Public input session – Tuesday, September 7, 7:00 pm
1 Harrison Street SE, Leesburg.
You can call in advance to sign up at 703.777.0204 or 703.771.5072.
The folks who insist that the First Amendment allows them to display “traditional” religious symbols on the courthouse lawn are planning a repeat of the heated public input session of last holiday season. So, I suppose, are the equally insistent anti-display advocates, who have already snapped up at least three of the ten currently permitted display sites.
I think the inclination among progressive people is to not give too much attention to stunts and manufactured controversies like this. It doesn’t seem like something that should be taken seriously. There comes a point, though, at which our silence is perceived as consent. A situation in which book burnings and violence occur has reached that point, and our local controversy is developing in the context of such a national climate. A local blogger has been maintaining an online petition demanding that our government exclusively “Keep Christmas in Leesburg,” and here are a couple of the more disturbing comments that accompany the signatures:
I do not like the smell of curry therefor if we are unable to have a Christmas Tree and a Nativity Scene then get rid of your curry!
Freedom of religion is a right of every citizen this is not the middle east. If a nativity scene or christmas tree offends you, go home.
Notice how the facts don’t matter, as if people of other faiths and cultures are the ones responsible for the issue being on the agenda. This is a poisonous atmosphere, and it’s being encouraged by those politicians who do better at the polls when their constituencies are motivated by fear and loathing of the “other.”I suspect that a lot of people in Loudoun and elsewhere just feel a bit resentful of things not continuing to be “the way they’ve always been,” and it seems reasonable to them that as the majority religious tradition they should be able to have that. Add some well-placed demagoguery to that sentiment, and you can get a range of things, from a white suburban Christian mom claiming to know from the courthouse issue “what religious persecution feels like” (trust me, Ma’am, you don’t) to a book burning fueled by anti-Muslim bigotry, to violence. I have to call attention to this comical bit of pretense, though, buried in an angry post promising to “ferret out” those Loudoun County supervisors who don’t bend to the will of “the majority” on the courthouse issue.
This is really a striking display of either ignorance or outright lying on the part of this blogger, the same one mentioned above. If she valued facts over fabrication she would know that the supervisor who demanded that the holiday display policy be amended to require that the Board regularly revisit the policy, and the supervisor generating most of the false ‘war on Christmas’ propaganda are one and the same person. After all, one can’t put on a very dramatic ‘war on Christmas’ performance without media interest and without an enemy to engage. It had to be arranged, and it was.
If reasonable people show up and say what needs to be said, the media will be able to report something like this: A group of residents largely organized by one of their colleagues called the Board of Supervisors anti-Christian tyrants, and threatened them with defeat in 2011 if they “vote against Christmas.” Other speakers said that they see claims of bias against Christians as a nonissue, since all religions must be treated equally under the policy. They pointed to evidence that those claiming to be victims of anti-Christian discrimination don’t want minority viewpoints represented, and dismissed the “war on Christmas” narrative as a political stunt.
Although the judges’ recommendation makes a good case for excluding the courthouse grounds as a site, whether the board should vote to allow all displays or none on county property is a matter on which people can reasonably disagree. What our supervisors really need to hear from us, regardless of our opinions about the display policy, is that we want them to make it clear that one group is not entitled to special rights or special treatment by virtue of being “the majority.” That’s not what our Constitution is for.
Related posts:
Solving the holiday display impasse
‘Tis the season for cheap political grandstanding
Debates, Distractions and Religious Freedom
The insistence that Christian symbols must be in the public square, and explicitly at the courthouse, really does tell the story. There is no other faith community demanding this right – the interfaith display of two years ago only came about because it was unacceptable to have only one faith tradition represented, and making the display more inclusive seemed like the best solution at the time. As I’ve pointed out before, there were some faith communities that were invited but declined to participate because they felt strongly that religious symbols don’t belong at the courthouse.
As for the menorah, it represents another baldfaced lie being told by the militant Barbara Curtis group. On their petition, there is repeated reference to “our traditional Christmas Tree, Menorah and Nativity Scene on the Leesburg Courthouse Lawn,” as if there has been a menorah there all along. This lie (designed for people who haven’t been driving by the site for years) was apparently deployed to claim that the “traditional” holiday display was not exclusive to one faith. This is completely false.
The menorah first appeared in 2008, alongside a display erected by Loudoun’s Sikh community, with an invocation that also included the Muslim community and several local churches. Leesburg Town Council member Ken Reid, who now styles himself as “the Jew who saved Christmas,” not only had nothing to do with it, he was adamantly opposed to participation until this manufactured controversy arose. The petition says nothing about the Muslim and Sikh displays, which are exactly as much a part of the “traditional” holiday display as the menorah.
I feel bad for the Leesburg couple who put up the creche every year. They seem like very nice people, and I don’t think it was ever their intention to offend anyone or to be thrust into the middle of an angry, militant political movement. They just wanted to do the right thing by including other faiths in a joyful, reverent holiday celebration.
And yes, those responsible for creating and maintaining this controversy are certainly some of the most un-Christian and unkind individuals with whom I have had personal contact. What hypocrites.
But then, I come from a Jewish Christmas-celebrating family. (What’s not to love about Christmas? The hope for peace and goodwill towards all? I’m for that!) It seems to me, though, that the people most in favor of having displays on the court-house lawn are the least showing Christmas spirit.
In the Jewish faith there is a requirement that, at Hanukah, you must display your menorah in your window, so that people know of the miracle. But the requirement is to display it in YOUR OWN window.
I love holiday decorations, but the court house is not the place for them.