Committee Debates Holiday Display Components
Straw votes are taken on which displays to include on courthouse grounds in December.
Santa and the baby Jesus are in, but Frosty is out ... for now. The fate of the Menorah and Christmas angels are yet to be determined.
The Loudoun County Courts Grounds and Facilities Committee (CGFC) on April 24 discussed the components that should go into a government-owned holiday display on the courthouse property, and took straw votes on several proposed display items.
The biggest disagreement was over whether to include a Jewish Menorah as part of the display.
Committee member John Mileo argued that the county was best protected from legal challenges by limiting the display items to those that “pay homage to Christmas,” such as a crèche, Christmas tree and Santa Claus.
“Christmas Day is the only holiday occurring during the month of December or during the so-called holiday season that has been officially established as a federal holiday, which is also celebrated by our state and county,” Mileo said.
Attempting to recognize other holidays “would surely open up the floodgates to inclusion of the type of offensive displays that have been displayed in the past,” he said.
Robert Lynd argued that according to an opinion issued by Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, the crèche would only be permissible if it were balanced by other religious and secular displays, such as a Menorah. He said the county would therefore be on more solid legal ground by including it.
In a series of straw votes, the committee voted unanimously in favor of a crèche, Christmas tree and holiday greenery. By a 5-3 vote, the committee voted to keep the Menorah, pending an opinion by the county attorney. However, the committee voted against having a snowman.
Mileo proposed that the county’s crèche be limited to “the baby Jesus in the manger, the Virgin Mother and Father Joseph on either side, and three farm animals.”
He recommended that the crèche be as plain as possible, “not an overly religious-looking crèche," and suggested that angels not be included.
For the most part, the committee members appeared to be unfazed after Rick Wingrove, a member of American Atheists, addressed them at the beginning of the meeting.
Wingrove said a secular holiday tree would be acceptable to him and his group, but they would actively oppose overtly religious displays on the courthouse grounds.
“The county simply cannot put up a Nativity scene,” he said, citing several court decisions. “They will be sued and they will lose.” He predicted the ensuing legal proceedings would cost the county $2 million.
Later, during the committee’s discussion, Mileo said, “I heard Mr. Wingrove refer to it as a holiday tree,” he said, his voice rising. “It is a Christmas tree.”
Mileo also cited court decisions in support of his recommendation.
Earlier this month, members of the Board of Supervisors’ Finance/Government Services and Operations Committee recommended that the County Attorney attend future CGFC meetings. However, no one from the county attorney’s office was present for the April 24 meeting.
Ross Patterson
9:08 am on Thursday, April 26, 2012
How many times will local governments need to lose court cases before everyone gets the message? Governments cannot advocate for religion. Period.
Ask the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, who got slapped by the US District Court for opening their meetings with Christian prayers. Or ask their neighbors, the Franklin County Board of Supervisors, who didn't get the message from that slapping, and are in the throws of the issue right now.
A “not ... overly religious-looking crèche" containing “the baby Jesus in the manger, the Virgin Mother and Father Joseph”? That dog won't hunt. Prepare for round 3 of the holiday wars.
Kristen H
11:07 am on Thursday, April 26, 2012
I encourage everyone to attend the next meeting on May 8th. They are very plainly discussing how to get their crèche on the lawn without inviting other religions and points of view into the mix, and anyone who wants to keep their tax dollars from being spent on the inevitable court case that will stem from this should attend and show the committee that they're not discussing this issue in a vacuum.
The most shocking comment, not printed here, was a committee member's quick clarification that the santa they were voting on would be a "normal, flesh-colored" santa.
Jim Barnes
6:55 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2012
Kristen, I heard his remark a little differently. I thought that he was merely stating that he wanted a Santa with flesh and bones (not a skeleton Santa like last year), rather than specifying the color of Santa's skin.
Kristen H
12:44 am on Saturday, April 28, 2012
Jim, that's a good point. I'm going to tell myself that they meant it that way. I was so horrified by that point in the discussion that I'd forgotten about skeleton Santa!
Thank you for covering the meeting. Hopefully we'll see the County Attorney on May 8th to weigh in.
John Mileo
3:53 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
John Mileo
My comment concerning the Santa display for 2012 was that I wanted to see a "normal flesh-"covered" Santa, which is as you have astutely noted Jim , a somewhat sarcastic reference to the infamous Skelton Santa of 2011. It never ceases to amaze me how those who have their own hidden agenda, hear what they want to hear rather than what has actually been stated---Kristen H.
Also, Kristen H, while you may wish to mock my statement or my suggestion to have on display a crèche that is not "overtly religious " in nature, this is something that has been prescribed by US Supreme Court case law. And what I meant by that is YES of course, one must have a Christ figurine on display in a manger for oblivious reasons, but you can forgo the angels, and the Latin wording that many nativity scenes show which interpreted in English says: "Glory to God in the Highest."
Now continue to do what you seem to do best, Kristen...mock me or the entire Courthouse Grounds and Facilities Committee, for that matter, for trying to do the job we all are volunteering our time to do for the citizens of this great county.
Kristen H
2:39 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
I ran out of room in my previous comment, but I do want to thank you for your service on the committee. I think that citizen participation in local government is crucial, which is why my first comment urged people to come to the public meeting.
Kristen H
1:29 pm on Monday, May 21, 2012
I thanked Jim for clarifying your remark as soon as I saw his comment. By that point in the discussion I was upset by the comments I had heard, including whether your committee would need to include a menorah as "top-cover”, as well as all of the other comments that made me feel unwelcome and unwanted in my own community. Your accusation that I was mocking you when I did not intend to do anything of the sort and, reading back, am unable to see in my comments, have not made me feel any more welcome. Instead, I feel that once your internet search determined that I am an atheist, my comments were read with much more vitriol and anger than I ever intended.
I understand that the committee has consulted with the county attorney and it has been decided that, with enough other religious symbols surrounding the crèche, you may be shielded from court cases. As a Loudoun County citizen, I am happy that the committee is working to get their display up without creating any costly litigation. However, my concern isn't only for my tax dollars. My concern is exactly what Roy Liggett, your fellow committee member, said to Jim Barnes after the last meeting: "Liggett said that when people enter the courthouse, they should feel confident that they will receive a fair trial, and that the presence of religious displays might raise doubts for some people". His remarks are dead-on and reflect my interest in this issue perfectly. I do not feel comfortable as an atheist in Loudoun County.
John Mileo
7:58 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012
Kristen: With regard to your last sentence, I can relate to your feeling. Can you imagine for a moment how I must feel as a Christian living in Loudoun County with all of the angst and malice that is being directed toward this religious sect by the Beltway Atheists, which you, yourself are associated with?
Kristen H
11:48 am on Friday, June 1, 2012
The fact is, there shouldn't be any angst. This should be a non-issue. There should not be a statue of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in front of a courthouse. There should not be a menorah either, but the reason that I personally don't see as much of a problem with that is because I see it as at least an attempt to recognize that some residents of Loudoun County are not Christian. I don't harbor any malice and don't believe that I've demonstrated any. I do, however, feel angry and upset that the county is spending time and money on ensuring that there is a creche in front of the courthouse when people seem to agree that a simple tree would leave no one feeling discriminated against. This is a government building, not a church. It is also a place that should be dedicated to fair and unbiased justice. If I were to go to court in December and walk past religious symbols of any kind, I would simply not feel that I was walking into an unbiased building to receive a fair trial.
Long Time Loudouner
2:20 pm on Friday, June 1, 2012
Loudoun County has far more pressing problems to deal with than how to decorate the courthouse lawn for INSERT RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY HERE. Please, give it a rest. Religion should not be the consideration of government...common sense should be.