Great article, well said and I hope you will be at the meeting to defend our rights. You apparently have done your homework. God Bless!

Reid´s remarks were indeed over the top and the reactions were certainly knee-jerk. And, of course, the word fascist is not in the US Constitution either. I´m not sure why Christianity is not a religion while Judaism and Hinduism are called religions. If Christianity is just a philosophy then crèche is a philosophical symbol and not a symbol of any religion. And the so-called pagan origin Christmas tree should be banned. It has nothing to do with Christ and is not in the Bible. The original 25th of December was a pagan Winter Solstice celebration that the Catholic Church took over for its own purposes, therefore we should move Christmas back to June which is when Christ was really born. (Shepherds do not tend their flocks outdoors in December in Israel.)

Only one of the definitions of the word "establish" means “to make a state institution of a church”. Other definitions are "to cause to be recognized and accepted." The Supreme Court has ruled using the latter definition when it ruled that government funds and property cannot be used to promote a religion. It was individual churches (which are religions) - and not a philosophical group called “Christianity” - that wanted to put up their religious symbols on government property. In the case of Santa Monica, the atheists did NOT ask that the religions take down their displays.

It seems hypocritical for religions to deny atheists the same constitutional rights that these religions want for themselves.

Let me ask you Mr. Jones, what you think the real concern was when our founding fathers put the Establishment Clause into the First Amendment? Do you think that they were concerned about diplays on a piece of government property, or do you think that perhaps they had Hernry VIII and the Church of England on their minds?

And as for your short thesis on the history of the Christmas holiday, why not simply focus on the fact that like it or not, our government has set forth December 25th of each year as an offical federal holiday, and as such, it deserves to be recognized with symbols that pay respectful homage to it.
If this does not sit well with you as is quite obvious, why not join or form a group that takes a more constructive stand by petitioning the government to get the Christmas Day holiday revoked.

Mr. Jones: A post-script about the U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions on holiday displays,
One court in its infinite wisdom,astonishlingly ruled that the Hanukah Menorah was a "cultural display" symbol, and not "religious."
I wonder if the members of the Chad-Lubavitch rabbinical share that viewpoint as they light up the Menorah on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. each year?

I was there, John, as were several other observers. It was explicitly explained to you by another member, in response to your strong objection to including a menorah, that the menorah was needed for "top cover" (his exact words). Of course that wasn't put in the minutes. It's embarrassing, as your denial demonstrates.

Our shared faith tradition holds that it is a sin to bear false witness. Shame on you.

David, why don't you shelve the rhetoric, and instead state who in fact used the term "top cover," a term that I had never heard before Kristen had rasied it to me. And spare me with your "shame on you" crap.
And if it was said (and again I honestlly, did not recall hearing it ) I think I would have inquired as to what it meant. So stop accussing me of lying or trying to cover this up.
And , if I want to hear from a preacher, I will do so at a place of worship!
Let's please try to have a dignafied dialogue.

I don't know all the members of your committee, John. They didn't introduce themselves for the benefit of the members of the public who were present. I had never heard the term "top cover" before, but it was abundantly clear what was meant by it, and that you, grudgingly, accepted that you had been overruled. If you "do not recall" the exchange, then consider your memory corrected.

I also recall with amusement the discussion of how to make the creche appear "less religious." I've already spoken to the board about my opinion of having symbols of my faith treated in that disrespectful manner. Since you demand that what you perceive as "preaching" be restricted to church, surely you should be able to understand why other Christians want the same for the religious aspect of the Christian holiday. In other words, be careful with the term hypocrisy.

John, your meager attempt to discredit us and silence our free speech is as useless as was the "top cover" comment that was left out of the minutes of the Grounds Committee meeting when the decision to endorse religious icons was decided, yes we were there, remember?
Look, our goal is simple. No one here is trying to demand how YOU are to celebrate whatever holiday YOU want.... What we are simply trying to do, is to 1. exercise our free speech (something you apparently abhor, unless its your speech) and 2. remind people like you that we are not living in a homogeneous world anymore and that separation of church and state is settled law, regardless of whether those words appear in the constitution or not. We are all tax payers here and all have a say on how our public grounds are used. I certainly don't recall seeing the word capitalism in the constitution either, yet ironically, it is capitalism that's destroying Christmas not us. Not to say I'm anti-capitalist here, just making a point.

You are comparing Christmas with Festivus? Really? What you are saying essentially, which proves our point, is that unless EVERYONE celebrates Christmas like YOU do, then we are hypocrites and should not celebrate ANY holidays? Remember, we are ATHEISTS.... we don't celebrate Festivus. It is a FICTITIOUS HOLIDAY, this is a fun party. Where I work, we have themed holiday parties every year...perhaps we should put an end to this? Seriously?

As far as my talk at a high school. I was INVITED. It's not like I barge in a classroom...and start screaming SCIENCE at everyone.... too funny you think it that way...OH and insofar as christian chuches using school property... that we have not said a word about, I'll refer you to this: http://www.oneightydc.com/2012/08/30/oneighty-is-at-dominion-high-school/ and this church was NOT invited but ASKED to use their space. So wanna give this another try?

Additionally, MY TALK WAS A SCIENCE TALK....contrasting the theory of evolution with biblical creationism, creation science, baraminology and intelligent design. It was open to whoever wanted to attend to engage in a discourse and critical thinking. But that is exactly where your contempt for this lies... you don't want us to exercise our free speech, even if it's science, if it disproves your worldview. Well guess what buddy, we're here and here to stay.. stay tuned.

I do want to give Mr. Mileo credit for acknowledging that the Skeleton Santa display was not, in fact, created by the atheist group or by an individual atheist. That is a lie that continues to be repeated by some individuals who really ought to know better.

In fact, that display was created by a Christian high school student, intended as a critique of the commercialization and consumerist frenzy of the secular Christmas at the expense of the religious message. Perception trumps reality, though, and many people found it offensive. Perhaps if the artist's intended message hadn't been drowned out by the chorus of hateful statements directed at and about the atheists who had nothing to do with it, that particular display wouldn't have resulted in so much trauma. A "dignified dialogue" it was not.

Allow me to take a detour from all of the back and forth accusations (many of which are without merit on your parts, Larry and David) and simply ask you to directly respond to these three below-stated questions, but before doing so let me make it perfectly clear to you Larry that it is not my goal nor my desire to prevent you or anyone who shares your views from exercising his/her right of free speech. Actually, I am happy that we all live in a country where we can voice our views, but with that said do bear in mind that there is an appropriate time and place for doing so...Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is cleanly demonstrative of when it is inappropriate.

Now for my questions, and please try to remain focused when with your responses:

1. What are your feelings about what takes place each year on the Ellipse in DC and in particular with respect to the religious ceremony surrounding the lighting of the Menorah, by a member of the Jewish clergy? Do find this acceptable and if so, why?

2. Do you think that the federal government and each and every government entity that celebrates Christmas Day as a holiday in the U.S. should continue to do so or should it be revoked given its religious roots?

3. What do you think was the reason why our founding fathers drafted the Establishment Clause?

I anxiously await your reply.

Kristen. No matter how you slice it, It is still US government propety that is being used in DC. And what about the US Marine Corps band being used in conjunction with the lighting of the Menorah? Does that sit well with you? And Kristen are you saying that when the President or other government official pushes the button to light up the Christmas tree, that he is functioning outside of his official gov't role? Kristen, I repeat Thomas Jefferson's "Separation of Chruch and State" quote never found its way into the US Constitution.
Your point with respect to the funding issue which has merit , is well taken.

The government is not favoring one religion over any other, it is simply recognizing one of its federally-observed holidays with a mix of displays that represent same.

No, John. You don't get to change the subject to something you would rather talk about when the facts become inconvenient or embarrassing. I will say that it's fascinating to see your accusations of "insult" by me. I note that there hasn't been a peep of protest from you when the primary advocate of your committee's display has repeatedly insulted me as an individual and my church.

I see that the minutes, as posted, from the April meeting of the CGFC also do not reflect the committee's concern over what specific elements the creche design should and should not include, which was a significant part of the discussion. The entire point of that discussion was that the committee had to be careful that the creche not appear "too religious" or there could be legal ramifications. That is the precise phrase that was used. Additionally, the minutes state that Rick Wingrove addressed the committee and advocated "ending all displays on the Courthouse Grounds." In fact Mr. Wingrove advocated the display of "a large, lighted holiday tree without any religious symbols," the same display I have repeatedly suggested that the county adopt. Mr. Wingrove explicitly stated a second time, "we would not oppose that."

I haven't carefully compared those posted minutes with my own notes and recordings to determine what else the minutes inaccurately reflect, but I think that when an appointed member of an advisory committee makes public claims that the observations of a citizen are "without merit" simply because those observations do not appear in official minutes, we should all be very concerned about the accurate recording of what are, legally speaking, *public* meetings.

Yes, your rationale for wanting to exclude the menorah was as follows, directly from my notes: "If a menorah is allowed, where do you draw the line?" Golly, John, I don't know. I guess you might have to be inclusive of ALL non-Christians. Oh, the humanity.

Your sarcasm aside, David, which you are kind of an expert at, for the record I have been consistent in my views about government's celebration of the Christmas holiday and how ,until such time as when and if it is revoked as such, it should be duly recognnized with all of the symbols that pay homage to it. This is a view that I have held long before my acting in any offical capacity and one that I will continue to hold. Btw your notes on my remarks pertaining to the Menorah are incomplete. I have made those views quite clear...read a little further.

Aside from my closing remark, John, I'm not being sarcastic in the least. Nor have I suggested that you haven't been consistent. I again note that you have failed to address any of my observations and have again tried to change the subject.

Mr. Mileo, I think you misunderstand and/or misrepresent the purpose of federal holidays. Technically, the holidays are simply recognized as days off from work for laborers so that people can be with family and reflect--IF they want to--on whatever a given holiday memorializes. It is not proscriptive or coercive--each person can do as he or she pleases during that day, and no one is compelled to do anything whatsoever in order to justify the existence of the holiday. No display of symbols is officially recognized or mandated. For all intents and purposes, the federal (i.e., secular) Christmas holiday--when banks, post offices, and many other businesses close--and Christians' religious observance of Christmas are two very different things. They should not be conflated. I've followed many of your comments throughout numerous articles, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you reply to the fact that Christians created the Christmas holiday as we know it by highjacking the pre-existing pagan/winter solstice holidays. The holiday's name change and facelift at some point in the past doesn't change the fact that it is not the original product of Christianity. Many people never stopped celebrating the solstice season as they did before Christians entered the scene. In other words, Christians have absolutely no monopoly over a holiday that has historically evolved over centuries and millennia.

Please also consider putting away the frequent references to what goes on on the national lawn. As a student of law might point out, that is simply outside the scope of the subject at hand. We are talking about our county and the courthouse lawn. It can be argued that individuals can have greater say and sway at the local level than at the national, for better or worse, and challenging the Board's holiday display policy is part of rightfully engaging in the political process. What happens on the national lawn is simply irrelevant to Loudoun County's current conundrum, though that's not to say that that issue isn't worth a separate discussion. If you're trying to insinuate that what the county is doing is the same as what they do on the national lawn (even though the funding and equal access differences are key and invalidate the comparison) and therefore what the county is doing is constitutionally permissible, you're still relying upon the unproven assumption that what happens on the national lawn is appropriate simply on the basis that it's allowed to continue.

Ms.Brew, Please indulge me with this response to you remarks: If one is to assume that your account of the genisis of the Christmas Holiday, replete with the Winter Solstice celebation is acccurate and undisputted, might I ask if you think this is how Christmas Day was actally celebrated in the U.S in 1870 when Congress made it a legal holiday, or do you think it was similiar in character to modern-day times? Personally, I would think the latter.
So with that in mind one is left with two options:
1. All folks, businessess, and goverment agencies can simpy contiue celebrating the tenets of modern day Christmas and enjoy the day and the festivites; OR

2. Those who oppose it can lobby or pertition the government to have it revoked with civility and dignty and probably under the guise that the government may have crossed the line when it took a fundamental religious based holiday and turned it into a federal one.

But to coninue to do that what is being done now which is trying to change it into somehing it isn't in today's world, is a waste of time that only leads to my grief and agnst.

John, plain and simply your contempt towards our group and the contempt shown by the BoS towards our minority is reprehensible. You have actively worked to silence our speech, and when that failed completely, you and people like Ken Reid are resorting to lies, distortions, childish name calling and bullying. But unlike school children, we are not deterred by any of this, as a matter of fact this solidifies our conviction to fight for equality and to fight for our constitutional rights.

I think there is a better approach to the question. Instead of debating about the origins of Christmas, the correct definition of religion or even the thinking of the guys who wrote the constitution, we should be looking at how to capitalize on the topic and bring much needed tourism dollars to the town. I propose that instead of limiting what can or should be displayed, we open the space to everyone and encourage all groups to contribute their own art. Then we promote our town as sort of the Burning Man of XMas with the goal of making us a tourist destination. These days of limited govt funding and reduced consumer spending have touched us all. Why not use this to bring new dollars to our tow

I would like to make this my concluding remark by simply stating that I greatly appreciate everyone's discussion on this subject matter which has been most insightfully and informative, and even though all parties are not in accord, it is refreshing to know that we live in a country where we are all allowed to freely express our views. Thanks again, all.

I keep reading that you just want all to be represented. Does the tree not represent all others and the way that they celebrate the holiday, or does the group fighting this not celebrate the holiday at all?

Kevin, who is the "you" in your question?

It seems that most people would be fine with a simple decorated tree. In fact, the atheist group even offered to donate one. That would have ended the controversy for all but a tiny minority, and cost the county nothing.

Next year "nothing" on the courthouse lawn, please! This is a total embarrassment for our Leesburg community to have this heated discussion happen "every single year." We are all apparently not well enough equipped to handle the idea of displays on the courthouse lawn. This just causes continual disputes over competing "interests." Let's stop this nonsense and use other means than the courthouse lawn to "make our points" and advertise our causes...

Interestingly, one of the speakers was a young man who identified himself as a member of a Catholic church, I don't recall which one. He seemed to believe that the board might prohibit his church from displaying icons on their own property, and asked them to please not do that. It's interesting because it raises the question of what some of these people are privately telling others in their communities - are they actually spreading the falsehood that churches will be banned from having their own displays? It looks like that might be what they're doing. Since the position of church-state separation is the rational and constitutional one that most people are quite capable of understanding, are the special rights seekers now reduced to making up a new fabricated threat?

Thank you, Mr. Mileo -- you speak the sentiments of many.