Stanley Caulkins, who moved to Leesburg in 1937, remembers the first time the Nativity was put up at the corner of the courthouse lawn. Caulkins, who has owned Caulkins Jewelers in downtown Leesburg for over half a century, sees it as a valued symbol, something that should not be messed with. He went before the county board two years ago to argue that it should stay. Last week, he said that he still does not understand why the issue engenders such controversy. “The creche is not religious,” Caulkins insisted, his voice trembling. A depiction of the adoration of baby Jesus, attended by the three kings, is not religious? “It is a belief symbol. You have to believe in something,” Caulkins said.
I never cease to be amazed at the rhetorical and logical lengths some Christians will go to justify their beliefs and their willingness to discriminate against those who happen not to share them. Never mind that a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn clearly represents an implied government endorsement of a religion; people like Caulkins evidently believe the separation of Church and State applies only to non-Christian religions. Christianity (being the majority religion, don’tchaknow?) is an American institution…and so Christians can do whatever they choose wherever they choose.
What people like Caulkins refuse to recognize is that this country was founded by Christians fleeing religious oppression…yet they have no problem with oppressing non-Christians. America is NOT a Christian nation; it’s a secular nation with a Christian majority. That may seem like splitting semantic hairs to some, but the difference is significant. The separation of Church and State means that government cannot endorse a specific religion. This isn’t to say that those in government can’t be Christians, of course. It just means that those in government cannot use their position to advance the interests of their religion to the exclusion of others.
For the better part of 50 years, a creche and a Christmas tree were the only holiday displays on the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds.
Then came the atheists. And the Jedis. And the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — each with its own decorations. A skeleton Santa Claus was mounted on a cross, intended by its creator to portray society’s obsession with consumerism. Nearby, a pine tree stood adorned with atheist testimonials.
Flying Spaghetti Monster devotees are scheduled to put up their contribution this weekend. It’s a banner portraying a Nativity-style scene, but Jesus is nowhere to be found. Instead, the Virgin Mary cradles a stalk-eyed noodle-and-meatball creature, its manger surrounded by an army of pirates, a solemn gnome and barnyard animals. The message proclaims: “Touched by an Angelhair.”
As you might imagine, the good, God-fearing Christian Patriots of Loudon Country are none too enthusiastic about the “heretics” cluttering up their Nativity. While these Christians demand that their religion and the accoutrements thereof be respected, they evidently feel no such responsibility to return the favor to non-Christians>
This year the dispute struck a particularly raw nerve. Skeleton Santa was ripped down — twice. Kenneth Reid, Loudoun County supervisor-elect for the Leesburg district, sent a news release opposing “outrageous anti-religious displays.”
For Loudoun locals, the heart of the issue isn’t about a Santa Claus corpse or a deity made of noodles. And despite a flurry of tongue-in-cheek news reports about the ongoing debate, most people don’t find it a laughing matter. Some say the issue is about freedom of speech, or separating church and state; others say it is about the importance of preserving a cherished tradition.
It’s also about fast-growing Loudoun County grappling with the inevitability of change.
It’s also about Christians recognizing and understanding that being the majority religion doesn’t ipso facto connote possession of a preferred status. Christianity is no more- or less- significant and worthy than Judaism, Islam, Buddhism…and yes, even Pastafarianism. You may not agree with the tenets of a particular religion. You may be highly offended by the tenets of that religion. Such offense does not, however, bestow upon you the absolute, unquestioned right to oppress those who practice that religion.
Or is “theocracy” only a bad word if it’s associated with Islam or another “lesser” religion??
