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

Well said X. Unless the Twp. has deep pockets, going the way of a lawsuit may not be feasible. What I suggests is for the PM landmark to be turned over to a local private group such as the group caretaking the light houses. It wouldn't be necessary to relinquish all the land, just a tiny portion that the monument sits on. If the PM monument is privately owned and funded by donations then their would be no reason to consider the monument in violation of the Constitution. 

I've heard that idea of private ownership also batted around by many, but I like X's idea better. Also, the cross is recognized already as a Michigan Historical Monument, so that should also protect it in court. I would also recommend that the attorney provide her answers to the board during it's regular mtg., not just behind closed doors, it's only fair and right at this stage of this mess. P.S. the links to the 3 page letter shows pg. 2 on both pg. 1&2 above fyi.

The township should just zone the property a cemetery. That would take care of any lawsuit by any un religious fanatics.   Now on the up keep of the shrine itself, the citizens should be made aware on how much money in the past was spent on upkeep if any. I have been out there a few times and it never looked like anyone did anything there. Now that was years ago, maybe it was better taken care of in recent time.  If the $75,00 was broken down in neglect for past years it might not be that much to restore past history in our county. 

Gravestones in public cemeteries are not deemed to constitute a government endorsement of religion because they individually represent the private religious beliefs of the persons buried there, and those symbols are chosen by family members of the deceased and not the government.

The problem with this argument at the PM Shrine is that Jacques Marquette is not buried there, nor is anybody else.  The cross has never been depicted as a grave marker; PM Twp hasn't helped their case by considering it a shrine rather than a monument.  

My thought that I've seen elsewhere is that it is possible that a small portion of Marquette's remains could of remained there after they moved him up north.  Therefore it is possible that it is still a burial site.

What can I do to assist you in this fight?  My family (grandfather) owned a house in Ludington at one point and as a boy, we vacationed there every year. Have also brought my own family to Ludington many times and went to the Pere Marquette Shrine and Cross during each visit. I remember that as a five-year-old I climbed those steps and have prayed at the Shrine as have my wife and sons.

                                                                            Please advise how I might assist you.

                                                                                    Charles M. Parrent

                                                                                   Grosse Point Park, MI.                                                                        

At this point, the best assistance would be to consider all the options and alternatives to resolving this issue with the positive but possibly conflicting outcomes of keeping the cross as it is, and complying with the establishment clause.  

The obvious route suggested by Freedom Seeker and Willy of private ownership of the shrine is the most compelling, and would silence the main points made by the FFRF.  MACRA and FFRF are wanting to take the cross down as their objective so they don't suggest these as viable options.  

One of the major obstacles would be that PM Twp has already contracted for $75,000 of work, and there has been work already completed and paid for.  Any private takeover would have to assume a lot of costs right away, and receive little if any remuneration for their trouble in the future.  It's not a great investment opportunity.  Nor does it totally alleviate the possibility that a lawsuit may still launch against the township.

I am scared that PM Twp has taken the route to effectively pooh-pooh public input and go into the 12-28 meeting primarily to listen to an attorney's opinion in secret.  I expect thousands of local citizens, some attorneys themselves, will be able to have better ideas on how to approach this than a Grand Rapids lawyer serving as a township attorney.  The best solution likely falls outside of what the typical linear thoughts of an attorney can think up, and that best solution has likely not even been considered yet-- expect it to come from the most unlikeliest of sources, thinking outside of the box.

The cemetery angle may be a good idea. After all the  spot where PM died was in fact a grave site, his grave site, for several years and possibly the first European grave site in Western Michigan. My understanding is that a cross was erected at the site when he died in order to mark his grave. Therefore that site has been a historical grave site for over 300 years. What is there now is a continuation of what was established a long time ago. The existing cross is not a symbol of a religious belief  but a representation of one of Michigan's first European grave sites.

I don't want to see the cross removed as I believe it's an important part of Ludington's history as well as our country's history with Fr. Marquette's expeditions. However, it is a slippery slope and will need to carefully be examined while being mindful of the tax dollars that will be used to defend the monument.

Many could also argue that prayer before City Council and County Board meeting is also a violation of the Separation of Church and State. Or having "In God We Trust" on the back on the Sheriff's Office patrol cars is a violation. I believe the issue of prayer at a meeting went before the US Supreme Court a few years ago and the justices ruled that it did not violate the constitution.

Tax dollars may be used for initial suggestions on how to defend this issue. But, it's not necessary for court defense if that occurs. There are several agencies that defend these regularly pro-bono, for free. Also, the new date for the mtg. on this is now January 23, 2018 at Peterson Auditorium at LHS at 6:30pm. The hall holds approx. 500 people, so if interested, please attend on that important Tuesday for support.

In 2014, the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 that invocations before meetings were legal and that they could include references to Jesus Christ.  But in 2017 involving a case in Jackson MI a 3 judge federal district court has said:  

"We hold that the Board of Commissioners' use of prayer to begin its monthly meetings violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.  The prayer practice is well outside the tradition of historically tolerated prayer, and it coerces Jackson County residents to support and participate in the exercise of religion."

The board apparently used Christian references exclusively and demanded that all people stand.  This ruling was nullified later this year.  "No one likes to be offended," said Ken Klukowski, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, the group representing the county and covering all court costs. "But simply being offended or hearing a religious sentiment with which an adult citizen disagrees, that's not a constitutional violation. That's part of life in a democratic society."

There are plenty of good attorneys willing to do pro bono work on these types of, what many would consider nuisance, lawsuits.  

I don't think MACRA will be considering this a run of the mill case. This is a plum for any attorney to pluck because of the many facets involved with the PM monument. As I see it, if the twp. wants to dig it's heels in there will be a long court battle which could end up in the Supreme Court. Both sides will need to dip into donated dollars. PM is a national figure. What about the statues of PM. Do they not represent a particular religion? There are monuments and statues of PM in many publicly owned places. There is even a State Park in Illinois that bares his name. There are statues all over from Michigan to Wisconsin from Illinois to Indiana. I see this as being a big deal for the MACRA's of the World.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service