Sonoma County Recinds Ban on Christmas Tree Decorations

by aurealeus | December 26, 2009 at 06:27 am

465 views | 23 Recommendations | 6 comments

SANTA ROSA, Calif. Sonoma County's top official has rescinded a ban on stars and angels on Christmas trees in county buildings. Although it seems moot at this point since most county offices are closed now for the holidays until Jan. 4.

Wednesday morning, acting County Administrator, Chris Thomas rescinded his directive after consulting with Shirlee Zane, a County Supervisor who took issue with the removal of the decorations. In his reversal, Mr. Thomas told department heads to "use their best judgment" on the divisive holiday decoration quandary that has made international news.

Zane told Thomas removing the stars and angels was "potentially a violation of the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion." Zane said she initially supported Thomas' decision to remove the stars and angels but she said she reconsidered her decision "after much input and contemplation" and that “this is a policy decision and one that should be taken up with the Board of Supervisors"

Thomas's original order to ban the ornaments was prompted by a complaint from a Santa Rosa resident Irv Sutley, who thinks the county should not show favoritism to any religion.

Stars and other religious icons such as angels were ordered removed from Christmas trees in all government buildings in Sonoma County, CA on Monday after Irv Sutley, a disabled 65-year-old Marine veteran, complained that the holiday symbols were "extremely offensive" and a part of the "cult" of Christianity.

"I just don't believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior," Sutley said. "I've opposed Buddhist statues, the star of David — anything of a religious nature."

Local church leaders spoke out against the ban. At least one county employee overtly defied the order, and Zane admits it is a decision that should involve the full board of supervisors.

Sutley filed the complaint with acting County Administrator Chris Thomas on Dec. 18 after noticing an angel on top of a six-foot tree in the county recorder's office lobby. Sutley, who is a lifelong atheist and chairman of Sonoma County's Peace and Freedom Party, said he visited the office last week to enter his bid for election next June.

Sutley said the angel violated previous court rulings concerning holiday displays, including a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that government-sponsored Christmas trees decorated with religious symbols constitute an illegal endorsement of Christian doctrine.

"To avoid any controversy and to satisfy this gentleman's concerns, the ornaments were removed," said Jim Toomey, a public information officer for Sonoma County.

On Wednesday, County administrator Chris Thomas reversed his original order banning the ornaments following a storm of criticism. He apologized in an e-mail to employees for "any inconvenience and disruption" caused by the ban enacted Monday.

Sutley said he would consult with attorneys before deciding whether to sue.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Rory Cripps

at 08:43 on December 26th, 2009

"Zane told Thomas removing the stars and angels was ' "potentially a violation of the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion." '

Imagine that!

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech. The first amendment is merely concerned with the "establishment" of a religion.

The ACLU and those of its ilk have been getting away with a lot throughout the years. Not necessarily because it has a legal basis for its cases, but in many cases because it has big bucks behind it and it is compelled by its collective secular humanist ideology to go after anyone and everyone that dares exhibit a Christian symbol within the context of a public/government setting.

As a result, a number of faith-based legal organizations have emerged which are challenging the ACLU. IMHO, the tiny minority of outspoken Americans that raise a hue and cry anytime a Christian religious symbol pops up within a public/government setting have issues other than constitutional issue. And they merely invoke the constitution because something about Christianity get's their goat.

aurealeus

at 11:10 on December 26th, 2009

At least someone in government gets it Rory.

"There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech. The first amendment is merely concerned with the "establishment" of a religion."

This is correct. Maybe it's time a new branch of government be created to enforce the checks and balances supposedly in place. It can be called the "Citizen Branch" as a publc watchdog body, to ensure our now corrupt Judicial, Legistlative, and Executive branches no longer overstep the authority afforded by The People.

Barry ORegan

at 11:21 on December 26th, 2009

Yep, time to get rid of all this politically correct BS

Barry ORegan

at 11:22 on December 26th, 2009

Wow, a complaint from a Santa Rosa resident Irv Sutley, who thinks the county should not show favoritism to any religion.

Perhaps Mr or Ms Smarmy should leave America for some other country, like Afghanistan

Dirka, Dirka

aurealeus

at 12:10 on December 26th, 2009

"...the county should not show favoritism to any religion."

...and government shoudn't, as that would be unconstitutional.

But there is nothing to prevent government showing "equal respect" to all religions throughout the year during a religion's major celebration such as Christmas, by allowing religious symbols on public property

To solve the "establishment" problem, I would propose the following...

There are only five Major religions (give or take not mentioning the minor groups) in the United States. If each were allowed equal recogniton by government during each major religious celebrations out of public respect for religious freedom and diversity in America, there would be no cause for concern over claims regarding "favoritism" or "establishment."

Although I'm sure this would still enrage the minority athiest "religion" since they seem bent on having none at all, even though the majority of the time, government would remain secular.