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.
“Frankly, as a Christian, I find DD and Reid to be very demenaing to my faith. Matthew 6:5-6.”
And how, pray tell, am I demeaning your faith Eric?
Why are so many of you who are supposedly fiscally conservative in favor of the County of Loudoun buying decorations, be they secular or religious in nature?
Shouldn’t the Government Reform Commission be stopping this practice in general as it is certainly not part of the core function of government?
I suggested to the BOS several ways where everyone could participate. One was to create a virtual space on the county website for anyone to display their holiday opinion. The other was to accept any ornament less than say 3inches and hang them all on the common tree. If there were too many submissions buy another tree. The point is there are reasonable and respectful solutions to multi-cultural holiday displays and the refusal by the BOS to take simple steps to allow all voices to be heard is evidence that they are anti-free speech and anti-religion.
Eric can answer for himself, but bringing the sacred into the realm of politics is pretty lame — and demeaning.
I even think Jesus said something about it.
You demean my faith by telling me that a PVC crèche is the proper way to express our collective joy that God sent Jesus to show us how to love each other.
I find it deeply ironic that people who clearly wish to promote their particular religion in ways that erode the separation of church and state so completely fail to realize that the very existence of separation of church and state has been hugely beneficial primarily to the practice of religion in America. And that they are being breathtakingly shortsighted in their attempts to tear down that wall because the most likely outcome should they be successful in their misguided attempts to eliminate that separation and to use the government to promote their particular brand of religion will be that religious practice will diminish in the future.
We are the most church going nation in the industrialized world. Far more so than at the time of our founding when the majority of Americans were not regular church goers. I believe that part of the reason for that dramatic increase in religious practice in America is precisely because our Founding Fathers had the wisdom not to repeat the mistake of the countries of Europe that suffered from the toxic mix of religion and government. They gave us a Constitution that never mentions God and only mentions religion to prohibit any religious test from ever being used as a qualification to public office. Because of their wisdom religious practice has flourished in America. And we have managed to avoid butchering one another like the good Christians of Europe did over minor disagreements over theology in worshiping the same God.
In Europe, where traditionally governments promoted and endorsed a particular brand of religion, dissatisfaction with the government naturally spilled over on the religion (always a brand of Christianity) that was the official religion of the day. I think it is entirely possible that this history plays a large role in explaining why the churches of Europe are largely empty on any given Sunday and the churches of America are full. Our wise separation of church and state has been of immeasurable benefit to religion in America.
Of course, the folks whose ultimate goal is to use the power of government to promote their particular brand and interpretation of Christianity will always deny that that is what they are trying to do. They will say that what I have written is irrelevant to this very innocent idea of putting a creche at the courthouse. And, oh my, how unreasonable anyone who would oppose such a thing must be. I fear they are so convinced of the rightness of what they are attempting to do that they have convinced themselves that being deceitful in their cause is somehow justified. They have contrived an array of seemingly innocent intermediate steps to move toward their goal. And they’ve been emboldened by a lot of recent success.
Anybody who thinks I am off base with this assessment might want to read some of the rather fantastical revisionist history they have written to support their notion that this country was founded as a Christian nation and that the government should promote Christianity. And they despicably have inserted this fantasy history into many of the history texts that are used across the country in Christian schools and by parents who are homeschooling. Lying to impressionable young children is not something I believe Jesus would have endorsed. And busy parents who send their children to religious schools to receive both a good education and sound religious instruction may not have time to read little Johnny’s history text to see that it is filled with distortions and outright lies designed to indoctrinate rather than educate.
As I say, the deep irony is that if these people have their way they will ultimately damage religion in America. Which, in my opinion, would not be a good thing. While we can look to history and find great evil that has resulted from religion we can also find great good. I think our society is richer and better overall for the vibrancy of religious practice in America.
This whole courthouse thing may seem like a silly and unnecessary annoyance. And on one level it is. One brought on by elected officials who one would expect to fall down more due to their seeming lack of brain function. But is part of a larger and more important fight against some rather deceptive folks who have a larger agenda with a solid potential for harming both the country and religion.
End of rant.
Pragmatist, I think so. Spending public money on this, as if that was the only choice they had, makes the county look silly. I doubt that the only offer they had to donate a tree came from the atheist group, but even if that were the case, why turn down that offer of a sensible, and probably the closest thing to equitable, solution?
Would the fact that it was donated by atheists make it somehow not a “Christmas tree”?
Ed, I wish I could agree with that approach, but we tried that. Almost everyone was offended by something – which is fine – but then some proceeded to loudly insist that they were the only ones who had had a right to be offended – which is not fine, not if we were all to agree on a free speech zone as a solution. Some people (not all) were demanding to have it both ways.
Yes. That.
“Why are so many of you who are supposedly fiscally conservative in favor of the County of Loudoun buying decorations, be they secular or religious in nature? ”
The atheists forced the hand of the BoS by demeaning and defaming the faiths that were displayed and causing a public spectacle. Before that, they were from private funds.
“You demean my faith by telling me that a PVC crèche is the proper way to express our collective joy that God sent Jesus to show us how to love each other.”
Nobody is limiting the expression of your faith. If you have other ways of expression, go right ahead. Conversely, by removing the displays, you would be limiting the expression of faith.
David d, I cannot display my religious expression in the courthouse lawn because it is regulated to allow only the BOS expression.
Ed, did you petition the BoS to purchase a display?
I think if you do and that it appears at the appropriate time of year, they would comply.
Law enforcement did not do anything last year when people vandalized the displays. Is vandalism an acceptable way to express dissent to holiday displays?
No.
David D, unattended displays are banned….except those set up by the BOS.
Ed, I don’t know what religion you adhere to but I bet that if you ask the BoS to purchase a display of reasonable taste and display it during whatever holiday you celebrate, I’d bet they’d do it.
“Ed Myers
November 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM
You demean my faith by telling me that a PVC crèche is the proper way to express our collective joy that God sent Jesus to show us how to love each other.”
and
“David
November 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Yes. That.”
umm, isn’t it the point each year that the sentiment is NOT collective, therefore the rights of some to be offended trumps expression of it (no matter the material used to do so, PVS or no)?
David, I have asked. They said no.
Barbara, the mantra is all or none. If it is all some will be offended. If it is none, some will be offended. If it is majority rules the minority are disenfranchised. I prefer the more speech route but that gives advantage to motor-mouths. Justice is a fleeting dove.
Dan: You’re right. It’s important to have this conversation about the special rights seekers and their larger agenda. I withdraw my dismissive remarks about this being silly. Thank you for reminding me that it’s possible to be too focused on practical solutions at the expense of something much more important. I needed that.
There is no collective way to express a religious viewpoint except through a faith community. The BOS is making a political statement favoring one faith community over another.
So we’re back to the beginning–all DO have the right, all should be allowed.
(Ed, I notice that you expressed a personal collective before you opposed it–no wonder this is such a mess every year!)
Dan, I love your dissertation and am in agreement with much, but I am curious to know who “the folks whose ultimate goal is to use the power of government to promote their particular brand and interpretation of Christianity” are and whether they in reality have any more political power or following than the atheists?
That public funding of display materials is a breach of your church/state “firewall” is without question in my mind, but where it gets a bit murkier is when any form of religious activity or display takes place in public places even when underwritten privately… then everybody claims ownership of the “space” and any one citizen can attempt to argue the state is “paying” with his offended dollars.
People speak of disruption and offense, but it is indeed strange that such offense always seems to be the result of being exposed to Christian behavior such as cheerleaders praying at a football game, and never a word about Muslim schoolchildren being allowed to pray three times a day in public school. I personally don’t know any Christians who are offended by the practice or display of any other religions in public places, including the Atheist religion, nor do I know any who wish for it to be established as the state religion, not just here but anywhere in the world. On the other hand there is at least one other religion that presently does have as its divine mission to establish global domination and government under the laws of that religion, and toward that end AND in these modern times the followers been killing infidels to achieve their objective.
It seems to me that the irrational fear of Christianity is often a cover for an underlying fear of the moral values it teaches, like humility, tolerance and not stealing from your neighbors, and sensitivity to the concept of judgement… it’s bad enough if some of your fellow citizens might disapprove of your behavior, but if there is some God out there that might send you to Hell, why that would be a bit distressing if they turned out to be right. But for most I think it is just a matter of the teaching and not the Deity, they believe in moral relativism and not commandments… if the cashier accidentally gives you change for a twenty instead of the ten dollar bill you handed him, it is OK to just walk away and take the extra ten bucks as a “reward” for his mistake. Never mind that you arbitrarily decided that YOU are the one entitled to that reward and not the next person in line, or that the cashier may lose an hour or two of pay… it’s a big company with greedy executives that is ripping people off and you are just redressing the balance on behalf of society. Same goes with cheating on your taxes… all the fat cats do it, right?
Once you successfully mitigate any exposure to offensive (meaning disconcerting) moral teachings, two wrongs make a right every time. That’s what I believe is behind much of this, and proof will come shortly in the form of vicious attacks against me.
When the government makes a collective religious statement they prevent me from choosing whether I agree with that sentiment. When government allows all expression then I can fashion my own religious expression. Because of space considerations and the conflict with courthouse operation the county should find a larger venue to support any and all holiday speech.
TDP, the problem is not that the cheerleaders are Christian, it is that they are the wrong sect of Christian. Is it the Baptists or the Catholics that have the bully pulpit of public schools to proselytize the kids? The culture differences and minority make Parents less fearful of tolerating Islamic students but more fearful of a meet-you-at-the-flagpole group that might easily convert a catholic to born-again evangelicalism.
Ed, I was under the impression that it is primarily the non-believers that have been going to court against cheerleaders. Are you telling me it is not the ACLU filing all those lawsuits but actually the Catholics duking it out with the Baptists? That Texas cheerleader case this past summer was stirred up by the Freedom From Religion Foundation… is that really a cell of the Knights Templars?
All the early religious freedom in schools was between Catholics and Protestants which is why the Catholics spent so much on parochial schools. Now that the supreme court is majority catholic the legal issue is what right do kids have to not be bullied into joining collective religious expression in school sponsored events.
TDP, when you have people identifying as Christian claiming that Christian display is offensive, it would seem there is a bit of folks “whose ultimate goal is to use the power of government to promote their particular brand and interpretation of Christianity”. And so it has been here, even in this thread, and in numerous such threads every year for a few now.
I would prefer that displays be privately funded, and I wonder why groups who do NOT recognize a particular holiday feel the burning need to display primarily during one particular holiday, often in attack mode.
Ed, two things you’ve said here are pretty funny–first, the government doesn’t prevent you from choosing whether to agree with something or not. That’s preposterous–take off the tinfoil if you think they vote and it controls what you think and feel. Second, you often proclaim that your hobby lawsuits and various acts are undertaken from your religious convictions, that you sometimes elucidate with some authority–do you really lump every Christian non-Catholic into “Protestants”? I’m a lapsed Catholic and even I know there are a wide variety, with their own histories, and even differences within the larger categories. You just lost some of your “moral” cred on speaking of religion with authority! lol
AHHHH!!! Enough, just put some damn holly up and leave it at that.
I hate reoccurring nightmares.
” On the other hand there is at least one other religion that presently does have as its divine mission to establish global domination and government under the laws of that religion, and toward that end AND in these modern times the followers been killing infidels to achieve their objective.”
Oh TDP. Please do not tell me you are this ignorant and that you mispoke.
I assume you mean Islam. Islam does not presently have a mission to establish global domination and government. There are some terrorists who have a political goal of that but no serious Islamic scholar has ever advocated violent advancement of the religion over evangelicalism.
And they kill almost no infidels. I mean the terrorists. They are killing People of the Book. People of the Book are not infidels. The infidels referred to in the Quran were all killed off or mostly converted voluntarily more than a thousand years ago.
If you are truly that ignorant of Islam I am happy to educate you. If it was just hyperbole and mistaken assumptions and you were sold a bill of goods by the fear mongerers who want your money, then fine.
And on another note, no fiscal conservative supports the purchasing of most of the things that the local government purchases. Especially displays. Waste of taxpayer money.
I say let the Christians and the Jews put up with private money whatever they like in the public square. We should all wish them a happy Holiday season, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy Hannukah. And when other faiths sincerely want to display something, let them. And lets wish them a Happy Dipavali, Weesak Day, Eid, or whatever. And when the atheists occasionally want to put up something saying that they think it is ok not to have a religion, let them do that. And we can all tell them they have every right to not have a religion and we have no problem with that.
Everyone should just start showing a little respect to one another. The people who go around insulting whole religions are the ones who deserve all of our derision. They are the problem. Ignore the haters.
Un-fucking-believable that everyone is arguing about a “marine grade PVC” creche and menorah. What a pathetic government and elected “leaders” we have in this supposedly well educated and well off county. Good grief.
I really am in disbelief.
“I really am in disbelief.”
Oh great. Another Atheist!
Haha!
Liberal A, that post is perfect.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Seriously, people, think about the quality of those who are elected to supposedly “represent” you. The choices are horrendous. And we end up with flaming assholes like Ken Reid and Eugene Delgaudio.
Yeah, but the cheerleaders were saying the prayers themselves, they were not bullying anybody. I can assure you if they were Muslims doing the same thing we would never have heard about it.
Some people just go around every day looking to be offended, and if not directly offended, looking to be offended on behalf of somebody else. When you look closer at these folks you find that their pursuit of high dudgeon ranges far wider than merely religion… they are offended by those who have more than they do, they are offended by those who do not see things their way, they are offended by other who are happy when there are so many who are not, including themselves. They are generally just miserable people who wish to spread their misery and asperity among as many of those less burdened as possible.
“but I am curious to know who “the folks whose ultimate goal is to use the power of government to promote their particular brand and interpretation of Christianity” are and whether they in reality have any more political power or following than the atheists?”
TDP, I have no desire to hijack the thread into a discussion of various Dominionists and their ilk. If you are unaware of their existence and their clearly stated (and IMHO antithetical to the principles upon which our nation was founded) goals then you either haven’t been paying attention or are perhaps in denial because you are sympathetic to their aims. They are often more than a bit cagey when addressing a general audience but before the like minded will more candidly state their views. And they increasingly write about what they hope to ultimately achieve. Even if I give them the full benefit of the doubt as to having completely well meaning intentions (which may be the case with all, some or none of them) I still think they bear watching and must be opposed as they represent a genuine threat to both the civil and religious freedom of all Americans.
The political power of this group or their numbers relative to atheists in general is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. And protecting it. Although I find it laughable that anyone would assert that atheists have more political power in America than Christians do. We live in a country where one couldn’t escape God in the course of public life if one wanted to. Our politicians fall all over themselves to be overtly religious and almost never fail to mention God even if they are attending something as mundane and secular as a ribbon cutting at a new sewage treatment plant or something. Public figures regularly credit Jesus with favorable outcomes in sporting events and other things about which a reasonable and devout person might suspect the Almighty probably takes little interest. In other words, religion is a very in your face aspect of American life. The sensibilities of our fellow citizens who are non-believers are very rarely given a second of thought in these matters.
Add to this the bigotry directed toward atheists and it is terribly difficult to make a serious case that atheists have any degree of power in our society remotely approaching what Christians do. There have been quite a few surveys taken that bear out the negative attitudes toward atheists. I seem to recall one in which more people expressed comfort with their daughter dating a convicted felon than dating an atheist. I know my own personal experience is hardly scientific, but I have had the misfortune to run into some people who loudly proclaimed their Christianity who turned out not to be just ethically challenged but who were total crooks. On the flip side, I have known atheists who have behaved highly ethically in business and who I would be very comfortable to have holding my wallet. Yet many people make negative assumptions about atheists and naively assume that someone who proclaims their religiosity is an honest person.
Which leads us to the asshole who is the subject of LI’s post. Reid is a pandering politician who understands these prejudices and is seeking to exploit them for his own political benefit. Thus his use of inflammatory language likening people who rightly oppose governmental promotion of religion with terrorists. It’s a cheap and easy shot for him to take. Atheists are a small and marginalized group and Reid is espousing a completely incorrect position that is wildly popular with a sizable segment of his constituents. And he also knows that the bulk of people are too damned busy to pay much notice to what seems to be an inconsequential annual annoyance. Reid may be unethical. Reid may even be evil. But Reid isn’t stupid.
Now some people may find these atheists annoying. They don’t like them very much. Hell, maybe they are a bunch of abrasive buttheads. It doesn’t matter a bit.
What matters to me is that my freedom to practice any religion I want is not infringed. And that my religion is not relegated to some second class status behind whatever the favored or government approved religion is. If my rights are being defended by atheists who are opposing nice Christian folks who are unwittingly threatening my religious liberty then all I have to say is God bless the atheists.
Dan, with all due respect, I think that your right to practice or not practice any religion you choose is in far less danger of being infringed than the right to a woman having her baby dismembered and sucked from the womb, the former explicitly set forth in the Constitution and the latter a concoction of the courts. That is why it is far more important for you to be concerned about those who consider the Constitution to be a “living and breathing” document rather than a contract between the people and the government they consent to be governed by… which is what would pose the real threat to your religious liberty.
You doubtless recall all the national angst over the political impact of Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and their kin back in the Reagan era when they were at their zenith, the fear we were going to become some type of Christian evangelical caliphate, and where are they now? No, it appears the only religion we are at risk of having imposed upon us is the belief in an all powerful welfare state ruled over by duplicitous, power hungry demagogues.
So I really would not get too worked up over lens whores like Mr. Reid, your eloquence and energy would be so valuable in far more important battles to be fought, the best strategy to deal with folks like that being to ignore them rather than enhance their audience. After all, as Wilde said, “The only thing worse than being talked about… is NOT being talked about.”
Dan wins this thread hands down.
TDP, you’re smoking dope if you think Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and “their ilk” only influenced the Reagan era.
Many will posit “their ilk” are alive and well and controlling the republican party.
Good post Dan, you get the holly roller award.
BO, I wasn’t talking about evangelicals “controlling the Republican party”, which they do not, I was talking about controlling the country. Obviously you do not wish to see people of faith have a voice in any party or venue, which gets back to that underlying irrational fear of moral people I was writing about earlier.
People of faith are moral? Where is the evidence??
GB, it’s a daily struggle, but at least they try to be. Where is the evidence that those who do not believe in anything have a better moral compass? Given a choice between living among those who are trying to adhere to standards of conduct verses those who do not believe in any, I’ll take my chances with the believers.
You have proposed a false equivalency…those who no not profess a faith in organized religion may very well work daily on being a moral, caring person. There are many which claim to be religious who routinely lie, cheat steal and abuse others. The notion that those who do not adhere to an organized religion “do not believe in anything” is just plain wrong and intentionally ignorant.
I guess you’re right, the exceptions are always the rule, therefore a person of faith has zero percent probability of being a better neighbor than anybody else, in fact it sounds as if they should all be run out of town.
The only thing I am curious about is what percentage of prison inmates and murderers were formerly devout followers and how the statistics on charitable giving fare between those who profess faith and those who do not. While you’re at it, why not take a look at the rather marked difference in charitable giving between Republicans and Democrats.
Huh?? Are you kidding? I am going back to not suffering fools.
So I was at the courthouse today. All this fuss over that puny display? Really? And if they paid more than $100 for it, they got ripped off.
Sheesh,
I don’t see anything foolish about it, you just seem to have forgotten all you learned about set theory in school. You were suggesting that there is no difference between people of faith and the population at large, whereas I was only comparing one subset against another… not all people of faith are criminals but most criminals lack or certainly are not devout followers of their faith, though it does seem amazing how many strive for redemption once behind bars.
As to the charitable giving issue:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923
Absolutely my final try…Liz I am going to take my own advice. The source you cite for charitable giving can hardly be called independent or unbiased. Additionally, I find no reliable source that looks at charitable giving as a percentage of disposable income. Also, donations to a church should probably be reduced from the “charitable” total by the amount used strictly for church operations. Finally, “morality” defined as charitable giving doesn’t even come close to accuracy.
I had taken your advice, Glen. On my way to church with 7 dozen hand-made chocolates I donated at the church auction. Another 10 dozen are waiting to be given as gifts at my charitable holiday party next week.
GB, that report actually does include giving as a percentage of income for different levels and notes that if you strip out church donations and tithing the red states still have the edge. I guess there can be no “credible” study that exists unless it disproves my contention, the only problem being that you can find NO study that does, credible or otherwise. But that’s OK, you have a right to your own facts whether they can be supported or not.
What you really need is a study that analyses whether liberals show greater support for giving more of other peoples money to their causes, especially the money of those who have more than they “need”… on that one I think you would be happy to report they are the most generous people in the world.
Liz – “On my way to church with 7 dozen hand-made chocolates I donated at the church auction”
And tell me again – what church do you go to? Those hand-made chocolates sound awfully tempting!
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Sterling.