If you're from the Ludington area you've undoubtedly heard about the latest controversy regarding the Father Marquette Shrine, a simple stone-and-plaster base with a wood  obelisk terminating with a sizable white cross, which is situated on a hill in a small park on the Buttersville Peninsula.   This rather harmless structure has existed in one form or another since the death of Father Marquette occurred here, according to many historians, marked at the base of the hill with a memorial rock.

Pere Jacques Marquette was a renowned Jesuit missionary and explorer who founded Michigan's first European settlement at Sault Ste. Marie and died over a hundred years before the United States was born, 150 years before Michigan became a state. With Louis Joliet, he helped explore and map the upper Mississippi.  Marquette's contributions to exploring the regions and being a goodwill ambassador to the natives has put him firmly in our history.  The city of Marquette and Pere Marquette Township and River are just a few of the places named to commemorate him in the Midwest, and he has been featured on a couple of postage stamps minted back in the day when Christian, European explorers and founders of the country were recognized as instrumental in our development as a nation.

Four centuries later, the historical shrine erected in his honor has come under attack for it's Christian qualities.  While it's difficult to figure out what started the ball rolling, the likely catalyst was a vote at the September 12, 2017 meeting of the Pere Marquette Charter Township Trustees:

Nobody from the public made any comments one way or the other, but apparently somebody noted that the township was spending over $75,000 to reconstruct a shrine in one of their parks, and took offense.  This is the most likely scenario, since the group complaining about the 'establishment clause' implications, the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists (MACRA), swung into action about a month later, at first spreading their message on the Father Marquette Shrine Facebook page (recently taken down, but preserved at the MACRA page).

After MACRA spammed the shrine site with their message, a more formal threat on November 28 from a Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) staff Attorney named Ryan D. Jayne arrived in the township supervisor's mailbox echoing the concerns of MACRA.  The three page demand (page 1, page 2, page 3) asked for the township to rescind their grant of $75,000 immediately and remove the cross from the park.  

The threat and legal argument is remarkably bereft of any acknowledgment of the history behind the monument or the fact that it's effectively marking a site where a great historical figure is likely to have died.  Rather, the letter focuses more on incompletely cited  precedents and an assertion that the Latin cross at the park 'undeniably' stands for Christianity and promotes Christianity.  It should be noted that the Latin Cross existed as a 'good luck' symbol long before Jesus Christ was born, and has several other non-Christian applications to this day. 

Does a cross seem out of place in a memorial to where a Christian missionary died?  It surely hasn't seemed that way for the 230 years since the First Amendment was passed until now in Ludington.  Yet even a Peace cross in Maryland erected nearly a 100 years ago to honor the World War 1 dead has come under fire by two judges of a three judge panel as too religious for government land after a district court judge ruled otherwise.  

These rulings and other precedent indicate that this is not a settled issue by any means to either side.  The MACRA and the FFRF know this and hope to use their own cherry-picked data to influence public bodies to succumb to their demands, even when they are not well-found.  Many give in to their demands, don't listen to the vast majority of people who elected them, or fail to play their hand wisely.  It has happened here with the township's plan to go into closed session at their otherwise open and regularly scheduled meeting on December 28.

According to the COLDNews, the township has asked it's Grand Rapids attorney for her opinion which they will discuss among themselves at that 4 PM meeting.  The Mason County Press, has suggested in a spirited editorial calling for folks to  rally around and 'fight for the cross', that the board is able to close their meeting because they are discussing legal strategy with their attorney.  That is incorrect.

The Open Meetings Act (OMA) (MCL 15.268)allows a public body to go into closed session to "consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation."  But these are nothing more than threats at this point, no litigation or alternative mediation has been served on the township.  If the township attorney's written opinion is deemed as being 'material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute' by the township invoking attorney-client privilege (for what should and inevitably must be a publicly-available opinion), then PM Township will definitely have a lawsuit from my desk dealing with this OMA/FOIA violation.  

For I agree with the general assessments that Dave Petersen, Rob Alway, and others have made about these outsiders coming in and telling us that we need to take down this monument; they work for the cause, for want of better words, of darkness and hate.  One of Martin Luther King's greatest observations was that:

 

Going 'dark' to discuss strategy outside the public's view will lead to the township's downfall.  Keeping things open, listening to the public, acknowledging that their GR attorney may not have the ultimate key to their salvation, will lead them to victory.  It may be hard fought, but there are legal entities that do defend against these types of threats that turn into lawsuits for free.  

For the latter part of Dr. King's words, I have heard upstanding Christians swearing like sailors over this issue, others offering up ways to fight or degrade these outsiders in less than Christian fashion.  I am sure that this is what MACRA and FFRF enjoy the most; love is the far better weapon, hate plays directly into their hand and reinforces their beliefs.  

You see, Dr. King was a true civil rights activist who would look at the tactics and goals of MACRA as being suspect.  Throughout his career, he saw the cross, took it up, and fully knew it's meaning.  He could've looked at those burning crosses sometimes left on his and his brothers' land and he could have took up the darkness and hate that made so-called Christians erect and light them.   But he became a reverend, became a follower of Christ.  He would live the meaning behind that cross in his words and actions in trying to help others overcome their own burdens.  And he knew:

So in this upcoming battle over the cross, do not lose your focus, do not let your leaders forget what they need to focus on; focus on the cross and what it means.  Don't be tempted to go towards the darkness, therein lies only defeat in this life and hereafter.  And remember, just like Dr. King infers, the cross is not what Christians worship, ironically it is what was used to burden and kill the one who they actually do worship.  

Views: 988

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is a major reason why the township attorney's opinion and board of trustees reaction to that opinion prior to any litigation needs to be known by the public, so that it can be properly weighed by the citizens of PM Township and others with a vested interest in the outcome.  They paid for that attorney's opinion and the renovations, they should be apprised of how their leaders are planning to approach this, not kept in the dark about it.  At this point, the opinion absent pending litigation will not help the other side except perhaps to either inspire or deflate their efforts.

I will be on hand this afternoon to see that the township does things correctly and transparently in preparing for this battle.

Thank you X.

Quick follow up.

Interesting track record by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

"Decisions issued by the Sixth Circuit were reversed by the United States Supreme Court 24 out of the 25 times..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_th...

"Bormuth, a self-described pagan and animist, claimed he was made to feel like he was “in church” and forced to worship Jesus Christ before participating in Jackson County board meetings.
He said one of the nine commissioners called him a “nitwit” for objecting, while two turned their backs while he spoke. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-prayer/appeals-court-al...

And I believe this is the same Peter Bormuth who may have a chip on his shoulder.

Ron Brooks defeated Peter Bormuth in the Michigan House of Representatives District 64 Democratic primary.[2][3]
[hide]
Michigan House of Representatives, District 64 Democratic Primary, 2016
Party
Candidate
Vote %
Votes

Democratic
Ron Brooks
74.74%
1,240
https://ballotpedia.org/Peter_Bormuth
Democratic
Peter Bormuth
25.26%
419
Total Votes
1,659

https://ballotpedia.org/Peter_Bormuth

Don't the deed restrictions on the land  prohibit the township from transferring ownership to private interests or other uses?

The PM Twp Board of Trustees met tonight with approximately 20 members of the public showing up in their normal meeting room.  State Representative Curt VanderWall spoke a few words about state issues, nothing about the PM cross.  Cindy and Elaine Muzzo spoke up for saving the cross, as did another local.  A guy named Brendan from Grand Haven spoke of how Mr. Kahle had shook down his area in getting their officials to tear down the nativity they used to have.  No trustee offered their own opinions on the topic.

After going over all of the rest of the new business, they closed the meeting under the auspices of section 8(h) of the OMA and section 13(1)(g) of the FOIA.  Translating:  the "written memorandum of their attorney" they were to discuss was considered exempt from disclosure through FOIA by the attorney-client privilege and able to be talked about in closed session because of that claimed exemption.  

They did fail to claim by separate motion the people beyond the Board who would stay at this closed session, and they did fail to make a case as to why this written memorandum should have that privilege invoked.  The public should minimally be able to know what this written memo is about (it could be on something besides the cross issue for all the public knows) and who exactly is invoking the privilege on the townships' behalf and why.  They did notify the public that they would not be taking any action following their discussion.  

Moves like this show this board and their attorney are setting themselves up to lose; I'm incensed that they would be involved in such secrecy at this stage when the public needs to know what is in their representative's hearts and minds.

Thanks for attending the meeting and sharing the information.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service