Back in August, those who wanted to see holiday displays continue on the grounds of the Leesburg courthouse were vocal champions of the First Amendment. The grounds should be open to everyone, they said, and they were delighted to have the ACLU on their side. Here are some typical comments on the Loudoun Times-Mirror site at the time, in response to those who argued that all displays should be prohibited:
“Public property should actually be FOR the public, and allowing public use by all is not “establishing” any one of them. Everyone should have equal access, in my opinion.”
“Let everyone have an equal chance to display.”
“If we are to protect individual freedom, we must protect the ability of all to express their opinions, whether we personally agree or not. Allowing freedom isn’t abridging it, and a free for all is just that: free.”
“Tolerance means to respect (and ALLOW) others their differences. Their difference doesn’t harm you by existing, even if you disagree with it.”
“I think it would be nice if displays could continue, and include not only serious representations of beliefs involving faith and/or no faith, and yes that would mean we’d have to welcome the onanism of the attention seekers too.”
“The American Civil Liberties Union, AG Ken Cucinnelli, Barbara Munsey, many others, including myself all say the same thing: no harm in allowing all points of view.”
That last comment is from TMitOH, by the way – the individual who rounded up all the angry speakers by leading them to believe that the board was poised to ban the baby Jesus, or send them to prison for wearing Christmas sweaters, or some such thing.
We were additionally told that raising concerns about vandalism and escalating animus due to the perceived offensiveness of this or that display was fearmongering about a “non-existent” security issue, that once the equal access policy was implemented the agitation would “run its course” and settle down, and that democracy is messy and can make people uncomfortable (with this I agree).
Well, it’s not August anymore, and the equal-access-for-all crowd has morphed back into the special rights crowd. The fun started when the ten lawn spaces were assigned to the applicants exactly as advertised; on a first-come, first-served basis. Complaints ensued. The nativity scene should automatically get the favored corner spot no matter who applied first, argued the complainants, because of “tradition.” Well, equal access law doesn’t grant super-special privileges to any faith tradition on that basis, and neither does our policy, so the answer to that was “no.” The policy adopted by the board is exactly what was praised by the ACLU and embraced by the pro-display, pro-freedom of expression public.
Judging from the comments on the current LTM article, the policy they were so in favor of then is now completely unacceptable. The problem now is that other points of view are “defacing” what they feel is their exclusive Christmas display privilege. Pointing out that there is no such special privilege gets one called “pig” and “freak.”
This is what I told the board in early September:
“Back in 2008, there was a holiday display and invocation that included the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith traditions. Some people did make valid arguments that it shouldn’t be at the courthouse, and I respect that. Maybe a different public site would address those concerns – I can’t speak for others. But in spite of that I think, rather than making people angry, it brought them together. I wish it could have continued in that direction. And that was the first and last time that happened.
Now what we have is anger and division. I’m not saying that most of the people upset about this are trying to divide us; I don’t think that’s true. But the loudest voices, and the voices getting the most attention, are the militant ones – and no matter what you decide, the people who are angry now are still going to be angry, either because there are no displays, or because they don’t like the other displays.“
Look, I’m not particularly clairvoyant, nor do I possess any other special powers. You could see this coming ten miles away. It’s not very jolly, is it? Nor very Christian. I’m not sure she’s explained this fully, but could it be that the person who created the “Letter from Jesus” display – she used to be a Christian, and now identifies herself as an atheist – left the faith because of behavior like this? Who could blame her?
The text of “Letter from Jesus” is in the comments over there. It’s worth a read.
And please, don’t forget to check out Loudoun’s Alternative Gift Fair. Happy Holidays – all of them – to all.
Pingback: “A brave stand” – Loudoun Progress
but written words often either lack essential tone, or imply one unintended.
No, the reason I had nothing to say (and how does one get a word in edgewise over there? the comments were flying) was because my opinion was that in order to exclude NO ONE, EVERONE needs an equal shot.
As far as I’m concerned, the angst is just part of the shaking-out process.
My point here was that, since you quoted me multiple times and were making the point that (some of?) those who claimed they were advocating for inclusion had now changed their tune and were being exclusive, having primarily quoted me, and then closing with a suggestion that I by name be sent on retreat, the implication could be that I was one of those who were now not holding true to the opinion expressed at the time.
Nope!
Seriously, no meanness felt or offense taken.
Cheers back at you!
Barbara
What I thought was funny was the stark difference between then and now in your behavior, and then the fact that you pointed out that very thing. As you also point out, most of the comments are anonymous, so one can only make general observations. It’s clear that the central theme a few months ago was “freedom of expression for everyone, adopt the ACLU policy,” whereas now it’s “those other displays offend me and shouldn’t be allowed under the policy.”
Your point that we shouldn’t expect there to be no conflict is perfectly well taken; all I’m saying is that the only people currently standing up for the principle of equal access seem to be self-identified atheists. Where are all the other pro-display people of faith, many of whom specifically asked the board to adopt the policy endorsed by the ACLU?
I had no way of knowing whether you meant what you said, and I’m glad that you did. This begs the obvious question; why are you being silent now, when you were so vocal before? Why not remind the people who are so angered by others’ displays of what you said tolerance means? It was genuinely surprising to me that your voice was suddenly, completely missing – that’s what was funny.
My suggestion of a retreat for you and Mr. Phillips as an opportunity to reconcile your contradiction (not “re-education”) was made in jest.
Cheers, David
I haven’t changed my opinion.
Neither do I believe that things have “run their course” yet–this is only the first opportunity since the policy was passed.
In fact, I think it’s rather funny that you seem to think it WOULD have all been settled right away.
Again, if you’re going to quote me from last year, NOT quote me this year because you can’t, and then repetitively suggest that I be sent on retreat for reeducation for having (not) changed my opinion, you’re creating something for the sake of talking about specific people.
I think this is just one step in a process, and yes, onanism prevails in some quarters–on the courthouse lawn, in the LTM comments section, and elsewhere.
Thank you for the holiday wishes–and again, the same to you and yours.
Barbara
I thought it was odd that you had absolutely nothing to say in defense of the displays which are now being attacked as somehow exceeding the boundaries of free speech. The fact is that a few months ago you said one thing – many, many times – and now that the policy is being implemented you are saying nothing. I can’t know whether or not you, personally, meant what you said. I can only observe the difference between then and now.
Thanks for weighing in here – but maybe you should be letting Don Phillips know what you think. He’s the one who is unclear on what freedom of speech means.
A very merry Christmas to you and your family!
David, you posted several of my comments from last year, but none from this year proving that I didn’t really mean what I said.
Why?
Well, maybe because there aren’t any from this year?
Very few of those duking it out over at LTM are using their real names, some read like concern trolls, and others like just plain trolls.
If you are going to “prove” that people said one thing last year, and another this year, then I think you need to provide some direct proof of specific individuals backing up.
I hope you and Jonathan have a very happy winter season!
Barbara Munsey
what the displays were likely to be – they saw what happened last year! And this year there isn’t any actual mockery like the “12 days of Christmas” display that was vandalized (there’s that “non-existent” security issue, thanks Delgottago).
No, now the problem is atheists. Don Phillips doesn’t have a problem with the other faiths he mentions (since there conveniently aren’t any represented), but people of no faith offend him. “With freedom of speech, there’s a limit on what you can do. This is disrespectful and insensitive.”
I don’t know how our friends are going to resolve this one. Here at the height of “War on Christmas” frenzy, they paint Winter Solstice observers as “pigs” who have no right to expression at the courthouse because they are only mocking real religion. Meanwhile, when the issue is something evidence-based (like the CBPO), they complain that “humanism” and “environmentalism” are bonafide religions that the government is unlawfully establishing.
Maybe we could arrange for Munsey and Phillips to go on a retreat to figure this out.
“No! Really! We’ll be FINE with everybody’s displays, so long as you let us put up ours, too! Really! We’re really really really very welcoming of everyone’s opinions!”
Until they actually see what they might be.
Sigh.