Perhaps, KLB.

I quoted the blog for a reason, and not to draw you into “personalization”, David.

I linked to the posts because of the denial of any association with UU events, which, as the link indicates, was not quite true.

Apparently Jonathan (and others) seem to need to politicize this.

Apparently, from Jonathan’s remark on the newest story, he REALLY needs to politicize this.

Okay.

I respect his diversity, and I also disagree with him.

Barbara,
I think you are misreading what I am saying; I agree completely that the displays should be allowed. And I agree with how you are interpreting the constitution as well as what Jefferson said.

Agreed, KLB. The blog posts that were brought up in this thread have nothing to do with the matter under discussion, and I apologize for having been drawn into that attempt to personalize and distract.

FYI, the Virginia chapter of the ACLU has now weighed in with a letter to the BoS yesterday, in part:

“While the controversy here has centered on religious displays, all kinds of expression are equally welcome in a public forum, including political and social messages,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.

“We should all be supportive of preserving traditional town center public forums,” added Willis.  “They are not only an important part of our cultural and political heritage, but also of our ongoing vitality as a nation.  Unfortunately, you won’t find many outside of cities and older towns like Leesburg.”

A copy of Willis’s letter to the Board of Supervisors is available online at: http://acluva.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/07-19-10.pdf.”

It makes for interesting bedfellows, to say the least. The only thing I would add is that it’s not exactly true that it “costs nothing.” There has already been an act of vandalism, so we should expect that there will in fact be some unknown cost to deal with repair, security, etc. It may be that it is a cost worth paying, but let’s not pretend that freedom is free.

KLB, be as disgusted as you like.

The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion, and Jefferson wrote a letter assuring the need for preventing this, and people have been misquoting ever since with ever more ridiculous results.

David and Jonathan do not get a pass from me for their own politicization of multiple issues, and hairsplittingly malleable associations depending on the issue at hand for utilization.

I said it before, and will repeat:  let everyone/anyone apply to display.

It is fair, and violates nothing.

It also wastes no money and time in revisiting the issue repeatedly.

Perplexed no more: My reply was as stated an example of how things have gone from the way they were.  In the other reply to you as to the “law of the land” is why I used the example of our current problem with our border. I just want to up front about what is taking place today in our country. It seems some laws get enforced to the detriment of others rights while forgeting others
who follow the laws. The federal govt as well as local govt should follow what is in place and has been for a few hundred years. I am just as “perplexed” as you when I see how some want to change what has worked for all those who have chosen to live here over the last 200+ years. It worked for them just as it has for those with different faiths. What has happened to tolerance of varying faiths and cultures as long as they respect what was here and was one of the reason they chose to move here.  This is simply applied to the court house lawn; no problems with the display during the Christmas season; just as I may not believe in other religions or faiths; it is a right that our founding fathers fought for. Putting a display on a court house lawn in no way means that the state has endorsed one religion or faith over another. I served my country with the belief that it was a country ruled by a majority but with laws or rules (Bill of Rights) in place to keep the majority from stepping on the rights of the minority. Well, that is it I am finished with the topic but hope that this local board has the foresight to not continue stepping on the rights of many to be “PC” .

Perplexed, I agree with you about the “out cutesy” each other with blogs, other than my comment I have not seen one comment that references the constitution which if read as it is written means any religion can put anything there. The very idea that anybody would quote some stupid blog instead of the constitution sickens me and reminds me of what is wrong with our once great nation, we are now driven by opinion rather then what at one time the rest of the world envied “the written law of the land”. I am saddened by the lack of understanding here of what made our nation great, I will not re-quote the constitution but for anybody who wants to see what it says on this issue feel free to scroll down.

Whoa, I know I prompted an explanation of your use of “our culture” and the like, but this conversation was (?) about the courthouse display thing, and you seemed to have jumped to the AZ immigration law thing.  Anyway, your POV is clearly ‘keep things the same as they’ve always been’, that’s fine, an uphill battle, but OK, more power to you. I’m having more fun watching Barbara and David/Jonathan try to out-cutesy each other with their feats of blog research and fact checking.

To perplexed:
No you did not get what I was saying but you are right about being tired of certain things taking place today. I have no problem and in fact served my country because of belief in religious freedom. I have no problem with others placing a display on govt property. Where I have the problem is when we as a nation continue to step on the rights of others to those crying foul in the name of “PC”. However diverse we have become, we started as one group coming here from one country. Other parts of our country during this process saw landings or other nations exploring here from other European nations. But our nation develped from those beginnings from Va. to New England fighting for freedom from England. To the point or examples: We are a country of many different cultures from Europe and now other countries; they came thru out our history making this experiement called America an example to the world. But we were united then, one country with laws that those who came here followed and obeyed from the day they got here. My frustration is with those who would just throw our laws in trash today and allow anyone to come here without following our laws. We accept anyone with open arms but there has always been a right way and a wrong way to get here. Should we just forget about those who followed the laws to obtain their right to be here. No abolutely not! Why you ask, well lets say that I have an opportunity for a new job in Mexico; when I arrive it is my responsibility to learn their customs, language, and laws. I chose to go there they did not chose to have me come and start changing their customs or laws. Did you know as an example, if you go into Mexico without proper papers and get caught it is illegal and you will receive a jail term of up to two years. I recall the large number of peopl fleeing Vietnam and how they worked to obey our laws, learn the language and received their citizenship after studying our history and language. Why should this not apply to all who chose America?  I accept the fact that those coming here wish to celebrate their customs and culture but do not accept the “PC” notion that we should just forget our laws, customs or traditions as it may offend someone. I thought that was what this country was about; a melting pot not one divided. Let’s all obey the laws, respect each others diversity and practice a little more tolerance but follow our laws and constitution without trying to change everything for a few. It has worked well for a few hundred years and I believe it will continue but we do have to maintain certain principles for all those who chose to come here the right way.

David, not “a *comment*”, but seven, some of which were quite assumptively inflammatory (as with his only comment here), and as appears to be usual, even on this thread, you needed to come in and clean up after Jonathan’s over the top wordbombs (again, as in this thread, with “I’m Jewish and I’m tired of having Christmas shoved down my throat”, and the absence of Jonathan and the presence of you speaking for him ever since.).

Yes, seriously, participation in blogging is participation in blogging, whether you would prefer to confine the fact of the existence of Jonathan’s comments to only your own blog, where it can be kept tidily in context, amen.

As I said, nice dismissive generalization in order to keep your own axe on track.

To reiterate:  if the committee had not raised this again, then ANYONE, religious or no, could have applied for a display on a first come/first serve basis.

But now, since the appointed committee has brought it back, and the elected supervisors are willing to entertain it again in contravention of their own adopted policy, everyone gets to grind their axes again.

Hey, it’s only tax dollars.

And politics.

Seriously, Barbara? Your position is that a *comment* on someone else’s (by the way, political) blog is “blogging”? And that every random comment can be mined for “evidence” of a shadowy affiliation of some sort? So noted; your behavior is consistent. You’ve done this so many times I’ve lost count.This has officially become ridiculous.

To reiterate: It would be nice if we, as a community, could return to the mutually respectful and reverent example of the holiday displays two years ago (by the way, Jonathan took the photos of that invocation). Unfortunately, there are people out there who don’t want that and would rather ruin it for everyone else. It’s a shame, but it looks like that’s the way it is.

Nice, David.  Sweeping generalizations always make things much more clear, and don’t grind an axe at all.

I’m not talking about your posts at your own blog.

I’m talking about Jonathan’s posts here
http://www.tooconservative.com/?p=6410
among others comments.

I’m sorry neither of you was able to attend, after Jonathan to the trouble to promote it on a blog he apparently detests.

But that wouldn’t be grinding any kind of an axe, though.

No more than your own decision here to only acknowledge postings on your own (primarily political) blog, and thus declare that everything I say about anything is therefore probably just…wrong.

lolol

@Barbara: I’m afraid I have to correct your facts, again. There were three posts, all authored by me, about the Loudoun “Standing on the Side of Love” event: An announcement that the event would be taking place, and two links to articles about the event that appeared in local papers. Neither of us was able to attend the event.

Your credibility suffers when you get the facts wrong over and over. It’s happened so often with me that I just assume most of what you state or imply about other people is also wrong.

David, agreed that Jonaathan is not an elected official, but he does grind axes well.

Had the committee not brought the policy back, then no one on either side could grin with delight and wade into the fray, could they?

I can see some being delighted with the opportunity to duke it out again, but the opportunity would not exist without the action by the committee, so I don’t think you can blame Delgaudio for the situation, as tempting (and useful) as that might be.

As for UU events, what about Standing on the Side of Love last Valentine’s Day?

Jonathan blogged (in full political voice) leading up to that event;  did he not attend?

Well, Jonathan is not an elected official with an axe to grind, just a minority citizen with powers of observation. It’s not unusual to hear such things from religious minorities.  Why this is being brought up again is a very good question - it seems that the Facilities Commission sees clearly what’s coming down the pike and just doesn’t want to deal with it, which is understandable - but an even better question is this: Who stands to get media attention by grandstanding about it? And who just looooves media attention, and playing the victim?

As for this alleged UU connection you seem so fixated on, I’m not sure where you are getting this idea. I won’t speak for Jonathan, but I can’t even think of a “UU venue” in recent memory in which he has participated, whatever that means.

And that denomination is hardly alone in its political activism; many, many churches engage in issues advocacy, and some even put out voter guides (IIRC, Dick Black’s church did this). While that was certainly questionable, issues advocacy is perfectly within the boundaries of 501(c)(3) rules. If you really want to go there, the entire reason for Patrick Henry College’s existence is to train a certain type of “Christian soldier” for political activism. Just sayin’.

Sorry, David, I was referring to the fact that political activism is a tenet of faith for UUs, which does walk a very fine line with the tax status.

No, you did not say that Christianity was being shoved down your throat, Jonathan did.

And I agree with you that the politicization of what should be very simple (continuation of the current policy, open to anyone first come first served for the available spots) WILL continue, because it will be useful to people like…Jonathan!  who never answered the question about whether he considers any faith other than Judaism being shoved down his throat when he participates in a UU venue, which recognizes ALL (as the policy should, and apparently currently does—why is this being dredged up for a fight yet again?) beliefs, or lack thereof.

Bob, I think your suggestion is probably as good a solution as we’re likely to come up with, and thank you for trying. I don’t, however, see the politicization of the issue ending anytime soon. It’s just too useful for certain players.

Good Grief!!  Everybody seems to be trying to convince everyone else in the crectness of their position.  I propose a solution to a problem.  What do you think of that??

@Alby: Please check more carefully. I said no such thing. As I say below, I fully supported the interfaith holiday display two years ago.

I would like to remind everyone of the following letter from members of Loudoun Interfaith BRIDGES last year (I suppose that participating with BRIDGES is as close to “caucusing” with other faith communities as anything else, although it wouldn’t have occurred to me to call it that):

“In light of the recent controversy over holiday displays, the undersigned member congregations of Loudoun Interfaith Bridges wish to express our gratitude to the members of Leesburg’s Christian community who reached out last year to include other faiths in this long tradition. While not all in our group agreed that the courthouse grounds are an appropriate venue for religious displays, several of our congregations responded to the gracious invitation. Beth Chaverim Reform Congregation and the Sikh community provided holiday displays to join the creche on the courthouse grounds, and speakers from the Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and Sikh faiths provided remarks for an invocation given in the spirit of holiday celebration and community. This simple celebration of faith and understanding across boundaries remained throughout the holiday season for passersby to enjoy; readers can find photos and more information at www.loudouninterfaithbridges.org.

Unfortunately, some of the public comments following the prohibition of displays indicate a lack of awareness of these events. Many seem to believe that the display prohibition was a specific ban on expressions of the Christian faith; some who signed the petition demanding reversal of the decision even made hateful remarks directed at other faiths. This misdirected anger is as disheartening as it is destructive.

Now that the Board of Supervisors has reversed the display prohibition, our hope is that in coming years we can return to the example put into practice last year, and that those communities of faith who wish to share a public celebration of the holiday season will do so with mutual respect, reverence, and great joy.”

It would be nice if that were possible, wouldn’t it? I fear that Barbara is right: This has become a redundant mess, a playground for those with political axes to grind. For the record, I fully supported and participated in the lovely holiday display two years ago. Can the commenters who are now hollering about “different cultures” and so-called “political correctness” say the same?

David Weintraub@

In the United States, you mentioned that you feel Christianity is being shoved down your throat. I mark that if I was in Israel, couldn’t I proclaim that Judaism is being shoved down my throat?  How many Star’s of David dot the landscape in Tel Aviv or exist on Govt property? 

If you are a Jew in America, you might take note that America is full of Christians. Just as a Christian living in Israel should take note that Israel is full of Jews. So one might feel overwhelmed that Judaism is pervasive in Israel just as Christianity is pervasive in America.

Net Result, get used to seeing Christmas decorations on buildings that “We The People” have a say over how they are used.

@Barbara: Can you explain what it means to “caucus” with a church? I have no idea what you mean by that.

@Observer: Presumably, you meant to address me with your comment. No, Israel has no written Constitution. “By constitution is..” means the same thing as “constituted as..” a Jewish state. Since you surely are not claiming that Israel was not constituted as a Jewish state, you and/or Alby may wish to reconsider the implications of the comparison between the US (with our written Constitution) and Israel, or between the US and “a Muslim Country.” I hope that clarifies it for you.

Mr. McDonald, thank you for your service in both the military and as a public servant. But neither gives you the right to make a statement such as, “...those traditions of our culture…” By saying “We have bent over backwards to recognize different cultures that have chose to move here”, I took from it that you are none too happy that these cultures - different to yours - have moved here (the USA), nor that you have to observe aspects of these different cultures (ie, in this case, their religious symbols/traditions that would go on the Courthouse lawn).

“it is time to stand up for those traditions of our culture which have been in place since our beginning” - I sensed a little anger, nativism, and anxiety of these other cultures that have chosen to move to “here” (or, from your POV, ‘my country’) in your words.

I think it’s safe to say that we are both US citizens, but beyond that, you don’t know my ‘culture’, and I don’t know yours. Thus, I take offense that you lump me and every other citizen within the bounds of whatever culture you feel you are a part of. If your culture is secular, religious, agnostist, anarchist, etc., fine, I don’t care. I understood your comments as being in favor of locating religious displays on government property, but that the tone was of being sick and tired of catering to others’ culture rather than your culture.

If in fact you are welcoming with open arms all the cultures that are represented in this country, and want them all proudly displayed this December, then I am wrong, and I apologize. Good day.

The UU’s need to reread their bible. They’ve glossed over a few things that God Almighty called an abomination.

Jonathan, I thought you and David caucused with the Unitarian Universalists, who welcome ALL forms of worship, and paths to spirituality, right?

Do you consider anything non-Jewish that you encounter in a UU setting as being “rammed down your throat”?

The UUs get a tax break for being a church, even though political activism on behalf of “social justice” is a tenet of that body.

How do you reconcile that?

At any rate, perhaps this whole redundant mess will become the new Loudoun holiday tradition:  fighting over and over about who or what can be represented on public land.

Jonathan Weintraub:. Israel is not a constitutionally theocratic Jewish state. First, Israel has no written constitution. Second, it is not in any way governed by theocrats.

Either everyone ought to be able to put a display at any time or no one can. It’s that simple. Why only in December? How about August? Why only religious displays?

The larger problem here is that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is the most wrongly interpreted of all the amendments. It states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” I am tired of hearing about the “separation of church and state, that’s NOT what it says, what is says good people is that the government cant set up a national religion and that the people can’t be prohibited from practicing the religion of their choice. The men who wrote this knew exactly what they were doing, they were prohibiting the government from doing what the King had done in the nation we had just fought and gained our independence from.  It had nothing to do with a display on a courthouse lawn, the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves is they could see what is happening in the great nation they created.

No good deed goes unpunished, and there is almost nothing that can be said that won’t offend someone.  That said, condider this:  The Courthouse Lawn belongs to “The People”, and is “On Loan” to the County Government to “Manage and Administer” that asset to the benefit of “The People”.  It follows then; that any of “The People” have the same rights to expression of their belief.  Christian, Jew, Agnostic, Muslim and any others included. 

How can we do this? 

Allocate equal areas along the fence on King and Market, draw lots in advance of the observance date, and let chance determine WHERE the display will be, excluding no one.  Everyone gets their say, the government employees are off the hook, and can attend to some of the more pressing issues of the day.

Alby: As I’m sure you are aware, Israel is by constitution a theocratic Jewish state. You might want to reconsider what you are implying.

Well “perplexed” your reply is self explanatory. I suppose that “you” do not wish to be a part of “our country” . I have not only fought for and served my county but upon return served the community in law enforcement. So I thought it was clear, America the one I fought for is the same one that a few hundred years ago established certain freedoms for us all including religious choice. I cannot see or understand how people think or assume because a holiday display is on govt. property that the govt. is endorsing or approving one religion over another. I personally believe that we have too much govt now; no wonder the country is spending it’s way into self destruction. Complaining about a display of faith; wait till the Chinese foreclose on America. I think you would be happy to see any type of display which expresses those freedoms we were founded on which went by the roadside as we spend our grandchildren’s future away. Let govt. do only that which is was intended by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

McDonald - “OUR”...“WE”... who is this WE you speak of? You can only speak for yourself, you cannot speak for anyone else, unless you identify that group and prove you have their permission to speak on their behalf. Please expound, I can’t wait to hear what group (the “our” in “our culture”) this is.

So, Mr. Weintraub, you wish to not be able to display a menorah on the courthouse lawn? Are you a cultural Jew who doesn’t practice Judaism (and, in fact, are really an atheist)? Since when is displaying a religious or non-religious symbol (e.g. a “holiday tree) shoving something down your throat? Just don’t look when you go by a display like that (but do keep your eyes on the road)!

Mr. Weintraub,

Christmas Day is a federal, state, and local government holiday.  I suppose you desire to change this as well?

Amen, Alby!  Thanks!  How about this, why not just celebrate Festivus and call it day?  That’s where we’re headed.

Jonathan Weintraub - “I’m Jewish and I’m tired of having Christmas shoved down my throat.  “
==

You do realize that America is a Majority Christian Country, right? If I went to Israel, could I say the same thing about Yom Kippur, Rosh Ha-Shanah, or Hanukkah? How about if I went to a Muslim Country and said that about Ramadan?

I see nothing wrong with the Courthouse being open to all religious holidays. It is, after all, the people’s Court House. And, We The People, should be able to use our buildings for whatever we like. But outright bans or limiting only specific groups to using the courthouse would not be right nor fair.

So if Christians want to use the Courthouse on Christmas, so be it. If Jews want to use the Courthouse on Hanukkah, more power to them. If Atheist want to use the courthouse to praise thin air, have at it.

I’m Jewish and I’m tired of having Christmas shoved down my throat.  Celebrate it all you like but don’t demand a government stamp of approval on a sectarian religious holiday.  Government of “all the people” (not so much in VA right now) has work to do and doesn’t need to wast time and money promoting ubiquitous religious holidays.

At what point do people say enough and tell the PC crowd to go pound sand.  It is ludacris how this county has changed in thirty years…I remember when you used to have Christmas assemblies in school and Christmas plays in school that brought up stories from the bible.  But now everyone has to be so delicate around these nannist-PC’ers.  And that’s fine for them to have their own beliefs and opinions but let’s be honest the percentage of these people is probably less than 5% and that’s being generous.  So enough…I would urge the Board of Supervisors to stop kowtowing to the PC crowd and leave the courthouse displays to things that celebrate the season and not demean it

I believe that in the name of being “political correctness” some would throw their mother under the bus.  We are slowly becoming, no rapidly becoming a society without principles, we stand for nothing in fear of offending someone. It is time for America to grow up or at least wake up to the fact that you can never please all the people even some of the time. We have bent over backwards to recognize different cultures that have chose to move here; now it is time to stand up for those traditions of our culture which have been in place since our beginning.