Who cares? The world is too PC. I think the number of people who would view the nativity as a genuine sign of the spirit of Christmas far outnumbers the amount of people who will want to cause a fuss.
Lighten up all you rebels with a cause. Leave JC alone. He works quick.
Rich Miller
· 1 year ago
Um, BandCamp, who, exactly are you telling to lighten up? You're the first commenter. lol
BandCamp
· 1 year ago
just puttin it out there now...LOL
Six Degrees of Separation
· 1 year ago
Maybe BC got a "message from above" with advance knowledge of the comments to come:-)
Vote Quimby!
· 1 year ago
I think Sos should allow it, assuming White's "open policy" would include other winter holidays--Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Festivus. Back when I was a reporter I asked a local mayor about the nativity scene on village property along a state highway, and he said he hoped the ACLU would sue. Why? Because Christians vote, he said. (There was no lawsuit and he won re-election the next spring.)
Carl Nyberg
· 1 year ago
Is White going to allow animal sacrifices?
Smoking Peyote?
White is wrong. And if he doesn't know this is a violation of the First Amendment he should be booted from office b/c of lack of mental competence.
How Ironic
· 1 year ago
I am a Christian, and I don't think it needs to be there. What is wrong with finding a Church for it? Why does the man feel the need to force it upon everyone else? This would be no more appropriate that the SOS deciding that it needs an office in every church in the state, "just in case" someone needs a plate sticker on a Sunday.
Might not be the best analogy, but are we so insecure in our beliefs that we need to force everyone to see how "Christian" we are?
cermak_rd
· 1 year ago
As long as he allows a Hanukkah display, a Diwali display, a winter solstice display (OK, the decked out trees do that already), etc. of the same size and not inferior in position, I have no problem with it.
Speaking At Will
· 1 year ago
I would have to say that I would be against putting up the Nativity scene. Government has no business getting into the faith business.
Personally I would have no problem with it being there, however it opens the door to a million different lawsuits, protests, and other distracting issues that will be irrelavant on December the 26th.
Furthermore, I really would love to go one Holiday season without hearing about the "War on Christmas."
One christmas display I would like to see in the capitol rotunda would be Rod dressed up like Santa, in a grat big sleigh with the Illinois Seal on the side of it. Then State contractors could some sit on his knee and whisper in his ear what contracts they wanted while slipping a check into his big red sack of presents.
Beerman
· 1 year ago
After yesterdays games do you honestly think Chicago baseball fans will say no? ;)
Carl Nyberg
· 1 year ago
BTW, is Jesse White offering to pay the state's legal bills to defend his obviously illegal position?
Or are the taxpayers expected to foot the bill for this pandering?
Snidely Whiplash
· 1 year ago
These things only seem to come up in the news when it is a Christian display. You never hear a big outcry over public displays of other religions and, really, why should you? Give everyone a forum. As long as no religion wanting to participate is excluded, what's the problem?
I also find it funny that no one said a word that the second vote on the bailout package was delayed until late in the week after congress adjourned for two days in order to observe a Jewish holiday. If congress had ignored the most important legislation in recent history in order to observe Good Friday, you can bet the media would be screaming.
The double standards in this country are just shocking. These days, every one has a right to freedom of religion except the majority.
Which gets me thinking, Rich will probably slam me for whining on behalf of the majority now. ;)
BandCamp
· 1 year ago
It's not in an SOS office. It's in the Capitol, a tourist attraction. And it's not being put in the Summer. It's a traditional theme of Christmas. How in the world does this hurt your feelings? Ruffle your feathers? Will the world come to end? Are L. Madigan's crows going to squall, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
Please.
Or am I missing something here? Is Christmas a holiday because of a fat man in a red suit?
Can I say it yet?
Rich Miller
· 1 year ago
BandCamp, you've spoken more than once in debate. Give others an opportunity, please.
Ahem
· 1 year ago
It's just amazing what goes on nowadays. Nativity scenes in public buildings and politicians in churches.
Phineas J. Whoopee
· 1 year ago
Isn't this issue resolved already? There must be volumes of precedent on this. It comes up every year. If the courts have ruled you can't, then don't. If White is trying to test the law let him pay for the defense out of his campaign fund or personal money.
GOP'er
· 1 year ago
Throw in a Menorah, maybe a Frosty the Snowman, and something from the Muslims, and it will be fine.
That's what Mayor Daley does in the plaza every year.
If private groups pay, who cares? This country and state have bigger problems.
Cheswick
· 1 year ago
I just like the decorations. I don't care what religion they represent. Also, I like the lights he strings down from the top of the dome starting at Thanksgiving. And, I really really like the soothing purple, red, and yellow lights on the north side of the Howlett Building, which I just noticed last Christmas, but which appear to have been left on all year.
photogram
· 1 year ago
Hmm, I remember as a child being asked what part lil' photogram was gonna play in the christmas pageant. It's not my holiday, it never was. It did however, make me feel like a stranger in my own country. And in case anyone wants to know, I was born here, so were my parents. My father is a veteran of two wars.
I am now torn by being offended by christian bashing, which is going to far the other way, and being offended by a**holes who think they are "taking back the country" by shoving their religion back in my face. Adding to the delemma, I find that human expressions of faith are beautiful, moving, futile, and incorrect.
Allowing a christian man to erect a religious scene in the public hallowed grounds of the Dome in springfield is fine by me. It's not the establishment of a religion by the government.
Those who think such an act needs balance with a menorah the same size need to look at a calendar and check their common sense. and kwanzaa too. sh*t, don't line them up side by side for comparison. but if we have the creche, we'd better not deny **any** other groups that wanna have a display in the capitol.
Beancounter
· 1 year ago
Why in the world would Jesse White want to stir up this kind of trouble? I am a Christian, but I don't think my country needs to be "taken back" by anyone. I just think that religious displays are always inappropriate in government buildings.
ZC
· 1 year ago
There's not much detail in the article but it sounds like there's a strong lawsuit to be had, if the ACLU wants to pursue. This sounds like _County of Allegheny v. ACLU_, where a nativity scene on a courthouse step was ruled unconstitutional. Though that was the late 80s. The new Supreme Court, with Roberts and Alito, may be good material to revisit this ruling.
The rule of thumb in _Lynch v. Donnelly_ is the "reindeer rule," that if you surround a religious display with enough secular elements (a Christmas tree, Santa, etc.) then it's OK. I don't know what the ruling would be if there's an "open policy" - i.e., it's just a creche, but Jesse White has put out the word that if anyone wants to build a menora, they can, too.
I don't personally have a problem with a creche in the rotunda at Christmas-time. There will be some hurt feelings, I am sure, and feelings of exclusion. But hurt feelings alone generally shouldn't make expression unconstitutional. To say this is some kind of slippery slope leading to the reestablishment of a Christian politics in Illinois seems a stretch.
Levois
· 1 year ago
I don't have a big problem with a Nativity display at the state capitol. I wouldn't be hurt if the state capitol had displays for Islam, Judiasm, or Buddism. I wouldn't feel excluded because observing religions begins at home, first and foremost.
My Knd of Town
· 1 year ago
The trouble with SOS White's decision is that allowing Christian religious symbols in the Capital requires him to allow others to place theirs as well. The "others" mentioned so far are pretty main stream and few object to them just like few object to the Christian symbols. But he may not like the content of a "religion" that claims for example racism, or satanism, as a tenant, and wishes to display its beliefs as well.
Excessively rabid
· 1 year ago
People who feel the need for this kind of thing need to just spend more time in church and get it out of their system. Attend enough church committee meetings and you'll be glad to go someplace secular. Also note that supporters try to pass this off as tradition, but the American tradition is that the Puritans put people in the slammer for celebrating Christmas. Furthermore, the observance used to be getting drunk, which doesn't sound very pious but IMHO it's better than grinding up the earth to make consumer junk for an orgy of holiday spending. Grumble, grump, humbug....
the Other Anonymous
· 1 year ago
I'm taking this question to mean what do I think of a Nativity display, regardless of what is required to make it consitutional. As Phineas points out in his rhetorical question, nativity displays have been litigated to death.
Also, it's hard to say anything about this particular religious display without seeing it.
Generically, though, Nativity displays do not offend me, even if they are on government property. But they do stir up a hornet's nest, evoking overly passionate feelings on both sides. Moreover, as in Vote Quimby's anecdote, too often the displays and the fights around them are overtly political. That does offend me.
Given the ill feelings and ugliness generated by some religious displays, I just think the better policy in keeping with the spirit is to put up generic holiday decorations (lights, etc.) during the end of December on government buildings. I don't need the government to acknowledge Christmas for it to be a religious holiday. (Actually, in my case this is literally true; my parish celebrates Christmas on the Julian calendar, January 7.)
The argument that Christmas is under attack because the government will not place Nativity scenes at its cost is as much of a red herring as the idea that marriage is under attack by same-sex marriage.
BigDog
· 1 year ago
So just to clarify, if the State ends up buying Wrigley Field, does that mean Carlos Zambrano has to stop doing his pointing to the heavens thing when he ends an inning?
wordslinger
· 1 year ago
Of course. That way, we can know there at least three wise men at the Capitol once a year
Anon
· 1 year ago
== The double standards in this country are just shocking. These days, every one has a right to freedom of religion except the majority. ==
I worry that allowing other religions to be displayed reflects an attitude that they aren't "real."
Excessively rabid
· 1 year ago
Re: SoS, I believe the policy in place is that you can put up any kind of religious display if you get the appropriate permission. I'm told that in recent years they've had a menorah and items from other religions. So if anyone makes too big a deal, this creche guy can reasonably claim to be discriminated against. Personally I would prefer no PDR's (Public Displays of Religion).
Just My Opinion
· 1 year ago
"A central Illinois man says". Has anyone confirmed with the SOS if this is truth or rumor? And to whom did they speak with?
Rich Miller
· 1 year ago
Um, click through to the story and you'll see this...
===White spokesman Henry Haupt says the secretary has an "open policy" on displays in the Capitol. ===
Snidely Whiplash
· 1 year ago
=== I worry that allowing other religions to be displayed reflects an attitude that they aren’t “real.†===
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you're attempting to say that government only allows displays of Jewish, Muslim and other religions because they don't view them as "religions," I'd have to say that it's a pretty whacky statement.
Lefty Lefty
· 1 year ago
I think that the creche has now become a secular symbol of Christmas just like Santa Claus (who was a saint! Irony alert!) and the tree (definitely full-on secular). And I think all the crying about fairness and discrimination by Christians while flooding the countryside with "Christian" decorations has made it this way.
Soon they can have Baby Jesus Christmas lights to hang on the tree and Holy Family wrapping paper just to really bring the whole sorry affair to its appropriate end.
Nick Naylor
· 1 year ago
I love how everyone remembers the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part of the 1st amendment but seems to conveniently forget (or at least neglect) the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion.
Anon
· 1 year ago
465 U.S. 668 (1984) - A city may erect a Christmas display consisting of a nativity scene and not violate the EC
492 U.S. 573 (1989) - Prohibits unmistakably endorsing language such as "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ" from appearing with a nativity scene on county grounds, however, a menorah placed in an inconspicuous place does not violate the EC
545 U.S. 677 (2005) - The 10 commandments on Capitol grounds does not violate the EC, so long as its intention is historical and not the advancement of religion. See also 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
That is some of the most relevant case law. I think folks are going to have a hard time if they want to challenge the constitutionality of this under the establishment clause.
Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan
· 1 year ago
You know maybe if Government would look to The Lord for help things just might get fixed. They sure are fouling it up without The Lord.
Jaded
· 1 year ago
i think it is a great idea. The nativity scene pretty much sums up why we celebrate Christmas, doesn't it? Wilkepedia defines Christmas as the annual holiday celebrated on December 25 to honor the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I can't think of a better way to mark that celebraton than with a nativity scene.
LS
· 1 year ago
as as avowed atheist, it really doesn't bother me all that much. People have gotten too sentsative about this issue on both sides. I have seen displays at capital for Falun Gong that were down right disturbing to look at (torture practices by the Chinese government and all) and while that was more a political message than a faith message, it was still about a religon and no one complained. The captiol belongs to us all and, within reason, should be a place where expressions of all faiths are allowed.
Black Ivy
· 1 year ago
As a card-carrying ACLU member and practicing CAtholic, absolutely not! The Capitol Complex is no place for any religiion to display it sfaith as the "Separation of Church and State" philosophy is very much the law. Why do citizens continue to disregard the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Anon
· 1 year ago
What about all those crosses that go up on the State Capitol grounds every year for the pro life folks? Are they suppose to disallow those types of groups to do things as well because they display crosses? I personally find them offensive so let's stop that as well! Prayer services during session in the rotunda? As along as we are on a role let's ban those too! All that praying gets on my nerves. Where do you draw the line folks?
Jason B
· 1 year ago
A wise man once told me, "Never argue politics or religion in a VFW, those old men will kill you." What I'm saying is that these are the two most sensitive topics. With all of the differing views, politics should not be in religion and religion should not be in politics. It's difficult enough to come to a consensus without combining the two. As soon as we start mixing the two, we're doomed to fight till the end without any resolution.
VanillaMan
· 1 year ago
A government democratically elected and representative of it's people, should reflect that community's beliefs. All holidays are a part of our community and all religions within our community should be reflective.
Since about 90% of this community is Christian, it would be ridiculous to demand not to acknowledge this basic tenant between citizens and their government. Menorahs, etc, should also be a part of any public displays.
It makes life more interesting.
When a government recognizes your faith enough to welcome public displays of it, then you have a government focusing on inclusion with it's citizens.
As Frosty the Wealthy Media Snowlady famously says: "It's a good thing!"
steve schnorf
· 1 year ago
Geez. Does anyone remember why the Roman had their circuses, and their gladiators and lions? To distract the citizenry from the important things that were happening. Well, you all are sure being distracted. This deserves less than a nanosecond of attention.
Rich Miller
· 1 year ago
So you commented why?
Say WHAT?
· 1 year ago
Yes he should allow it. Jesse White wouldn't exclude other groups. Why exclude Christians? I liked things the way they used to be, before we all got insane with political correctness. In the 1960's there were nativity scenes every December at government buildings and parks. People don't freak out over religious displays, just the ones that have something to do with Jesus. Heck, I was just reading where some PUBLIC schools are now providing a special room, set apart for Muslim students to pray in. When my son attended public school, he was told he could not carry a Bible, and was allowed to pray on campus only once a year at a special event called "See You at the Pole." Jason B - Religion and politics are intermingled everywhere, don't kid yourself.
When the founding fathers of this great nation spoke of God, it wasn't "Whoever each of you says God is" We are still ONE NATION UNDER GOD. If you don't believe, I won't force my beliefs on you. Just because something is displayed in the capitol building doesn't mean you have to believe in it or practice it. I am not ashamed. Christians have had to stuff our symbols into the closet as not to offend for too long. I say get over it. Let Freedom Ring!
Say WHAT?
· 1 year ago
Steve, Weren't Christains fed to lions as entertainment by the romans?
steve schnorf
· 1 year ago
I just can't help myself, Rich. I try to quit, to go cold turkey, but I can only hold off the urge for so long, and then there I am, typing away at two in the morning on something...it's a curse.
Disgusted
· 1 year ago
Speaking At Will - Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:29 am:
I would have to say that I would be against putting up the Nativity scene. Government has no business getting into the faith business.
Yet the government wants us to take this bailout on faith that it will all work out.
Pony Shoe
· 1 year ago
To Nick Naylor (and the rest of the country): The free exercise clause and esablishment clause are in direct contradiction of each other.
This is why reconciliation of the two has been so difficult over the years.
What the founders did not want was a state church, like the C of E, founded by King Henry VIII after the Pope would not grant him a divorce.
So, no establishment--hey, worship however you want.
But the founders were overwhelmingly Christian and in their frame of reference did not foresee Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Wiccan or anything else.
What seemed like an easy and reasonable way to settle a legitimate concern at the time has, by virtue of the diversity of modern times, become a giant controversy.
It was not so intended.
P.S. Snidely: You are 100% correct that if Congress adjourned for Good Friday it would be the end of the world from the MSM. Not so last week.
All Comments
Lighten up all you rebels with a cause. Leave JC alone. He works quick.
Smoking Peyote?
White is wrong. And if he doesn't know this is a violation of the First Amendment he should be booted from office b/c of lack of mental competence.
Might not be the best analogy, but are we so insecure in our beliefs that we need to force everyone to see how "Christian" we are?
Personally I would have no problem with it being there, however it opens the door to a million different lawsuits, protests, and other distracting issues that will be irrelavant on December the 26th.
Furthermore, I really would love to go one Holiday season without hearing about the "War on Christmas."
One christmas display I would like to see in the capitol rotunda would be Rod dressed up like Santa, in a grat big sleigh with the Illinois Seal on the side of it. Then State contractors could some sit on his knee and whisper in his ear what contracts they wanted while slipping a check into his big red sack of presents.
Or are the taxpayers expected to foot the bill for this pandering?
I also find it funny that no one said a word that the second vote on the bailout package was delayed until late in the week after congress adjourned for two days in order to observe a Jewish holiday. If congress had ignored the most important legislation in recent history in order to observe Good Friday, you can bet the media would be screaming.
The double standards in this country are just shocking. These days, every one has a right to freedom of religion except the majority.
Which gets me thinking, Rich will probably slam me for whining on behalf of the majority now. ;)
Please.
Or am I missing something here? Is Christmas a holiday because of a fat man in a red suit?
Can I say it yet?
That's what Mayor Daley does in the plaza every year.
If private groups pay, who cares? This country and state have bigger problems.
I am now torn by being offended by christian bashing, which is going to far the other way, and being offended by a**holes who think they are "taking back the country" by shoving their religion back in my face. Adding to the delemma, I find that human expressions of faith are beautiful, moving, futile, and incorrect.
Allowing a christian man to erect a religious scene in the public hallowed grounds of the Dome in springfield is fine by me. It's not the establishment of a religion by the government.
Those who think such an act needs balance with a menorah the same size need to look at a calendar and check their common sense. and kwanzaa too. sh*t, don't line them up side by side for comparison. but if we have the creche, we'd better not deny **any** other groups that wanna have a display in the capitol.
The rule of thumb in _Lynch v. Donnelly_ is the "reindeer rule," that if you surround a religious display with enough secular elements (a Christmas tree, Santa, etc.) then it's OK. I don't know what the ruling would be if there's an "open policy" - i.e., it's just a creche, but Jesse White has put out the word that if anyone wants to build a menora, they can, too.
I don't personally have a problem with a creche in the rotunda at Christmas-time. There will be some hurt feelings, I am sure, and feelings of exclusion. But hurt feelings alone generally shouldn't make expression unconstitutional. To say this is some kind of slippery slope leading to the reestablishment of a Christian politics in Illinois seems a stretch.
Also, it's hard to say anything about this particular religious display without seeing it.
Generically, though, Nativity displays do not offend me, even if they are on government property. But they do stir up a hornet's nest, evoking overly passionate feelings on both sides. Moreover, as in Vote Quimby's anecdote, too often the displays and the fights around them are overtly political. That does offend me.
Given the ill feelings and ugliness generated by some religious displays, I just think the better policy in keeping with the spirit is to put up generic holiday decorations (lights, etc.) during the end of December on government buildings. I don't need the government to acknowledge Christmas for it to be a religious holiday. (Actually, in my case this is literally true; my parish celebrates Christmas on the Julian calendar, January 7.)
The argument that Christmas is under attack because the government will not place Nativity scenes at its cost is as much of a red herring as the idea that marriage is under attack by same-sex marriage.
I worry that allowing other religions to be displayed reflects an attitude that they aren't "real."
===White spokesman Henry Haupt says the secretary has an "open policy" on displays in the Capitol. ===
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you're attempting to say that government only allows displays of Jewish, Muslim and other religions because they don't view them as "religions," I'd have to say that it's a pretty whacky statement.
Soon they can have Baby Jesus Christmas lights to hang on the tree and Holy Family wrapping paper just to really bring the whole sorry affair to its appropriate end.
492 U.S. 573 (1989) - Prohibits unmistakably endorsing language such as "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ" from appearing with a nativity scene on county grounds, however, a menorah placed in an inconspicuous place does not violate the EC
545 U.S. 677 (2005) - The 10 commandments on Capitol grounds does not violate the EC, so long as its intention is historical and not the advancement of religion. See also 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
That is some of the most relevant case law. I think folks are going to have a hard time if they want to challenge the constitutionality of this under the establishment clause.
Wilkepedia defines Christmas as the annual holiday celebrated on December 25 to honor the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I can't think of a better way to mark that celebraton than with a nativity scene.
Since about 90% of this community is Christian, it would be ridiculous to demand not to acknowledge this basic tenant between citizens and their government. Menorahs, etc, should also be a part of any public displays.
It makes life more interesting.
When a government recognizes your faith enough to welcome public displays of it, then you have a government focusing on inclusion with it's citizens.
As Frosty the Wealthy Media Snowlady famously says: "It's a good thing!"
When the founding fathers of this great nation spoke of God, it wasn't "Whoever each of you says God is" We are still ONE NATION UNDER GOD. If you don't believe, I won't force my beliefs on you. Just because something is displayed in the capitol building doesn't mean you have to believe in it or practice it. I am not ashamed. Christians have had to stuff our symbols into the closet as not to offend for too long. I say get over it. Let Freedom Ring!
I would have to say that I would be against putting up the Nativity scene. Government has no business getting into the faith business.
Yet the government wants us to take this bailout on faith that it will all work out.
This is why reconciliation of the two has been so difficult over the years.
What the founders did not want was a state church, like the C of E, founded by King Henry VIII after the Pope would not grant him a divorce.
So, no establishment--hey, worship however you want.
But the founders were overwhelmingly Christian and in their frame of reference did not foresee Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Wiccan or anything else.
What seemed like an easy and reasonable way to settle a legitimate concern at the time has, by virtue of the diversity of modern times, become a giant controversy.
It was not so intended.
P.S. Snidely: You are 100% correct that if Congress adjourned for Good Friday it would be the end of the world from the MSM. Not so last week.