There is absolutely nothing stopping you from contesting my observations. But I don’t see you doing that; instead, you are complaining that I made the observations in the first place.

If you disagree with what I think is a universal moral standard (which seems to be the case), then say so and make your argument.

David, does this mean you have undertaken a new year’s resolution to no longer write posts that say “since so-and-so does this, it means they also believe that, and since there can be no other possible conclusion than THIS about THAT, then they are this collection of very bad things!”

And when the person replies (if they do) “no, I actually said THIS”, you will no longer be responding “aha, so you must REALLY mean this this and THIS like the other very bad people you also have chosen to be exactly like!” and so on?

If you really believe you don’t speak for others, it would be lovely if you actually stopped doing so!  lol

You are very careful with language—it shouldn’t be hard to identify your speculation, rewrites, accusations and pronouncements as opinions.

Barbara, there is a big difference between stating my own observations and analysis, and actually presuming to speak *for* someone else. You don’t seem to grasp that those are different things; in your last comment you are conflating them.

You are the authority on yourself and what you think. I cannot speak for you, and you cannot speak for me.

David, given your habit of speaking for others, and then castigating them for supposedly believing the words you have inserted in their mouths, I’m glad you’re able to acknowledge that I am stating opinions.

The day you recognize your OWN opinions as just that, and no more, you’ll be making real progress.

It looks like the previous comment is entirely dedicated to the project of speaking not just for me, but for my church as well - by someone who seems to know precious little about either one. At least the imaginary speech is identified as her opinion.

And that’s what freedom of speech is all about. You can say obviously ridiculous things with no authority.

arbie, David and Jonathan seem fairly obsessed by some Christians, hold themselves up as the highest moral authority, and frequently call those who dare to disagree with their opinions not only “liars” but “documented liars”.

By their actions in this process, in my opinion, they have lost some of their credibility on the moral high ground they claim is solely their own (and graciously extend to only those who fully agree with them), BECAUSE of their documented lies in activism on this issue.

I would find them much more honest of they forthrightly said “We are 100% committed to the cause of LGBT rights, and so will take the fight any and everywhere we can make a case for our issues.  Since some Christians in Loudoun do not agree with us, we will join any group and advocate on any issue that opposes them.  We will join green sustainability activist churches for the purpose of being able to claim Christian authority and hold ourselves up as a voice of Christianity.  We will network with the atheist groups against Christian display while denying it, so we can maintain our mantle of Christian authority.  We will use any and every means at our disposal to advance our political issue.”

That would be honest, and even if one committed the apparently unpardonable sin of disagreeing with them politically, it would be worthy of respect BECAUSE it is honest.

Barbara seems to be fairly obsessed with the Weintraubs and their activities, and stoops low enough to needlessly publicize private communications in a public forum.  There is also an awful lot of hair splitting going on here.  (I mean, really?  You want to quibble endlessly to try to demonstrate that David’s connection to the atheist group constitutes membership so that you can attach your own meaning to it and launch into full-on attack mode?  This was not anywhere near worth the amount of time you spent calling David a liar over and over again.)  It seems to this observer that Barbara enjoys sitting back and criticizing as much as possible, on every available petty point, while failing to articulate any sort of reasonable and legally sound solution.  Censoring some displays and not others will put the county on very shaky constitutional ground.  Where do you draw the line, and who gets to draw it?

Interesting article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-messages-displace-ca-park-nativity-scenes-194651974.html

I wonder what the heck went on out there that display spots are in cages?  Does a LOT for the messages!

Also, looks like THEIR policy could use an update—one individual can reserve up to 9 spaces.  2 atheists got 18 of 21 out there, but are using very few of them, apparently.

They seem to simply be reserving the spaces for the pupose of keeping them blank.

Bet the empty cages look even better than the full ones—at least the full ones are utilizing their apparent pupose of protecting the contents.

Will max-security cages be the next demanded “compromise”?

Nope, David.  Time and fact don’t rearrange themselves even for the world’s very bestest interfaith human bridge to the atheist community of predetermined “compromise”.

But that’s fine;  in your world you know what’s best.

I read the artical on the first Amendment, thanks for your work. When all is said an done Jesus will be standing there, maybe he’ll say there is a way that seemth right unto man. Believe on the lord Jesus Christ Today. We have no promise of tommorow.

Perhaps it would help if I said it louder and slower..

I forgot:  except that you DO claim to speak for them, in the issue of the “compromise” of the tree, and in being the authority on the residency, age and religion of the woman and her son, on no source publicly verifiable other than your word.

Having it both ways again.

Always.  lol

David, if the group has both of you listed on the members page as members, I think that horse has long since left the barn.

I can understand not claiming to speak for them, but to deny any affiliation at all until it was proven that there WAS direct affiliation, and to do it with word games, snark, ridicule and accusation?

You wanted to hide the association.

I understand that too;  if you are going to be the transcendant Christian authority who brings everyone together with the compromise of the predetermined tree only, then you can’t be seen as networking with the atheists to get religious display banned in an effort to kill BOTH of your birds with one stone.

I answered your question:  I still support free speech for all.  I think some time needs to be spent on a policy that isn’t so easily gamed by people with a disruptive agenda, as some of the atheists obviously have, and as you and Jonathan obviously support in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” effort.

Otherwise you might not have posts on your blog dealing with this issue tagged “Eugene Delgaudio”,  and “hate groups”—referring to Christians.

I’m not asking what you think would be nice, I’m asking which of the three legal options you would encourage the board to adopt.

I’m also asking if there has been a single display over the two years, other than the creche, that you approve of.

Again, calling a dog a cat doesn’t make it a cat. Subscribing to an email list doesn’t make you a member of an organization. I may subscribe to email lists of other churches, but if I were identified as “belonging to” one of them that would be false. I don’t know this for sure, but I would think that you would need to actually be an atheist to join and be identified as a member of that group.

That was the error, the idea that Jonathan was speaking on behalf of anyone other than himself. I think you know that already, but just in case you are genuinely not getting this I’ve said it again.

Ooh, there you go again calling someone else a liar!  lol—please quote in context:  “Even if you continue to dance in a way that implies you are retroactively claiming they were correct after all…”.  Note the conditional, and the use of the word “implies”, indicating opinion?

No, the FACT remains that the timeline shows, through links, that you JOINED the group, Jonathan was CITED AS A MEMBER on multiple news reports, you DENIED that, and that makes it a lie.

Are you now reimaging (note the QUESTION, and not the STATEMENT) that since one news report seemed to you to IMPLY that he was an official representative, that that ONE was implicationally incorrect in your opinion?

That doesn’t change all the other denials of any association at all.

Still a lie.  Documented.  Which actually indicates that, contrary to your current projectional drama, that YOU feel it would be somehow detrimental to the activism if you were publicly linked to it (no **** Sherlock, after all of your statements about your own moral authority).

As I told you at your blog:  I still support the right of all to display.

It would be nice if the people supposedlydisplaying on behalf of reason and free speech weren’t using the medium to attempt to deny free speech to others, by being as outre as possible.

It would be equally nice if you weren’t so busy trying to deny that you’ve been networking with them on that.

As for the “topic”, do you mean punctuation?  To quote a great “moral authority”:  Asked and answered.

“..you are retroactively claiming they were correct after all..”

Another lie from Barbara, what a surprise. The news reports to which you refer are just as incorrect today as they were the first time I answered your question. What did I say about trying to get the answer you want?

Please answer my questions about the actual topic. Thanks.

Barbara, you regularly demand answers to questions that you already know the answer to - such as when you “asked” me recently to tell you the name of the hate crimes law. It’s just something you do, and that was the case here. I couldn’t tell you about the requirements for membership in the group about which you “ask.” I imagine you could google them to find out. They are probably a 501(c)(3).

Okay, so you’re only interested in keeping your fabrication alive. What that tells us is that someone is terribly worried about people of faith and atheists finding unity on the matter of how the courthouse grounds are used. That’s good to know.

Getting back to the topic of the editorial, you are no doubt aware of what the county attorney told the board. There are three legal options: 1) no displays at all, whether religious or secular in nature; 2) all displays submitted by the public on a first come-first served basis, whether religious or secular in nature; or 3) a government sponsored display free of religious content (the community Christmas tree option). Apparently it’s fine for the county to put up a Christmas tree and call it a Christmas tree, since Christmas is a national holiday.

So, given that these are the three options, which one would you encourage the new board to adopt?

The other question you haven’t answered is this: You say that you support the idea of having a public forum in which all viewpoints are treated equally. We’ve had that, nominally, for two years now. Has there been a single display other than the creche during those two years that you liked or found acceptable?

David, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “getting the answer I wanted”, as your blog shows.

The supposedly accurate answer I already had:  would that be the fact that the news reports were correct in stating that Jonathan is a member of NOVA Atheists, which you kept dancing around and calling incorrect?

I did indeed ask IF THE NEWS REPORTS WERE CORRECT, and you claimed they were not.

Even if you continue to dance in a way that implies you are retroactively claiming they were correct after all, guess what?

You still lied.

And that’s not “false witness” to say so (except perhaps in your alternate universe where the “truth” is whatever it feels like you need it to be at any given moment).

Again, Barbara, you are presenting your own selective history. The truth is that you didn’t get exactly the answer you wanted in exactly the words you wanted, and you made that very obvious. Yes, we did poke fun at you for continuing to fish for the answer you wanted instead of the accurate answer you already had, and will do so again if you engage in the same behavior. 

What you seem to not accept is that *not everything you want to know is actually any of your business*. You’re not entitled to know what email lists people are subscribed to - you do realize that, don’t you? That remains the case even though 1) this particular email list is public, and 2) I stated that I was subscribed to it (that would be the inconvenient part you keep leaving out).

As I said, I guess we’re “affiliated with” LEC now :) . Yay. I will ask you again: Please stop bearing false witness.

David, untruthful again.

I first asked if the news report was correct in reporting that Jonathan was a member of the atheist group.

You replied “Jonathan is not an atheist.  LOL”

I said that was not what I asked, but whether he belonged to the group.  You replied that news reports had “incorrectly identified” him as being “from” or “representing” them, and that it wasn’t really that big a deal.

I said it wasn’t a big deal, but from an activism standpoint it would be very interesting if he were.  I attempted to clarify your parsing of words and “move along, nothing to see” in order to be sure I understood correctly, and confirmed that he had (supposedly) been incorrectly identified as BELONGING to an atheist group, but would it be correct to say he was affiliated with one?

Jonathan replied that he was affiliated with ME.

I asked Jonathan directly, and noted the word games on both your parts.

You replied “Barbara, since you didn’t get the hint the first time, allow me to translate: Asked and answered. Anything additional is, as usual, your own invention. Have fun with your latest fixation.”  Another non-answer that has obviously since proved to be a lie.

You then begin to ridicule me for asking, followed by Jonathan posting Mary Czarnecki’s donations to Mark Herring, as if that makes some point.

It’s all right here on your blog:

http://www.loudounprogress.org/?p=3111

in a post claiming originally that Ken Reid “called for mob rule”, later amended by you to eliminate the “needlessly hyperbolic”.

Sorry David, no spin, no word games, no moral high ground, no credibility.

You joined the group (after which you heard about the vandalism, fine), Jonathan was quoted extensively in the news as a member of NOVA Atheists (which you both are, whether it’s an atheist social club, a discussion group, a knitting circle, or a figment of my imagination with its own website), I asked if he had been properly sourced as belonging to the group, and the games, prevarications, diversions, sidetracks, stonewalls and putdowns began.

IOW, the LYING.

And as you say in another blogpost focusing on Christian displays “we can all agree that lying is wrong”.

I agreed with you on that.

Apparently, as usual, words only mean what you wish them to, for your own desired ends.

All that I ask, Barbara, is that you stop bearing false witness against us. As I’ve already stated several times, we got the information about the first incident of vandalism from the email list run by NOVA Atheists. Presumably one doesn’t get emails from a list one is not a member of, a point you seem to have missed.

The idea that I would “deny” being on a listserv that is public and transparent is silly, not to mention kind of insulting to the atheist group. What you asked was a different question, which was whether the news reports that identified Jonathan as being “from” or “belonging to” that group - as in representing or on behalf of - were accurate. They were not.

By the standard that you’re trying to set here, the fact that I was on the email list of LEC and got an invitation to their fundraiser means that I’m a “member” of that group and can speak for them. You probably don’t want to go there :)

Thanks for answering the other questions.

re “the letter from Jesus”, yes, many good suggestions, and no doubt kindly meant.

Also quite condescending in its own way, if written in the spirit of attempting to speak with an authority the actual writer does not believe in, as a way of communicating with the poor creatures bound by the “myth and superstition” of their reverent faith in the person whose name she uses.

“Takes in vain” might even approach the threshhold for some believers, with the conclusions ranging possibly from simple poor taste to blasphemy.

I understand that the head of Beltway Atheists, the local affiliate of American Atheists, which is the 501(c)3 parent of the social networking group NOVA Atheists (in which both you and your partner held membership before the news pointed that out and you began denying it), uses much more vivid and less formal langauge when speaking of public acknowledgement of faith.  I’ve read on his websites that he feels any public acknowledgement of religion should be treated like secondhand smoke, and even someone silently appearing to pray before eating in public is as rude as “farting in an elevator”.

Keep that moral high ground David, and do keep me informed on what language I may use in the process of continuing to exercise my own freedom to not agree with absolutely everything you pronounce.

“Rephrasing what someone else has said to change its meaning”—yes David, this is your practice on your blog with the words of others, whom you then castigate (sometimes with the charge of “liar”) for supposedly holding beliefs with which you disagree.

Maybe that’s why I quote “interfaith”.  You use that specific word (quite often), so if I quote it directly and emphasize it in punctuation (rather than saying ecumenical, or multifaith, or eclectic, and so on, with varying degrees of similar meaning, IOW “calling a dog a cat” by not speaking as you deem fit at any given moment), then you would not jump on it.

No such luck—I “quoted” it WRONG, and obviously mean something HATEFUL by it!  rotfl

As to you being a “religious authority”, I guess I got that impression from various posts by you about being a church elder, and gee, even right here on this thread with “The communities of faith with whom I work, comprising a broad spectrum of the Loudoun community, have chosen to withdraw our voices…”.  Lots of first person there, and lots of broad associations.

Even extending to the atheist group which you repeatedly and circuitously denied any association with (on your blog, after the news stories attributed membership to Jonathan, AFTER you both had joined the listserve displayed at the website of the group where you are both listed under the “Members” tab as members)?

Denial of any association, going so far as to say one hasty news report incorrectly attributed membership which has since erroneously been repeated, is an UNTRUTH, David.  (also known as a LIE.  On your blog, it would qualify as a “DOCUMENTED LIE”, if you were honest and had no double standards.)  There is association, affiliation, networking toward a goal of no religious displays on public property.

You are certainly entitled to seek that goal and hold that opinion.

Lying about any association with the primary group working toward that goal doesn’t do much for your fequent posturing as holder of moral high ground.

(try not to be so focused on how I punctuate, and the deeper meaning of it all—such anal attention to insignificant detail looks somewhat foolish next to outright lying about association/affiliation/membership/what-word-is-acceptable-to-you-so-I-can-QUOTE-it-in-future)

The link I posted below, http://www.loudounprogress.org/?page_id=3235 now also includes the text of the Letter from Jesus display that was also vandalized, and damaged so badly that it was removed by its owner. She was kind enough to send it to me at my request. I think we should at least have the opportunity to read something if we’re going to talk about it.

Calling a dog a cat doesn’t make it a cat, Barbara - no matter how many times you repeat it.

Rephrasing what someone else has said to change its meaning and then attributing your own words to that person is bearing false witness. I’m just a regular Christian, not a Christian “authority” (whatever that is), but even I know that’s something you shouldn’t be doing.

I guess you don’t want to share with us why you put the word interfaith in quotes, so maybe you can answer this: You say that you support the idea of having a public forum in which all viewpoints are treated equally. We’ve had that, nominally, for two years now. Has there been a single display other than the creche during those two years that you liked or found acceptable?

Yes, David, lying is a serious charge, one which you have often leveled at me for simply disagreeing with you.

You denied any credence in reports of affiliation with the group, and are now still playing word games, as is your usual wont.

By your own standards in calling people “documented” liars at the drop of a hat, you have in fact lied by both commission and omission.

I understand that it is convenient, when setting oneself up as a Christian authority, to deny that one is networking with groups that seek to ban all religious display, but if in facty you ARE, then that would make you a liar by any definition.

Loudoun County, yes, both recently joined, and subsequently denied any affiliation.

Since the joining predates published denial, I’d say yes, denial of affiliation is in fact a lie.

Here are some photos we took of the four displays that went up at the courthouse on Saturday, for those who are interested in actual events in the real world:

http://www.loudounprogress.org/?page_id=3235

Loudoun County: Thank you for sharing my public profile on a public group. That should help to dispel Barbara’s fabrications.

“you lied about neither of you being involved in the atheist group, and claimed a conspiracy when I suggested you were working togethr toward the goal of getting any religious displays banned.”

The first part of your statement is a complete fabrication - I said that the news reports of Jonathan “being from” or representing the group were false, since they were. I also clarified that neither of us are atheists, although everyone already knows that. As I said, the information about the vandalism came initially from that listserv - how would we have learned about it if we weren’t signed up? The second part of your statement is also false, because what both the atheist and faith-based people want is for ALL displays at the courthouse to end. There’s no lawful option for - nor would anyone want - a situation in which only secular groups could erect displays. No one has ever remotely suggested such a thing.

Further down in your comment, you suggest that I said the dead opposite of what I actually said - I found the “mission accomplished” remark to be snarky and uninformed (as you already knew before you posted this), and so responded to it.

You should be much more careful about accusing other people of lying. That’s a rather serious charge.

Pulling your profile on the atheist site, Dave W.  It seems you just joined.

David Weintrau
Joined: December 2, 2011
“I’m in Loudoun, married to Jonathan, and I think empiricism is a no-brainer. That’s enough to get me called an atheist. I’m also pretty tired of people who call themselves Christian acting in ways that couldn’t be farther from “Love your neighbor.””

David, you know exactly what I’m talking about:  you lied about neither of you being involved in the atheist group, and claimed a conspiracy when I suggested you were working togethr toward the goal of getting any religious displays banned.

So much for your Christian church elder authority to speak on behalf of the broad spectrum of the faithful.

Here’s another link to the website containing the listserve, where you and a somewhat prominent local Dem discuss the “mission” of getting religious display banned.

You tell him “mission not accomplished”, when Mr. Miller’s motion failed 4-5, and he responds “crap”, and bemoans the fact that the Democratic board didn’t take care of getting them banned before they left office.

http://www.meetup.com/NOVA-Atheists/messages/27147852/

(“On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Xxx Xxxxxxxx <[address removed]> wrote:
>> Mission accomplished! Right? Wasn’t the goal to have no religious displays
>> on the court house grounds? I was pissed when the BoS wimped out. This is
>> the way it should be. No displays.”

“On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:16 PM, David Weintraub <[address removed]> wrote:
> No, misson not accomplished. More will be going up later in the month,
> and there will probably be more vandalism since Ms. Czawacki and
> others were given tacit permission to vandalize things that offend
> them by a law enforcement officer.”  (Nice change of Ms. Czarnecki’s name, btw, especially for someone noted for tolerance in dialogue)

“From: Xxx Xxxxxxxxx
Sent on: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 6:54 PM
Crap. I can’t believe they will not deal with this with all of the Dems on the way out.”

Oops, so spare me the faux outrage and demands regarding the punctuation of your preference.

Barbara, what are you talking about now? You have linked to a listserv, which is obviously public and transparent. That’s how we heard about the vandalism.

Anything to distract from the need to answer the questions you were asked, I suppose. Why did you put quotes around the word interfaith? Why do you disrespect Mr. Reid and Mr. York with regard to their suggested resolution?

What is *your* suggested resolution, since it obviously differs from theirs?

David, since you have been at great pains to separate Jonathan and yourself from the atheist group, you may wish to visit the members pages at NOVA Atheists (the group in which Jonathan has been credited with membership by some in the press, even in the UK), where BOTH you and Jonathan are listed as belonging.

http://www.meetup.com/NOVA-Atheists/members/?offset=40&desc=1&sort=chapter_member.atime

You are listed on page 3, linked above, and Jonathan is on page 4.

If they have erroneously attributed membership to you and/or your partner, that may be the source of confusion for all the news organizations listing membership, since…you are listed as members.

Is there some reason for that, since you seem to have been attempting to distance yourself from any connection there?

Barbara, why would you need quotes around a word that is simply descriptive of that which it describes? Is it because you disagree that it is in fact descriptive? There must be a reason.

In the real world, things either do or do not happen, and correcting the factual record is not “framing.” However, ignoring the fact that other people (Ken Reid, Scott York) called for what you now call “my” solution, before I agreed with them, is.

David, I know how important selective history is to you, AKA a narrative, in dialogue.

In addition, I notice you focus on “deliberate lies” in discussing any possible ban on nativity scenes, which a ban on ALL displays would accomplish, while calling for a policy to do just that by banning everything but the tree you seem to find acceptable.

They aren’t scare quotes when they’re quoting, but again, I understand how framing things with drama is important to the narrative.

Just as sidestepping the question of whether Jonathan was correctly identified as BELONGING to the atheist organization with the non-answer “Jonathan is not an atheist” is important to the narrative.

As well as suddenly promoting the son of the woman who wrote the letter signed God as a Christian youth abused by this process, when the website of the atheist group to which she belongs identified them as a team of displayers.

Simply aquiescing to your “solution”, as a compromise that will satisfy the atheists (paramount!) would in fact bar any faith-based displays from a variety of faiths, wouldn’t it?

But because you say that is not your intent then that could never be a surely unintended consequence.

I don’t care if Jonathan is or isn’t an atheist—does he belong to the group for the purpose of networking the removal of any faith-based display in public, in contravention of the First Amendment’s guarantee that there shall be no law limiting the freedom to practice religion, AND that allowing that free expression in public on public property does NOT constitute an establishment of same if NO ONE group is excluded from the same free [removed]the flaw in your one “interfaith display” example, by court order, as opposed to a workable policy)?

I don’t care if the son of the woman who ghost-writes for God is or isn’t a believer in God, gods, or none.  He and his mom, the member of the atheist group, are identified by that group as a team in display.  So, they got two slots and made use of them.

To demean and attack others.

With hate speech, if the bar is set by a simple photoshop of rainbow paint, right?

The atheists seek NO faith-based displays, and have literally chosen to be the dogs in the Manger here to get their way and no other.

Why, as someone who claims to be a representative of the broad spectrum of people of faith in Loudoun, a Christian, and a church elder, would YOU support that?

There is nothing that REQUIRES any displays at the courthouse. Putting up only a single religious display is inappropriate. The current system would work IF the sheriff’s department had arrested the person who defaced the display so that people would know they had to respect free speech. Since the sheriff won’t protect the displays that are legally permitted, then we should have no displays. If someone wants a display they should put it up on their own lawn.

Barbara, you misunderstand the point. I never said it was “policy,” nor do I suggest that it should be. It was a one time occurrence in 2008, and for reasons already stated is unlikely to be repeated.

However, to leave it out of the history is to misrepresent the reason for subsequent events. The recommendation of the grounds committee was unequivocally NOT a case of “banning the nativity scene” because of animus toward Christians. In some cases that statement is a deliberate lie, while in others it is repeated by people who are unaware of the actual history and have been misled. In any case, it’s false, and people have a right to know that.

Now, why do you put interfaith in scare quotes? Do you not accept it as a legitimate word for some reason? Do you believe that it isn’t an accurate descriptor for of a group of displays erected by different faith communities? Is there some other reason? Please explain your reasoning for that choice.

Finally, I’m sure you know that it wouldn’t be legally permissible to “eliminate faith-based expressions” any more than it would be to eliminate any other expression. Why would you demean yourself by repeating something like that?

David, the one “interfaith” expression in which you participated was enabled by court order, according to you.  As I said to you, piecemeal court orders are NOT POLICY.  You continually reference this one event as if it is the best and perhaps only solution.  I repeat:  it is not POLICY.

Second, how is it an equtable interpretation of First Amendment rights if the only “equitable” “compromise” involves elimination of any faith-based expression?

The atheists will be happy.

But as we’ve also discussed before, government’s job isn’t necessarily to make people happy.

Mr. and Mrs. Gentges, unfortunately all of the possibilities you list here would be permissible, because hate speech is still constitutionally protected speech - in another locality with the same policy we currently have in Loudoun there was a KKK cross display. Our supervisors chose the option that most people said they wanted at the time, that of a public forum. They don’t have the legal authority to choose only “inoffensive” displays. Those who voted against this policy warned at the time that there would inevitably be displays that offend others.

Laugh, my hope is that people will wake up to the facts as they are, not as they wish them to be. For those people who had hoped that a public forum would consist only of the kind of religious displays that appeared in 2008, what I am telling you is that the people who were responsible for those displays, and others who would participate in a similar vein, are no longer interested in participating. They are not applying for the display spaces, period.

Clearly I am no fan of Ken Reid, but your attack here is unwarranted. If we don’t want hate speech displayed on our public square and the escalating lawlessness that will engender, we will need a different policy. I think he’s just being realistic, recognizing that our community doesn’t seem to want, in practice, to honor the First Amendment as expressed in this editorial. Do you actually have an alternative resolution to suggest, or is your attack just political?

Santa on a Cross is nothing new in terms of statement about commercialism and Christmas:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2007-12-22-santa-cross_N.htm

“Conflicts over public art at the local level often persuade community leaders, elected officials, funding agencies, and artists themselves that public art is simply “too hot to handle.” But these heated debates also suggest that the American public, often typecast as apathetic and uninformed, is keenly interested in cultural conversations about creative expression and civic and national identity. The dynamics surrounding public art reveal an ongoing American commitment to meaningful conversations, which are the cornerstones of an active democratic culture.” Erika Doss for Americans for the Arts, 2006

Comments in LTM focus on the religious battle, not the intended purpose of the “artist.”

Freedom to express your faith in “Holiday” display’s on community property is not a forum for hate speech. What would our Commissioners do with a Martin Luther King display hanging him in effigy, or a Menorah with a Swastika, or a Ramadan display with an obscene picture of a ha-ram girl. All are clearly hate speech, what would your response be?  A despicable display of a Santa skeleton on a Cross is hate speech not free speech, and should be removed.  But why take down the appropriate Seasonal Scenes. How shameful.

Aren’t we talking about specific events in Loudoun? Pertaining to displays at the courthouse? Sorry for excluding the exactly zero other interfaith displays that have occurred!

David, I am always curious about the ONE “interfaith” display that YOU participated in being the ONLY example you seem to think is a good one.

There is a larger world out there than YOU!

The links are working again on leftoflarry, so I recommend going to see the urging toward political activism at the local level, to ensure that no one (atheist) is offended by any public display of faith:

http://leftoflarry.reasonblogs.org/?p=18

Again, to Mr. Wingrove and the atheists:  if you’re going to make your case based on the First Amendment, you can’t leave off the part about “free exercise”.

David Weintraub continues the fine effort he engages in, of speaking in a slow, careful manner, in the hopes that the listener will slowly, slowly, slowly fall asleep.  Guess what!  People are not falling asleep on this one, David.  Clearly, bit by bit, we see that this was all a game played by the atheist groups associated with Wingrove.  Grab all the spots, claiming different applicants, when it was all the same applicant.  Hate to say it, but good job Barbara Munsey on this one.  Ken Reid should be ashamed of himself for taking the position that all Christian displays be removed from the courthouse.  Boooo to Ken Reid!  Ink still wet on the ballots, and already broken promises.

There’s one other thing I have to take issue with here from a factual standpoint. You say “The controversy arose several years ago when the traditional Nativity scene on display was challenged for seemingly providing preferential treatment for people of the Christian faith.” But that’s not what happened. The grounds committee didn’t recommend prohibiting unattended displays because of the preferential treatment of Christians, because that wasn’t an issue at that point. As I point out here (link: http://www.loudounprogress.org/?p=3149 ), “In fact, if anyone was justified in thinking that the county intended to ban expressions of their religion in the public square in 2009, it was the other faith communities that had just in the previous year been included in the holiday display on the courthouse lawn. The nativity scene had existed free of vandalism or even serious objection for many years. Talk of banning all displays only started after the displays were no longer exclusively Christian.”

All I can speak to is the feeling of the faith communities I personally work with. Some had no interest in participating even in 2008 when there was an actual interfaith display. Some of the reasons were a feeling that it’s demeaning to faith to display it in that way, and that such displays are incompatible with a courthouse setting.

None of those many communities have an interest in submitting a display currently, for the reasons I’ve already cited. It has nothing to do with not getting applications in early enough, they just plain have no interest in doing it. I suspect the same is true for many of what some folks would call “genuine” faith communities; speaking for myself, my faith is neither an art project nor a political statement.

a Google search of wingrove, leesburg, 6 of 10 produces the following results on the first page:

“The Importance Of Getting Involved In Local Politics Left Of Larry leftoflarry.reasonblogs.org/?p=18Cached
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
Mar 4, 2011 – We were able to get 6 of the 10 slots. With the most coveted spot ... a display of Charles Darwin to be placed on the Leesburg Courthouse. ... Rick Wingrove, CEO of Beltway Atheists, Inc and Director of the Virginia ...”

and

“Left Of Larry leftoflarry.reasonblogs.org/Cached
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
We were able to get 6 of the 10 slots. ... Rick Wingrove, CEO of Beltway Atheists, Inc and Director of the Virginia ... Darwin Display at the Leesburg Courthouse ...”

That blogger has been very active attacking folks on the L2Day site, and interestingly enough, that blog is currently down, so the links produced on Google can’t be read.

Down the memory hole with the gloating?  Maybe.  Convenient for the simple diverse free speech argument, if so!  Mr. Wingrove’s selective interpretation of the First Amendment (he always seem to leave out that part about people not being prohibited from a free exercise of religion) is already a bit busted, so the magnanimous compromise, plus the blogposts from last spring seem to indicate a planned campaign to shut out the first amendment rights of those of faith.

Well, one of the drawbacks of living so close to DC—plenty of people with national issues like to play in their literal backyard as well.

If true that Mr. Wingrove was crowing on his website some months ago that he had bagged six out of the ten slots for the atheists, then THAT actually explains why there isn’t more “diversity” in display.

David, belonging to a diverse church isn’t necessarily the same as being representative of a broad spectrum of county believers.  Although Having Jonathan work with the atheists on the displays DOES no doubt help in covering bases toward an end!

This is an excellent and thoughtful editorial. I would only add an answer to your question about why there are not more varieties of displays (only from my own perspective and scope of experience, of course). The communities of faith with whom I work, comprising a broad spectrum of the Loudoun community, have chosen to withdraw our voices from what is commonly described as a “circus.” For most of us there is something demeaning to our faith about having its expression share a common context with other expressions that can be disrespectful or mocking - or to be on a courthouse lawn at all.

This has nothing to do with a less than passionate defense of freedom of speech or a free speech zone. It’s that we take our faith too seriously to want it to be part of an unavoidably political statement on a courthouse lawn. Faith transcends that pettiness.

Truth Detector, with all due respect I think you are being unfair. Ken Reid did not call “for the removal of all Christian displays.” He called for a single display of a lighted Christmas tree, which can symbolize different things to different people. I support that resolution, at least for the courthouse, and I think it’s something most people could be happy with in time, given the alternatives. I would also support a free speech zone in another public space, as long as the county and the community was committed to protection of the displays from vandalism.

Ken Reid, in a Patch letter to the editor, called for the removal of all Christian displays from the courthouse.  I agree with this editor.  Ken Reid is being un-American.