Wednesday, December 12, 2007

"War on Christmas" right here in Ohio!!

Just saw this story today in the Columbus Dispatch. Same old story, non christian boy sees the Nativity on state property, boy gets offended and complains, Nativity is removed, the Governor steps in and has the put back up. . . .wha wha what?

Gov. Ted Strickland weighed in a day after The Dispatch ran a story about the
controversy last week. Strickland told the state parks to put the scenes back

"The governor believes that Nativity scenes are an appropriate part of
our traditional holiday displays," said Keith Dailey, a spokesman for

Yup, apparently since the nativity is "traditional" is is totally cool to have them. Never mind that baby Jesus is right in the fricking middle of them . . . no religion there. Other "traditional" items cool with the gov, separate drinking fountains for colored folks and women being denied the right to vote. Then he goes on to say that a menorah would be fine, but not a symbol for Zoroastrian because that is not traditional. BTW, I love that the person who protested wanted a symbols of Zoroastrian and Hindu with the Nativity.

Then we get back to some good old stupidity from the local politicians. City Council member Chris Rodriguez said this about another Nativity in Columbus that was moved (not taken down) from the main steps.
"Personally, I think people should get over it and stop being so smug about
their rights. It's freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion."

Smug about our rights? What the hell does that mean? You have rights but if you speak up for them you are being smug? Add in the the old tired line of, "not freedom from religion" . . *sigh*. All I can say is, you sir are a douche bag.


The Exterminator said...

Well someone ought to take the governor's words literally and burn his house down. Burning people's houses down is a traditional American activity. That would probably offend the governor, but, personally, I think he should get over it and stop being so smug about his rights. It's "under god" not "under your own roof."

PhillyChief said...

Douchebag indeed.

Remember when whoopie defended Michael Vivk by saying dog fighting was a tradition where he grew up? You know what else is a tradition down there? Racism. Might as well through in misogyny, too. Still think traditions are great, Ms. Goldberg?

Traditions don't supersede right and wrong, and the length of time that a wrong has been allowed to exist doesn't magically make it right. You hear me catholic priests? Step away from the children.

Btw, I'll be as fucking smug about my rights as I damn well please because you know what? I have a fucking right to be. I'm going to pop a blood vessel today, I know it.

Paul said...

I have to laugh the way you phrase things...

At the same time, although I see this issue as you do, I think I "get" one aspect of where people on the other side of it are sometimes coming from emotionally.

Most of us grew up with a kind of neoChristian American pop paganism set of public symbols - uh, so to speak. A hodgepodge of Rudolph, baby Jesus, Santa, Frosty, angels, stars, the Wise Men, elves... So there's a nostalgia for those familiar symbols and an immediate reaction of "What's the big deal, it's been this way all my life?!"

Of course the big deal is that separation of church and state clause. As we become more pluralistic spiritually and religiously, we're naturally going to find non Christians wondering why public displays of only one particular religion's symbols - that doesn't happen to be theirs - should be put on public display.