Folks may or may not be aware of the Blue Ridge Leader since it doesn’t show up unsolicited in the mail. If you’re not, you should be. The prospect of having no counterpoint to the only other source of news in western Loudoun (the Gazette) was unacceptable, so following the death of publisher Phil Hahn, community members have made sure the Leader continues to have a presence.

This article on the CBPO is Exhibit A in demonstrating why that presence is so important. Unlike most of the chatter about the ordinance, which has more to do with perceptions and emotion and their political impact, this is a remarkably clear, fair and transparent summary of the facts and statement of advocacy.  One of those facts, of course, is the adoption of the CBPO by the local Republican establishment as a campaign issue, and this is treated in the same factual manner.

Of course, saying an issue is partisan doesn’t make it so. The costs associated with Loudoun’s deteriorating streams, such as the cost of treating the increasingly tainted water, are imposed on everyone. And the costs associated with preventing further deterioration need to be shared as equally as possible, too.

If meeting the public’s general needs imposes a burden on the individual, then this situation must be addressed fairly. The burdens should be shared by all beneficiaries – urban areas, rural areas, agriculture and development alike. How this fairness is accomplished – here in Loudoun – must be sorted out prior to passage of the CBPO.

This is a problem that needs to be solved, not a convenient hot button for irresponsible politicians to exploit. It goes straight to the question of what kind of community we want to be. Do we want to have intact, healthy streams and drinking water that doesn’t require expensive feats of engineering to render safe? And do we want leaders who encourage all the stakeholders to come to the table and figure it out, or leaders who actively discourage problem solving and dialogue in favor of creating division, anger and fear?

There’s nothing like a good fabricated controversy for political advantage to get people talking, and sometimes they say things they really shouldn’t have.

The Times-Mirror article posted below by Dave is growing a nice comment thread. I want to call attention to a comment made by Tom Seeman, former Precinct Ops chair for the Loudoun County Republican Committee. He was so pleased with himself for crowing about how Democrats are going to take a bath over this issue that he forgot to not say this:

Whether you like it or not the majority of citizens are religious.  Most conservatives and liberals who are Christians are ok with religious displays.

Here’s what he just did. He admitted that he is A-OK with “most” citizens, or even Christian citizens, getting to decide what should be displayed on the courthouse lawn and enforcing their will via the ballot box. If this “majority” can force government to open the courthouse to ALL displays, it can just as easily demand of government that only certain displays are allowed. That is what we are talking about here; the constitutional principle that some rights belong to everyone and are not subject to popular vote, period – and Tom is ready to flush it if it gets his party some votes. Once started down that road, his comment could just as easily be this:

Whether you like it or not the majority of citizens are religious.  Most conservatives and liberals who are Christians are offended by that display.

These discussions also open a window into just what happens when a cultural majority is allowed to define “appropriate” expression. It’s illustrated in numerous comments on this and previous threads that make no distinction between messages designed to mock the demand for religious displays, and minority religious displays themselves.  For example, this commenter predicts a bizarre, embarrassing circus “[w]hen the Christian nativity is surrounded by Wiccans, Pagans, Druids, Jim Jones/David Koresh wannabes, Star Wars, etc…” In fact, there are practitioners of Wicca and other earth-based faith traditions in Loudoun, and the thoughtless presumption that a Wiccan or Pagan display would by definition be the equivalent of mocking Christianity strikes me as pretty insulting. Obviously ideas about what falls within the boundaries of legitimate expression are wildly different, including even some current loud voices claiming that Islam isn’t a real religion and should be exempt from First Amendment protections.

Given the ease with which people dismiss the beliefs of others as a joke or an abomination, who am I or anyone else to decide that there is nothing of spiritual value in Pastafarianism or the Star Wars narrative? Everybody naturally thinks that their own “common sense” is a good enough guide for this job, and that anyone who experiences it differently is just wrong. In other words, there is a reason that religious liberty for everyone is explicitly included in our Bill of Rights.

Adding to the irony here is the fact that those insisting on the right to their own choice of religious display based on “tradition” would, under different circumstances, insist that every opposing ideological or evidence-based position (environmentalism, feminism, secular humanism, the made-up term “Darwinism”) should be treated the same as a religion; they want this so that their own religious beliefs will be on an equal footing in education with science.

If truthiness like Tom Seeman’s continues to float to the surface, this should at least be entertaining. I think – although it’s hard to know for sure these days – that the Twas The Night Before Christmas poem is a parody; but a parody of which side?

Public input session – Tuesday, September 7, 7:00 pm

1 Harrison Street SE, Leesburg.

You can call in advance to sign up at 703.777.0204 or 703.771.5072.

The folks who insist that the First Amendment allows them to display “traditional” religious symbols on the courthouse lawn are planning a repeat of the heated public input session of last holiday season.  So, I suppose, are the equally insistent anti-display advocates, who have already snapped up at least three of the ten currently permitted display sites.  

I think the inclination among progressive people is to not give too much attention to stunts and manufactured controversies like this. It doesn’t seem like something that should be taken seriously. There comes a point, though, at which our silence is perceived as consent. A situation in which book burnings and violence occur has reached that point, and our local controversy is developing in the context of such a national climate. A local blogger has been maintaining an online petition demanding that our government exclusively “Keep Christmas in Leesburg,” and here are a couple of the more disturbing comments that accompany the signatures:

I do not like the smell of curry therefor if we are unable to have a Christmas Tree and a Nativity Scene then get rid of your curry!

Freedom of religion is a right of every citizen this is not the middle east. If a nativity scene or christmas tree offends you, go home.

Notice how the facts don’t matter, as if people of other faiths and cultures are the ones responsible for the issue being on the agenda. This is a poisonous atmosphere, and it’s being encouraged by those politicians who do better at the polls when their constituencies are motivated by fear and loathing of the “other.”I suspect that a lot of people in Loudoun and elsewhere just feel a bit resentful of things not continuing to be “the way they’ve always been,” and it seems reasonable to them that as the majority religious tradition they should be able to have that. Add some well-placed demagoguery to that sentiment, and you can get a range of things, from a white suburban Christian mom claiming to know from the courthouse issue “what religious persecution feels like” (trust me, Ma’am, you don’t) to a book burning fueled by anti-Muslim bigotry, to violence. I have to call attention to this comical bit of pretense, though, buried in an angry post promising to “ferret out” those Loudoun County supervisors who don’t bend to the will of “the majority” on the courthouse issue.

Perhaps things could have rested if after we prevailed last year, our self-important Board of Supervisors had let it rest.

This is really a striking display of either ignorance or outright lying on the part of this blogger, the same one mentioned above. If she valued facts over fabrication she would know that the supervisor who demanded that the holiday display policy be amended to require that the Board regularly revisit the policy, and the supervisor generating most of the false ‘war on Christmas’ propaganda are one and the same person.  After all, one can’t put on a very dramatic ‘war on Christmas’ performance without media interest and without an enemy to engage. It had to be arranged, and it was.  

If reasonable people show up and say what needs to be said, the media will be able to report something like this:  A group of residents largely organized by one of their colleagues called the Board of Supervisors anti-Christian tyrants, and threatened them with defeat in 2011 if they “vote against Christmas.” Other speakers said that they see claims of bias against Christians as a nonissue, since all religions must be treated equally under the policy. They pointed to evidence that those claiming to be victims of anti-Christian discrimination don’t want minority viewpoints represented, and dismissed the “war on Christmas” narrative as a political stunt.

Although the judges’ recommendation makes a good case for excluding the courthouse grounds as a site, whether the board should vote to allow all displays or none on county property is a matter on which people can reasonably disagree. What our supervisors really need to hear from us, regardless of our opinions about the display policy, is that we want them to make it clear that one group is not entitled to special rights or special treatment by virtue of being “the majority.” That’s not what our Constitution is for.

Related posts:

Solving the holiday display impasse

‘Tis the season for cheap political grandstanding

Debates, Distractions and Religious Freedom  

Bryan Fischer, in his continuing effort to rid the “American Family Association” of any remaining shreds of legitimacy, has been making some rather astonishing statements. Exhibit A might be his recent assertion that, because they failed to convert all Muslim Iraqis to Christianity, the 4,403 US servicemembers who lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom died for nothing. For no reason other than the constitution of Iraq as an Islamic Republic, Fischer calls the conflict “a tragic waste of American blood and American treasure.”

Here he is again, having a hissy fit because a high school football team in Dearborn, Michigan has altered its practice schedule to accommodate the religious practices of Muslim students (who are the majority on the team) during the month of Ramadan. Evidently, the Apocalypse is nigh:

Let’s be clear here. Dearborn, Michigan has now become a Muslim enclave, a Sharia enclave encircled by sovereign U.S. soil.

Really? This might be more convincing if it didn’t sound just like some 1920s screed targeting them dang fur’n Catholics and their treasonous loyalty to Rome. But it does, and to quote Mr. Fischer, it was published on a blog “right here in the United States of America.” Isn’t he fortunate to have our First Amendment protecting his right to say stupid things?

He goes on to explain that Islam “is not a religion so much as an entire, totalitarian ideology that is determined to control every aspect of life, right down to when you can practice football.”

Can you imagine? A faith tradition that actually expects you to think about what you’re doing even when you’re not sitting right there in church? One that requires the faithful to practice certain rituals and diets at certain times of the year, and provides rules for conduct in every aspect of your life? I can only conclude that Bryan Fischer is one of those “Sunday Christians” who doesn’t let his religion interfere with his real life too much (although he seems to have established a career based on letting it interfere with other peoples’). This notion of “separation of church and life” as what defines a bona fide religion as apart from “an entire, totalitarian ideology” will come as a surprise to many Christians, including certainly the ones at my church.

It will also come as a surprise to Christian Nationalists like Michael Farris and Chuck Colson, who I think would argue that their “biblical worldview” is comprehensive and inseparable from their political activism, work and family life. So comprehensive, in fact, that it’s used as justification for being rude to strangers, denying established scientific fact, bearing false witness about legislation, controlling adult children’s dating relationships, physically abusing and silencing young people, crushing academic dialogue, demanding special exemptions from normal job requirements, dehumanizing minorities, and generally using litigation and the legislative process to withhold basic rights from other citizens. There is literally no aspect of life where these busybodies don’t think their religion entitles them to intrude, including inside other people’s bodies. You might even call it an entire, totalitarian ideology.

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

“Tolerance” is one of those mealy-mouth words that gets tossed around, often, it seems, as a strategy for avoiding something that really needs to be said. Let’s just be clear: Some things should never be tolerated. The reckless endangerment of children is one of them.A reader suggested to me backchannel that my response to this comment deserved to be a post in its own right. Then we learned that Loudoun’s resident sociopath Eugene has wormed his cynical fundraising circus into the fabricated Jennifer Keeton/Augusta State Univesity “controversy.” As usual, his message is silly, devoid of even the pretense of truthfulness, and – in a closely related detail – intended to extract money from the least intelligent members of our society. We can skip over the rest of it and go straight to this: A supposed interest in “preserving diversity that includes toleration for a strong belief in moral values.”

What is it, exactly, that Eugene “you would have to treat ‘it’ like a normal person” Delgaudio is demanding “toleration” for? Regular readers of this blog will know me to be a fierce advocate of “diversity” that includes people who believe things that do not comport with reality and “toleration” especially for abhorrent ideas, because that is what sets this nation apart from all others. Our First Amendment guarantees the right to express any belief, however offensive, stupid or unhinged it might be. But what the First Amendment does not guarantee is the “right” to access any venue for such expression. There is no First Amendment “right,” for example, to employment as a licensed school counselor if you do not meet the criteria for a license.

When we send our children to public school, we expect that those responsible for their well-being in that setting have met an established standard of competency, and will not do and say things that may do them harm. Do not confuse your right to express an abhorrent (or just plain false) idea with the imaginary “right” to gain access to other people’s children.

@J. Tyler: Yes, there is objective reality, and we humans are engaged in a process of discovering and describing it, inevitably having to discard mistaken beliefs and assumptions along the way. Some things are a matter of opinion, but other things are not. On this we agree. If you meant to convey something else by “Truth is absolute,” I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Counseling is an applied domain within psychology. I don’t know the specifics of the Augusta program, but a Masters level program would typically include some sort of supervised practicum in addition to coursework. The student would be required to demonstrate competency in the actual practice of counseling before they are granted credentials which would allow them to present themselves to employers and the public as having a certain level of knowledge and training. Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a “counselor” with no training or education at all. A particular degree or license is understood to be a guarantee – the responsibility of the program granting the degree – that the individual has certain skills and competencies. To grant credentials to someone who has failed to demonstrate the required competencies would be a breach of that responsibility. Ms. Keeton, in the judgement of her professors, has failed to demonstrate the required competency in counseling a segment of the student population she is sure to encounter professionally. Therefore, allowing her to have contact with these children in the role of a counselor would be endangerment.

Imagine if a child coming to terms with an intersex condition were sent to her. Ms. Keeton simply believes (she says) that people “were created male and female,” end of story, all she needs to know about the subject. She dismisses all of the medical knowledge concerning neurological development and gender identity in favor of her belief. She is, in other words, actively denying reality – but you seem to think she should be in a position in which she is assumed to have knowledge about this area of life, but in which she would likely tell this vulnerable child something that is completely false and harmful.

As to the responsibility of her professors to convince her that her beliefs in the area of human sexuality are without foundation, I can only say that they obviously are trying. Why else would they have offered her additional training? The fact is that she rejected this offer. The fault lies neither with the professors nor with the evidence presented. Ms. Keeton came to this program with the attitude that she already knows everything she needs to know about human sexuality. If a student has that attitude, first of all, why is she even going to school? Education is an opportunity to learn things you don’t already know. Secondly, if a student has that attitude she is, by definition, unconvinced by empirical evidence. She has come to class with the intention of dismissing information that contradicts her beliefs, something for which her professors can hardly be held accountable.

The Augusta program is doing the responsible thing by preventing this young woman’s willful ignorance from endangering other people’s children. She has no right to do that, and shame on anyone who would try to invent such a “right.”

In the case of Eugene, this is just one more example of an amoral, fake “Christian” putting his own selfish desires before the well-being of the most vulnerable children in our community, as he did when attempting to block the collection of bullying data. He doesn’t care who gets hurt, as long as the checks keep coming. It is beneath contempt.

Kudos to Augusta State for insisting that basic professional standards based on scientific consensus are not to be thrown out in order to accommodate a student’s personal beliefs. And please get in touch with PFLAG and GLSEN to see how you can help make schools safer for all kids.

Ballad of Steven Slater

+1 for style, definitely.

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

We pointed it out here in the context of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors action adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the County’s employment nondiscrimination policy, but in light of the ruling that found Prop 8 unconstitutional, it’s even more striking:

“The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

These words were issued by Governor Bob McDonnell in an executive directive in March, an effort to put out the fire started by his intemperate, activist Attorney General.  AG Cuccinelli, you’ll recall, insists that the law and public policy of Virginia requires the freedom to discriminate against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation, and that such discrimination cannot be prohibited. Kimball Payne of The Daily Press finds these words oddly similar to the language in Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 ruling – probably not the effect the governor was aiming for.

McDonnell’s office opted not to weigh in on the similarities on Friday.

Indeed. What more is there to say about this? McDonnell and Walker are both right.

Payne did predict that if push comes to shove, the governor “would almost certainly say that the executive directive was designed to tackle workplace discrimination and nothing more.” However, I’m sure that even a Regent University law degree equipped him with an understanding that the scope of the Equal Protection Clause is not limited to workplace discrimination. And even if we were to accept that narrow focus, I find myself moved to ask this question again: If he understands what the Equal Protection Clause requires, why did he not use the influence of his office to ensure passage of a legislative correction before the end of the 2010 session? And what is he going to do about Virginia’s compliance problem now?

My, what interesting times.

Crossposted at Equality Loudoun

This may well be premature, but the award for Best Subject Line in the category Histrionic Email Blast in the wake of the grand-slam Prop 8 victory (ruling here) goes to Brian S. Brown of NOM:

“Federal Judge Rules Marriage Unconstitutional!”

I say this as kindly as is humanly possible: Brian, you idiot. Marriage is not unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is your demand that our civil government define marriage in the same strained, narrow, unrealistic, exclusionary way that you do.  This trial represented an open invitation and opportunity for your side to demonstrate before the world why your demand should be met. Your side failed to do that – because the evidence in support of your position simply doesn’t exist. You did your best, but you fell short. That is not anyone’s fault, because not even the best lawyer, or the best witness, can present evidence that isn’t there. As Judge Walker puts it with regard to the absolute best expert witness your side could come up with (in one of those 21-word sentences legal opinions seem to require when a five-word sentence would otherwise suffice) “His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered.”

Some also-rans (thanks for playing!):

Wendy Wright of “Concerned Women for America” gets it partially right; the ruling does indeed go beyond the issue of marriage equality and pointedly addresses the question of what our Constitution and Judicial branch of government are for. The answer to this question is one that those of a certain authoritarian bent have never been able to accept; in another context, “(w)here the Bill of Rights really has its value is as a check against the tyranny of the majority,” and this applies to the Constitution as a whole. The unintentionally revealing comment from Newt Gingrich is a case in point: “…judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.” Back to civics class, Mr. Gingrich. Please show us where in the Constitution it says that “the Judicial Branch shall be a rubber stamp for whatever happens to be the current proclivity of ‘the American people.'” What do you imagine the phrase “independent judiciary” to signify, if not independence from some obligation to uphold majority political opinion?

Such faux-conservative outrage over the failure of “unelected judges” to rubberstamp the prejudices of those who didn’t elect them is nothing new. “Movement conservatives” of the Goldwater era wanted to vaporize the Warren court and “restore constitutional government” in part because the freedom of white people to engage in racial discrimination was being abridged. Today’s faux-conservatives can bray all they like that this is completely different, but their objection is exactly the same: Having their demand for special rights rejected by “judges who oppose the American people.” And we cannot find a stronger illustration of their intention than that provided by Chuck Colson of the Loudoun-headquarted Prison Fellowship Ministries. His response is a fundamental rejection of our form of government, which includes three independent branches. It is, frankly, a call to sedition.

There’s no need to investigate this further – like by locating the original source material – because as you can see it is captured on video.