.
Feedback

Controversial Display Found in Leesburg

A skeleton, wearing a Santa suit, while being hung on a cross, surprises many in the downtown area.

A controverial display of a skeleton Santa hanging on a cross became quite the buzz on Monday after Middleburg resident Jeff Heflin hung his display outside of the county's courthouse.

According to his application, the purpose of the display was to depict society's materialistic obsessions and addictions and how it is killing the peace, love, joy and kindness that is supposed to be prevalent during the holiday season.

Councilman and Supervisor-elect Ken Reid said he was "utterly outraged" when he saw the display. "How offensive to children, especially, to see a beloved symbol of the holidays crucified," he said, in an email sent early Monday afternoon.

Reid suggested that someone contact Heflin and kindly request he remove such a "disgusting display and put it on his own lawn in Middleburg".

Loudoun County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Kraig Troxell said the skeleton was seen taken apart by a woman who placed it on the ground. More controversial displays are expected to appear between now and the end of the year.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Leesburg Patch? Find your Local Patch »

kathleen fergus December 5, 2011 at 11:15 pm
What a moron.
L-burg mom December 6, 2011 at 02:29 am
I fully support free speech, including this offensive display. I would also support and love to see others express their freedom of expression by attending the Leesburg Holiday & Christmas parade next Sat morning with big golf umbrellas positioned to shield children attending the parade from seeing this. (I would do so myself but have an obligation to escort my group of children in the parade.)
TravisW December 6, 2011 at 03:39 am
L-burg mom, by your arguement throwing a tarp over the display during the parade is also supporting free speech. Afterall it's there, just no one has to see it.
L-burg mom December 6, 2011 at 03:57 am
No, Travis, I would not support throwing a tarp over the display. Anyone who wants to see it could certainly go to see it -- a citizen with an umbrella can certainly be circumnavigated. I do support shielding children who would be confused or hurt by the display from seeing it. Parents who wish to conduct a civics lesson could still do so.
Nathaniel Hix December 6, 2011 at 06:34 am
I just keep my kids and myself away from Old Town Leesburg during Christmas season. The inability of our legal system to prevent crap like this shows that something is really wrong with our society today. Deep down you know it's true.
Vickie Stengel Sylvain December 6, 2011 at 12:49 pm
If it is still up then I will be happy to shield it from the children seeing it. I probably could explain it to my 8 year old and he wouldn't be bothered, but not the younger kids!
kathleen fergus December 6, 2011 at 01:57 pm
What's the problem with knocking this down? Isn't that supporting free speech? After all, it is on public property. The 'politically correct' attitude of bowing down to this kind of nonsense is ridiculous. If it cannot be removed by the legal system, it should be removable by the same means which allowed it to be erected.
Kat DeMille December 6, 2011 at 02:39 pm
There is freedom of speech but it crosses the line when you step on someone's else respect & dignity. That is when it becomes something called hate speech. There is something in society called a moral compass. When we stop respecting that you have crossed the line in the sand of what is acceptable and not acceptable in respecting others is when the break down occurs. There is nothing wrong with believing in a little magic this time of year- but there is something wrong with wanting to destroy a child's innocence by destroying that magic.
Marshall December 6, 2011 at 02:41 pm
It's a shame that some loser(s), who never got the pony they asked Santa for, feel the need to pull crap like this and subject innocent children to these images. As an adult, I could care less about the display. What gets me mad, is the reject(s) who put this up, have no regard for the children.
I'm all for free speech, but there is a big difference between free speech and offensive speech. L-burg mom, would you support a public "art" display that many would interpret as pornographic, and thus considered offensive?
kathleen fergus December 6, 2011 at 02:50 pm
I just don't understand the message. Is there one?
MichelleS December 6, 2011 at 07:27 pm
If you feel the need to display something that is hurtful to others, do so on your own lawn! Depictions of the nativity or a menorah are not hurtful, they just mean a lot to many. This display is disgusting, regardless of your religious or philosophical affiliation.
Loudoun mom December 6, 2011 at 10:26 pm
I am more troubled that a supervisor-elect would have a problem with the very free speech that so many have died to protect. He has no problem with kids having guns in their own homes, and even watching people kill living things with them....wouldn't they (kids) suffer more harm seeing that than this message? If we can't explain this to our kids, we are just bad parents! Have we ingrained the lie of Santa so much that it would cause seriuous harm to our kide to see this?
Free speech is free for all, not just those one agrees with...a supervisor should know that!
L-burg mom December 7, 2011 at 03:22 am
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- this is where true support of the Constitution is seen. It is easy to support freedom of speech among like-minded individuals; it is much harder to support something offensive. The problem with art that many would interpret as pornographic is figuring out how it is defined (adding fig leaves to classical sculptures?) I leave it to the courts to determine what is pornographic. For myself, I support free speech, and make my choice in how to respond to the free speech of others. I can choose to refuse to patronize establishments with policies I disagree with; I can engage individuals in debate on differing opinions; I can choose to respond with counter-speech, as I suggested with forming a human shield of umbrellas between parade-goers and the crucified skeletal Santa. I would not stop anyone who wished to see the display from doing so, but would actively express my belief that many parade goers prefer to shield their children from certain displays.
kathleen fergus December 7, 2011 at 02:43 pm
I agree, Loudoun mom. That's true enough. But is there a message here? Other than "because I can". My question is, what's the point?
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Winchester June 7, 2013 at 02:38 am
HB2313 is the first step in many years towards improving significant Virginia transportation issues.Read More It very importantly provides money for neglected safety inspections of bridges, roads and tunnels - to avoid recent disastrous situations like the Minnesota and Washington bridge collapses. 3800 bridges in Virginia have already been deemed sub-standard. HB2313 also significantly increases the percentage of new infrastructure transportation funds raised in and allocated to NoVa, from 30% to 100%. It also provides funding for the estimated $1B in state construction needs (increasing at a yearly rate of $500M). Finally, the tax increases (and decreases) involved are a small percentage of the already very low Virginia transportation budget and low state taxes (compared to most other states). Delegate May has said in recent interviews that he is usually not in favor of raising taxes - though transportation safety is extremely important - as is keeping NoVa transportation dollars in NoVa. He also said he will ensure there is very careful scrutiny of how the money raised by this bill will be spent.
Michael June 10, 2013 at 03:11 am
The $6.1B in additional tax revenues from transportation bill HB2313 are to be generated over theRead More next five years - which works out to about an additional $145 per person per year - less than the cost of one night at a nice hotel....
Susan June 3, 2013 at 02:34 pm
Interesting article. What worked for me was a program by nutritionist Isabel De Los Rios. If itRead More helps anybody else details of her weight loss plan can be found here: http://www.wowitworked.com/fast-weight-loss/
Ken Wall June 3, 2013 at 02:05 am
Previously there has been nowhere near enough money in the Virginia budget to address current localRead More transportation issues - Virginia transportation spending has continually been almost the lowest in the country (45th of 50 states in 2011) - and the significant local population and economic growth rates have made the issue worse quickly. Note Virginia taxes are also some of the lowest in the country (34th of 50 states in 2011). A large number of politicians across Virginia are involved in resolving the complex and expensive transportation issues in our area - no one person alone is completely responsible - significant negotiating, compromising and patience - traits and skills which LaRock does not possess - are required. A significant step forward was made with recent HB2313, with the help of Delegate May, which allocates significantly more transportation money to our district.
Michael June 10, 2013 at 03:11 am
The $6.1B in additional tax revenues from transportation bill HB2313 are to be generated over theRead More next five years - which works out to about an additional $145 per person per year - less than the cost of one night at a nice hotel....
joe brewer June 11, 2013 at 09:31 am
The 17.5 cent gas tax has been reduced a few cents for a year or two but will be back up there asRead More the wholesale gas tax increases automatically. Northern Virginia will be getting about 180 million of this new tax burden. Using the Pacific Blvd numbers that's 10 miles worth of road. Being shortchanged for 20 years with Northern Virginia getting back 30 cents on a dollar for roads is on Joe May. He did not work to get the formula adjusted. The gas tax was a tax on people who bought gas the new bill and the numbers above include every man, woman and child being taxed 145 dollars a increase of 50% over the gas tax alone plus the additional tax base.