Claremont
“It is abhorrent. It is not very Christian behavior,” Sam Killay said on Monday about comments left on his wife’s Facebook page.
Killay, who has his own private Facebook account, said his page is hard to find because he does not use his full name.
In one example, a post on his wife’s page said, “ ‘He is going to swallow his teeth,’ ” Killay said, adding that his wife also has received harassing instant messages and been called names. Another threatening post received 250 likes, he said.
“She doesn’t deserve any of that,” Killay said, emphasizing that the complaint is his alone. “She is not part of (what I am doing) and is even against some of what I am asking for (from the council.)”
On Tuesday, Killay said his wife planned to go to police to file a report.
Killay, who is an atheist, moved to Claremont in 2011 and said he was immediately offended by the religious displays in the park during the holidays and has thought about seeking their removal for a while. Last week, during the citizens’ comment portion of the City Council meeting, he asked the council to remove a creche, or nativity scene, and a menorah that are part of the Broad Street Park holiday display, which also includes colored lights and Christmas trees.
“This, to me, has every appearance of an official endorsement of religion, which is a clear violation of the principle of the separation of church and state,” Killay told the council.
He said the two represented faiths indicate a bias on the part of the city, which instead should be neutral.
“The city doesn’t have to do this,” Killay told the council. “I am asking this council to demonstrate respect for our nation’s values by removing inappropriate and partisan religious displays from our public land.”
Ian Smith, an attorney with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., said religious symbols on public land during the holidays can avoid First Amendment challenges if they appear as a unifying display with secular symbols.
Though he has not seen the Claremont display, based on the description given to him — with the creche and menorah on one side of the park and the Christmas trees and wooden soldiers some distance away — Smith said it could be considered a violation. He said a “unifying display,” with both religious and nonreligious symbols grouped together, is usually not seen as a First Amendment violation.
“It sounds like it is not a unifying display (in Claremont),” Smith said in a phone interview on Tuesday.
At last week’s council meeting, resident and former City Manager Robert Porter urged the council to look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in 1984 in a Pawtucket, R.I., case that ruled a creche was allowed in the city’s shopping district. On Tuesday, Smith said the reasoning in that case was based on the unifying principle.
“There was a Santa Claus, a giant reindeer, a ton of stuff right in the same display as the creche,” Smith said of the Pawtucket case. “If it is more spread out and the religious displays have a focus, it is more of a problem.”
If the city fails to honor his demand, the 36-year-old Killay, who said he was raised in a religious household but abandoned those beliefs in college, plans to apply for permission to erect satanic symbols in the park.
What those would look like, Killay isn’t sure — he said he has some ideas but has not fully thought them through. He said his goal would be that they be as “objectionable” as he finds the creche and menorah.
He also is not sure whether he will pursue his demands through legal action.
“Let’s just see what the City Council does, and I will decide after that,” Killay said.
Ideally. though, Killay said he hopes it doesn’t come to that and that the city will agree to donate the displays to private owners who would find a site for them. He mentioned the lawn in front of the Trinity Episcopal Church, across from Broad Street Park, as one possibility. His suggestion that the display be put somewhere besides the park has been met with staunch opposition, Killay said.
“They absolutely have to be there (in the park),” he said of the reaction.
It is possible the council will not make a decision before the holidays have passed and the displays have been taken down. The next full council meeting is on Jan. 9.
Three councilors — Assistant Mayor Allen Damren, Claire Lessard and Jonathan Stone — all said this week they would not vote to remove the displays.
“I think they should be left there and we should encourage other churches to put up displays,” Lessard said.
Councilors Jeremy Zullo, Nick Koloski, Scott Pope and Mayor Charlene Lovett said they would reserve their decision until the council discusses the issue, while councilors Andrew O’Hearne and Abigail Kier did not respond to messages seeking comment.
“At the moment the City Council is gathering facts and information, and will hear more information,” Pope said in an email. “I realize that we are not the only community that has had to consider this issue, as Durham (N.H.) has also been in the news this year for a similar situation. I look forward to the process of coming up with a policy that supports our community in a positive way.”
Killay said he will wait to see what the council decides before taking his next step.
“I’m trying to give the council the benefit of the doubt here,” Killay said. “I think I am asking very little. Let’s just put them somewhere else.”
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
Correction
The Claremont City Council next meets on Wednesday, Jan. 9. An earlier version of this story included an incorrect date for its next scheduled meeting.
