(reposted from yesterday--with updates!--in the hopes of more eyeball mooching!)
THE SHORT VERSION: We're facing a local ballot proposal in less than 12 days which, if passed, would FORCE the city council to build a Nativity display on city hall property. While this sort of issue pops up several times every year somewhere or another in the nation, to my knowledge this is the first time that there's been a city ordinance on the ballot which would specifically REQUIRE church & state to mix in such a fashion.
Visit my earlier diaries on the subject for the whole backstory.
Regular readers of this series have probably noticed that it's been a solid week since my last update, when I noted that beloved former mayor Jerry Durst issued a statement to the residents of Berkley indicating that a) he was misled by the "Yes" group, and b) he now supports the "No" vote alongside hundreds of his fellow Berkley citizens, including myself and other members of Citizens for Religious Freedom.
Since that time...well, things have heated WAY up, and I've been so busy actually dealing with much of it (as well as my regular job, of course) that I just haven't had time to blog about it.
Here's the latest developments--each of which deserves it's own blog entry, but things are happening too fast as we enter the final 2 weeks of the campaign:
--Lawn Signs Galore!: Drive through Berkley over the next two weeks and you'll see hundreds of our opponents' red YES signs slugging it out with hundreds of our own blue NO signs. Many were puzzled at how the "Yes" group managed to place out so many signs in such a short period of time (and a full week before they're supposed to, I might add); there's been speculation that they may have simply slapped signs in front of every household that signed the ballot petition, even though many people only signed the petition to "let the people decide", not because they necessarily intend on voting yes. As a result, I've heard reports of several "Yes" signs being pulled out around town (in one case, even being replaced with a "NO" sign, yay!).
In light of the above possibility, I'm pleased to report that EVERY SINGLE ONE of our "Vote NO" lawn signs was specifically requested by someone living at that residence.
--The Nuisance Candidate: Maybelle Fraser, who served as mayor of Berkley for one term in the mid-90's, is apparently SOOOOO upset with the completely reasonable and rational compromise that the current mayor (Marilyn Stephan) and city council (with 1 exception) came up with that she's decided to challenge Mayor Stephan's re-election bid with a write-in campaign of her own.
That's right--Fraser has decided to run for mayor of Berkley based on one issue and one issue alone: she wants to move a creche about 1,000 feet from where it's currently scheduled to be displayed.
That's it. That's her entire platform, her entire rationale for running for mayor. I've heard of single-issue candidates before, but yeesh...
--Neighborhood Canvassing: This past weekend, we on the "Vote NO" side took care of what will possibly be the single most important step in achieving victory on Nov. 6: We canvassed the entire city of Berkley, knocking on doors, talking to people and distributing literature explaining the facts of the case (along with former mayor Durst's letter, which I understand could be more influential than everything else combined; his opinion is highly valued in this town, and he was NOT happy with how the "Yes" group misinformed him about the reality of the nativity decision).
Thanks to our successful canvassing efforts, we've identified many "NO" supporters (and even convinced a few former "Yes" people to change their vote, or at least consider doing so). Obviously I can't go into specific numbers, but things are certainly looking better than they were even a week ago.
Even better, the distribution of mayor Durst's letter has forced our opponents to scrub their website of the letter that was supposedly "signed" by mayor Durst alongside Fraser's name (you can see the pre-scrubbed version of that page here).
Interestingly, instead of simply removing Durst's name from the letter (which is what I expected), they deleted the ENTIRE LETTER! Hmmmmmmm...
Which brings me to the most unexpected event to happen over the past week; namely...
--FOX News: Yes, that's right--the one and only "fair and balanced" FOX News (forgive me while I stifle a chuckle) just couldn't resist pouncing on the story, what with the whole "War on Christmas" angle and all.
No one knows how they heard about the story (although the feature articles in both the Free Press and News certainly lent a bit of exposure), but they sent out a camera crew to capture b-roll footage of our canvassers over the weekend, and then sent out a reporter to interview both of our spokespersons on Tuesday and Wednesday--Rev. Peter Moore of the Greenfield Presbyterian Church (as well as the Berkley Area Clergy Association) and city councilmember Phil O'Dwyer.
Surprisingly, it was neither Bill O'Reilly nor John Gibson who did the interview--I figured it'd be one of those two for sure. Unfortunately, I don't have any details yet about if & when the piece will air, or in what format, but keep your eyes peeled (yeah, I know, the prospect of watching FOX is pretty daunting, but we'll have to keep our fingers crossed and see how it goes...)
All of this activity is leading up to the next major event in this ongoing saga: This weekend's "Faith Meets Politics" forum sponsored by the Berkley Area Clergy Association. From the BACA's description (emphasis added):
""The issue of when and where a religious symbol is displayed is most properly in the hands of the leaders for whom the religious symbol is a cherished part of our tradition. Currently the Berkley nativity scene is owned and displayed by the Berkley Clergy Association, reverently and with great pride. It is located next to the post office, where everyone passes during the Christmas season and can view it. The 'Keep our Nativity' slogan is only one of several 1/2 truths being promoted in the mailing recently sent to Berkley residents urging a vote on the issue. This is a religious issue, not something to be decided by the general public."
To learn more about this ongoing saga, visit our website at http://www.citizensf... and help us get Berkley residents to Vote NO on Nov. 6th!
http://www.citizensforreligiousfreedom.org
http://www.berkleyvoteno.org
UPDATE: Yes, I posted this same diary (w/a different title) yesterday...but there's been a few more updates since then, including...
--the Detroit Free Press and Detroit Jewish News have both chimed in with endorsements of the NO vote (well, the Jewish News' is really just one of the editor's opinions, but we'll take it)
--our opponents have posted the results of their pre-election financial report, in which they make a big deal about how 63% of their contributions come from Berkley residents. Of course, they don't include the $1,400 (minimum) in "in-kind donations" from the Thomas More Center and some guy in Madison Heights in this percentage (if in-kind figures are included, that 63% would drop down to 54% or less).
Of course, those in-kind figures of theirs are pretty suspicious as well. They claim, for instance, that the Thomas More Law Center--the ones who wrote up the charter amendment and petition language for them--only gave them $800 in free legal services. Assuming an average rate of $160/hour, that would mean they spent only 5 hours--total--drafting it all up, which I find difficult to believe (then again, given how sloppily the proposal is worded, perhaps this is accurate after all...)
In any event, we'll be posting our own numbers soon as well (I'm just waiting for the final figures), and I'm confident that our "home-grown" numbers are considerably better than theirs. If they want to get into a p*ssing match over which group is more "Berkley-based" I guarantee you we'll win hands down.