Written by Barbara Smith,
Blogger and Social Justice Activist
https://www.facebook.com/HWdemocrats/
My comments are in purple
The following is a transcript of the taxpayer funded waste of time the Hamilton Select Board (SB) spent pushing for commemorative flag flying (end goal: religious flags on town property).
Please click on video below to view Hamilton Select Board Meeting 6-21-22
Hamilton Select Board 6.21.22 – YouTube
Beginning at approximate 1 hour 6 minutes, the Board approved displaying commemorative flags on town property with all the decision making to be at the whim of the faith based officials.
However, the SB is not meant to have all this power
over the legislators (the voters) for whom they work; they are supposed to execute what the citizen/legislators vote on at Open Town Meeting. This is an overt religious power grab in order to give them such power over the citizens they are supposed to SERVE. They settled on a non-policy which means they can do what they want…..They assume they have powers they do not have…..Our current Select Board is doing away with separation of church and state….
A little background…..
- The Select Board changed the language from stricter language to looser language. This is so they can do what they want with no penalty and no roadblocks and no questions. They also confirmed that citizens can approach a SB member and ask them to put their flag request on the agenda with no guarantees that they will…..and it will all depend upon the whims of whomever is on the SB at the time. The earlier language was much tighter and did not allow for this kind of shenanigans. So, there really is no policy; it is all on the SB personalities and their political and religious leanings….so in a way, their “policy” is NO POLICY. I think it is disgusting and dangerous. It’s whatever they feel like doing that day – or not….. THIS IS THEOCRATIC AUTHORITARIANISM!
- Jack Davis is a well-respected long time resident and …..a theology professor affiliated with Gordon Seminary and possibly the College . Mr. Davis is known to be of the mind that you have to be FAIR and you cannot curry favor or fear. I think he is afraid that religious institutions will lose their non-tax status AND their credibility once religions get involved with politics. We still have the separation of Church and State in Massachusetts.
Resident Jack Davis speaks:
Speaker: Jack Davis: I appreciate this opportunity to just make a few comments, questions and possible suggestion as the board considers the proposed flag policy. My first concern did involve section 2.2. I think that has already been addressed. I think prior to the change there omitting those words prohibiting apparently members of the public to be considered that certainly did maybe strike a naïve reader as being non-inclusive and non-democratic so I think that that concern has been alleviated and I suppose that the intent of section 2.2 as amended with that language dropped again it’s assumed that a town citizen is free to speak to a member of the board or a town committee with a suggestion that that is not prohibited that that’s the intent … Okay well, that that was my first concern that there was possible ambiguity about the intent of the original language. Now, perhaps a little bit more sticky…I have a suggestion on section 2.7 a – and of course, this relates to some of the complexities of the first amendment separation of church and state law and so forth but what I would like to suggest here is simply a minor tweak with a possible suggestion if the board might wish to consider this and take action at a subsequent meeting but my worry here is that the existing language of a “religious movement” or endorsement of religion is somewhat vague and perhaps too broad and might exclude activities or forms of government speech that the board doesn’t really intend to exclude, now to be specific here for example, I think the meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance to the flag and part of that pledge was well we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States the republic for which it stands one nation under god, okay now the word “god” of course is I think religious language but I think it’s well understood that that part of the pledge are also the words in “in god we trust” which are printed on every piece of paper money in the United State and and every coin does not represent an endorsement of religion as its prohibited because I think you know Constitutional history shows that the first amendment saying that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion really meant that the state was not to favor one particular religious sect or denomination in other words the town of Hamilton did not favor Roman Catholics over Baptist or Episcopalians or Unitarians or Atheists or whatever here but should be neutral toward religion and not prohibit any public mention of either a word or a symbol, okay, that would have religious connotations. That’s really too broad. Now again, just to pose a hypothetical suppose you know for example , Suppose that the Hamilton Human Rights Commission in view of the application of the nations of Sweden and Finland to become members of NATO , a move which is being pushed back by Russia , but suppose the human rights commission said well, “we’d like the town of Hamilton to fly the flag of Finland or Sweden here to support solidarity. In terms , it so happens that the flags of Finland and Sweden actually have a cross, Okay, which historically is associated with the Christian religion, but is not meant to be gatekeeper of flags that are chosen to be flown on town property . So just a little tweak here, instead, of saying “religion” or “religious movement” to say a particular religion to use the word “denomination. I think would be more accurate and less ambiguous language so I would offer that suggestion and hope that the board might consider it either at this meeting or for final consideration at the subsequent meeting. Thank you very much .
All of this tax funded, religious talk does NOT belong in the government, public sphere.
It’s more like they have the power and the default for residents such as myself, is- we can complain as opposed to having the SB discuss possible flags flown to see if any one objects. The 5 member Morality Police want to decide which flags get accepted and which get rejected so that they can push their religious agenda. Hamilton is controlled by relentless church people with no regard for the importance of the separation of church and state . Christian Nationalists are in force in this Town and are trying to coerce the citizens to accept their theocracy…..it starts out so small, and so quiet, and every time someone speaks out against theocracy, they will be attacked until no one is left to speak.
Bill Olsen (SB member) James, I’ve got no issue with changing “movement” to “denomination”. But, I’m not sure there’s other legal implications to that so I’d refer to the two lawyers on the board.
Jamie Knudsen (SB Member): yeah, I would, uh, I’d recommend leaving it the way it is in a sense , I , yeah, so that I guess (chuckles) um and without trying to address everything that Dr. Davis said , um, I don’t think the word “denomination” really… I guess to the extent that it would change it , I don’t know. denomination is more like a particular sect, right of a religion and while that’s true , I think it needs to be a broader statement than that so that we are not, so that it is not perceived as flying such a flag would be perceived as endorsing religion , generally. so, I think movement is a broader term and it should be that way. I don’t think there’s anything in here that indicates that we are discriminating against religion and the free exercise of it.
Mr. Knudsen wants to use the term “religious movement” rather than “denomination”
because the term “religious movement” is vague and empowers cults such as the Hamilton Wenham Human Rights Coalition to claim legitimacy. The HWHRC is a faith-based, political lobby 501 (c) (4) that takes “dark monies” to promote their religious agenda, including supporting candidates loyal to the Coalition.
Sean Farrell : All right, fair enough. Any other comments?
Tosh Blake: resident: I guess I have a question related to what Jack was bringing up about you striking some language about making requests to the board.. so you’re not eliminating that from people who are outside I assume say a committee in town , is that correct?
Sean: correct
Tosh: so what would the procedure be if say someone either at a public forum like this or through private communication made a formal request to the board would you be compelled to discuss it at a meeting and or you know check that request out , I suppose a discussion of their request and a vote yes or no like I think you did do that recently, the pride flag and some other flags . I assume that means you would have to have a meeting about it rather than a summary decision by maybe the chair. I don’t know what your procedure would be on that. But I think that might maybe should be hashed out – as far as a part of the policy just so it’s not ambiguous or mysterious for the general public.
Bill : I thought it’s pretty clear but I think that yeah there’s how many there’s 20 boards and committees in town , something like that so if any one of them come we have to have a public hearing and talk about it.
Tosh, OK, but you did see you struck language that made it more explicit that a general member of the public
Joe D (town manager) : process, so basically as Mr. Davis asked if he during a private conversation with one of the other select board members asked if uh, you know, the board would consider that a select member could offer to bring it up to the board and be discussed in an open session.
Tosh: ok, at the discretion of that board, yeah okay so there’s no automatic sort of procedure for handling it. its sort of at the whim of the person that was requesting.
Joe: I think it’s largely going to be dependent on the Select Board members the Select members uh, per this uh for this policy would be the ones to determine and basically by what the Supreme Court ruled would be the ones that determine government speech. So they’ll be the ones that determine what flies and they’ll be the ones that determine if they accept somebody’s request or not .
The Supreme Court seeks to destroy the wall separating church and state….
We can no longer assume that the Supreme Court with 3 new, arch conservative judges, chosen by a twice impeached president wants separation of church and state. Two of the judges ( Gorsuch and Barrett) were put in power using illegal mechanisms. Two of the judges (Kavanaugh and Thomas) are recognized rapists and Thomas’ wife worked to promote insurrection. This court has no validity despite their illegal power grab and unethical behaviors. Hamilton can and should honor the constitution, the separation of church and state despite the Supreme Court Religious Right agenda. The current extremist Supreme Court has already destroyed women’s rights to bodily autonomy, next will come making birth control a crime, followed by ending the rights of Gay Marriage….
Just as the United States Congress needs to protect us from religious extremists by codifying Roe….
It is a no-brainer that Hamilton needs to establish that the US, MA and POWMIA flags need to be codified as the only government sponsored flags flown on town property, so that we can avoid litigation and it is the only ethical thing to do for the citizens.
The Constitution needs amendments to address social justice, not destroyed as Ann Siedzik wants.
Tom Myers : I don’t think we wanted to discourage the public from speaking with their elected officials and bringing ideas and comments and such and I think that sentence may have done that by discouraging them from bringing that to a select board member and say “I really want you to fly this” and then this particular flag and that select board member agreed they could then bring that to the bigger audience. So I think there’s an avenue right there’s never the public to be involved. It just has to go through a board.
Requiring the public to bring flag suggestions to the SB for discussion means that
the board members can push the faith based, political lobby HWHRC agenda by simply ignoring the resident , such as myself who disapproves of religious symbols on government property. I could go out and purchase an atheist flag to counterbalance the Christian flag, but I really don’t want to push any agenda or waste time and money doing that. I simply do not want religious flags on town property and wasting taxpayer money discussing this.
Tosh: ok , thanks
The vote PASSED 4-0.
Possible Solutions to this blatant destruction of the wall separating church and state:
Since the religious extremists in Hamilton insist on creating this crisis here is a suggestion: citizens’ petitions are the legal and correct political mechanisms by which we control the Board. We can start a citizens’ petition that will codify only the US and MA and POWMIA flags can be flown at our Town Hall because they represent all of us. This is just one check and a balance against a rogue board. Checks and balances are the undergirding of our democratic republic. No one talks about them as much as we should….and the more checking and balancing that we employ, the better the outcome for the people. It’s a balancing act as there will always be “tension” between differing views, but with our form of self-government, we have all the tools we need to root out corruption and power-hungry self-dealers. It’s in our Town of Hamilton bylaws on how to get an article on the warrant if the SB refuses…..and it works. Only need 10 signatures (but the more the merrier) to submit as a warrant article. They assume they have powers they do not have……the legislators in Hamilton created our bylaws and the legislators (us, voters) still do, it’s just a matter of organizing, collecting signatures and submitting to Carin our Town Clerk. Then it goes to the Board and they are supposed to put it on the warrant for Town Meeting and the people speak.
A Last Word…..
To clarify: A “movement” case is a political-religious rising up; a “denomination” is a way of saying “formally recognized, organized, mainstream religions”; atheism is neither- but Mr. Davis seems to acknowledge atheism – even though it is neither a “movement” nor a denomination. Religious “movements” are amorphous – for plausible deniability purposes – and movements include sectarianism (religious sects), and cults; and the term “movements” is a gray area that the IRS has not discovered…..yet. It’s all about semantics with these religious pushers…. They are seeking loopholes to exploit . The goal is to infiltrate every sector of society and politics and to siphon off as much public money as possible into their the church pockets through use of private nonprofits such as the Hamilton Wenham Human Rights Coalition. Maybe they don’t care if churches lose their nonprofit status because they found a loophole that works for them. This is the work of Christian Nationalists.
Select Board member Jamie knudsen wants to overtly bring religion into the Town Square. When first elected he wanted a Gordon student to serve on the Affordable Housing Trust – but he got in on a 3-2 vote (Rosemary Kennedy and Darcy Dale voted No) No other Towns or cities in the area allow transients living in college dorms to be placed in positions of power or influence in any local municipality and this was a conflict of interest as the student’s landlord was Gordon Seminary and he depended on them for his housing and education….. He lasted 6 months.