Even in Old Testment people did not believe God’s account of creation.

Who does the government think they are to limit this to ten displays?  If we keep the displays small, we could get 20 to 30 displays on the courthouse grounds.  And if that is not enough room or if we want bigger displays, why not find a second piece of government property for the overflow?  There are so many religions - why venerate only ten of them?  It is totally unnecessary to limit this to ten religions given the amount of government owned property.  Limiting it to ten automatically excludes countless religions.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Religious symbols / decorations have NO BUSINESS on the grounds of a Governmental Institution.

Remember SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE…...???!!!

Algenon,
We are NOT a democracy, we are a republic.

nightowl, you can certainly “argue” that one’s gravestone is personal property, but it is in a National Cemetary (and have we changed the law to secure ownership after death?) so I don’t know how far you’d get with that.

“We are more sensitive now”—that may be why many more symbols are acknowledged in places like Arlington.

Another interpretation of your words can be agreed with too:  many of us are extremely sensitive.  Everything offends, bothers, annoys, causes psychological damage to, inflames, harms, abuses, etc ad nauseam.

As the lady said, don’t look if it bothers you.

That’s “tolerance”, by the way.

Tolerance means to respect (and ALLOW) others their differences.  Their difference doesn’t harm you by existing, even if you disagree with it.

“More sensitive” isn’t always a good thing, if we are ALL to practice tolerance, instead of just be preached at by the very personally sensitive.

The display in the courtyard has been a part of Loudoun County for a long time.  It belongs in the courtyard just as it always has year to year. Easy solution, if you don’t want to see it, don’t look at it.  Turn your head the other way, just like you are doing the hungry children in this world. You are wasting time and money fighting over this display that could be making a difference to a childs life. If, you don’t like Loudoun County traditions, then move out of it.  If you want to stay, then shut up and live our way.

As I see it, private individuals and businesses are free to put up whatever symbols of whatever holidays or religions they want to on their own property. The courthouse belongs to “all the people” as a whole, and as a symbol of and residence of the government it is not a place where any individual religious symbols should be displayed.

I’m thrilled to see each of us celebrate our own traditions and heritage and beliefs, but not under the auspices of or with the imprimatur of the government. (As for Arlington, I can argue that one’s gravestone on one’s grave is personal property.)

Let there be many nativities and menorahs and Christmas trees and Kwanzaa symbols erected, just not on the courthouse grounds.  We used to do it, yes, but we are more sensitive now.

Come on Ed.  Don’t point that out.  Now Kenny C. and Rev. Bob are going to try and change that Article to reflect their wishes.  It is way too protective of the minority.

Here’s a thought: since we ARE a democracy, let’s put it to a vote.  Majority wins.  End of discussion.

Stop all this arguing. It is unnecessary and unhealthy. This type of anger and hatefulness is a mockery to all religions.

old world charm - what is that? What ‘old world’ is Leesburg supposed to look like? London, Barcelona, Prague, Istanbul, Athens, Constantinople, Shang-hai, Sparta?? It looks like an 18th century American urban area, that is encroached upon by modernity and surrounded by schlock mass-produced residences. It’s sole goal should be to prosper economically in whatever vision those who govern over it decide.

Separation of Church and state is a way we can all get along.  The Constitution gives government no authority over religion. Article VI, does allow persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office and was adopted by a unanimous vote. But Jefferson observed that the American people built a “wall of separation between church and state.” His words.  And in fact the Constitution refers to religion only twice – in the First Amendment, which bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and in Article VI, which prohibits “religious tests” for public office. Keep religion out of any place where one is to go for a fair trial - like a court house- and leave it at that.

It appears to me that, the few who have the ear of Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller are speaking a lot, and they are saying, support my view, and get rid of religions expression.  And, add the following, do it in a way that will make you look noble.  So, these Board members spout a line about not wanting to offend, and the need for court ground security.  What a game.  But all should remember the ballot box next November, and vote out Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller

KLB forgets about the 14th amendment that applies fundamental rights such as freedom of religion to the states, too. 

For the religious freedom deniers, Article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights is more explicit than the federal constitution what separation of church and state means for citizens.

see legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm

The source of conflict here is between the right of religious free expression versus the right to not have government favor one sect over another.  In civil rights the interests of the minority always outweight the interests of the majority because the majority always have the ballot box to represent their interests.

In this case the biggest concern is religious favoritism and not that the county prohibits religious expression.

Can’t we just have the lovely Christmas tree back on the Court House grounds? 
The value of Leesburg’s old world charm, tradition, and common sense seem to be seriously lacking in this mindless debate.  It makes me sad.  If only we had left well enough alone?

And you, as well. I certainly haven’t mastered it either, but appreciate your reminders of where our hearts should be. Thank you.

1 Thessalonians 5:17 instructs us to:

“Pray without ceasing.”

If more time was spent on prayer and less time on arguing, pointing fingers, and vilifying one another, God’s power would be revealed and your hearts would be opened.  I haven’t mastered praying without ceasing, but I will pray for you tonight.  May God bless you all.

You really have to focus more on the second part of the sentence, “... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Not only were the founding fathers concerned about a governmental church; they were also concerned that government would try to hinder other religions and religious belief.  In this case, it seems clear that the Board of Supervisors is about to violate the second portion of that provision.  And like the Second Amendment, when many argued that, of course, it only applied to a militia, they got a rude awakening when the Supreme Court said it as to be broadly construed.

I remember when this town was a sensable town full of regular good thinking people. Look what has moved into our community. You power hungry self proclamed leaders of the community get over yourselves. This notion of the seperation of Church and State is concocted by agenda driven wackos,as you can see it is in full swing leave it alone. Religious persicution drove people to this country and forged something grand. It has been under attack ever since. You people make me sick.

Nancy, you said, and I quote “Separation of church and state. No further discussion is required.” Please show me that in the constitution, try though you may you can’t do it, for a very simple reason, it doesn’t say that. The first amendment says, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Anyone who ever studied the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founding fathers knows that the reason for this amendment is that part of the reason for the exodus from England was the Kings insistence on a state religion. This endless use of the statement about separation of church and state appears nowhere in the constitution and taken literally the first amendment would allow for states to form a state religion because the amendment only applies to congress. Where I stand on this issue is irrelevant in this discussion, my point is that too many people make statements such as this assuming that it is a statement based on constitutional fact when it is only a statement made by somebody a few decades ago that is now being taught as fact when in reality it is not.

That’s fine if they take down ALL the religious nonsense stuff.  Just be sure they leave Santa Claus though; my kids would be heartbroken without the real bastion of the Christmas season!

Mr. W, the Board of Supervisors knows exactly what it is doing.  Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller have an agenda on this one, and its visible from a mile away.  Some people love to be in elected office, because it gives them the power to put into action their personal beliefs.  That seems to be what is happening here, with Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller.

Mr. Kolker, whether or not a religion is “recognized” by some powers that be can be very significant to members of the “minority” religions mentioned.

Don’t know if you recall a few years ago, when a family of a fallen soldier sought to have symbols meaningful in Wiccan practice carved on a headstone at Arlington.

That belief system was “recognized” and policy was changed for the first time in a long long time.

The veteran (and any other whose family requests the same) has the symbol of their own belief at Arlington cemetary, and it isn’t a cross or a Star of David.

Many more symbols are allowed now at Arlington, and it is because of recognition by bodies as mundane as yes, the IRS, among others.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

I find it interesting that some people think whether or not the IRS has recognized a religion constitutes its legitimacy.  I didn’t know the IRS was that popular!

I wish Barbara Munsey would get another hobby. The only thing she generates is negative energy. Where are the spirits of Christmas Past, Present, & Yet To Come when you really need them? (Thanks for everything you do, Mr. Weintraub.)

1 Thessalonians 5:17 instructs us to:

“Pray without ceasing.”

If more time was spent on prayer and less time on arguing, pointing fingers, and vilifying one another, God’s power would be revealed and your hearts would be opened.  I haven’t mastered praying without ceasing, but I will pray for you tonight.  May God bless you all.

David, you’ve posted many things, including the “bullseye!”  affirmation of and expansion on the white christian bigot theme.

My personal opinion on the grounds committee is that it could be a money saver to disband it, particularly if they are yearly pursuing a policy of reduction.

I think it would be nice if displays could continue, and include not only serious representations of beliefs involving faith and/or no faith, and yes that would mean we’d have to welcome the onanism of the attention seekers too.

And, as my daughter said on that subject, “anyone is free to be an ass, and anyone is free to think that’s exactly what they’re being”.

It is a shame that a few have to belabor points that may seem pointless to many but themselves (and it is indeed a pointless point if it still has to be explained in detail a year later, Mr. Myers), but free speech doesn’t always make people comfortable, does it?

I think that Jesus Christ wants us to get past this and focus on his teachings which are much more thoughtful, loving and life affirming than this angry discussion.

Jesus wept.

Well, that makes zero sense.

First, it was Mr. Delgaudio who insisted that the motion setting the current policy be amended so that the board *must* reconsider and vote on the policy on a regular basis. Why? I believe it’s because he thrives on a climate of anger and fear, when the community is divided against itself. Just my opinion, of course.

Secondly, have you seen anyone, on any forum, suggesting that voting one way or the other is going to be politically useful for Democratic supervisors? I haven’t - but I have seen Republican activists talking about how they plan to use it as a campaign issue.

While we’re on the topic, I wish you would explain to me why so much anger is being directed at the grounds committee. They have also been falsely accused of being “anti-Christian,” when as far as I am aware they never objected to the creche and Christmas tree for the 20 or so years they decorated the courthouse grounds; it was only after they were joined by other faith traditions that an objection surfaced. You would think, just given that information, that the minority faiths should be the ones to be suspicious. Yet I have never made that accusation and have not once heard anyone from any other faith community make that accusation. I find that significant.

I confess, I like Christmas trees, and creches, and menorahs. I like learning about other people. I would honestly like to see us have a public space that could be decorated with something community-building and joyful, instead of what we have now: A collection of individuals extremely ready to tell each other they shouldn’t be there, saying whatever they are saying. Can we get past this? Does anyone else want to?

If this was not about members of the Board of Supervisors trying to turn this into political gain, I don’t know what it is.  This is all about politics.  Clearly, Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller believe that, for some reason I do not understand, this is good for their political futures, or, they fear people like Mr. Weintraub, and see themselves having no political future is he, and his group, will not back Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller.  So, to claim that others are trying to turn this into a political saga, and deny that Mr. W, and his group are not, is just dishonest.

“[T]he only people supporting display are false-victim white christian bigots.”

Not by any means, and that’s a smear both of me and of many people making a perfectly legitimate argument in favor of a public forum where all displays are welcome. As I’ve said here, and in my comment on the post you cite, the Welches, the couple who have erected the creche every year, don’t seem to have any of the animus toward minority faiths or interest in exploiting the issue for political gain that I’ve pointed out in others, and there are many people like them.

Here’s another quote from my own post on the topic: “..whether the board should vote to allow all displays or none on county property is a matter on which people can reasonably disagree.”

Again, we see Mr. W trying to turn this topic into a crusade for his anti organized religion views.  The testimonial about him, also certainly does not ring with any real conviction, only convenience.  Mr. W’s continued effort to enlarge this whole topic into his world view, continues to be typical of him,  and disappointing.

David, is this latest a variant of “they heard it on (insert talk radio commentator here)”?

Who here is telling Muslims they aren’t American?

More diversion.

It does not address your own assumptions and concurrence with statements that the only people supporting display are false-victim white christian bigots.

Good for you for being an interfaith tolerance worker.

What does tolerance of diversity mean?

Maybe accepting things with which you personally do not agree or practice, but respect the freedom of others to do?

I think we’ve got a bit of a mote/beam thing going on here, but just IMO.

(side note:  if the courthouse grounds are too fragile and historic a place for static displays over the holidays, will they still be providing a venue for warm weather concerts, with electronic equipment, etc?  What if some people don’t like the artists, or kind of music being played?  Not that we need to be consistent or anything!)

Mr. Myers, is your display this year saluting the Jedi?

Will you be suing if you aren’t allowed to place it?

Keep us posted, and thanks for dropping in.

Expression is what defines religion and by limiting the quantity and types of expression government influences religious thought.  Telling citizens that there is a limit of 10 acceptable way to publicly celebrate religion in December has a more chilling effect on religious freedom than allowing no tax-payer funded religious displays at all. 

The 12 Days of Xmas satire from last year was purely political expression and had no religious component at all.  It was written to celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights. The only connection to religion is that it protested the “Reason for the Season” cultural warriors who misguidedly and for political purposes destroy Christmas by forcing a crass public consumerism onto what should be a personal and family religious celebration.

Wow. Thank you, Hmmm. Just thank you.

Unsurprisingly, Barbara left out some important parts to what I was responding to in her quotations, namely a national climate in which Muslims are being told that they are not Americans and have no religious freedom that “we” are bound to respect. I hear this view promoted on the radio every day. That is, unfortunately, the context in which this conversation is taking place.

Not that it is going to change the mind of anyone who has already made up their mind, but, Weintraub has been a local leader in the area of interfaith understanding - working with Christians, Jews, Sikhs, B’hais, Muslims, Quakers, Unitarians and many other faith communities.  He is at the forefront of interfaith tolerance and understanding in Loudoun.  Because of his passion for this work he has earned the respect of all of these faith communities.  If for other reasons you dislike him, that is your business.  But you are simply wrong about him in this regard.

Weintraub aside, totally faith loving people can honestly disagree about the issue of displays on the courthouse grounds.  It doesn’t mean that the one side is anti-religion or the other side is pro-religion.  There is another layer that focuses on free speech rights/relgious expression rights that makes it a more complicated discussion. But given the longstanding tradition of Christian/Christmas displays, one would hope that we could look to Jesus’s teachings for guidance in terms of how we treat each other during these discussions.  Love, compassion, charity, forgiveness, etc - would that we all could find a bit more of this in our hearts.

David, I hope you too enjoy this lovely day.

I see you reiterate a refusal to “meekly accept domination by the cultural majority”, which, while milder than the follwoing:

“It is tempting to roll our eyes at the crazy, and think that because it’s so ugly, and so obviously a fabricated “controversy” designed to stir up the base, it’s beneath our dignity to get involved. But ignoring it and assuming it will die on the vine is not an option. What we are seeing here is a dangerous hate movement trying to get traction….Now we all have to stand together with our neighbors and say no: Not in our town, not in our community. It’s not necessary to take a position on public displays, only to expose the real agenda behind this “war on Christians” scam.”

which was your response on the linked blog in which you participate to this posting:

“It is important to remember that we all agree that freedom of speech is a correct basis for determining what should and should not be permitted on public, courthouse grounds. It’s also important to remember that this is a manufactured controversy meant to allow the empowered majority (white, Christian males) to play the part of the victim even while persecuting real minorities.”

This may serve to prove the point that your own focus is tempered through glasses of your own coloration.

How does a Christams tree “persecute” you?

Do you really feel that it must be opposed as a symbol of a hate movement of a bigoted white majority salaciously playing the victim?

Please, DO go out and enjoy this lovely day.

Mr. W.  Get real.  You do not speak for all religions nor do you represent a voice of reason on this topic.  For whatever reason, you clearly have a problem with organized religion, and you are a flame thrower with your reactions.  Again, move on.

Dear T (or perhaps we should call you “Anonymous bomb thrower”), you have actually helped to prove my point - thank you. In your view, anyone who speaks up for people of all faiths and will not meekly accept domination by the cultural majority should go away.

“Hatred of religion”? Your ignorance of who I am and what I believe is surpassed only by your bitterness.

I hope everyone enjoys this gorgeous Labor Day.

David, by having you chill out, move on, and stop trying to vent your hatred toward religion

Local youth are planning a “live” nativity if the courthouse grounds are closed to displays. As citizens, they should be able to stand there - even if dressed as Hebrew farmers.

T, maybe you can explain how we “can all get along.” What’s your solution?

David Weintraub, stop the game playing.  You speak of “can’t we all just get along?” while you argue to ban displays at the courthouse green.  There is nothing so dishonest as the person who says, “As long as it’s all my way, we can all be happy.”

David, so longevity of SOME participants in a traditional display negates the tradition of displaying?

I seem to recall a parable about a vineyard, from back in my parochial youth…but of course, that may just be an example of satan quoting scripture for her own purpose.

Hmmm, I think I owe you an apology for using your comment as an illustration of belittling other beliefs without qualifying it. I actually read your comments less as “I see all these things as wingnuttery” than “different people will see many of these things in common as wingnuttery.” The latter is certainly true, and that was the point I was illustrating - that everyone is going to have their own idea about what is outrageous or inflammatory, and it won’t necessarily correspond to whether a given display is intended by its creator to be outrageous or inflammatory.

I think the thing that we all seem to be saying in common is that at this point, almost everyone talking about this is using the issue as an opportunity to inflame and tear the community apart, rather than bring it together in a celebration of our fundamental rights. Whether it’s use of the display spaces to mock and denigrate religious faith, or vandalism of a display, or the admission that the issue will be exploited for partisan election purposes, or the lie being told by the petition group about “our traditional Christmas Tree, Menorah and Nativity Scene” to make it seem as if the traditional display was not exclusively Christian, it’s all for a political purpose. Ironically, possibly the only people not trying to sow discord and score political points are the couple who started erecting the crèche in the first place. I doubt that they ever intended to be thrust into the middle of an angry, militant political movement. They only wanted to do the right thing by including other faiths after all this time.

It would be lovely to think that we could have a public forum on another public site which people would see as an opportunity to expose themselves to different ideas and learn about communities they don’t know about. Maybe we can – it just seems at the moment that those engaged in this conversation are more interested in the opposite.

hmmmmm, I’d like to see it stay open, because free public speech should be just that.

Since it has become a race to the bottom for some, I think the powers that be will rather close it than weather that storm.

Everyone loses, and some for some very poor overpersonalized reasons that have little to do with free expression, and much more to do with throttling it for those with whom they disagree.

And some are painting some of the throttled as false victims, because of their own free opinions to which they are entitled.

Again, everybody loses, except the dogs in the manger.  And what do they even “win”?

The right to solitary snarling, and the satisfaction that comes with “showing” the “other”.

Great goals!

This whole thing has gone way off into weirdness.  I simply want to point out, that this all started when Kelly Burk decided, for what ever reason struck her at the time, that the manger on the courthouse had to go.  If you all go back to the beginning of this, Kelly Burk attended a meeting with the court ground committee, and from that meeting came the first attempt to ban everything from the courthouse grounds.  Yet, at that time, you did not have the threats by some to put the bizarre or shocking - they only jumped on this for the notoriety, and an opportunity thereby to get into the newspapers,after the fact.  So, we really have Kelly Burk to thank for all of this.

I don’t know, Munsey.  It seems that after all this back and forth we have come to agreement on one point - people with very personal issues will have the gates to the courthouse lawn opened up to them.  I think you are saying, in that case, better to keep everybody off.  But I apologize if I am reading it wrong.  Tell me if so.

Weintraub and anyone else out there, I apologize if I offended anyone, of any religious persuasion, by listing them alongside of “wingnuts.”  Perhaps that word is out of line as well.  Certainly there are countless minority religions with adherents that are great supporters of community.

My main point has been that I don’t believe it is in the community’s overall best interest to turn the courthouse grounds into a circus atmosphere for religious expression.  Religion comes in many shapes and forms.  And people who want to poke fun at religion come in many shapes and forms.  Our little courthouse lawn isn’t big enough for all of them.

Thanks for an interesting back and forth.

I’ve already seen it, David.

As well as the other threads.

Please forgive me for thinking your statements “suggested” I had said what you said I did.

I am having a hard time with the theory propounded by some throughout the threads reffing this on the progressive blog that any christianist claiming to support open access for all is only doing so to allow themselves the opportunity to present as a victim, when in reality the group they represent is still the dominant bigoted majority of white christian males, who, as everyone knows, are the most bigoted, hateful and oppressive majority group extant.

I would love to see open access remain for all (and I say that sincerely as a pretty pale lapsed Catholic of northern and central European derivation), but can understand if it is going to become YES a dog in the manger opportunity for people with (very) personal issues, that the decision will be made to deny access to anyone.

It’s certainly much eaiser that way, isn’t it?

If so, disband the committee, see that the arborist continues to keep the historic trees on his radar and the grass is cut (which doesn’t require full committee support, except perhaps in central planning land), and everyone take with a grain of salt any future posturing over history and tradition by officials and/or groups.

I understand what you’re saying about “who are we to judge”.  But we all judge constantly—even you, with your theory that christians only are fighting this sensible closure of a public venue so that they can pretend to be victims while remaining the white majority—no whiff of racism there either, is there?  There can’t be—only white christians are racists, homophobes, christianISTS, etc.

You remember the dog in the manger—maybe that can be the only display, and a permanent one.  The government can sponsor it, which should cause no trouble whatsoever, as it is only historic, traditional Aesop.

A continuing monument to those whose triumph is in preventing others from use, access or expression.

Maybe we can form a whole new committee to maintain that.

Barbara: In your haste to post this comment, I think you have lost track of what I was addressing. I know that you didn’t say that “minority faiths were the same thing as parodies/deliberate mockeries of religion,” nor did I suggest that you did.

The issue is not just the one individual who continues to be your focus, it is the fact that people have very different ideas about what is “outrageous” or “offensive,” and everyone of course thinks that their own idea is the common-sense one. Including you and me. Maybe reading this will help you to understand that.
http://loudounprogress.us/diary/204/get-the-popcorn

“You *say* that you think “everyone should have equal access,” but then suggest that the solution is for anyone whose display might be offensive to those who just want “to continue their tradition of trees, stable scenes, menorahs etc.” should go away. Which is it?”

“I didn’t say that you said it”

As you later said yourself:  “which is it?”

David, I hate to break it to you, but reframing someone’s comments in light of your own fears or biases, and “suggesting” that your reimage is “as if they said” or “might as well have said” is more a reflection of your own (biased?) hearing than anyone’s actual statement, or stated intent.

Now please, since you are far more progressive than I, enlighten me:  IS Jedi/Star Wars a recognized tax exempt official religious institution now?

I ask because you said “How does one know whether any given display is part of a “a circus for their own personal needs for attention” versus an expression of faith?”

Both people of faith and people of no faith have been the primary participants in the ongoing conflict, plus one individual with a history of behavior they claim is religious and patriotic, but that has been (ironically?  humorously?  narcissistically?) expressed though trespassing and vandalism (the burning flags on school buses) and vulgar double entendre (12 Days parody).

If they have gone to the trouble to register Jedi as a religion for the purpose of one of their stunts, well, we are still in many ways a free country, and they DO call this LoCo for a reason!

It would certainly explain some of the “fear of lawsuit” comments that have floated around as an explanation for the re-emergence of the policy battle, as the individual in question also has a history of suing the government—in fact, was cited in the Post as having that for their hobby.

Perhaps they DO have a sincere, abiding and very real belief in and reliance on The Force, and to them it is their faith.

But if it walks, quacks on cue, and files suit like a duck…

“Please show me where I said minority faiths were the same thing as parodies/deliberate mockeries of religion?”

I didn’t say that you said it, only that it’s been said or implied many times. Now, please answer the question: Who gets to decide what is “outrageous,”  and on what basis?

David, I didn’t say anyone should go away, but I understand if it serves your argument to believe I did.

As for personal needs for attention, what do you suppose the Jedi endeavor is?

Is Star Wars a registered and acknowledged tax-exempt religion now?

IS the Star Wars display by the same person who provided last years 12 Days parody?

Please show me where I said minority faiths were the same thing as parodies/deliberate mockeries of religion?

Again, I did not, but can understand if you feel the need to say I did.

If you are willing to acknowledge the possibility that some are deliberately being outrageous (attention seeking, perhaps?) and not expressing any belief system other than ridicule of others, then thank you for the glimmer of honesty in between posturings.

As I said:  if this is what is occurring, then I can guess how the vote will go.

My personal opinion?  How very progressive and broad minded of some folks to “win” through deliberately provocative and utterly pointless behavior.

As I also said:  when all are denied, then we have no need of the expense of supporting an entire committee on grounds, neither will we need to listen to any more histrionics from anyone on the Board about tradition and how important it all is (when they agree with it).

It might be nice if we could just tough out a few years of the inevitable idiocy, but as I also said and remain unshaken in my belief, this is a dog in the manger, and nothing but.

Barbara, please enlighten us: How does one know whether any given display is part of a “a circus for their own personal needs for attention” versus an expression of faith? Do you think everyone would have the same answer?

I have to ask because we have seen on this very comment thread the association of displays presumably designed to be mockery of religion with displays by minority faith communities, as if they are the same thing. You haven’t challenged that assumption. Are you also claiming that a display by the Wiccan community would be “silly” and “outrageous” while a Christian display is not? Who gets to decide what is “outrageous”?

You *say* that you think “everyone should have equal access,” but then suggest that the solution is for anyone whose display might be offensive to those who just want “to continue their tradition of trees, stable scenes, menorahs etc.” should go away. Which is it?

By the way, the menorah can’t honestly be included in this “tradition” as the only year in which there has been a menorah at the courthouse was 2008. The tradition in Loudoun County with the exception of that year was to have exclusively Christian displays.

Ms. Funston, then perhaps those who would turn it into a circus for their own personal needs for attention (or disruption) will allow others to continue their tradition of trees, stable scenes, menorahs etc.

Public property should actually be FOR the public, and allowing public use by all is not “establishing” any one of them.

Everyone should have equal access, in my opinion.

But if those who are offended by the peaceful and respectful traditions of others in erecting a tree or other symbol are so determined to control the issue that they are willing to be as silly and outrageous as possible, then everybody loses because the outcome shall be clear.

It will have nothing to do with any “offensive” traditional manger scene, it will be the proverbially snarling dog in the manger that wins.

Wow, way to “prove” a point!

How very…progressive.

There is no reason to mix government with religion. The two are completely separate. By refraining from attempts to connect them, hateful arguments such as this one, will be avoided. Hatefulness is so unnecessary. My Christian religion emphasizes this. I believe most religions do as well.

Twas four months before Christmas, and at our Court House
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The Confederate soldier, he waited with care
For the decorations that soon would be there.

The Judges were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of vandalism danced in their heads.
The Supervisors took off their clear-thinking caps,
And just settled down for their Labor Day naps.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
They sprang from their beds to see what was the matter.
Away to their windows they flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

When, what to their wondering eyes should appear,
But a majority crowd that was now very near.
Some folks were on foot and some came by motors,
And they knew in a moment it must be the voters.                                                                               
More rapid than eagles the voters all came,
And they called to the supervisors by name!
“Now, Burton! Now, Buckley! Now, Miller and Burk!
Waters, Delgaudio, Kurtz, McGimsey, and York!
To the top of the Court House! to the top of the wall!
Now decorate! Decorate! Decorate, y’all!”

And then, in a twinkling, the crowd went away,
They hoped they’d been heard by their leaders this day.
They hoped their leaders will exclaim: “Let’s stop this fight.
“Let’s decorate now. The majority of voters is right.”

Tom: You are admitting that you think the majority should get to decide what is displayed on the courthouse lawn. Unless you specify that you agree with the ACLU position of the forum being open to all viewpoints, there is no other conclusion one can reach.

Please explain who gets to decide what constitutes a religious display, and on what basis.

Tom, I want to try to understand your viewpoint.  I am simply concerned about what can happen. 

The long standing tradition you referenced is being broadened.  We saw the start last year.  My concern is where it will lead what with Jedi knights and all.  Are you for protecting any religious display on the courthouse lawn on the grounds of it being freedom of speech/freedom of religious expression?  Are you happy as long as a nativity is present even if it is flanked by devil worshipers and sun worshipers?  Or do you think there is a way to legally deny them participation? 

What is your strategy?  Help me understand.

Nancy, there’s nothing in the Bill of Rights about separation of church and state, simply that Congress shall make no law regarding it.

Hmmm - those who proposed changing our long tradition of allowing displays are the ones playing politics

David - I’m saying you’re going to get hammered in the elections over this, just like your buddies uptown are going to get hammered this November.  Also, of course we have majority rule, up to a point.  The minority cannot tyrannize either by appeals to a false understanding of civil rights.

Thanks Funston.  Thanks Weintraub.  Good points - probably better than mine.  This ought to be one of the easiest places for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, etc. to agree.

It will be a sad day for Loudoun County and Leesburg if politics and the next election scares the BOS into turning the courthouse lawn into billboards for the religious idea du jour.

Separation of church and state. No further discussion is required.

Tom: You say “Whether you like it or not the majority of citizens are religious.  Most conservatives and liberals who are Christians are ok with religious displays.”

You are admitting that you think public policy regarding what can be displayed at the courthouse should be determined by majority rule, decided by the “majority” who are “ok with religious displays” (and let’s be honest - the petition says Christmas displays).

The Bill of Rights is clear that there are some things not subject to a popular vote. Two of those things are religious liberty for everyone (regardless of how much the majority likes them), and the right to a fair and speedy trial.

And is the average citizen no matter their religious persuasion going to be okay with the pervision displays that show up on the courthouse grounds?  Are they going to be happy with the media onslaught covering the perversions?  The community outrage over the perversions?

If any politician, Democrat or Republican, turns this into a political circus, the community will lose; Christians will lose; Jews will lose; Muslims will lose; Sikhs will lose; spiritual people of all stripes will lose as our courthouse grounds are turned into an embarassing circus.  Of course, there is the argument that a nativity or Christmas tree will be in there . . . somewhere.

Common sense should rule.  Thank you, Judges, for bringing some common sense to this.

What is it about these modern-day Democrats that they have a political death wish?

Your pals uptown ramroded through a “stimulus” and Obamacare, both quite in opposition to public opinion.  Now every pundit predicts the GOP will pick up 40-60 seats in the House and 8-12 in the Senate. 

Whether you like it or not the majority of citizens are religious.  Most conservatives and liberals who are Christians are ok with religious displays. 

If the Dems on the BOS vote against displays, they’ll suffer the same fate as their buddies uptown.

I am curious to learn in what respect the judges’ recommendation is “like flag burning.” A flag is a national symbol, not a religious one, and in the context of government property I doubt that the American flag would be considered to be an expressive “display” in the sense we are discussing here.

Perhaps one of Mr. Delgaudio’s many fans can provide an explanation.

Maybe you said it better than me Munsey.  I don’t want a juvenile mess that is based not on merit or deep seated spiritual belief.  It will be based on peoples’ rights to freedoms of speech and religious expression.  No matter how bizarre the individual or group, they will take advantage of a courthouse lawn that is open to such displays.  The community loses and wingnuts win.

Anyone want to bet that this year’s Star Wars is last year’s 12 Days?

Anyone further want to bet that a few of those who want NO displays are those who will apply to make the most juvenile mess they can?

THAT’S winning the argument on merit!  lol

Well, as it appears there will no longer be a Christmas tree on the grounds, as there was for a generation before most of us ever so enlightened people moved here, then after the grounds are off limits to all, I expect two things from this Board:

*in the next budget cycle, no doubt even more brutal than the last, disband the grounds committee.  There is no reason to spend a minute or a dime in support of an group that will have absolutely nothing to do that can’t be turned over to a competent kid with a lawn mower once a week.

*I never want to hear another single word from any Board member, let alone see a resolution, an initiative, and amendment or a motion yapping reverently about tradition.

(and bonus wish—will someone please put on YouTube a montage of Mr. Miller talking about statues of our brave heroes spliced onto a clip of him calling the Confederate statue a memorial to the losing side that is “pointing a gun at him” from back when the local descendants of Confederate veterans were seeking some matching funds to restore the statue?)

Good Grief, my fear is that the Founding Fathers will be throwing up in their graves or from heaven above or from wherever they are when they see our stately courthouse grounds turned into a bizarre expo for religious expression.

When the Christian nativity is surrounded by Wiccans, Pagans, Druids, Jim Jones/David Koresh wannabes, Star Wars, etc., Free Speech will have been served, but will the community be happy?  Did you truly get what you want?

On private property all of this can be controlled. If you believe Jesus is the reason for the season, you have every right to keep Devil Worshipers out.  Not at the courthouse - in this country Devil Worshipers have Free Speech rights too.  When you try to keep them out, sooner or later one of them will sue the county and our tax dollars will go to fighting them.  If we do fight, we will likely lose because Free Speech is Free Speech is Free Speech.

Play it out - consider where it can all lead.  Then be very careful what you ask for.

Worshiping symbols rather than the word is a warning within the lessons of the word.  Wake up people.  Evolve your mind.

Good grief!  The Founding Fathers must be throwing up in their graves.

James Madison warned us that in our republic “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”  Ain’t that the truth right now here in the county?

The argument put forth by the eight judges is a terribly weak argument.  It sounds like they really struggled to come up with the slick-sounding words to support their pre-determined position on this matter.

Since Supervisor Miller is in favor of rolling over and letting the judiciary make public policy for the county, maybe we should just ban the Board of Supervisors and let the judges run the county from here on out.

Dear Shrink,

Thanks for your kind words. I am thinking you are right.  Come November, I know I will feel better.  I will either have a creative display up there on the courthouse lawn or people will listen to these thoughtful Judges and keep all of the clutter off of it.  Either way I am happier.

Thanks and take care.

Hmmm: You know that it’s important to continue to take your medication or else you end up making stupid statements.  Cheer up, come November,  better days are ahead.

Hmmm, since Delgaudio says, “It’s like flag burning only by judges,” maybe the thing to do is mock up: THE BABY JESUS BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG.  Now that makes a real statement and brings an almost surrealist artistic flavor to the courthouse grounds if done tastefully.  It would bring instant national press.  And with that press coverage comes an instant cash infusion to the local economy as visitors flock to town to see it, trash it, pray at it, protest at it, etc.  Meanwhile the restaurants and shops in the Historic District are raking it in.  You want to revitalize Downtown Leesburg?  Stop paying consultants and make THE BABY JESUS BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG a reality on the courthouse grounds this Christmas Season.

Talk about a true representation of Free Speech values!  Wow!

Rick, let’s work on this! 

How about Cuccinnelli and Delgaudio holding hands in their holiday themed underwear and Santa hats.  They can be wishing Loudoun’s Gay and Lesbian community, A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS! ;)

That Jedi guy is my new hero. 

Can we make a cardboard cutout of Ken Cuccinnelli doing something “unsavory”?  Parody is protected speech, although I am sure Ken would be more than happy to try and challenge the precedent of Hustler v. Falwell. 

What about a Flying Spaghetti Monster with a Santa hat?

Bounty, thanks for getting me thinking!  You know what would be really poinant? 

YODA HOLDING THE BABY JESUS! 

Excuse me, I need to go make my application before they get to 10!

I agree with the judges - don’t turn our courthouse lawn into a circus.  There are countless places to put these things up.  Why there?

Carl, god bless you!  Please don’t take offense at that - just a figure of speech.  I do try to bite by tongue and be a bit more respectful, but I do hate the arguments over who has the best imaginary friends. Now we have the prospect of seeing it played out at the courthouse.

Yes, humanity would do well to grow up.

Bizzy, your response “Carl:
Your position regarding God has considerable downside risk. “
Is the only sensible response I’ve seen!
Well done!

Sorry, but I just couldn’t help but laugh (startling my co-workers) when I saw this..“a Leesburg man asking for a display honoring Jediism – a religious movement dedicated to honoring the ideas of the Jedi as depicted in the Star Wars trilogy”.  I can just picture it in my head; Yoda with a halo, Ewoks marching around the manger, Chewbaca with C3PO strapped to his back and Han, Leia and Luke with their rifles.

Carl,

“Anyone who debates or cares about this issue is an imbecile”

You care about the issue, otherwise you would not have posted. You debate the issue because you believe that it is wrong.

Imbecile, thy name is Carl.

The Passion of the Christ with Mel Gibson pretty much played around the clock at Tally Ho when it came out so this issue won’t go away anytime soon.

Carl:
Your position regarding God has considerable downside risk.

Anyone who debates or cares about this issue is an imbecile.

It is time the human race grew up.  There is no God, no Allah, EVERYTHING is the bible is fiction loosely based on historical events.

If your god was so powerful, he wouldn’t need political debate to promote himself.  He exists only in your imaginations. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  There is not an artifact, or evidence of any kind of any miracle, proving the existence of a higher being.

Instead of caring for your fellow human beings, you’re squabbling like hens over displaying some plastic crap on the court house grounds.

Sounds like your god is pretty petty.  Either that, or he’s picked really bad representatives.