I will likely not be able to commit to speaking because I will need to leave the session early for a work commitment. However, I will see you there!

I do want to correct your analogy. There is not a committee dedicated to making sure that judge says "God Bless You" when someone sneezes in a courtroom, nor will they be spending county money on the act. Of course, the committee would ensure that 1 time out of 4 the judge said "Gesundheit" in order to look inclusive.

I do encourage people on either side of this issue to make their voices heard. I have attended the committee meetings because any public body should be held accountable and should not meet behind closed doors. Public meetings are only public if people show up, and public comment is only public comment if the public actually comments!

Really, John? "Storm troopers?" "Saber rattling?" I assure you that when I join my fellow members of the public to speak up at public meetings, and on public forums like this one, I'm not there to play the boogeyman. I'm not "rattling sabers."
I'm only trying to prevent the county in which I live, work, and pay taxes from losing millions of dollars in the lawsuit which using public funds to promote a Christian (or Jewish, or any other kind of religious) display on public property will inevitably bring.

Please note: the author has requested that the words "storm troopers" be replaced with "members" since it has inadvertently caused some unintentional concern.

Perhaps I'm missing something here because I don't really know the history of this argument, but I really don't see what the big deal is for the courthouse to display some religious symbols. I thought we appreciate religious tolerance in this country. I'm not even Christian, or religious for that matter, but I could care less if there were Chrisitan, Jewish, or other religious symbols displayed at the courthouse. It seems more cultural than anything -- Christians, Jews, Christmas, etc. are all part of the history of this country, no? Why not celebrate eachother's heritage rather than denounce it? At my office, people have no trouble saying, "Merry Christmas," or "Happy Hanukkah" or even "Happy Diwali" to eachother. I sort of assumed most people around here were that tolerant, so I was kind of surprised to see the all the drama around this. Am I missing something?

Vineet: If you search holiday displays or courthouse displays on the site you will be able to find the articles regarding the issue.

Vinette (Part 2) The Atheists seem to ignore the fact that the Christmas, which is the holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ was established by Congress and President Grant as a federal holiday in 1870. Accordingly, in my opinion given its federal status, a government building should have the right to display any of Christmas' recognized symbols, including the creche on its property. The only reason why the Grounds and Facilities Committee has opted to display a Menorah, which is the religious symbol for the Jewish holiday Hanukah, is to "mirror" what the federal goverment has on display on the ellipse each year in DC. It is not being done in an effort to "neutralize the creche," however the display of secular items is being done, in part for that very reason, as prescribed by case law and out Commonwealth's Attorney General. The thing that I am personally troubled by is why all the angst being shown by the Beltway Atheists (BA) over ONLY the creche (not the Menorah, by the way)...why are they so anti-Christian and even so disrespectful that they can not (will not) even type the word Chrismas or Christian with an upper case letter "C"? The bottom line is if the BA wind up filing an expensive lawsuit against Loudon County (as they have strongly suggested they will do) they themselves will wind up in sharing in the increased tax burden that they will have caused in furthering their own agenda. That is what I call an "inconvienent truth" as Wingrove would say.

Vinette (Part 3). Finally, the Atheist will only focus on laws that have been decided in support of their claim of the so-called "Separation of Church and State " but will never, ever admit that there are other cases that have ruled in favor of the display of a religious item on govenment property. Two such cases as were decided by our U.S. Supreme Court are: "Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)" and Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)". As Beltway Atheists" head likes to often state, these cases are also "The law of the land."
So as you can see, Vinette, there are many factors involved here and clealy more than one side to the story. In closing let me ask you---Do you find that any person is actually "harmed" by the fact that a creche is in open view for all to see on the lawn of a public (gov't) building? Do you truly believe that such a display or that of a Jewish relgious symbol , is an endorsement by the government of that religion or that the government itself is now ESTABLISHING a national religion? I often will suggest to the Athests that if they feel so strongly against the fact that Christmas is celebrated and recognized by federal, state and local governments within the U.S., then why not petition the government to rescind Christmas Day as a federal holiday, instead of trying to change it into a totally secular holiday? Sorry for the long dissertation on the subject, but I wanted to give you a broader picture. Take care. John

Vinette, I see that somehow my Part 1 got lost into cyberspace, I do remember stating that while I respect Kristen's right to express her viewpoint as I do her as a person whom I beleive to truly be a concerned citizen, there is far more about this situation than she has offered which I will express to you here. There was some more, but it has escaped me, so now go to Parts I and II. And Kristen, thanks for sharing your views with Vinette who does deserve to hear from both (all?) sides. Regards, John

John,

I missed you at the hearing! I think you left before my comments. I was looking forward to hearing what you had to say as well.

I had a last minute change of heart about speaking at this one, Kristen. However I heard your comments and that of others and was somewhat disapointed about the Menorah as "top cover" remarks, and the somewhat disparging comment about our Attorney Gen'l. You and your associates are absolutely entitled to hold true to your views about religion, but I am always taken aback when actions that the CFGC has tried to take, in accordance with those US Supreme Court decisions that have ruled in favor or religious displays on Gov't property---but under specific guidelines---and/or as set forth by our Commonwealth Attorney General are subject to harsh critism and distortions of fact. The Committee has made an overt effort to comply with such guidelines even to the point of trying to place as little of a religious emphasis on the menorah AND the creche, as possible; and the former is NOT being done to provide "top cover" to push forward acceptance of the creche, but only to make both items more acceptable to the public at large since they BOTH are symbols that clearly pay homage and due respect to the two holidays being celebrated! BTW- these and Thanksgiving Day and New Years Eve/Day are the ONLY official holidays that fall within the so-called "Holiday Season." Why the need to change Christmas Day into something other than what it is which is: (like it or not) a federally recognized holiday, with a relgious basis? If you can't accept that ,then move to have it recinded as such.

Kristen, First let me say that I truly appreciate the fact that you and I know how to have a civil and respectful exchange over this controversial subject in which we have opposing viewpoints. I wish that more of those commenting on this issue could follow that lead. I also appreciate your incisive and true concern over the matter at hand. For that, I say "Thank You!" While I do not wish to challenge what you believe you heard at the Mar.27th meeting, I just re-read those minutes, posted on the CGFC site, and do not see the term "top cover" nor can I recall it being said; perhaps this may be the same as when once before you thought you heard me say: "flesh colored Santa" when I actually said "flesh-covered Santa." And yes, and perhaps unfortunately, the committee has had to "tip toe" (my words here) around the overall display issue, but only in its effort to comply with the law and direction from our Commonwealth's Attorney Gen'l. Is this something that the members of the CGFC should be so openly and harshly (by some members of your group) be criticized for? Please recognize that: 1.The display of the crèche, on the Courthouse lawn has been a decades long tradition; 2.It is one of the symbols (the main one, in my view) that acknowledges Chrismas; and 3.It’s display (along with others of a secular nature, and in conjunction with the Jewish faith's religious symbol, "The Menorah") results in a more balanced look for paying homage to these two holidays. SEE NEXT COMMENT.

I also do not feel, that the public display of a crèche (a symbol for the federal holiday Christmas and/or the Jewish religious holiday Hanukah's symbol, "The Menorah"), on government property are an endorsement of or represent government's "Establishment" of a religion, which the First Amendment of our Constitution clearly addressees. I hope you don't think that I was around back in 1870, when Christmas was established as a federal, holiday ,but perhaps my grey beard might make it seem that way :-) , but I do think that everyone needs to accept that fact, or as Rick Wingrove might say: that "inconvenient truth." And really Kristen, what is so darn troubling about viewing a crèche, who’s central figure, by the way is a Jew? It certainly is not as if people were being exposed to a burning cross on the Courthouse lawn on let's say MLK day, another federal holiday that occurs at the Courthouse or a flag burning demonstration at the 4th of July ceremony! And finally ,the perverse irony here Kristen is, that if Mr. Wingrove and company proceed with an expensive lawsuit against the County should it decide to accept the proposed Seasonal Display (which I might add will somewhat mirror the one in DC on the Ellipse), those very Plaintiffs who cause such an unnecessary action will be included amongst the County's tax payers who will be ultimately footing that very expense...How's that for another "inconvenient truth?" I now l ask you..Why should that action be risked?

Kristen. Thank you for your candid commentary in response to mine of 6/11. As for the decision to add a menorah, as "top cover" I will simply try to close the books on this by stating that I sincerely believe that an overt effort has been attempted by the Committee to try to "soften," if you will, the religious aspects of both the menorah and the crèche so as to keep in line with certain US Supreme Court decisions , which btw, the Beltway Atheist seems to go out of its way to ignore, and with the opinion of our Commonwealth's Attorney General. I wish to reiterate that if the County winds up having to defend itself in a ("expensive") lawsuit over this matter for simply trying to mirror what occurs on the National Ellipse in Washington DC each and every December, then it must be noted that it will be the Plaintiffs who will have caused that very expensive to the County's taxpayers! And in the present matter, it would appear that the Plaintiffs in such an action will be the Beltway Atheist's, many of whose members contribute to Loudoun County's tax base...how perversely ironic is that? Would it not be better if the Beltway Atheists could demonstrate: "tolerance" instead of "bias;" "diplomacy" instead of "belligerence;" and "acceptance" instead of "dissent?" And finally Christian, with regard to the recommendation for the County to simply display a "Holiday" tree, might I ask the Beltway Atheists to define exactly which “Holiday" that tree will be paying homage to?

Kristen, I just took note that in my final sentence of my last comment I unintentionally, (and perhaps in a seemingly "Freudian slip of the tongue" manner) referred to you by the name "Christian" instead of "Kristen." Sorry for the faux pas.