LANSING—As winter approaches, the holiday season is just around the corner, which means three things—crowded malls, maxed-out credit cards and controversy regarding religious displays on public property.

The tension over holiday-themed religious displays on government property and other public places has seemingly become an annual tradition along with carolers and fake Santa Clauses.

The debate is nationwide and Michigan is no exception, with plenty of such disputes in the last several years.

Jim Hong, director of the Mid-Michigan Atheists and Humanists in East Lansing, said he has no problem with people displaying religious scenes or symbols—as long as it’s at their own home.

“It’s their right to do whatever they want on their property,” Hong said. “We have no problem with private worship, but when it’s state-supported, it crosses the line.”

In fact, some Michigan controversies have involved private property, too.

For example, two years ago a Novi family was ordered to remove a nativity scene from their front yard. Their neighborhood association said it was in violation of its policies and could offend residents who didn’t share their religious beliefs or celebrate Christmas.

The vast majority of complaints involved religious symbols like the menorah and the nativity scene displayed on public land—usually government buildings such as city halls or courthouses.

Such is the case in Berkley, where last year city officials voted to removed a prominent nativity scene—including baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph—that had been a fixture outside the city hall, along with a star of David and other holiday decorations, for more than 20 years.

Under threat of a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, the city removed the religious elements from the display and let religious institutions around the city use them.

But some Berkley residents wishing to re-instate the display went on the offensive, led by 37-year-old Georgia Halloran, who helped collect more than 900 signatures to force a city-wide vote to be held Nov. 6.

“Nearly a thousand of us who live inBerkley signed thepetition that putkeeping our nativity scene on the ballot, and now over a hundred Berkley residents have felt stronglyenough about voting 'yes' to contribute financially,"Halloran said.

"It's clear that citizensof Berkley feel strongly about voting 'yes' to keepour nativity where it's traditionally been andsaying that those of us who actually live hereget to decide, notACLU grinches from Detroit,” she said.

The election will be a strict “yes” or “no” vote. At stake: the right of city hall to have a large holiday display with religious symbols as well as secular decorations.

Michael Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan, said the constitutionality of the displays depends upon whether it appears that the government is promoting one religion over another or encouraging religion over non-religion.

“The display will ultimately be deemed constitutional if the theme is promoting the holidays, not religion,” Steinberg said.

Previous disputes seem to provide hope for Halloran and her supporters. In 2006, the Southfield City Council voted 6-1 in favor of displaying both a nativity scene and a menorah at city hall to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a nativity scene on public property is constitutional under certain conditions. In 1990, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in nearby Clawson, saying the city could continue including a nativity scene in its holiday displays.

The debate over separating church and state can be traced back to the First Amendment to the Constitution. Its Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting any kind of religion. The Establishment Clause remains the cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s rulings in such disputes.

Richard Myers, a law professor at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, said the Supreme Court has made it clear that displays that contain only religious decorations are unacceptable.

“The constitutionality tends to turn on the religious intensity of the display,” Myers said. “If it’s solely religious, the court rules it as a violation of the Establishment Clause—government promoting religion. But when the government displays both religious and secular symbols celebrating the holiday, the Supreme Court stays out.”

Among the cities that include a nativity scene in their seasonal decorations are Troy, Madison Heights, Birmingham and Warren. The ACLU has not attempted to force the removal of those city’s religious displays because they have secular symbols as well, Steinberg said.

“These other cities have complied with the restrictions of the Supreme Court—Birmingham actually created an open forum in their public park where anyone—even atheists—can get a (permit) to create any display they want, religious or otherwise,” Steinberg said.

Steinberg said the ACLU isn’t opposed to religion and argued that the organization has the right to get involved because Berkley’s display has been promoting religion over non-religion.

“When people drive by and only see a nativity scene and a massive star of David, how do they feel if they’re not of those two religions?” he said. “It makes those people feel like outsiders in their own community.”

Even if the ballot proposal in Berkley passes, some Christians and Jews may take issue with the religious portions of the display being undermined by secular symbols.

“Many church people think that putting Rudolph next to a nativity scene trivializes religion,” Steinberg said.

Ave Maria’s Myers agreed, saying, “Some towns have ridiculous displays that have a nativity scene with Santa’s elves peering over the manger.

“Some people think the secular aspects cheapen the religious aspect because the Supreme Court only allows it if the religious element is being downplayed,” Myers said.

A December 2005 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life national poll that asked whether the display of Christmas decorations should be allowed on government property.

Eighty-one percent of the 1,502 people responding said “yes.” Eleven percent said “no,” with the remaining 8 percent saying they either don’t know or don’t care. Of the 81 percent who said “yes,” 44 percent said it was alright for the Christmas decorations to be displayed by themselves, while the other 27 percent said it was appropriate only if other religions were represented as well.

Steinberg said the ACLU plans to challenge the decision in Berkley if the citizens approve the ballot initiative on Nov. 6.