11/29/12
Ken Reid Is A Flaming Asshole
By Loudoun Insider
I haven’t had much to say lately – sick to death of the sorry state of Loudoun and its horrendous politics. Made all the worse by flaming assholes like Ken Reid.
LI: Don’t hold back; tell us what you really think.
This same idiot called the media last year to alert them of the horrid santa display…claiming the Town Council had no power to prevent the display, it was the BoS fault (which was true).
But Reid failed to mention he was a newly elected BoS member and the Fox 5 reporter was pissed. Reid is a media whore, he will do just about anything to get his name and face on TV.
Ken is the poster boy for why most Republicans lose my vote…why can’t they just GOVERN and not try to PREACH?
Respect.
The GOP is on the skids as a second party to the party of stuff. The Stuffers party want to control everything, give phones and birth control away with other stuff, and to become the only party in this country, a one party country, which means, a dictatorship.
Reid doesn’t help matters. But Loudoun county is Loudoun county which makes me so GLAD I’m now in Arlington County, two miles from the White House where the Stuffer in charge is planning his luxurious Xmas trip to Hawaii leaving the SNAP users bemoaning their lack of stuff.
Actually, Reid comes out of this scenario smellin’ like a rose. Keep the perspective peeps!
Fortunately we will have the atheist tent revival to maintain our tradition of holiday weirdness.
Has anyone asked why a judicial courthouse is a good place for a holiday display? If it was town hall, city hall, county HQ, maybe. But the place where citizens decide each others’ fates? And now someone going in to challenge a traffic ticket or a shoplifting case thinks, If I’m not a Christian, these people think I’m a terrorist. I’m probably screwed.
Granted Ken Reid doesn’t speak for all Christians. He’s not even a Christian himself. But the display speaks for Christians in a place that is supposed to be absolutely neutral. The atheists shouldn’t be there either. No holiday displays for a place of law. Period. Just the law.
Yes, there should be displays.
Wingrove claims he is there to support the Constitution. It is the exact opposite. The atheists are there to destroy it by curbing 1st Amendment rights.
This is public property. The public has the right to make displays and place them there at appropriate times. The tradition of doing this at town squares goes back centuries.
This is so stupid.
DD, your right to speech on your own property or church is not curtailed. You just want to put your faith on display on OUR property.
You’re rude.
Sane Person is right. Nothing should go there except maybe some greenery and bows.
The Ken Reids of the political world don’t really view this through a speech or philosophical lens. They view this through a promotional lens. That’s why he’s out there.
DD, do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement sounds?
How in the world is Wingrove’s exercising of his 1st Amendment rights, somehow curbing the 1st Amendment rights of others? And he’s there to destroy the constitution? If the Board makes a ridiculous and ill advised decision to allow displays then Wingrove has as much right to do so as others.
If anything Wingrove is pointing out the absurdity of this entire situation. Just remove all the damn displays and leave it at that.
“on OUR property.”
That’s correct. It is OUR property. You have a right to use it, as do I.
What the atheist are attempting is to deny OUR expression on OUR property.
That is the core of the problem. It isn’t the expression of atheism, it is the attempted denial of expression that atheist are attempting to coerce.
The atheist group even offered to donate a Christmas tree. Offer denied. That is how ridiculous this board is being.
Shawn Williams remains the voice of reason.
“then Wingrove has as much right to do so as others.”
Yes, he does. Did he petion the BoS to purchase an atheist display for exhibition?
“You have a right to use it, as do I.”
You are using OUR property in a selfish and rude way. And you are making a joke out of the sacred.
How truly small of you.
“You are using OUR property in a selfish and rude way. ”
No. That is what the atheists did last year.
Expressing one’s beliefs is neither rude nor selfish. Demeaning others beliefs (as did the atheists last year) is.
eb, so is Mr. Wingrove quite frequently rude.
As he is entitled to be with HIS free speech.
He somehow manages to forget each year in his personal interpretation of a living and transitional Constitution that no law establishing a state religion is in the same part with no law prohibiting it’s free expression. Allowing display does not equal establishment. Sorry.
Everyone should be allowed to display. That some use it as a political wedge to gain their holiday dose of onanistic attention is unfortunate, but in my mind falls into the category of “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
Especially here in Loudoun, where EVERYONE is so very far above average!
For all of you in a tizzy, THINK about what you are saying.
You are obviously hostile to Christianity or Judaism. That doesn’t mean you get to tear down either one.
If you want to promote something, like atheism, then promote it. We Americans have a long, hallowed, codified tradition of doing so. Go door-to-door like the Johovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and tell people why atheism is so wonderful.
But don’t attempt to infringe the expression of your “non-believers”.
A marine grade plastic Jesus isn’t demeaning?
Barbara, if Winegrove was here I would tell him he was rude as well.
The BOS blew it — again — and we are all left to watch the real religion on display: self aggrandizement.
David D, I am not at all hostile to Judaism – I am Jewish. I am hostile to the idea of religious iconography on the lawn of the Courthouse, where all people regardless of religion or lack thereof should be able to expect a fair and impartial meting out of justice. Religious iconography is out of place in that context.
Can there not be just one place free of holiday trappings at this season without it being an affront to you?
DD, if you’re going to take opposition as being “hostile to Christianity or Judaism”, then so be it. But don’t be surprised when folks see your opposition to an atheist display as being hostile.
I for one do not see any of it as hostile, I just see it as being a completely avoidable situation. Just put some damn holly up and call it a day.
If you want to promote something like Christianity then promote it but don’t get high and mighty when someone want to promote an atheistic belief.
Based on the current unfortunate circumstances you are teh only one looking to encourage infringement.
Here is what the atheists should do.
I’m not sure there are any atheist holidays since, by definition, they are non-religious. But I found this:
“Darwin Day is a recently instituted celebration intended to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin on February 12, 1809. The day is used to highlight Darwin’s contribution to science and to promote science in general.”
Since Darwin seems to be atheists’ “god” they should petition the BoS to purchase a bust of Darwin with some pithy inscription denoting their core beliefs. This bust would be displayed on the courthouse lawn the week of the Feb 12.
That would be an appropriate response.
“Can there not be just one place free of holiday trappings at this season without it being an affront to you?”
Yes, your private property.
Public property is PUBLIC property
What the board is doing is extremely degrading to my faith. It is not up the board to decide how my faith should be represented.
And Rick Wingrove has never once been rude. Yet another lie.
From Wikipedia:
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
Note Justice Souter’s comment. What you all are suggesting is that irreligion trumps religion. It does not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
By removing all displays, you are establishing irreligion as the state religion by having the state promote atheism. That is just as wrong as turning that around.
Appropriate displays at appropriate times is the approriate solution.
DD, I don’t think you want to debate this issue based on constitution or common law. You’ll lose.
Best just stick to the it’s a God given right thing.
Again, do you have any idea how condescending you are being to others. Good lord man, you’re now telling atheists how they should celebrate.
By the way, love your idea about keeping things on private property. Too bad you don’t think that wonderful idea should apply to everyone.
David W, “yet another lie”–hogwash. This is the guy who has written and published online that he wants religion treated by the government as if it were secondhand smoke, because in his opinion even seeming to pray silently in public is “as rude as farting in an elevator”.
No one is demeaning “your faith”, you as usual are trying to define terms for everyone (“telling someone else’s story”, in your lexicon of “dialogue”?)
eb, I’m glad to hear you say it re the rudeness–you might be doing him a favor, because he seems to like negative attention.
What delicious mileage he will get from Ken’s decision to give him some! whoopy.
One who quotes Wikipedia has no right to be condescending.
David, it’s a pissing contest on our public property and the BOS provided the keg.
Sure, everyone is within their “rights” to do this and I’ll admit to being a little sympathetic to why Winegrove feels compelled to be there since DD’s folks feel they are “compelled” to be there.
But it’s all bad.
I’ll decide what is demeaning to my faith, not you.
What if you share the same faith?
If one person thinks it’s demeaning to have a public display, and another doesn’t, they don’t share the same ideas of their faith, even if they attend the same house of worship.
Ken Reid obviously thinks it’s terrific to have a menorah on the courthouse lawn, many of the members of his congregation are against it…
“DD, I don’t think you want to debate this issue based on constitution or common law. You’ll lose.”
Pardon the obvious, but the displays are up in full compliance with the law.
“One who quotes Wikipedia has no right to be condescending.”
I’m writing to my audience.
“Again, do you have any idea how condescending you are being to others”
Excepting the immediately previous response, not true. You just don’t like strong, logical arguments that expose the weaknesses of yours.
Does anyone know what “onanistic” means?
This is my take. There is no constitutional requirement to keep all religion out of the public.
Atheists should not be forced to accept another religion.
The religious folk are taking the wrong approach to dealing with this. An approach they will lose.
They should let the atheists put up any displays they want. Why?
Because they look like assholes when they do. It is disrespectful and impolite at the least (like Muhammad cartoons and piss Jesus and swastikas on graves).
But they have a right to be assholes. When Ken also acts like an asshole, we have assholes against assholes and nothing good comes of that.
Let the Atheists be impolite. Ignore them. They will eventually stop when it isn’t effective for bringing attention to them. Keep stopping them and they will keep coming back.
And just to be clear. Like all muslims are not terrorists, etc…. All atheists are not impolite jerks who are disrespectful to religion. I know plenty of atheists that love Christmas. We are talking about the asshole atheists. The ones confronting the asshole Jews and asshole Christians while everyone else just wants to have a bunch of nice holidays. All of them.
DD, that is going to be decided in a court of law.
See legal advice from county staff and Mr. Williams ESQ.
“Does anyone know what “onanistic” means?”
Don’t look it up, you’ll go blind.
“This is the guy who has written and published online..” etc.
I have never known Mr. Wingrove to address anyone in this manner, and I strongly suspect this statement is similar to other misrepresentations by Ms. Munsey about things other people have said “online,” (probably meaning in this case chat on a meetup group she isn’t a member of) because she either missed the sarcasm, didn’t understand the context, or is intentionally trying to attribute opinions to others that they do not hold because it fits her argument better. It’s a pretty well established pattern with her, in fact.
Mr. Wingrove has for a few years now addressed the board, written letters to the editor, commented on articles, etc., and has always been professional, reasonable and principled. I wouldn’t necessarily say that of everyone in his group, but it is true of him, and is in fact true of most of them. I am also quite sure that none of us can say that we never say things in a private setting about people we feel are being unfair to us that we wouldn’t repeat in public because that would be, well, rude.
This is pretty simple, really. Should some citizens have special rights or not? I say no.
Really, this argument again? Isn’t this making a mountain out of a mole-hill, just a little bit? Let’s be honest, this is one of those things that really doesn’t impact any of your lives. None of you are actually intimidated by the courthouse displays, whether Christian or atheist, and none of you are worried that you won’t get a fair trial because there is a plastic Jesus on the front lawn. The supposition by “sane person” is ludicrous on its face. That’s kind of like claiming that atheists are hesitant to spend money because it says “In God We Trust” on the back. Its patently disingenuous. Would I prefer it if I didn’t have to walk by the atheist display when I go into the courthouse (which I do 3-4 times per week)? Sure. Do I feel like I’m being bullied, or coerced into becoming an atheist? Get real. I don’t have the right, even under the First Amendment to not see anything that I’d prefer not to see in a designated public forum. The First amendment says no establishment of religion. If a plastic Baby Jesus on the lawn is an Establishment of Christianity by Loudoun County, then the annual White House Easter Egg Hunt is an Unconstitutional establishment of of pagan Ashteroth worship by the Federal Government.
Now, I’m not a big fan of where the Board ended up this year with the Holiday displays. Its only slightly less ridiculous than last year. And I say this despite the fact that my wife is on the courthouse grounds committee that made this recommendation. But this is not a major policy issue. This is not contributing to, or even symptomatic of, the real problems we face in Loudoun. Channel 4 and The Washington Post should not have even covered it (thereby not giving my good friend Ken an opportunity to spout silly hyperbole that I’m sure he regretted later).
Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax in hominibus bonæ voluntatis.
This is Chistmas, folks. . . lighten up. Ho Ho Ho, go drink some eggnog and relax.
Oh, and I apologize if my religious reference made the Atheists here so uncomfortable that they are no longer comfortable posting in this thread. I had hoped that it would be less intimidating in Latin. Everything is less offensive when its written in Latin.
Darn, they did not accept my application for 1,000 of my campaign signs.
Bill, it was the Washington Times that decided to give Ken this platform, not the Post. But I do agree that maintaining it as a divisive issue is both unnecessary and a waste of time.
David W, yes, you decide for YOU. You don’t decide for everybody else, much as you may seem to think you’re entitled to do so simply by your own fiat.
As to your contention that I’m a liar, misrepresenter, and so on, this is really quite funny from you. Mr. Wingrove has maintained numerous sites on atheism, and my comments reference an essay on one of his “assertive atheism” sites. I find it interesting that you support him so thoroughly each year, because in the same essay he quotes the Bible in saying people should “go to their closet” to pray, and goes on from there to the elevator farts many paras later. Why would you work so closely with someone who thinks any group of free persons, even ones you so thoroughly disagree with, should go in a closet and stay there? I know, I know, the enemy of your enemy is your political friend. Lather, rinse, repeat repeat repeat.
hoah, yes, do look it up (just not on wikipedia, or some other anonymous contributor will chide you). Oddly enough, it has biblical beginnings.
“But this is not a major policy issue.”
Maybe it SHOULDN’T be in you ropinion one but it currently IS one, Bill. Whether you want it to be or not.
Frankly, I think a debate over government limiting access to the public space in ANY manner is an important one to have ESPECIALLY when the limitations being set are preferential to a certain religion. Nothing , frankly, could be more important.
“David W, yes, you decide for YOU. You don’t decide for everybody else, much as you may seem to think you’re entitled to do so simply by your own fiat.”
So who does get to decide for everybody else, Barb? Apparently, based on this comment, you think it is you:
“No one is demeaning “your faith”, …”
Frankly, as a Christian, I find DD and Reid to be very demenaing to my faith. Matthew 6:5-6.
People have a constitutional right to pray in public, whether anyone else likes it or not. That includes in public schools, as long as it is personal prayer not sponsored by the school, coerced, or disruptive. I’m thinking here of, for example, students saying grace before lunch in a public school cafeteria. In some cases, school officials have gotten this wrong and overreacted. Such a violation of a student’s rights needs to be corrected. I certainly don’t think anyone should have to go in a closet, so please don’t suggest that I do.
That’s not what we’re talking about here. If someone wants to sit on the courthouse steps and pray, I don’t have a problem with that as long as they aren’t causing a disruption of courthouse business. I’ve participated in public prayer at the courthouse myself, remember. The government wasn’t sponsoring that.
I actually don’t think it’s funny to deliberately misrepresent other people’s views, but maybe that’s just me.
On the other hand, this actually is funny. The reason is that, during the discussions of the Courthouse Grounds and Facilities Committee about how the county government could get away with displaying one explicitly religious symbol, the creche (how many snowmen and Santas are needed? Must we really have a menorah? Answer: Yes, we need it for “top cover”), there was an exchange about the need to make sure the creche didn’t look “too religious.” One of the things specifically determined to be verboten was to have anything in Latin on it.
It was the accusation of “terrorist” that was extremely offensive and insulting. And Supervisor Reid was saying this of his fellow citizens.
Anyone who saw the bit on NBC4 also saw that he didn’t really apologize. He giggled and hemmed and hawed and acted like he was 3 years old. Then said maybe he should have said extremist.
It was the lead story. Really made Loudoun County look great again.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Loudoun-County-Supervisor-Calls-Atheists-Terrorists-181252281.html
Eric, David W seems to think that the BoS allowing expressions of faith demeans his faith. David can certainly hold that opinion, but that’s all it is–along with his seeming opinion that his membership in one church, out of the many many denominations and sects of Christianity, with their differing practices, emphases, doctrines etc, allows him to pass judgment on what is and is not “real” Christianity. He can decide for himself ’till the cows come home–he is not the Interfaith Pope of Everybody.
I am glad to hear him say he thinks some people go overboard on attempting to limit religious expression–I agree with him.
In his continued apparent belief that his ally in the annual courthouse crusade has somehow been demeaned or misrepresented by me, I’ve given him plenty to go on to look it up for himself.
As for Latin, back in the dim past when Catholics ruled the globe, before there were hundreds of different Protestant denominations, Latin was the universal language of the educated. It still is, in some disciplines that have yet to be dumbed down sufficiently.
It is obvious that the only equitable solution acceptable to the pedantically offended would be to prohibit the use of public space for anything where people might accidentally become exposed to each other, including freedom of assembly and political events, since there is always the chance somebody might be offended by the views or behavior of others. No more protests, no more signs, no more rallies and campaign speeches.
And while we’re at it let’s not forget other public “spaces” such as the airwaves and even this blog site, the only way to keep the “wrong” people from drinking at the well being to poison the well. A society where nobody is to be exposed to the views of anybody else, at least not to the views of the minority (usually deemed to be those who disagree), all living life in a protective bubble where every direction they look and wherever they tune in everybody agrees with them. Sounds like a statist Utopia to me.