The Hostility Scene

So I was listening to NPR last night on the drive home, and there was a story about the City Hall of Green Bay, Wisconsin -- and the controversy surrounding a nativity scene perched on its roof. The mayor of Green Bay, a Mr. Jim Schmitt, was interviewed; he cast the tie-breaking vote in the debate, electing to keep the nativity display right where it is. What's more, no other religious displays will be allowed at City Hall until guidelines can be drawn up.

When asked why he cast his vote to keep the nativity scene atop his City Hall, he responded, "Well, at City Hall, we have ... decorations around City Hall, we put up a few years ago, we have Santa Claus and reindeer, we have ... wreaths, we have lights. We had someone put up a nativity display; I think as long as we can do this as part of an overall display, you know, in a legal fashion, this is ... good for our community. This is a community that celebrates familes, and ... holidays, and so I cast the deciding vote to leave the nativity scene up as part of our holiday decoration here at City Hall." Wow, Mayor Schmitt. A nativity scene and Santa, reindeer, wreaths, and lights?! Incredible. That must be quite a diversity program you've got going on in Green Bay.

When it was pointed out to him that all of the decorations he mentioned were specifically aimed at celebrating Christmas, the good mayor opined, "Well, that's kind of what we're celebrating, that's ... the holiday that's coming up, and ... that would be true."

Oy gevalt.

Now, I don't live in Green Bay. I've never even visited. Whether or not they put a religious display on top of their City Hall has little consequence in my daily life. But the story fascinates me nonetheless. Today's edition of the Green Bay Press Gazette posted some notable quotables from folks on both sides of the debate. Here are some of my favorites ...

Charlotte Goska said, "I'm a Christian but also an American. And as an American, I don't believe in having a religious display on public property. Any guidelines inevitably will exclude some group or another." Well said, Charlotte. I've never understood this notion that the absence of religion from the public sphere necessarily makes the environment inherently anti-religious. Despite Mayor Schmitt's promise that next year's display will include a menorah, there was no Hannukkah display this year. Using the logic of the religious right, this means that Green Bay is officially anti-Semetic. Add to that the fact that Hannukkah is actually a minor holiday in the Jewish calendar. I wonder if any displays will help the local Jews celebrate Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. Somehow, I doubt it.

Tony Saldana said, "What does the nativity scene and the City Council have in common? Both are missing wise men." Heh. Good one, Tony -- although, to be fair, it should be pointed out that six members of the city council voted for a secular display. Or perhaps they were all women?

Morgan Thompson said, "As a practicing Wiccan, I hope the police are sparing no effort to catch the person who vandalized our symbol. … I'm appalled at the mayor's comments about Wicca. If those statements were made against Christianity, we'd have rioting." See, and that's the point -- it's so easy to test a situation where one side is fighting for "equal rights" and the other side is shouting about "special rights." Just apply the criteria of one group to your own, and if you're appalled -- then you probably should be.

Marte Carlin said, "Favoritism of the religion of any one group is a source of disunity. Vote for a plan that promotes unity and harmony. Let's get back to being known as a city of peace and the next Super Bowl champions." Personally, I'd want to promote a plan to fund the arts, but I see where Marte is coming from. There are other causes to pursue, and the vote to keep the divisive display around just keeps the conversation going, when -- truth be told -- if it had come down, people might have griped and groused for a week or two before all would have been forgotten, particularly if their local houses of worship had their own large, totally appropriate nativity displays up for the rest of the month.

Tammy Crone (and no, I didn't make that up; that's totally her name) said, "Christmas is the day Jesus was born. I don't feel Jesus in the manger is a Christmas theme; it's what Christmas is all about. Everything has to be an issue. What's wrong with tradition? If this was 20 years ago, it never would have been an issue." Well, honey ... sometimes progress happens. And there's nothing inherently wrong with tradition; we'll still have barbecues next Memorial Day and fireworks next July 4 -- and that's fantastic because those traditions don't, by their very form and content, aim to please one segment of society at the expense of everyone else. And I'm sorry, Tammy; you'll have to explain to me one more time how Jesus in the manger isn't thematically linked to Christmas, because it sort of got past me the first time.

Lyle Wilquet said, "The nativity scene is not promoting religion; it's to celebrate a birthday." Um, okay. Let's put up a display honoring Mohammed's birthday next year. Something tells me you'd disapprove. Lyle goes on to say, "There's too many people like the Freedom From Religion Foundation that just want to create a secular society. I'll pray for them." Yeah, you do that, Lyle. And yes, a secular society is what we're after, but that doesn't mean a society that is not welcoming of people who follow a religious practice -- it just means that it welcomes people of all faith traditions, including those who choose not to believe.

Sean Ryan said, "With the general direction our local government is heading, it would be more efficient to consolidate all their motions to simply exiling all non-English-speaking, non-Christian minorities to live a minimum of 2,000 feet outside the city." I'm fairly sure that Sean was speaking in jest, and yet it's important for people to know that these seemingly symbolic debates are in fact suggestive of the kind of segregation that he's talking about. Rock on, Sean.

Because as Becky Katers says, "I'm opposed to the city getting into religious debates. That's not the purpose of city government, not what people are paying taxes for. … Roughly 15 percent of the population of Green Bay is non-Christian. That's about 30,000 people. You have to recognize there's diversity here." Um, exactly.

I realize that this particular post is bound to elicit strong responses on both sides, so let me state for the record: I don't hate Christmas, I don't hate Christians, I don't hate the Baby Jesus. I think that churches and private residences should be able to decorate for the holidays however they choose. However, I also believe that a City Hall ought to do what it can to serve all taxpaying members of its community, regardless of religious identity. Members of dominant groups have this weird habit of interpreting acts of inclusion for all as acts of oppression directly aimed at them. Taking the Baby Jesus and Virgin Mary off of the roof of a government building does not oppress Christians. If you want to look about the Madonna and Child, go to church or display them in your home.

And have a Merry Christmas -- if that's your thing.