnosticism. Luckily, there is enough good science (Dow Chemical and Dow Corning) to keep me from jumping off the Tridge. (Tridge--three pronged bridge in Midland).
Thanks, Ed, for keeping us Michiganders knowledgable about the church/state separation debates going on!
Posted by: pyrogirl | May 9, 2008 3:26 PM
I'm an outspoken atheist and a fervent opponent of anything that smacks of theocracy- or a trend towards same. That said, tiny words on coins or bills, mindlessly repeated words in pledges, and unseen arcana on largely ignored shields hardly qualify as threats to democracy or to the general comfort level of those of differing viewpoints. Taking this kind of stuff to court is like countering a written argument by lambasting the writer's spelling ability.
The problem is garden variety ignorance, on display in the comments of cross supporters at the above hearing. And that only becomes more entrenched with every Michael Newdow that steps up to the podium. Getting worked up over trivialities like crosses or publicly uttered "gods" actually grants those religious trappings a value or a legitimacy that they don't rate.
Posted by: raindogzilla | May 9, 2008 3:58 PM
9% yes as I write this.
Obviously this poll has not been posted on Pharyngula for long.
Posted by: Reality Czech | May 9, 2008 4:28 PM
pyrogirl, I feel for you, I really do.
Posted by: Chad | May 9, 2008 4:32 PM
raindogzilla:
...tiny words on coins or bills, mindlessly repeated words in pledges, and unseen arcana on largely ignored shields hardly qualify as threats to democracy...
That is true - in a sense. It is not the tiny works and unseen arcana. It is the mindset that they exemplify. People feel that not having implicit acknowledgement and endorsement of their religion on government sponsored and controlled objects/symbols (for example, currency or city symbols) is an attack on their rights. Not having their personal religious symbols on a city shield somehow impedes their ability to worship. Do we really expect such individuals to endorse laws based on secular values, when they can't even move past a damn city shield?
It's wrong-headed. It's a complete misunderstanding of what religious freedom means. Plain and simple. We need to change the way the people in this country view religion and its place in our federal, state, and local laws, and this seems like a rather decent way to start.
Posted by: Wisaakah | May 9, 2008 4:45 PM
*sigh*
I'm old enough to remember when Frankenmuth meant a pretty good dark beer, back when small regional breweries were Federally listed as highly endangered.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 9, 2008 5:35 PM
It surprises me that no city resident made the most obvious, and probably most effective argument - "Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the city's legal counsel on likely costs of a protracted court fight, how much of that might be covered by insurance, and how much of it would be borne by the city's taxpayers. Could you also estimate how much that would be per voter...I mean, per taxpayer, please?"
Posted by: BobApril | May 9, 2008 5:53 PM
The WNEM poll is now 84% yes. Predictable.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 9, 2008 8:21 PM
BobApril: That seems like the most salient point to me. The sheer futility of the council's position. This is not a choice between dropping the cross and keeping it, its a choice between dropping the cross and losing an expensive legal battle and dropping the cross.
Like all politicians this council seems to think that reality is what they make it. I suggest they will soon get to discover that they are wrong.
Posted by: James K | May 10, 2008 12:29 AM
IANAL, but...
I am a member of the ACLU & Americans United and while in the abstract I think the wiser move would be to not have the cross on the city shield, but I think there is some chance Frankenmuth would win the lawsuit where other towns with more typical religious-symbol-as-right-wing-power-play situations would lose.
Frankenmuth is *famously* a historic German town. That's pretty much the whole point of Frankenmuth. When you visit Frankenmuth you enter a town built like a German town, you drink hearty German beer, and you learn the town history in the famous Frankenmuth museum. Some of the history: it was founded by German Lutheran missionaries, it has been brewing beer for generations, and when The Great Crisis struck Frankenmuth -- i.e. Prohibition, where the FBI raided the local brewpub (which didn't let a little thing like Prohibition stop it of course) and shut it down, an emergency town meeting was held in the Lutheran church and the bar owner made a public apology to the town for getting caught (something like that, my memory is a little foggy).
Frankenmuth is a famous tourist destination for all these reasons, and millions (literally!) of people from Detroit & surrounding Michigan visit annually to partake in the history...and beer. Octoberfest in Frankenmuth is legendary.
So all I'm saying is that any smart lawyer will bring all of this up, and I think they have a fighting chance of making a winning case out it. They might be able to argue that the lutheran cross on the seal is a point of history, like having Moses & Mohammed on the murals at the Supreme Court. Heck, they might be right (there might be additional facts which would weaken this argument, however, i.e. when & why the cross was put in).
Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenmuth,_Michigan
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | May 10, 2008 2:23 AM
Nick makes a good point. It comes as no surprise that the outcome of a case can turn on the analytical method a court applies. If a court were to apply an historical analysis to the Frankenmuth city shield, it certainly could survive Establishment Clause review. See, for example, Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Van Orden v. Perry (using historical analysis to find no Establishment Clause violation by having Ten Commandments display on government property).
Posted by: Dan | May 10, 2008 8:30 AM
It's about the money and tourism. Bavaria itself was always overwhelmingly Catholic. The Lutherans who left what was then Bavaria came from a place that had long been a separate principality, Franconia. No doubt, these reactionary Lutherans weren't happy to be part of Ludwig's Catholic kingdom, but they aren't Bavarian in any cultural sense. Wikipedia:
How often do the descendants of those who left the shtetls call themselves Russians?
Posted by: freelunch | May 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Raindogzilla -
I think that the more ambivalent people are about religion in general, the less this sort of thing bothers them. The problem is that it obviously does matter to some people, often enough people of non-Christian religions. It's got to be difficult enough, not being a Christian in Frankenmuth. It is everywhere in that town. Crosses and other Christian symbols are not in short supply there. If it doesn't happen to appear on the city seal, it's not like people are going to have any question about the majority religious belief in Frankenmuth.
Appearing on the seal though, it is a symbol of official exclusion of non-Christians.
...mindlessly repeated words in pledges...
I actually despise the pledge of allegiance for more than just it's recognition of god. The very notion that a loyalty oath would be a mindless gesture is disturbing on it's face. A oath should be taken seriously and with deliberation. Forcing kids to regurgitate an oath that they are unlikely to really comprehend until they are older and have more experience, is ridiculous and ultimately makes the notion of oaths relatively pointless. The fact that it happens to contain references to god is just insult to injury as far as I'm concerned.
BobApril -
I'm pretty certain that in Frankenmuth at least, the majority would support fighting it.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 10, 2008 12:35 PM