There's all kinds of poo hitting the fan in Green Bay, WI, following last night's decision by city council regarding holiday displays on city property. In a split vote, they decided to keep the existing Nativity scene atop city hall, but opted to leave it up there alone. The Wiccan pentacle wreath, which was knocked down Monday by a vandal, will not be replaced. Requests for other displays, including a peace symbol and a Festivus pole, have been denied. Mayor Jim Schmitt said the Nativity scene will come down on the 26th, and then council will discuss their options for 2008.
More information about the council meeting is available here: Green Bay Council Says Nativity Can Stay.
I think what's really telling about this situation is that the council truly was split, with a 3 - 3 decision. As mayor, Schmitt cast the tiebreaking vote, which is common in many cities' municipal government. Nearly thirty members of the public addressed the council, some speaking in favor of the Nativity scene, and others expressing the very valid concern that the city is sending an exclusionary message.
In an interesting tie-in, yesterday's North Country Gazette in upstate New York has a great essay by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center on how important it is to stand up for the rights of people from faiths other than your own.
*Edited to change/add linkage at 2:03 pm
More information about the council meeting is available here: Green Bay Council Says Nativity Can Stay.
I think what's really telling about this situation is that the council truly was split, with a 3 - 3 decision. As mayor, Schmitt cast the tiebreaking vote, which is common in many cities' municipal government. Nearly thirty members of the public addressed the council, some speaking in favor of the Nativity scene, and others expressing the very valid concern that the city is sending an exclusionary message.
In an interesting tie-in, yesterday's North Country Gazette in upstate New York has a great essay by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center on how important it is to stand up for the rights of people from faiths other than your own.
*Edited to change/add linkage at 2:03 pm
Unbelievable! If the others can’t go up, the Nativity should come down. Be inclusive.
Agree with Shiva. All up or all down, no exceptions.
I agree with Shiva. This is a scary precedent.
I celebrate the birth of our Christ and welcome nativity scenes in public. The real “Scrooge” stealing Christ from Christmas is the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is trying to censor all mention of devout religious faith in the marketplace of public ideas.
I believe other faiths should also be free to display symbols. I don’t consider wicca or satanism to be faiths though. They don’t believe in a god or God.
Even so they may have constitutional rights to equal treatment even if they don’t merit it.
“Friend”,
That is incorrect in so many ways. Wicca is a faith, and they do believe in Gods. It is important to protect religious diversity. Do you want someone in the government telling *you* *HOW* to pray? Which decorations to put out?
We have constitutional rights to freedom of religion because it is not anyone else’s job to decide whether or not they *think* a religion merits anything. It is called freedom.
>>>Friend said: “The real “Scrooge” stealing Christ from Christmas is the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is trying to censor all mention of devout religious faith in the marketplace of public ideas.”
Actually, what they’re trying to do is help us maintain that whole separation of church and state thingie. You know, the clause mentioned in the first amendment, where the government isn’t supposed to endorse one religion over the others?
>>>Friend said: “I don’t consider wicca or satanism to be faiths though. They don’t believe in a god or God.”
I’m not sure where you get your information, but Wiccans do honor deity, it just doesn’t happen to be the same god that you follow. See, this is a concern a lot of us have — who gets to decide which religions are valid enough to put up a display over Green Bay’s city hall? You? Me? Mayor Schmitt?
>>>Friend said: “Even so they may have constitutional rights to equal treatment even if they don’t merit it. ”
Has nothing to do with merit. The constitution endorses equal treatment for all of us, not just the majority. To me, the US Constitution trumps a city council decision any day of the week.
patti
Friend said:
>>>I believe other faiths should also be free to display symbols. I don’t consider wicca or satanism to be faiths though. They don’t believe in a god or God.
And I don’t believe Xianity has any historical validity by which to call itself the “one way” to god, heaven, and eternal bliss.
Does that irritate you as much as your statement irritates me?
I’m perfectly content for you to worship the God of your choosing. However, I don’t need people like you to attempt to invalidate my beliefs based on, in your case, personal whim and misguided instruction.
Sorry if I caused offense. Let me clarify. The US Constitution and recent court rulings require equal treatment to all viewpoints. That means that when one viewpoint is allowed access to a limited public forum (like renting a school or displaying art in city hall) then the city may not discriminate against other viewpoints.
The so-called Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn’t believe that. The FFR Foundation wants all religious speech treated as second class. They mistakenly think that any public religious expression or acknowledgment is an endorsement of an establishment of religion. The US Supreme Court held that they are wrong. The US Supreme Court held that a RELIGIOUS National Day of Prayer is constitutional. And also ruled that public prayers in the US Senate are too. And the military and prison chaplaincy system also. And the district court ruled that the Ohio RELIGIOUS motto is constitutional too. Same for IN GOD WE TRUST and ONE NATION UNDER GOD. These are not unique to one faith… not an establishment of a religion, so the US Supreme Court approves.
As for Green Bay the city erred when it banned only religious displays. It could ban all, but not only religious ones. All they have to is all displays again regardless of content. Then they are constitutional again.
I suggest the wicca and other displays be in a seperate location so as to not interfere with the religious message of the private citizen who built the nativity scene. That is only fair and should respect the rights of all.
Why do you feel that a religious display of another religion would interfere with the message of this private citizen? The pentacle is a religious symbol to Wiccans. There would be no interference. What would have been respectful and fair was to allow all the displays or to remove all of them, not just leave the Nativity.
Here’s a funny blog entry from 23/6 (236.com) on this story:
http://www.236.com/blog/w/joseph_minton_amann_and_tom_breuer/a_festivus_for_the_rest_of_us_3063.php
The FFR Foundation is a political business. Though I am not a christian it saddens me to see how that business has grown. Don’t know which is making more money, the “church” or the “paid programs” on t.v? Looks like a race, which, by the way, came from my christian friends. And sadly “friend”, it is a bad habit to assume that wicca and satanism are side by side. Satan is not something we believe in or ever have. It was a tool used to frighten people into believing in your god. We believe in god/goddesses….so what if we are just a little more colorful and poetic and far more in tuned with nature. So “friend” just realize that your comment about wicca not being a faith is what caught my eye. All the other comments are just political views and nothing wrong in believing that all faiths should be able to display their symbols. I liked the article Rick.
Shive asks== “Why do you feel that a religious display of another religion would interfere with the message of this private citizen?”
Because Christianity and wicca are at odds with each other. The wicca symbols are highly offensive to true Christians.
This would be exactly akin to Holocaust memorial day honored by garish swastikas placed beside the menorahs by the American Nazi Party. Free speech also means the right to not have one’s speech spoiled or marred.
That is exactly what the law allows when governments are constitutionally permitted to rent or lease space to private groups. Once a church, for example, gets a permit to meet or to place a display, they can exclude others. In the case of the nativity display, the private citizen asked for an received permission to place his display. He is a devout Christian and would be highly offended by merging together his display with another.
>>> allow all faiths displays or exclude all…
I agree to allow all. I disagree about excluding all now that any public ideas are allowed. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that once gov’t allows any private free speech, it may not censor any including religious views. All faiths displays may be allowed.
Does this seem fair?