12.19.2007
The Green Bay Nativity and the Bigger Picture
Last night the Green Bay City Council decided to not reinstall the damaged Wiccan Pentacle wreath, or to place any other symbol (religious or secular) on city property until they could "develop a set of guidelines". In the meantime, the Nativity display stays up alone, and will remain so until December 26th.
"Passions ran deep on both sides of the issue Tuesday as Christians, non-Christians and the City Council debated what to do about the nativity display placed on City Hall last week. Twenty-seven members of the public spoke, with some praising the city for putting up the nativity scene and others condemning it for excluding other faiths and nonbelievers ... Mike Layden, also of Green Bay, told the council, "If I were a Hindu - and I'm not - and I had to pay my water bill and walk under that overhang, I'd be terribly insulted. ... I'd say, 'Did I make a mistake in coming here? Does this country still respect the sanctity of the constitution?'" Some also criticized the acts of the mayor and Advisory Committee for agreeing last week to put it up."
It looks like Green Bay is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Develop inclusive display rules before they get smacked with lawsuits from the ACLU, Americans United, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, while keeping the Nativity display up (alone) in order to please their Christian constituents. Lest anyone think the Nativity was an act of simple piety, remember that Green Bay City Council President Chad Fradette has admitted that this action was his official entry into the "Christmas Wars".
"After the vote, Fradette declared, "I'm trying to take this fight to the people who need to be fought. I'll keep going on this until this group imposing Madison values crawls back into its hole and never crawls out." Fradette also warned that he would reach out to the Alliance Defense Fund and the Liberty Counsel for legal assistance in helping him defend the display. Those groups are renowned for carping about an-out-of-control secular America trying to yank Christianity from the public square."
The situation has gained enough national attention that pundits like Alan Colmes (Fox) have been weighing in, and other towns are counting themselves lucky to not be involved in these Nativity battles.
"Things have been pretty quiet on the local front lines of the "War on Christmas." Other places in the U.S. couldn't escape the fray, however, as folks just had to find one more layer of stress to add to the holiday season."
Meanwhile, the ACLU defends itself against "anti-Christian" charges, and lays out its legal philosophy on what separates a Constitutional Nativity display from an un-Constitutional one.
"For instance, Christmas displays -- including nativity scenes -- are perfectly acceptable at homes, churches and even, in some cases, on city property ... the federal courts have ruled that religious displays are permissible on government property so long as, when viewed as a whole, a reasonable observer would view the display as having a secular purpose, not a religious purpose."
A legal test that Green Bay would most likely fail at this point. Green Bay has lapsed in its duty to think not only of the dominant religious sentiment, but of the host of religious minorities within its borders. It troubles itself with what it can get away with instead of working to bring everyone to the table.
"Today, the twin principles of "no establishment" and "free exercise" are meant to guarantee what the Flushing Remonstrance sought: religious freedom as a fundamental, inalienable right for every person. But legal protections can never be sufficient to ensure full religious freedom. In real-life conflicts, religious freedom often means little unless ordinary citizens speak up for the rights of others, including members of the smallest minorities and least-popular communities. When government officials ignore the rights of minority faiths - in a town opposed to an Islamic center, in a public school hostile to Wiccan children, in a court that ignores Native American religious claims - will those at the helm stand up for those in the hatches?"
No doubt Green Bay's "Christmas present" to its residents will very likely result in litigation come the new year, with a resulting bill that will come due for every tax-payer in the city. All so one strutting man could place a plastic Jesus on the local government's roof, and taunt an atheist organization.
Labels: Christianity, Christmas, Circle Sanctuary, Green Bay, Paganism, Pentacle, War on Christmas, Wisconsin
Comments:
I find that people are willing to be most tolerant, especially of minority religions, when their own faith is tolerated, too.
To demand that all expressions of religion or belief be banned is not really tolerant.
"To demand that all expressions of religion or belief be banned is not really tolerant."
'All' is a big term. I think even the most militant atheists aren't asking that religion be banned from churchyards, private homes, or open public spaces. The issue is establishing a religion on government property.
Also, we can't really discuss the dynamics of tolerance without also looking at the dynamics of power. Who has the power in this situation? How are they using it? Are they creating a situation the creates constructive dialog? Are they working towards solutions, or are they trying to prove a point? It is good to remember the Green Bay involved itself here, no one was practicing "intolerance" towards them.
Good post, Jason. My father listened to the broadcast on NPR featuring the mayor of Green Bay, and dad said this: "According to him, he reached that decision because only Christians appreciate the gravity and importance of this season of the year."
I've decided it's no longer a war ON Christmas, but a war FOR Christmas, and it's definitely made up in their own heads.
Post a Comment
I find that people are willing to be most tolerant, especially of minority religions, when their own faith is tolerated, too.
To demand that all expressions of religion or belief be banned is not really tolerant.
"To demand that all expressions of religion or belief be banned is not really tolerant."
'All' is a big term. I think even the most militant atheists aren't asking that religion be banned from churchyards, private homes, or open public spaces. The issue is establishing a religion on government property.
Also, we can't really discuss the dynamics of tolerance without also looking at the dynamics of power. Who has the power in this situation? How are they using it? Are they creating a situation the creates constructive dialog? Are they working towards solutions, or are they trying to prove a point? It is good to remember the Green Bay involved itself here, no one was practicing "intolerance" towards them.
Good post, Jason. My father listened to the broadcast on NPR featuring the mayor of Green Bay, and dad said this: "According to him, he reached that decision because only Christians appreciate the gravity and importance of this season of the year."
I've decided it's no longer a war ON Christmas, but a war FOR Christmas, and it's definitely made up in their own heads.
Links to this post:
