Green Bay is a nice little city - a good place to raise a family, so I hear. Unfortunately, its mayor is an idiot.
As I'm sure many of you are aware of, Wisconsin's unofficial capital of immigrant-bashing is now the site of a veritable holy war over chintzy holiday displays placed on top of City Hall. A nativity scene was put up, followed by a Wiccan star. Then the star was vandalized, and now it's on.
In response, mayor Jim Schmitt has come up with a proposal to be discussed tonight by the city council, a coterie of likely unconstitutional ideas. Here they are, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette:
Already, out of the gate, you have a policy that blatantly discriminates against those who are non-religious or embrace secular beliefs. Unless we consider believing in no higher power to be a religion, atheists appear to be disqualified from having a display.
Who is Jim Schmitt to say that someone's belief in Festivus isn't serious? Do we really want our public grounds littered with so many unadorned aluminum poles? For that matter, who is Schmitt to preclude Jews from putting up a display celebrating their most holy day, which happens to be in September and/or October? Or Muslims from erecting displays whenever Eid happens to occur?
No words? Hmmm... free speech issues right there.
Limiting the display area to December? Sounds like favoring solstice-related holidays to me.
A fee for the display? Well, two city councilmen put up the Nativity scene, so surely others should be allowed to provide their own labor and upkeep. That way, we're not discriminating against the poor.
It never ceases to amaze me that a small minority of Christians who clearly feel threatened by the concept of religious pluralism feel the need every holiday season to wage this pointless battle. They aren't putting their Nativity scenes up in public spaces to celebrate their faith. They're doing it to pick a fight with those whose beliefs are in the minority. It's nothing other than faith-based bullying.
Here's a great place for a nativity scene: in front of a church. Here's another one: in your front yard.
If you let one group put something up you have to, as far as I'm concerned, let everyone put something up whenever they want. The second you start trying to impose restrictions like the ones that Green Bay's idiot-in-chief is throwing out there, government is setting itself up for a cascading tide of legal bills and little else.
Of course, some Christians today live for the persecution complex. After all, the guy at Wal-Mart that says "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is considered by some to be a vibrant threat to the Christian faith. And in asserting this, they expose themselves and their faith to ridicule and mockery by believers and non-believers alike.
Those who insist on temporarily slapping nativity scenes and crosses on public properties in December aren't celebrating their faith - they're looking for a political fight. They are using their faith as a political weapon. And by opening up public spaces to holiday displays that range from the serious to the absurd, they are cheapening the very beliefs that so many people hold close to their hearts.
As I'm sure many of you are aware of, Wisconsin's unofficial capital of immigrant-bashing is now the site of a veritable holy war over chintzy holiday displays placed on top of City Hall. A nativity scene was put up, followed by a Wiccan star. Then the star was vandalized, and now it's on.
In response, mayor Jim Schmitt has come up with a proposal to be discussed tonight by the city council, a coterie of likely unconstitutional ideas. Here they are, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette:
- Limiting the display area to the roof over the northwest corner entrance between Dec. 8 and Dec. 31 each year.
- Petitions must be submitted by Dec. 1 of each year.
- Petitions must come from Green Bay residents.
- Displays must be a symbol recognized by the associated religion and a symbol of an official holiday of the associated religion of which said holiday is celebrated between Dec. 8 and Dec. 31.
- They cannot be larger than 3 feet high and 3 feet wide.
- They cannot contain any lights or other motorized or electronic devices.
- They cannot contain any written words.
- Petitioners must pay a $100 fee for erecting, removing and maintaining the display during the display period.
Already, out of the gate, you have a policy that blatantly discriminates against those who are non-religious or embrace secular beliefs. Unless we consider believing in no higher power to be a religion, atheists appear to be disqualified from having a display.
Who is Jim Schmitt to say that someone's belief in Festivus isn't serious? Do we really want our public grounds littered with so many unadorned aluminum poles? For that matter, who is Schmitt to preclude Jews from putting up a display celebrating their most holy day, which happens to be in September and/or October? Or Muslims from erecting displays whenever Eid happens to occur?
No words? Hmmm... free speech issues right there.
Limiting the display area to December? Sounds like favoring solstice-related holidays to me.
A fee for the display? Well, two city councilmen put up the Nativity scene, so surely others should be allowed to provide their own labor and upkeep. That way, we're not discriminating against the poor.
It never ceases to amaze me that a small minority of Christians who clearly feel threatened by the concept of religious pluralism feel the need every holiday season to wage this pointless battle. They aren't putting their Nativity scenes up in public spaces to celebrate their faith. They're doing it to pick a fight with those whose beliefs are in the minority. It's nothing other than faith-based bullying.
Here's a great place for a nativity scene: in front of a church. Here's another one: in your front yard.
If you let one group put something up you have to, as far as I'm concerned, let everyone put something up whenever they want. The second you start trying to impose restrictions like the ones that Green Bay's idiot-in-chief is throwing out there, government is setting itself up for a cascading tide of legal bills and little else.
Of course, some Christians today live for the persecution complex. After all, the guy at Wal-Mart that says "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is considered by some to be a vibrant threat to the Christian faith. And in asserting this, they expose themselves and their faith to ridicule and mockery by believers and non-believers alike.
Those who insist on temporarily slapping nativity scenes and crosses on public properties in December aren't celebrating their faith - they're looking for a political fight. They are using their faith as a political weapon. And by opening up public spaces to holiday displays that range from the serious to the absurd, they are cheapening the very beliefs that so many people hold close to their hearts.
5 comments:
Perhaps Mayor Schmitt was too busy studying Marketing in school to take an “Intro to Law” class, but I’m sure that the City Attorney should have been able to explain to him that the constitution does not allow for government to overtly promote religion over non-religion, or Christianity specifically over other religions. Damn, it must suck that it’s not 1952 anymore, huh Green Bay?
And didn’t he know that this would be a big, news-worthy issue; why would you handle things so poorly? For christsake, the last time the midnight club over in the state assembly met they actually spent time discussing the damn Christmas tree.
Thanks Chad Fradette and Mayor Schmidt, thanks to you two profiles in courage, in addition to county supervisor/professional Latino hater, Pat Evans, Green Bay is eventually going to be known as Birmingham, AL, north.
If they did take a brief look at the Gospels they claim to be fighting valiantly for, they'd see the book of Matthew, which Jesus apparently preached in anticipation of douchbags like these two acting in His name over 2000 years later:
5 "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."
The concluding paragraph, I think, was the best you've written on this blog.
WTF are these people to think they can ruin Christmas (or Festivus, or whatever) for those of us who don't give a damn about their political ambition?
Schmitt and the rest of his flock of phonies should try plugging the Beatitudes into their agenda. Maybe then they'd be taken seriously.
here we go again, now the city wants to stick a $5 milion price tag on the taxpayers because good old Paul Jadin pulled a fast one on the city council to push thru his political agenda, all I've got to say is they'd better believe there will be holy hell to pay if they think we're going to take this sitting down, I'll go door to door myself if I have to, to get people involved.
I don't think Jadin pulled a fast one on anybody, from what I understand. Presumably the City Council had access to all the documents when they authorized the condemnation agreement for Washington Square, or could have requested them if they didn't.
Don't blame Jadin here. Blame your idiot City Council for failing to exercise its own due diligence in examining the terms of the deal. Even King of the Morons, Guy Zima, says he doesn't think Jadin misled the council, just "minimized the downside." Well, maybe Zima should've gotten off his fat ass five years ago and looked into that, no?
And of course Green Bay will take it sitting down. That city can't motivate itself to deal with anything. Anyone with the intelligence or ambition to fix the problem has already moved to De Pere, or Howard, or Suamico, or Hobart, or Wrightstown.
Post a Comment