stnsnsteel, do you realize that what you are advocating is the kind of unchecked pure democracy that embittered Plato, as described in his book “The Republic”?  Protection of minority speech from suppression by the majority was of such concern to our Founding Fathers that they only allowed 1/3 of the Senate to be replaced in any one election, and gave the President a fixed term in office, rather than use the same parliamentary system that Britain used (i.e., their chief executive, the Prime Minister, can be replaced anytime a parliamentary vote doesn’t go his way.)

Such harsh words, from such a sweet guy, Mr. S.  Good luck in your new life

MATTHEW 7:1-5:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again.

                            Jesus

I hate to go school-yard on you, but, I asked you first. You’re a dolt and a dullard, and am tired of you now. Go on w/ the war of worlds within your own mind. Mr. Weintraub, I feel for you that you have to deal with faceless voices like this person.  At least we know who Ms. Munsey is when she argues with you.

Oh! But Mr. S., I’ve just got to know your name, Pretty Please, tell me!

My lord, you are dense, defiant, or both. Clearly, “what is your name” is too hard of a first question. Let’s start with: the color of the sky is? I hate to humoursly demean someone, but your arrogance and insolence request it. So pretty please, with sugar on top, tell us what your name is and thus take credit for your POV in your argument with Weintraub.

And TY for admitting to an error, that is more than most of the arm-chair critics who bla-bla-bla just to hear his/her own voice do.

My having made my mind up about politicos has nothing to do w/ why I persist to want to expose you, a vocal advocate of Delgaudio and demeanor of Burk and Miller. I like none of them, but then, I don’t go and insult them and argue others about them. You do. So man-up and name yourself. This spectator is now watching you.

Now, hopefully we can move on from Spectator, that big loveable lug, and yes, Mr. W., and Ms. M, I’ve got to say I did get it wrong on the Mr. Weintraub in Leesburg Today.  I went back and looked, and I did in fact get it wrong.

Spectator:  quite a long post, for someone who is jaded, and is waiting to see the end of the day.  And that’s quite a “real name” you’ve got going there, big-guy!

T, please stop deflecting attention from the fact that you’ll not identify yourself to your verbal foe, and the rest of us spectators. I’m a fed-up observer on this and many other comment lines, where citizens who bravely expose themselves - by name - to express their opinion are confounded by cowards. I choose anonymity because I just don’t care all that much at the end of the day, and am far too jaded to believe that LoCo politicians will do anything but support their party lines. SO there’s no need for me to become a public figure in these things. But you sure want to be one, so let’s see who you are :).

Love your neighbor as yourself.
No other commandment is greater than these.

                              Jesus

My name doesn’t appear in the online article, so I doubt it is in the print version. Even if it is, I explicitly didn’t state a position on the policy - so why are you saying that I did? What did you think my position was?

Here’s the deal. It’s much easier to state the facts which are documented in the public record than it is to make up statements that no one ever made and spin conspiracy theories. It takes virtually no effort on my part to correct these efforts to mislead the public. I can and will easily do it as many times as it takes - although I agree that it must get tiresome for other readers - because the people trying to use this forum to mislead people shouldn’t be able to do that.

Here’s a suggestion for a more productive use of our time. I’ve been willing all along, and am still willing, to work with others on developing a compromise. It won’t happen right away, and it won’t make everyone happy. There are diehard advocates on both sides - those who are adamant that there should be nothing of a religious nature on any public property whatsoever, and those who have political reasons for insisting that their own religious symbols *must* be specifically at the courthouse. Those are unyielding positions. What I am interested in is talking with people who are willing to acknowledge that the “other side” has some legitimate arguments. There *is* a long tradition of a “town green” or commons which has value to our community, and there *are* competing constitutional interests at stake.

One reason I think this is viable is that nobody seems to be happy now. Although the issue is now supposedly “settled,” it’s just too full of inflammatory goodness for some people to leave it alone, especially coming up on an election year. I doubt very much that we’ve heard the last of it. I’ll just leave this as an invitation to anyone who is more interested in building bridges and repairing the damage to our civility than in politicking.

David, T may be noting that Jonathan was quoted in the article, and remembering the distinctive surname as opposed to differentiating the given names.

And I continue to see using a fiction name, spectator.  Really, is that your name?

T - I’m a one-time-commenting spectator out here who has watched you and Weintraub exchange vollies for days and days now. Weintraub then went to the effort of posting his own L-T-E with his name on it, and you just continue to subterfuge the whole thing. Both your arguments are convoluted and confusing, and you’re arguing more about mis-allusions to language rather than to the overall intent of the Board item recommendation options. And in the end, you got your desired way, so wtf are you still b*tching about? You now have the right to nah-nah-nah in Weintraub’s face, so do it and be done with it.

Dear Mr. W:  Look at vol 22, number 39, page 33, in Leesburg Today.

Do unto others
as you would have others do unto you.
                  [Jesus: Matthew 7:12]

Once again, T/whodat, you have attributed to me the exact opposite of what I said. Maybe you just aren’t reading carefully; you also claim I was quoted in the L2D article when I was not. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

A very interesting twist on this whole story is starting to develop.  Mr. W argues that the Board of Supervisors never had before it a motion to ban displays at the courthouse.  That claim was all a distortion by a single member of the Board of Supervisors.  Leesburg Today, another local newspaper, writes near the beginning of the article, the same claim.  Yet, in just a few paragraphs later, it has to acknowledge that one of the motions before the Board was to adopt the grounds committee position of banning displays.  To complicate the whole thing, Mr. W is quoted in that paper, as a speaker at that Board meeting, arguing on the Board’s action to allow/disallow displays on the courthouse grounds.  Then, in a letter to the editor, which, presumably, would have gone in after the Tuesday night. Wednesday morning vote by the Board, claims the Board never had before it a motion to ban displays.  It appears to me, that there is now an effort to re-write history here.  Clearly, the Board of Supervisors was being asked to adopt the grounds committee position of banning displays on the courthouse grounds.  So, again, why this sudden effort to re-write history.  Is this all about trying to save Kelly Burk’s fast sinking chances at reelection?

As to Spectator, you have got to be kidding, dictating to people what they should do, while you do the same thing.  Really!

Who gives a crap!  Lets not worship statues, displays and other such sundries.  It’s all about the “word” is how I read and understand scripture.  Don’t forget it lest you become like those whom Christ has spoken about.

Hey “T” - Weintraub has the nuts to write and sign a letter to the editor at the L2D, why don’t you do the same w/ your POV, and then we can see exactly who you are. Take credit for your arguments.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.

                    -Jesus

Dear T, I’m sorry to have confused you. Of course the motion is the one from the meeting yesterday; as I said, “the motion to which you refer.”

No supervisor made a statement regarding the existence of this or any other motion on the agenda. That would be silly. Either you misunderstood, or you made it up. I already told you what Supervisor Burk said, that there have been no indications that the board had any intention of changing the policy. The fact that an appointed committee made such a recommendation is not an indication that the board intended to vote for it. Did you ask Supervisor Burk what she thought before the vote?

I suggested that you talk with Supervisor Burk regarding what she actually thinks about the policy. Have you done that yet? You might also want to have such a conversation with Supervisor Miller. As I’ve said, reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the appropriate policy, and he has contributed some valuable insights about the competing constitutional interests at stake.

He says, she says, how about God says?  Whether or not you want to believe in him, he saves you when you fall.  As for a variety of displays in the courtyard.  The only ones that ever was there was the tree and the manger display.  No need for anything else.  Stop all the fighting and bitter comments and live life before you don’t have one to live.

Dear Mr. W:  WRONG.  The motion I am referring to, was not an old form, but a current one, which County Staff would have prepared, for the Chairman of the Board to sign, following the vote that occurred yesterday.  So, again, Kelly Burk lied.  So, I now ask myself, why, a clear supporter of Kelly Burk, would now work so hard to protect her, from the false statements she made.

Sorry David, a thing can’t be so and not-so at one and the same time (in two different papers).

:0

The door is always open for the board to make such decisions, so that point is moot. Mr. Delgaudio created an opportunity to conduct a circus of misinformation - which is, after all, what he does best. With the help of little elves ;)

So IOW, Delgaudio left the door open for the grounds committee to raise issues?

Had he not done so, would there have been much moaning over muzzling the rights and duties of the committee?

That sounds like a reasonable compromise, to allow the committee to bring up issues.

The committee brought this one back again, which is a bit different than your letter in L2Day saying that Delgaudio voted to bring the policy back for consideration.

Quite different, in fact, than what you say here:  Delgaudio added an emendment saying that if the grounds committee brought forth a recommendation, the Board would have to consider it.

He leaves a door open for the committee, they walk through with the display banning policy, and it’s Delgaudio’s fault?

Given your statements of lack of understanding why anyone would have hard feelings toward the committee, I can only imagine the howling if there had been no potential open door for them to raise concerns.

I’ve explained this before, but I’ll do it again. When the board voted in December to adopt the current policy, Supervisor Delgaudio insisted on an amendment to the motion that required the board to reconsider the policy any time the grounds committee made a recommendation. The grounds committee made such a recommendation, which is the motion to which you refer in the meeting document. This is all a part of the public record.

Contrary to your characterization, Supervisor Burk merely said that the board never had given any indication that they intended to change the policy they had adopted in December, and that misinformation had been given to the public claiming otherwise. That is a fact. Personally, I found her apology for something she had nothing to do with creating to be compassionate and principled.

It’s pretty obvious who has a political agenda here, and it sure isn’t me.

David, you can’t have it both ways—you are now sad because you feel that the people you formerly “bullseye"d as majority white male christian bigots were “misled”?

The characterization by you and others of these so-called “false victims” didn’t read to me as if it was made in a gentle spirit of love and unity.

I’m sorry you are sad.

I am not sorry that free speech in all its’ messy and obnoxious glory has been upheld, by an overwhelming margin.

And I hold a hope in my heart that the few who will use that freedom like immature jerks will lose interest quickly, as may happen if people just let that particular dog bark, and the caravan then passes on.

Dear Mr. W:  I did not realize you are the keeper of the public records on this one, and can attribute a proposed motion to Supervisor D.  And besides, Kelly Burk stated, very plainly, that there was no motion before the Board to ban displays, when there was.  When Supervisor after Supervisor spoke of their views on this, it was not until Kelly Burk, that an attack on the public was made.  Up to that point, every Supervisor spoke plainly and civilly, about their views in explaining their votes.  But not Kelly Burk.  And Stevens Miller’s comments about his interpretation of the Bill of Rights made absolutely no sense.  A quick reading of the “Bill of Rights” did not disclose to me a provision to the appearance of land upon which a courthouse sits.

T, you have misrepresented the facts. The rest of the board had no interest in reconsidering the policy. Only Mr. Delgaudio wanted to do that, which is why the agenda item existed. The evidence for this is part of the public record. If you don’t realize that, you truly have been misled. I am sorry.

Also, and with all due respect, you are in no position to know how someone else “wanted” to vote. I suspect from your previous comments that you wish Supervisor Burk had voted differently, but must settle for your own transparent efforts to speak for her. Perhaps you should ask her what she thinks.

Dear Mr. W:  Actually, I feel that the symbols I believe in, were elevated to the level appropriate in this situation.  For Kelly Burk to lie and say that the people were misled (which includes me as one of the mislead) and that the Board of Supervisors never had before it a motion to ban displays at the courthouse, is outrageous.  All one needs to do, is look at the Board agenda item, and find there a proposed motion, under consideration by the Board of Supervisors, to ban all displays at the courthouse grounds.  Kelly Burk clearly did not want to vote, as she did, but felt put upon to have to listen to the public.

And God bless all those who spoke out.  It takes courage to do that, to speak publicly, from the heart.  From my view, only Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller brought disrepute to this process.  They clearly had an agenda, and did not like being thwarted in their effort.

Dear T, you are not very good at reading peoples’ emotional states, either - but admittedly that’s difficult in this medium. I am sad that the symbols dear to people of faith have been cheapened by this political exploitation. There was never any doubt that this board would retain a constitutional policy, so there’s nothing to be angry about there. Reasonable people can, and have, come to different conclusions about the competing constitutional interests at stake.

More important, I think, is the deliberate creation of anger and division in our community for no reason. This is especially true of the fraudulent claim that our Christian communities were being singled out by the grounds committee, when a cursory review of the facts shows this to be false. If anything, the facts suggest the opposite is true - although I don’t believe that to be the case, either.

Thank you Supervisor Burk, for apologizing on behalf of your colleague to those people who were misled in that way. I think that resonates with me so much because I want to apologize to those people, too. It was heartbreaking watching them come up to the podium one after another, angry and confused about “why this is being discussed again.” Those people absolutely deserve an apology. It should come from Mr. Delgaudio, but we all know by now that won’t happen.

Dear Mr. W:  Why so unhappy, angry and confrontational.  Two elected officials, put there by the public, can be removed by the public.  Kelly Burk and Stevens Miller need to go.

T: Your incessant partisan sniping is tiresome. It’s obvious that you are one of those who worked hard to create a controversy where none existed, for exactly this purpose.

Ms. Burk said what needed to be said - there was never any intention on the part of the board to change the policy, and people who were told otherwise were lied to.

Believe me, I can understand why you would not want that fact stated for the record.

One of the great disappointments with this whole process, is the attitude of (1) Kelly Burk, with her angry belligerent tone in her statement on the vote, and (2) Stevens Miller playing the role of ‘wise old constitutional lawyer.’  Kelly Burk, clearly, did not want to vote the way she did, but did so only because of the pressure from the public.  Stevens Miller hasn’t a clue about the constitution, as you can see from his disorganized comments, where he couldn’t even state clearly what he was talking about.  Show me were in the United States Constitution does it speak to the appearance of the land upon which a court building sits on.  Both of these two, hopefully, will not be returning to the Board of Supervisors after next year’s elections.

I will be waiting for the display from the Pastifarians!

May you all be touched by his noodly goodness!

We The People: 1
The Government: 0

The will of the people to dictate the use of “The People’s Courthouse” is victorious.

Mr. Weintraub and Mr. Strickland, thank you for your thoughtful comments/clarifications. 

All we can do now is grin and bear it - at least for this year. Let the displayification of the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds begin! 

Hmmm - over and out!

The Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter are most universally recognized for exterior decoration. Understandable in a predominantly Christian country. 
The question regards political alliances between church and state, which are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.  Public facilities like fire stations and hospitals are one thing, but schools, libraries, and court houses are another.
If equality means anything, what one can do, all can do.  This will result in year round revolving
displays. Court houses are particularly sensitive since justice is supposed to be blind and the laws must be equally enforced.  The aspect of one religion capturing the flag so to speak demeans the equal rights of others.
Best thing is no religious displays.  Patriotic displays yes.  Religious displays no.

Oh, excellent!  I was so worried the Star Wars geeks wouldn’t have anywhere to rejoice during the holiday season.  This has eased my mind a great deal!

Hmmm: Actually, no. They didn’t vote to allow religious displays, but rather all viewpoint displays. If the courthouse grounds belong to the people, they belong to all the people, not only the ones who want to express something of a religious nature. The policy also applies year-round, not just in December, since people have viewpoints all year.

Mr. W, why so bitter sounding.

I’ll vote for Jim Burton at any office based on his quote there.  He also ruled himself out of ever joining the GOP. 

Can’t wait to see the Jedi, the FSM, and whatever else comes to play with Santa and the nativity.

I agree, Mr. Seeman.  This is a non-issue.  Time to move on.

About taxes.  To fight two wars, we have been borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars - mostly from China.  This is the first time in our history that we went to war and lowered taxes at the same time.  The interest on our loans will take us into the trillions of dollars owed for the wars.  Over 5,000 of our folks have died.  Tens of thousands will need some level of support due to their injuries over there.  Do you think the American Tax payer should be helping pay for these wars and our veterans’ care or should we simply continue borrowing from Communist China and let our veterans’ children and grandchildren pay our war debts?  I have made no personal sacrifice for the war.  Have you?  Should we?

Congratulations to all members of the Board of Supervisors, minus Stevens Miller, for doing the right thing. The issue should now be settled, and we can get on to more important matters like spending and taxes.

I think that I finally understand where some are confused.  They didn’t vote to allow Christmas displays.  They voted to allow religious displays.  Hopefully the Spaghetti Monster displays won’t qualify.  Don’t worry about the Buddhists - they have way too much class to be involved in all of this. It will be interesting to see if The Force of Star Wars fame qualifies.  But the Pagans definitely qualify.  They are registered and they were having a December Winter Solstice celebration long before Christians jumped on the religion bandwagon.  The Christmas Tree?  The Christmas Wreath?  Both are originally Pagan symbols.  If the Pagans do show up at the courthouse sandbox, I hope the Christians will play nicely with them . . . and the Wiccans and the Jains and the Muslims and the Sikhs and the Zoroastrians and the B’hai and the Sufis and the Devil Worshipers and the Druids and the animists and the Jews and the Hindus and the Confusionists and the Taoists and any other religions that might want to play.

“For those of you that [don’t agree with me], well who really cares how you feel.”

Please, by all means, keep talking. Everyone should know what the holiday spirit means to you!

@stnsnsteel….Amen to that!

One question…..Does Buddha and Spaghetti Monster celebrate Christmas?

You know, this is a common sense issue. As a nation we celebrate Christmas, It is a national holiday recognized by the federal Government. As a nation we celebrate the birth of Christ. Hopefully we don’t go down the road the public school system has gone down when we start referring to Christmas as a Winter break or Winter Holiday. Wake up people, it’s Christmas!!

I like the anti-religion responses.  Grouse and complaint.  Class acts, not!

Now on top of this, Miller has put into motion for the BOS to raise their compensation.

I guess he thinks he will be re-elected.

Not a chance in hell that will happen.

I want a Supervisor who goes with the majority and I’m sure the majority feels that a religious display at the courthouse during Christmas is a good thing. For those of you that don’t feel it’s right, well who really cares how you feel.

At least we know WHY Miller voted the way he did. We don’t know the other 8’s reasons. Are you proud of one of them because they just caved to public pressure and future votes?? Is taht the type of Supervisor you want, a guy who makes decisions based on 51% of expressed views? I personally want the guy/gal to make the best decisions for the County, not just what the majority of those who speak out want. That’s called the vocal majority of the minority.

I feel strongly both ways!!

Just say “yes” to turning our courthouse grounds into a carnival for religion plus lunatics.  At least it will be creative.

Stevens Miller gets my vote for his political courage on this one.  Stevens, may The Force be with you!

Waiting for the displays is a little bit like Christmas - 

I just can’t wait to see what we get!

the people in the Dulles district, remember how Miller voted when he’s up for reelection. Send him packing.

Can’t complain too much with this decision, it was the safe political move. Miller, the lawyer, can stand on his reasons from the judicial POV, backed by the Judges. An easy out and excuse for him.  Can’t wait till a rape trial is held, and a display either supporting or demonizing the act is front and center and demonstraters rally around it. We need MORE freedom of expression demonstrations! Apathy off the blogs abounds.