From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:
Because Schmitt cast the tie-breaking vote, he's likely to receive the praise but also the criticism for the decision to keep only the Nativity scene on display at Green Bay's city hall.
It came down to Schmitt. I credit him for not buckling under the pressure of ridiculous demands by the PC crowd and the loon fringe.
Would Mayor Tom Barrett have had the jingle bells to side with Christians and upset the freedom from religion contingent and Jesus bashers?
It's possible. He did agree to refer to Milwaukee's city tree as a Christmas tree, but I doubt he would have allowed the Nativity scene to stand alone.
Filling campaign coffers, even when running virtually unopposed, probably would be more important than filling the manger.
The nativity display stays, and it stands alone.
The City Council voted Tuesday night to leave it in place until Dec. 26, and to impose a moratorium on any other religious display until the City Council and Schmitt could develop a set of guidelines.
The council voted 6-6, with Andy Nicholson, Chad Fradette, Guy Zima, Tom Denys, John Vander Leest and Tom Weber voting to keep it. Mayor Jim Schmitt cast the tie-breaker with a "yes" vote.
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.
"This is crazy," said Tim Entringer of Green Bay. "It's Christmas. I'm sad in my heart. There is only one God, and you've got to keep him up. The only way to get to God is through Jesus. It's the true religion. You have to do it."
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.
Sean Ryan, the man who had asked last weekend to display a Festivus pole, patterned after an episode of the TV show "Seinfeld," told the council he did it as a joke, meant to point out that religious displays don't belong at City Hall.
...A Wiccan display was installed Friday. It is a white five-pointed star encircled by a wreath. Early Monday morning, someone flagged down a police officer to report seeing someone on a ladder at City Hall, taking down the display. The suspect fled, leaving the ladder. Police later found the damaged display in the shrubs.
Schmitt on Monday declared a moratorium — no additional displays and no replacement Wiccan display until the council could meet and decide a policy. Schmitt said several people were making a mockery of the display by suggesting pop culture symbols such as the Festivus pole.
Because Schmitt cast the tie-breaking vote, he's likely to receive the praise but also the criticism for the decision to keep only the Nativity scene on display at Green Bay's city hall.
It came down to Schmitt. I credit him for not buckling under the pressure of ridiculous demands by the PC crowd and the loon fringe.
Would Mayor Tom Barrett have had the jingle bells to side with Christians and upset the freedom from religion contingent and Jesus bashers?
It's possible. He did agree to refer to Milwaukee's city tree as a Christmas tree, but I doubt he would have allowed the Nativity scene to stand alone.
Filling campaign coffers, even when running virtually unopposed, probably would be more important than filling the manger.
8 comments:
It is amazing how conservatives talk the "strict constructionist" talk, but when the Constitution clearly conflicts with their world views, don't want to walk the strict constructionist walk.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It is one thing to use tax dollars to buy pretty lights and colorful ornaments to set a cheerful mood during the cold and dark winter months. But using public funds to purchase and display a representation of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, the One True God, is exactly the kind of religious establishment the Founders wanted to avoid when they adopted the First Amendment.
The next time a Jew, a Hindu or a Pagan has to go before City Council, they will know exactly where they stand and how welcome they are in that community (i.e., not at all), now that the Government has demonstrated a clear preference for one particular religious belief over all others.
But it isn't just a Christian / Non-Christian thing. Some Christians don't celebrate Christmas because they think it is a pagan holiday, and others believe that the display of images like the nativity violate Biblical Law - so now the City Council has established not only a preference for Christianity, but a preference for a particular brand of Christianity, at the expense (both fiscal and spiritual) of all others.
I also note from the article that some "loving and forgiving" Christian was so offended by the use of public funds to display the symbol of another religion that they felt compelled to tear down and destroy the Wiccan display. And yet, I bet that person can not wrap his or her mind around the idea that someone might be equally offended by the use of public funds to display a Christian religious symbol.
It is amazing how conservatives talk the "strict constructionist" talk, but when the Constitution clearly conflicts with their world views, don't want to walk the strict constructionist walk.
What are you talking about?
There is absolutely no conflict with the display of a nativity scene at Green Bay's city hall and the Constitution.
That's not the establishment of a state religion, not even close.
You need to get your facts straight. The Press-Gazette article doesn't say that a Christian removed the Wiccan wreath. It states that "someone" removed it.
You've just revealed your personal anti-Christian agenda.
I would like to draw your attention to the latest member of the loon fringe of secular progressives waging war on Christmas and bashing poor Jesus -- our very own President, George W. Bush. During his end-of-year press conference this morning, he had the gall to wish reporters a "Happy Holiday"!!
Too bad GWB doesn't have the "Jingle Bells" to side with Christians. Or perhaps, like a good Christian, he had the grace and kindness to love and respect his neighbors and the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas.
What is your problem?
1. The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment does does more than just prohibit the creation of a government sponsored church such as the Church of England. It also means that our government may not pass laws which aid one religion or prefer one religion over another. It means that no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
2. Given that the vast majority of people living in the area are Christian, I think it is a pretty safe bet that the person who destroyed the Wiccan display was a Christian.
3. My problem is, if there is a War on Christmas, shouldn't we be condemning everyone that wimps out with a "Happy Holiday" instead of a "Merry Christmas"? Why should GWB get a free pass when he bows to PC pressure to secularize the season?
4. Since you so correctly pointed out that the Manitowoc Courthouse was not using public funds for their display, I will pose my other question here, where it appears that they are, in fact, using public funds:
What would you think if the Green Bay City Council voted to display a great big flashing Sigil of Baphomet next April in observance of Walpurgisnacht, and would you have any objection to the use of public funds to pay for such a display?
5. As a Christian, I am not quite sure how I might go about having an anti-Christian agenda. I will have to give that some thought.
The Framers did not intend to strip the public square of religious expression.
You cannot assume that a Christian removed the Wiccan wreath. Case closed.
Using an expression such as "Happy Holidays" is not wimping out at all. What a lame argument! Bush is no less of a Christian because he didn't say "Merry Christmas."
Your question makes no sense. What's the point of coming up with that bizarre scenario, especially after you screwed up on the facts of the Manitowoc case?
I think it's a good idea for you to give some thought to the expression of religion in this country. Knock yourself out.
http://www.236.com/blog/w/joseph_minton_amann_and_tom_breuer/a_festivus_for_the_rest_of_us_3063.php
From Ralphie's link:
As card-carrying filthy disgusting heathen atheists, we find this whole thing hilarious. And since we live scant miles from Green Bay, in the beautiful Fox River Valley, we're naturally hoping this controversy drags out as long as possible so we can see something on the local news other than Kiwanis bake-sale coverage or morbidly obese Packer fans buying official team-sanctioned heart disease awareness caps.
Of course, unlike some intolerant Green Bay residents, we strongly support any citizen's right to practice any religion he or she chooses, no matter how crazy or stupid. So in the spirit of ecumenism, we hope 23/6 readers will waste both their and the government's time by flooding Green Bay City Hall with requests for religious displays that are even more asinine than the Christian one. We hope to see each of the nation's 300-plus recognized religions fully represented.
You can find Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt's contact info here.
(Note: We'd prefer you e-mail, but if you must call, make sure to throw in a "cripes" and a "jeez" or two, along with a few references to how your frickin' knee ain't never been right since you slipped on the sidewalk down by the Pick 'n Save, so it sounds like you're local.)
The irony: The authors are locals.
Post a Comment