Recent Blog Posts

Nativity Opening Brief Filed Today

Becker Law Firm — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:30:00 GMT

Today, The Becker Law Firm filed its Opening Brief in an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to restore the decades-old tradition of exhibiting Nativity scenes in the City of Santa Monica's famed Palisades Park.

In 2011, atheist activists who objected to the Christian displays flooded the city with applications to erect their own "holiday displays" only to protest the Nativity scenes with signs disparaging religion. Claiming it could not pick and choose which applicants to approve, the city held a lottery to determine who would be awarded park space. The majority of spaces went to atheists who left half of their awarded spaces empty and put up posters calling religion a myth.

For decades at Christmastime, the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee, a nonprofit association of 13 churches and the local police union, had installed life-size Nativity displays in the park to celebrate Christ's birth. The tradition began in 1952. But In 2011, the group was able to install just two booths in the single space it was awarded. Reacting to these circumstances, the city decided to abandon the cherished community tradition rather than tighten its guidelines to enforce the "holiday" purpose of its park display policy.

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled last December that the City of Santa Monica did not violate the constitutional rights of the Nativity group.

"A city can certainly have a policy that disallows private, unattended displays in a public park, but it cannot ban them on the basis of an unconstitutional rationale," said William J. Becker Jr., lead counsel for the Nativity group. "In this case, the city feared that atheist groups would repeat their aggressive anti-Christian campaign every Christmas. The city should have resisted the atheists' unconstitutional bully tactics but instead caved in without a fight. The courts call that a 'heckler's veto,' and have said it is an unconstitutional reason for suppressing religious expression. Consequently, the lower court was wrong, and we are hopeful that the Ninth Circuit will reverse that ruling and remedy this injustice."

The city will have 30 days to respond to the brief, and The Becker Law Firm will then have 14 days to file a reply. The Becker Law Firm is supported in the appeal by the Pacific Justice Institute.

Leftist Propaganda at USC

Becker Law Firm — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:12:00 GMT

My client, Tyler Talgo, is a student at the University of Southern California. Last semester, he videotaped a professor spewing leftist propaganda . His videos are making a splash today on the internet and he will be making an appearance on Fox News with Megyn Kelly this morning. His story appears on FoxNews.com, Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze, and at Campus Reform. It was also linked on the Drudge Report.

Here is a sample of the story:

A professor at the University of Southern California (USC) appears to have used a fall semester 2012 political science class to deliver sustained and angered attacks on Republicans, who he characterized as old, white, racist, and “losers.”

In a 15 min. video secretly captured by USC student Tyler Talgo, political science Professor Darry Sragow also appears to endorse the illegal suppression of Republican votes.

“You lose their information on the election in the mail,” he suggested when a student asked him how to keep Republicans from voting. “I mean there is lots of ways to do it [SIC].”

A teaching assistant (TA), who also appeared to work for the university, then seemed to suggest Black Panthers could be placed at polling stations to intimidate Republican voters.

Rather than rebuking the TA, Sragow appeared to confirm the suggestion.

“Yeah, yeah,” he said. “You can do that.”

______

The Becker Law Firm protects your academic freedom and will not tolerate abusive leftist propaganda in academia. Contact the firm for a consultation regarding your rights in academia.

The JPL Case

Becker Law Firm — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:14:00 GMT

David Coppedge has been writing the story of the JPL intelligent design discrimination case in installments on a new website. This is a great place to see how an employer goes about disenfranchising employees who don't fit into a company's group-think. I highly recommend it.

DavidCoppedge.Com

Christian Persecution Growing

Becker Law Firm — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:50:00 GMT

FoxNews.com headlines with Christian persecution in China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Response to Final Decision in Coppedge v. JPL

Becker Law Firm — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:39:00 GMT

LOS ANGELES - William J. Becker, Jr. of The Becker Law Firm issued the following statement in response to the judgment issued today in David Coppedge vs. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los Angeles Case No. BC 435600 (document links appear after text):

David and I are naturally disappointed in the court's decision, the unnecessary lengthy delay in reaching it and, after such a lengthy time, the judge's inability to write the decision himself, or at least explain the contradictions in the evidence.

By failing to address the evidence personally, thoughtfully and carefully, the judge in this case left the door wide open to have the judgment overturned on appeal.

David was the victim of religious discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers hated his Christian views, as well as his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly perceived to be a religious concept. He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it.

This case took more than three years to litigate. Judge Ernest Hiroshige sat through five weeks of trial last March and April, observed dozens of witnesses, admitted a mountain of evidence, listened to closing arguments, required voluminous post-trial briefing that delayed a ruling by nine months, and never once accepted the responsibility of expressing his view of the evidence. Instead, he farmed the task out to JPL.

By rubber-stamping JPL's ghost-written decision, Judge Hiroshige demonstrated how easy it is to collect a paycheck from the taxpayers without actually having to do the work of a judge. At the end of the day, we still have no clue how the judge really felt about the evidence.

It is really remarkable that the judge could sit there for five weeks and still not have the fortitude to tell us what he thinks. This was anything but a bold act, but we will leave it for others to describe it for what it appears to be.

Under state law, we filed specific objections to JPL's statement of decision, which required the judge to reconcile JPL's evidence with our evidence contradicting it. By overruling our objections without giving a reason, the judge has all but handed us a victory on appeal.

As for the community of rabid anti-intelligent design forces that snicker and snark at the concept and ignorantly confuse and conflate it with Creationism, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the demise of this case would be greatly exaggerated.

For the truth about intelligent design, please visit the Discovery Institute's website here.

For background on the Coppedge case, please visit this site.

Documents:

Coppedge vs. JPL: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied?

Becker Law Firm — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:43:00 GMT

A quick status update on the case of David Coppedge vs. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The employment discrimination case began in March 2009, when David was told to stop pushing his religion on co-workers. The lawsuit was filed a year later (2010). Summary judgment was argued a year after that (2011). The case was tried the next year (2012). And as we approach the four-year anniversary of the event that triggered the lawsuit, we continue to patiently wait for the final verdict and judgment. One thing is certain: it will arrive this year. Stay tuned.

Santa Monica Nativity Group Files Appeal in 9th Circuit

Becker Law Firm — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:23:00 GMT

LOS ANGELES - Attorneys for a group responsible for exhibiting a 14-booth tableaux of Nativity scenes in Santa Monica, CA, every year is appealing a federal court decision dismissing the case. A notice of appeal was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

The Nativity scenes were displayed for 59 years in Palisades Park. A lawsuit was filed in response to the city's decision last July to permanently ban private displays in the park.

"A city can certainly have a policy that disallows private, unattended displays in a public park, but it cannot ban them on the basis of an unconstitutional rationale," said William J. Becker Jr., a First Amendment attorney and lead counsel for the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee. "In this case, the city feared that atheist groups would repeat their aggressive anti-Christian campaign every Christmas, adding strain on city staff processing applications to put up seasonal displays in the park. Rather than fight the unconstitutional bullying of the atheists, the city surrendered to their hostile tactics. The courts call that a 'heckler's veto,' and have said it is an unconstitutional reason for suppressing religious expression."

In 2011, the city implemented a controversial lottery system. That system led to disputes over the fairness of the new rules when lottery-winning atheist groups displayed signs and banners attacking Christian beliefs and left a full block within the park empty.

The Nativity Scenes group tried without success to stop the city from adopting its new policy. U.S. District Court Judge Audrey B. Collins sided with the city's argument that additional administrative burdens caused by the atheist groups justified the ban.

Becker stated that the court's decision turns the First Amendment on its head. "Imagine if the city decided to ban all public expression out of fear it would cause additional strain on its police services because a few groups wanted to stir trouble," Becker said. "The First Amendment exists specifically to safeguard such threats to protected speech activities, and the city's job is to protect the rights of those whose protected expression is targeted by unruly forces. We expect the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to get it."

The Becker Law Firm is being assisted in the case by co-counsel, the Pacific Justice Institute.

Documents:

Notice of Appeal

Representation Statement

Zero Transparency

Becker Law Firm CMS — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:29:00 GMT

The right to hold government accountable and to obtain unclassified information to keep it in check is fundamental to a healthy democracy. If Watergate taught us anything, it was that elected officials at every level are capable of wrongdoing. The Freedom of Information Act was conceived for the purpose of making government more transparent, and thus less prone to engage in deceptive practices.

Zero Dark Thirty is the Oscar-contending film about the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound by Navy SEALs, resulting in the death of the mastermind of 9/11. The Obama Administration consulted on the picture, resulting in direct cooperation between the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House and the film's directors and producers.

But how was such high-level cooperation between Hollywood and national security officials arranged? After all, the Pentagon has threatened Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette, writing under the pen name Mark Owen, with criminal charges for failing to have his bestselling book, "No Easy Day, cleared for publication by the Pentagon. I read the book, and the movie's depiction of the bin Laden raid tracks its narrative faithfully -- even though co-producers Katheryn Bigalow and Mark Boal reportedly did not rely on Bissonnette's account.

Why is this administration sharing classified national security secrets with Hollywood filmmakers and leaking information about the raid on the one hand while discrediting a military hero on the other?

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch sheds light on the duplicity of the Obama Administration's close relationship with Hollywood elites. There is a lot to read in the redacted documents the CIA has released and I haven't read it all yet, but consider this July 15, 2011, exchange between Bigalow (KB), Boal (MB) and CIA Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vicks (MV) concerning who the CIA would provide as a consultant able to divulge details of classified operations (with my emphasis):

MV: ... What I can't promise you really is [someone] at the [Department of Defense] senior level, whether I'll be [your contact] or if there will be a few others.... I've been told to do for you what [CIA Deputy Director and current Acting Director] Michael Morrell and others [have done], so that's what I'm going to try to do for you.... Now on the operators [i.e., military operations] side, Admiral McRaven and Admiral Olson do not want to talk directly, because it's just a bad -- their just concerned as commanders of the force and they're telling them all the time, don't you dare talk to anybody, that it's just a bad example if it gets out, even with all sorts of restrictions and everything.

MB: I'll take [REDACTED NAME] or someone like that.

MV: Well the basic idea is they'll make a guy available who was involved from the beginning as a planner; a SEAL Team 6 Operator and Commander.

MB: Are you talking about [REDACTED NAME]?

MV: A guy named [REDACTED NAME]. And so, he basically can probably give you everything you would want or would get from Adm. Olson or Adm. McRaven.

MB: That's dynamite - by the way.

KB: That's incredible!

MB: This is me happy.

MV: And so, he'll speak for operators and he'll speak for senior military commanders, because their all the same tribe and everything, and so you should get most of what you need from him. Now, again the reason Adm. Olson and Adm. McRaven didn't want to talk is this command conflict of interest. And the only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant, because same thing, he shouldn't be talking out of school, this at least, this gives him one step removed and he knows what he can and can't say, but this way at least he can be as open as he can with you and it ought to meet your needs and give you lots of color.

KB: Fabulous.

MB: That's dynamite.

MV: So we'll put you in touch with him or have him get in touch with you - at the end of this meeting. And whatever your schedule is we'll make that work, I just haven't had a chance to talk with him.

This is a scene depicting collusion between filmmakers and the government to reveal information commanding officers are prohibited from revealing. What is the identity of this rogue figure? We know from this exchange that:

(a) He is a male,

(b) He was involved from the beginning as a planner, a SEAL team operator and commander,

(c) He's part of the same "tribe" that includes the operational forces (SEAL team operatives) and senior commanders but apparently is not active military,

(d) The filmakers are genuinely impressed, and

(e) He cannot publicly reveal his identity because he knows he is "talking out of school." In its ordinary sense, the phrase "talking out of school" means that someone is talking about something they do not have knowledge about. Here, it sounds as if it is someone in the "tribe," who also is not military (at least not at that time).

The identity of the consultant is less an issue than the fact that his name is being withheld from the public. What possible basis could justify redacting his name? That is an issue Judicial Watch is likely to pursue zealously.

In revealing the lengths to which this Administration will go to conceal wrongdoing from the American public, the script for the making of Zero Dark Thirty may be just as thrilling as the film itself. Obama ran on a platform of transparency; his administration was to become the most transparent in history. Unfortunately, there is zero transparency in this administration.

New Law: Diverstiy In, Assimilation Out

Becker Law Firm CMS — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:01:00 GMT

A new law set to take effect the first day of the new year -- the Workplace Religious Freedom Act -- makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of religious attire. The law provides that religious dress and grooming qualify as protected religious observances. One commentator noted that "employees who wear any type of religious clothing … such as turbans, hijabs and yarmulkes, will be protected from discrimination and harassment."[1] Interestingly, the commentator makes no mention of Christian cross or crucifix necklaces or other Christian attire.

In Britain, two Christian women have been waging a legal battle to wear the Christian symbol to work. Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Shirley Chaplin, a National Health Services nurse, were both ordered by their employers to cover or remove their Christian necklaces. When Ewedia refused, she was placed on an unpaid leave of absence. Chaplin was moved to a clerical position and eventually fired.

The British government has taken the position that the wearing of the cross is not a requirement of the Christian faith and that no discrimination took place. The case, which is now before the European Court of Human Rights in Stasbourg, France, the seat of the European Parliament, will decide whether wearing a cross or a crucifix is a right protected under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Here in California, the new law ostensibly is meant to curb the type of discrimination occurring across the pond. But is it really concerned about Christians?

The old saying is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." Throughout America's history, immigrants came here seeking a better life than the life they had under oppressive and socialist regimes. They were more than willing to discard the cloaks of the past, and to put on the cloak of an American. They sought to speak English and assimilate into the American culture.

No longer. Today, the mass of humanity illegally pouring into the United States is bringing with it a Babel of languages, customs and cultural habits. One can picture turbans, hijabs, yarmulkes and headscarves proliferating in the workplace as word of the new law begins to spread.

The real goal of the new law in California is to discourage assimilation into an American culture the Left resents, a culture historically dominated by Anglo-Saxons, men, heterosexuals and Christians. This is what the Left calls its "commitment to diversity," promoting "multiculturalism" (many cultures). Excluded from the drive toward "inclusiveness" (a misnomer) are Anglo-Saxons, men, heterosexuals and Christians. The laws, or their equal enforcement, are tilted against maintaining the rights of those bearing these particular characteristics.

I look forward to the day when a Muslim is required to sit next to a Jew, both decked out in their respective religious garb, at work. It would be nice to see the lion lay down with the lamb. But I would also like to see Christians protected under the new law. I'm holding my breath.

If you intend to test the law with your employer by wearing a cross or crucifix to work, please contact The Becker Law Firm. We stand ready to protect your rights.

[1] Beth Zoller, "New California Laws Address Religious Discrimination, Accommodation and Tolerance," (9/13/2012, JDSupraLawNews).

Doonesbury on Nativity Scene Controversy

Becker Law Firm CMS — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:00 GMT

Gary Trudeau decided to use his Doonesbury comic strip to mock Christians over the Christmas holiday by summarizing the leftist and atheist position against the display of Nativity scenes on public property. I stopped reading the comic strip a long time ago, realizing I no longer found it to be funny. It is a strip that appeals to college kids coming of age, who haven't yet experienced life well enough to see the comic strip's simple-minded approach to the culture, religion and politics; the same kids who think Richard Brautigan, Jack Kerouac and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., are erudite. It also appeals to slow-thinking people on the left. But as I was flipping through the Calendar section of the L.A. Times, it caught my eye. Not only was it addressing the Nativity scene issue, but it seemed to be focused on the Santa Monica case in particular.

The series of comic strips, which ran from December 24-29, propagandizes the view that because Nativity scenes can be displayed on private property, they have no place on public property. One would expect Trudeau, who publishes his opinions without government censorship, to be against government censorship and supportive of the First Amendment. But when it comes to Christmas -- and Christianity -- Trudeau reveals his Marxist stripes.

Trudeau's addled position really means that Christians should not be allowed to enjoy the same First Amendment rights that everyone else enjoys -- the right of expression in a traditional public forum, such as a public park.

Trudeau is a wealthy capitalist who draws cartoons mocking capitalism, conservatism, Christianity and traditional values. A hypocrite of the highest order.

And, yes, Trudeau is a Christian bigot, a hate-monger, with a big cultural megaphone.

I can say these things because my opinion is protected under the First Amendment, just as Trudeau's disrespect for Christians during the Christmas season is protected speech, and just as celebrating the birth of Jesus in a public forum is protected speech.

Being a bigot, a hypocrite, an enemy of the First Amendment, a Marxist and an immature intellectual may get a few laughs at the expense of sincere people of the Christian faith and make Trudeau a wealthy man, but it won't have a lasting effect. After all, who reads Doonesbury anymore?

Christian Persecution

Becker Law Firm CMS — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:10:00 GMT

A 32-year-old Iranian who is a U.S. citizen and a Christian convert has been imprisoned without notice of any formal charges while visiting his family in Iran, according to his wife and attorneys in the U.S., who are now hoping that a media campaign will help set him free.

The Rev. Saeed Abedini, who lives in the U.S. with his wife and two young children, was making one of his frequent visits to see his parents and the rest of his family in Iran, his country of origin and where he spent many years as a Christian leader and community organizer developing Iran's underground home church communities for Christian converts.

On this last trip, the Iranian government pulled him off a bus and said he must face a penalty for his previous work as a Christian leader in Iran.

He is currently awaiting trial at Iran's notoriously brutal Evin Prison, where he has been incarcerated since late September.

"When he became a Christian, he became a criminal in his own country. His passion was to reach the people of Iran," Naghmeh, his wife, said in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

Merry CHRISTmas in Clover Park, Santa Monica

Becker Law Firm CMS — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:55:00 GMT

On Sunday, December 9, 2012, the Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee launched its 60th year of displaying its scenes in Santa Monica. Unfortunately, they are being displayed on private property for the first time. The good news is that the Watt Company on Ocean Park Boulevard provided the space in front of its building, where it is generating big crowds.

During ceremonies held in the adjacent Clover Park, Hunter Jameson, the Committee's chairman, and Joe Peterson, a friend of the Committee, honored me by presenting me with a plaque for my work representing the Committee and trying to retain the tradition in Palisades Park. I was happy to proclaim "Merry Christmas" in a Santa Monica public park and then listen to Christmas hymns sung by representatives of various local churchs who sponsor the Nativity scenes. The video of Hunter's and my remarks can be viewed here.

I want to wish everyone a Merry CHRISTmas! This is a season when we celebrate the birth of our Savior. It's okay to celebrate it with presents and parties, but always remember what our calendar is based on (hint: Christ's birth) and why it is so necessary to remain in faith.

God bless you, and ... one more time ... Merry CHRISTmas!!!

Bill Becker

Free Speech vs. Sound of Silence

Becker Law Firm CMS — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:54:00 GMT

A senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times quotes me today in his opinion piece appearing in that newspaper. You can read it here.

Newhall Seniors Allowed to Put up Christmas Tree

Becker Law Firm CMS — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:43:00 GMT

Two days ago, the Drudge Report headline linked to a Los Angeles Daily News story relating that the property management company for a senior living home in Newhall, California, north of Los Angeles, informed its elderly residents they could not put up a Christmas tree this year.

Needless to say, you shouldn't mess with the elderly. They came out swinging, and yesterday the property management company turned an about-face. Today's Daily News article, quoting The Becker Law Firm. tells how the story ends.

News of Newhall seniors protesting the removal of a Christmas tree from their community room this week because, they said they were told, it was a religious symbol prompted a national outcry -- a collective bah humbug from Christmas defenders.

It was, many said, another example of the so-called "war on Christmas" and political correctness run amok. Read more here.

LA Times Turns Down Op-Ed: Too Hard To Follow!

Becker Law Firm CMS — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:15:00 GMT

One day after publishing my views on the Santa Monica Nativity scene controversy in The Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times again rejected a separate op-ed piece I had offered it for publication.

I re-submitted the piece because of a personal attack on me in the Letters section of today's Times in which the letter-writer singled me out for attack:

"Attorney William J. Becker Jr.'s dissatisfaction with the relocation of the Santa Monica Nativity scene to easily accessible private land not far from the disputed location proves that his interest is not in ensuring that people will be able to view it if they choose, but in forcing his beliefs on others.

"Christmas is a strange time of year; otherwise reasonable people become bullies who believe everyone should enthusiastically celebrate their holiday."

Based on this attack on me, I thought it would be fair for the Times to run my piece, which presents a reasoned response to the constitutional ignorance of the author of the Times letter. So I offered it to them one more time. But the Times explained to me in an e-mail, they just don't understand it:

"We turned down your submission because we felt that your argument was hard to follow, and we already had a piece on the topic...."

I publish it now. Please leave a comment and tell me whether you agree with the Times. Is it hard to follow?

* * *

A Christmas Constitutional Primer

William J. Becker, Jr., Esq.

For the Los Angeles Times

A federal judge last week ended a longstanding right of atheist groups to erect displays each December in Santa Monica's Palisades Park critical of religion, religious expression within a public forum and the religious significance of Christmas. The atheist activists have located private property, where they will continue their tradition of heaping scorn on the religious faithful. "This is a violation of our First Amendment rights," said the group's leader. "A public park is a traditional public forum. Private property is no substitute for the right of all citizens to address matters of political concern in such a forum."

While it is a fact that a judge's order last week has had the effect of depriving atheist activists of their First Amendment free speech rights in Palisades Park, their outcry is pure fiction. Indeed, their stated goal was to eliminate the right to set up displays in the park—for sponsors of Nativity displays that is. No matter their expressive rights would be extinguished in kind. That was a hill they were willing to die on. What the group's leader actually told the New York Times was, if they were to "put up as many messages as the Christians had, there would be a backlash," and "he predicted that the city would cancel the December tradition altogether." (NY Times 12/11/2011).

When U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins tossed out my client's lawsuit, Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee vs. City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica's ban on "unattended private displays" in Palisades Park that went into effect this year for the first time in more than half a century was upheld as a valid restriction on private speech within a traditional public forum, a term applied to public parks, where courts have upheld "from ancient times" the public's right to engage in all manner of speech activity. That means that Santa Monica did not merely suppress the protected speech rights of Christians, but of atheists as well.

Writing to this newspaper, one supporter of the judge's decision expressed the sentiment that Christians alone do not enjoy the speech guarantees of the First Amendment: " [I]f the proponents of Nativity displays insist that they be on public property, then it is obvious that the goal is to promote Christianity, which is an unconstitutional use of public land." Such a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution cannot lightly be ignored.

The U.S Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette (1995). As such, '[r]eligious speakers have the same right of access to public forums as others." Widmar v. Vincent (1981).

This logic, along with the state of the law, appears lost on too many people. And of course Christians can try to sell their message on private property; everyone enjoys that right. But the availability of private property is no substitute for the abridgement of a constitutionally protected right to express one's views in a traditional public forum.

Not only do Christians enjoy the right to promote their faith in a public park, their Christmas traditions within a public setting are constitutionally protected.

In Van Orden v. Perry, a 2005 case, the high court stated resolutely that "we have not, and do not, adhere to the principle that the Establishment Clause bars any and all governmental preference for religion over irreligion." Indeed:

"When the state … cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups…. [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

The message the activists succeeded in robbing from the citizens of Santa Monica is one Christians have told and retold for thousands of years. There were shepherds abiding in a field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord came to them, bringing "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people," praising God and wishing peace on earth and good will toward men.

For the first time in 59 years, this message will not be told through the medium of what some have called a "tacky" display of store shop mannequins. But the message of peace and good will those tacky displays were designed to share with everyone will not be so easily erased from the hearts of those who remember the true meaning of Christmas or a time when the citizens of Santa Monica could look upon them with charitable souls rather than with bitter feelings of religious intolerance and erroneous constitutional assumptions.

___

*William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm, in Los Angeles, California, represents the Plaintiff in Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee vs. City of Santa Monica, a case he is about to appeal to the 9th Circuit.