Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

UPDATED: Cuccinelli: Holiday displays, religious or otherwise, are allowed on public property

Anita Kumar

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) writes in a new opinion that local governments do not have to ban holiday displays that include religious symbols, including Jesus Christ.

Cuccinelli's opinion was a response to a request from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who asked whether Loudoun County, under the U.S. and Virginia constitutions and state law law, must prohibit holiday displays on public property.

"It is my opinion that a local governmental entity is never categorically compelled to prohibit holiday displays, including those incorporating recognizably religious symbols, because governments enjoy considerable discretion in accommodating the religious expression of their citizens and employees and in their own recognition of traditional seasonal holidays,'' Cuccinelli wrote. "It is further my opinion that displays depicting the birth of Jesus Christ are permissible provided the government ensures appropriate content and context."

Read the opinion.

Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia branch of the ACLU, described Cuccinelli's opinion as "accurate." He said localities can ban all displays, including those that are religious, or allow all displays.

Marshall said he requested the opinion from Cuccinelli after residents complained that Loudoun County officials banned structures, religious or otherwise, last year from the lawn of the century-old courthouse in Leesburg. He said he plans to contact county officials and let them know about Cuccinelli's opinion.

Marshall has asked and received several opinions from Cuccinelli since he was sworn into office in January, prompting critics to accuse them of trying to get around a divided General Assembly.

After Marshall requested an opinion, Cuccinelli also concluded that the state can impose stricter oversight over clinics that perform abortions and law enforcement can check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police.

This post has been updated.

By Anita Kumar  |  August 24, 2010; 4:49 PM ET
Categories:  Anita Kumar , Ken Cuccinelli  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Where does the money from Virginia's liquor sales really go?
Next: Senate will hold hearings on defense cuts in Va.

Comments

Mr. Cuccinelli - I do not know what law school you attended, but have you ever heard of this thing called - SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

To the good citizens of Virginia, my many regrets to you for the insensitive of your elected attorney general. There are laws on the books and just because he says it doesn't make it true. What does the law dictate!

Posted by: sun52shine | August 24, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, Virginia's own version of Sarah Palin has struck again. Give the right to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants, take away a woman's right to chose, and allow religious displays on government property... WHAT "LAW SCHOOL" DID YOU GO TO? WAS IT ON THIS PLANET OR SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where the laws of the land are meant to be followed, not interpreted by your own right-wing, radical Christian agitated mind.

Posted by: bkllal6020 | August 24, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Has CooCoo-cinelli ever issued an "opinion" that was at oods with his personal political, religious or social beliefs? Just asking.

Posted by: Natmeister | August 24, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I certainly hope that his new "interpretation" of the law allows for the display of the Koran on government property.

Posted by: bkllal6020 | August 24, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

seperation of church and state means the state cannot indorse or become influential nor can it take away from it it just takes a neutral position.

Posted by: ggc35 | August 24, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Seperation of church and state was designed to prevent any sect overthrowing the will of the people by a majority of mistakingly elected, sleazy extremists. Well, that was right on the the money because the Obama crowd is certainly ignoring the will of the people right now, and with moral justice and awareness, the electorate will cut him down to size this November. In God we trust is still on the American money, or will the atheists try to have that changed as well?

Posted by: boblusby | August 24, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I guess that means that I can display a sign that says "There is no god. Merry xmas!" on the grounds of our government center right next to the crib and stable. So much for sensitivity.

Posted by: danmcs | August 24, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The Commonwealth needs a recall law ASAP.

Although I am surprised Ken showed restraint and didn't require that the only displays allowed are Christian themed ones.

By the way is this the Virginia GOP's plan to govern? Some GOP delegate lobs a softball "question" to Kooky Ken and he writes an "opinion" which now is supposed to have some sort of authority?

Posted by: BurtReynolds | August 24, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse


What's next, Cucci? Your are still just an irritant on your way to becoming and infected scratch.


Posted by: mortified469 | August 24, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Virginia is for morons.

Posted by: dmcgoldrick | August 24, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I assume that includes Muslim religious symbols?

Posted by: seaduck2001 | August 24, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Just how many requests from Marshall is Cuccinelli going to respond to?

Posted by: RickJohnson621 | August 24, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey sun52shine,
Obama just endorsed the building of a mosque at ground zero? Why can't Cuccinelli comment on the right of governments to permit religious holiday displays? Your logic is twisted.

Posted by: lottaaction | August 24, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Bigbrother,
They only support the Constitution when its convenient. Just like how they are all about small government unless it means regulating people's rights based on Christian beliefs. They are against government spending too unless its for a new contract for Blackwaterc, KBR, Halliburton, Lockheed, Northrup, etc.

Frank Wolf is apparently a champion of balanced budgets now. He has been in Congress for 30 years, voted for deficits between 80-92 and 00-08 and now he is worried about deficits. Its hilarious.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | August 24, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

The Cuch must be putting these Republicans up to asking for his opinion in order to force their extreme right-wing Catholic views on the rest of us. This is unprecended in my 40 year residence in Virginia--an AG DAILY releasing opinions.

The ACLU is going to be busy keeping up with him.

Posted by: ecassel1 | August 24, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Cuccinelli is obviously paying back the American Taliban of evango-fascist whack jobs (Robertson, Dobson, Falwell(d)), et al, for their support in the past election.

By next week he'll have VA burning gays and feminists at the stake.

Posted by: 809212876 | August 24, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I'd like to see some tasteful Festivus poles displayed.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | August 24, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

In view of the fact that we already have a menorah and a Christmas tree on public property here in DC it's a little difficult for me to get worked up about this.

The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of government-sponsored holiday displays, which raise somewhat different issues from privately sponsored displays on government property, and the line-drawing is difficult. It's unlikely Cuccinelli's memo, whatever its motivation (and he is no doubt motivated by his fairly extreme beliefs) will be the last word on this.

Posted by: Meridian1 | August 24, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

so presumably cuccinelli believe that muslim displays can be placed on public property including the 9/11 memorial in nyc as well as anywhere at or near the pentagon.

Posted by: george32 | August 24, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Good. Glad to see someone in politics taking an unpopular stance. Don't listen to the un-american liberals they are all crazy.

Posted by: barrysmith1 | August 24, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

If you liberals read his opinion he simply states that a government entity is not categorically compelled to prohibit holiday displays and religious symbols. He is correct in the context in which he wrote his brief. The government does not have to prohibit symbols. Doesn't the white house have the annual easter egg roll? Get a grip people.

Posted by: Jsuf | August 24, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

As someone who was born and raised in the Commonwealth it is amazing how much has changed. I wonder how many people remember that Virginia elected the 1st black governor, Doug Wilder. Until the religious zealots moved into Lynchburg and Hampton Roads Virginia was famous for being very hands off politically, neither conservative or liberal, just not intruding on peoples' lives unless necessary, and that was not in the bedroom or regarding religion. Those days have gone to the wayside. The Commonwealth, rather than moving forward, has taken massive leaps back.

Am I surprised, heck, I live in DC and I knew what Ken and Bob were going to do to the State, why didn't the voters. Oh well, Ken, who wants to be a future President, has shown his strips and out-Sarahs Sarah. Virginia, what will you do next election, make him Governor?

Posted by: JMSamuel | August 24, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I actually agree with Cuccinelli. The problem is, what happens when Scientologists, Wiccans or even Satanists want to put up a similar display? Of course "bans" on religious displays are not mandatory, they are simply a realistic recognition that IF the government allows such displays, it can't pick and choose among the various religious groups or give preferential treatment to one or some of them. But if one of these non-Christian groups wants to put up a display, my guess is that the people demanding that the government accommodate the religious beliefs of its citizenry will fall suddenly silent, or even rise up in opposition. Christians--and make no mistake, it's nearly always Christians who are pushing for these things--are all for "freedom of religion" as long as it's freedom of CHRISTIAN religion.

Posted by: MrDarwin | August 24, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Great -- now Billy Bob and I can put up that Festivus pole we've been hankering to erect.

Posted by: cossack2 | August 24, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

So if Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says there is no Christ can he ban Christmas?

Posted by: Jimof1913 | August 24, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

sun52shine is right the AG has no business endorsing anything. That he specifically mentions the birth of "JC" makes it obvious hes mixing church and state.

lottaaction: last time I checked they weren't planning to build a mosque on top of ground zero just down the street...

Posted by: Mac1956 | August 24, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

sun52shine is right the AG has no business endorsing such matters. That he specifically mentions the birth of "JC" makes it obvious he's mixing church and state.

lottaaction: last time I checked they weren't planning to build a mosque on top of ground zero just down the street...

Posted by: Mac1956 | August 24, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

So, counties can display an image of the birth of Jesus so long as the display itself "is not making a religious statement" (from the opinion by Mr. Cuccinelli). QUESTION: How can a display of Jesus at the holidays NOT make a religious statement?

The point seems to be this: As long as Jesus is a knick-knack and not an overt religous symbol, displaying his likeness is ok. SECOND QUESTION: Shouldn't religious people be disturbed by knick-knack Jesus?

Dear Government: Please get your hands off of Jesus. The church and individual Christians can handle celebrating our Lord's birth just fine without your help. Thank you.

Posted by: chrisduckworth | August 24, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

It is sad, Ms. Kumar, that the Post is forcing you to report on this man. However, it is important that you point out ow backwards this backwater bred being is (how's that for an alteration).

Posted by: johng1 | August 24, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

The strict neutrality required by the Constitution does not empower local governments to prohibit anything that might strike someone as being of a religious nature.

On the other hand we have organizations that demand that everything but the letter "t" be prohibited.

Some of their members are posting on this thread.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 24, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

sorry, that is "alliteration" (spell checker without glasses)

Posted by: johng1 | August 24, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

We also have people who demand that the letter "t" be covered up lest they be offended if they should pass by.

Frankly, I'd like to waterboard a lot of people but the law won't let me, and I'd have to have a couple of strongarm guys anyway. But, fur shur, one of the things I'd do is get the puke to admit that the Constitution does not have anything in it about "separation of church and state".

Then I'd turn 'em loose.

And that's just because it is so predicatably trite, and fundamentally ignant.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 24, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see Mohamed, Buddha, Ganish, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and others displayed as well.

Posted by: johng1 | August 24, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Cuccinelli believes the minority has no rights. Only if you're straight, Christian, white, and anti-choice, do you count in his verison of Virginia. The rest of us should just leave, I suppose.

Posted by: annie7 | August 24, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

johng1

Doncha know the Moslems don't go along with no kinda' Mo-hammad displays and they'd say that "insults Islam".

You can show Jesus covered in poop, and Buddha with pigeons planting white drops on his statuary, or even a depiction of Moses fornicating with the golden calf ~ and nobody will do anything to you for that (although they are definitely going to look at you funny for the rest of your life, and NEVER hire you as a babysitter)

The Moslems, though, will cut off your head and kick it around like a soccer ball.

They're different.

I think Christians should adopt a similar standard ~ you mess with their stuff they cut parts off of you ~ that'd be the ticket ~ and Fur Shur you'd find the Leftwingtards keeping their mouths shut about Christmas imagery.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 24, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Personally, I'd like to see some tasteful Festivus poles displayed."

Posted by: seaduck2001 | August 24, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes, for the rest of us.

and THEN, the feats of strength.

Posted by: Ichristian | August 24, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

gee, all of these "opinions" (red-meat issues all) being promulgated just in time to rile up the rabble just in time for the election. and all in "response" to some hillybilly delegate asking for a legal ruling from McDonnell's attack dog. sounds to me like someone misusing the authority of his office for personal gain. can anyone say mis- and mal-feasance, deserving of recall, or worse?

Posted by: Ichristian | August 24, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Will someone tell Mr Cuccinelli that he is the state's Attourney General and not its moral arbitor. He should really spend more time prosecuting crime instead of being alter boy.

Posted by: dre7861 | August 24, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

You know Cooch, at a time when most counties and cities are laying off teachers, slashing services, letting roads go unpaved I think the thoughts of going out to buy a new electronic manager set is really, really low on their priorities. It should be very low on yours too. Besides we all know why you want this Kenny - so you can go around putting diapers on the animals 'naughty parts' instead of doing your frigging job.

Posted by: dre7861 | August 24, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

cookanelli issues an advisory opinion, at the request of marshall no doubt, that the laws of gravity do not apply on the grounds of the state capital. how else to explain the up-is-down logic of a truly scary zealot who's prepared to twist the laws of the commonwealth into the shape of balloon animals at the drop of a hat. hilarious if not so pathetic.

Posted by: MMinMd | August 24, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Fine, but they better reserve equal space for the flying spaghetti monster.

Posted by: steve_k2 | August 24, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The AG's response just says 'maybe'; it parrots existing law and SCOTUS decisions. "...displays depicting the birth of Jesus Christ are permissible provided the government ensures appropriate content and context" is nothing more than a replay of Lynch v Donnely. Those last 8 words mean "maybe".

Posted by: fudador | August 24, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

""Personally, I'd like to see some tasteful Festivus poles displayed."

Posted by: seaduck2001 | August 24, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Yes, for the rest of us.

and THEN, the feats of strength.
---------------------------
I always look forward to the airing of grievances! Wouldn't be Festivus without it!

Posted by: steve_k2 | August 24, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey sun52shine,
Obama just endorsed the building of a mosque at ground zero? Why can't Cuccinelli comment on the right of governments to permit religious holiday displays? Your logic is twisted.

Posted by: lottaaction |
----------------------------
lottaaction,

You bringing up Obama's endorsement of a Mosque doesn't make sense. Any government official can publicly endorse any religion they want. In fact most government officials do this all the time. The difference is when the endorsement is done on Government property such as having crosses in courts etc. Obama's endorsement was for the constitutional rights of a private muslim organization to purchase and build property where they want. But don't let these little nuances get in the way of you twisting facts to make you "point"

Posted by: 6thsense79 | August 24, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Great news! This is going to be the best L. Ron Hubbard Day ever!

Posted by: Chip_M | August 24, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Heard this afternoon that the housing market around Manassas is doing okay, especially compared with places like Las Vegas and Miami. I cut Jim Webb a lot of slack on his tract concerning "reverse discrimination," largely because he is asking one of the "right questions" that will determine whither America. But this guy,... Man, oh, man, ya'll have got your hands full of crazy. Did anyone ask Mr. Cooch if his opinion extends to depictions of crucial religious moments near and dear to the Muslims, Hindus, ... agnostics who populate the Old Dominion?

Posted by: JohnBrown08 | August 24, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not "endorse" a mosque. he simply said that Moslems have freedom of religion, just like anyone else in this country. They have the right to religious expression on private property. this is not the same thing at all. Cuccinelli is talking about religious displays on public, tax-supported property.

Posted by: annie7 | August 24, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh how I look forward to seeing all religions post their symbols on public land. They will become so plentiful that one will not see a blade of grass which will mean lower grass maintenance costs.

Sadly, I do not believe that even these symbols will be able to live in peace with each other all thanks to the be-Christian-or-else extremists.

Posted by: skramsv | August 24, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Calm down Leftists. It's not like he's insisting you pray the Rosary during your tax payer funded abortions..

Posted by: wewintheylose | August 24, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to adding to my growing baby jesus collection.

Thank you.

Posted by: kenk3 | August 24, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

This ruling ignores the subsequent question. Does the state have to allow equal access to public land for expressions of religiousity ? If you allow a manger do you have to allow a star of david, a statue of budda, apollo, vishnu etc ? Can the state prefer one religous symbol over another ?

Posted by: dinopello | August 24, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Of course he supports holiday displays on government property, because he hates the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America. He's an evangelical freak.

Posted by: tkoho | August 24, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Christians should adopt a similar standard ~ you mess with their stuff they cut parts off of you ~ that'd be the ticket ~ and Fur Shur you'd find the Leftwingtards keeping their mouths shut about Christmas imagery.

Posted by: muawiyah

--------------

And I guess you consider your religion as better than all the others. That's right, the others all are but mere infidels compared to your Christian faith, right? Keep making your Jesus proud.

Posted by: johng1 | August 24, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Can those who worship themselves display an image on public property now? I'd like to get a cardboard cutout of myself made and prop it up in front of the courthouse this Christmas.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | August 24, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Common sense opinions drive liberals nuts. Thank you Virginia.

Posted by: meinsenkaye007 | August 24, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Okay, then a likeness of the Devil, whom I worship daily, should be displayed right next to that guy, and false prophet, Jesus.

Posted by: johng1 | August 24, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Greatest AG this state has seen in decades!
Virginia is really starting to lead the way in promoting common sense for its citizens! He's going to make an even better Governor!

Posted by: Glock23 | August 24, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Cuccinelli is a sick little man who is an embarrassment to the entire state of Virginia.

We LIKE traditional American values, like separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and as embodied in the 14th Amendment.

This right wing whack job seems to hate all of that.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | August 24, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Why don't the Democratic delegates get together and start submitting other kinds of questions to Mr. Cuccinelli so that he will have to go on the record on those issues as well, if he is going to turn himself into the Ann Landers of Virginia law on the taxpayers' dime? If he decides only to reply to friendly Republican questions that could make a very nice TV ad showcasing all the equally valid questions from elected Democrats that he ignored.

I never had much respect for this mind but the level of grandstanding he's now exhibiting in office is truly mind-blowing. It is like an ego turning into a full-size hot-air balloon before our eyes.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter1 | August 24, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Cuccinelli's legal philosophy: If an issue agrees with his far right-wing philosophy it is legal...if it doesn't it is illegal. Who elected this partisan hack? Oh right, the rednecks of Virginia.

Posted by: salanatoli | August 24, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

As long as governments "make no law", I fail to see a problem here. Government buildings belong to the people, not the state, and citizens certainly can set up appropriate holiday and religious displays at their own time and expense. You don't like religious displays? Well, I don't like tank tops or tattoos on fat chicks. We both need to simply move on.

Posted by: slim2 | August 24, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I think we should put a priest in every bedroom to ensure that unmarried couples don't fornicate and married ones don't use birth control.

Posted by: cjride | August 24, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

we don't need a priest--we have Cuccinelli in every bedroom in Virginia.

Posted by: annie7 | August 24, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is a delegate from Prince William concerning himself with the matters of Loudoun County? Mind your own business.

Posted by: Corn_Laden | August 24, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, people, read it. This issue was very contentious in Leesburg and deals with whether the local government MUST PROHIBIT any such display. The courthouse lawn is our town square, and the County's courthouse buildings committee (it's County property) outlawed the holiday displays that had been permitted there for years and years, thinking that they had to for legal reasons. There had been a Rotary Christmas tree there for 50 years, and a creche for 20. The County's courthouse facilities committee suddenly said they were no longer permitted.
You all make it sound like this is the AG just throwing this out, apropos of nothing, but it was a very big deal here. The displays are all sponsored by private parties; the question is whether the government HAS to prohibit them. It seems to me that it's a free exercise issue, and if the government is constitutionally required to prohibit this activity, then how does the WH have an Easter Egg Roll, a Christmas tree, a seder or a dinner for Ramadan (all of which are actually government-sponsored)? Instead of saying that the opinion "parrots" the law, why not recognize that the opinion does what it is supposed to do - states what the law is? Many of you make it sound like the AG is just making this stuff up. Sounds like derangement syndrome.

Posted by: hasaclue1 | August 24, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

@dmcgoldrick

"Virginia is for morons."

Five to one Coo-coo Nelly is elected Virginia's next governor.


Posted by: ceefer66 | August 25, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

See Kookinelli!
See the warped reactionary legal mind of a true HYPOCRITE!

He does not know or does not care about the US Constitution of which in the FIRST Amendment it states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

so all non-Christians be sure to come to Virginia and display as many of your religious symbols as you wish--

It's all alright with the Kook!

And don't forget fine ladies of the Commonwealth Kooki loves you but he has zero interest in protecting your rights to privacy btw also guaranteed in our Constitution.

Posted by: suec716 | August 25, 2010 4:56 AM | Report abuse

To answer a previous poster's question: Yes, given the AG's opinion, ALL religious displays would have to be allowed. Therefore, the scenerio I forsee is that a nativity scene will be allowed, follwed by a start of david, followed by a, etc. That's fine. So long as ALL displays are allowed.

However, given his many other opinions, is it not obvious that our AG is USING the law to further his own political, social and cultural views upon everyone else?

Posted by: smith6 | August 25, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Our AG is one big embarrassment. Hopefully, now that he's shown his true colors, this will be the end of the line in terms of public service.

Posted by: ggwalt | August 25, 2010 5:57 AM | Report abuse

Of course he supports holiday displays on government property, because he hates the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America. He has spent every waking moment in office grandstanding on Evangelical Party issues that ultimately have no relation to Virginia. His whole time as AG has been devoted to padding his credentials as Evangelical Fascist.

Freedom of Religion, provided it's Evangelical Christian. Freedom of speech, provided you're not dumb enough to actually try it.


He won't be satisfied until the U.S. Constitution is in ashes under his feet.

Posted by: tkoho | August 25, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Is there some reason the religious types can't limit their displays to their homes and churches? Why do you feel the need to put it them on public property? Enough.

Posted by: jckdoors | August 25, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Virginia is for magical thinkers.

Posted by: jckdoors | August 25, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse


Mohamed-clause is coming to a court house near you!

Posted by: nuke41 | August 25, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

You're a madman Kooki! What's next, adulterers have to wear a Scarlet A on their clothes?

Posted by: UnknownHenson | August 25, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Wooooowee...this guy is on a roll and doesn't waste any time. Its like VA elected it's very own christian fundamentalist in lawyers clothing. Since taking office he has taken on every single christian cause of the past 10 years.

Gays, school prayer, "socialism", church and state, more gays, "liberal education"...the list goes on.

I am glad Kook weighed in on this Loudoun County thing. I am sure neither he or the residents of Loudoun will mind at all when someone erects a 50 foot menorah on the courthouse lawn. No? Oh, my bad.

Hilariously enough, it will end in McDonnels complete downfall and Kook will never hold public office higher than some back country DA for the rest of his life.

Posted by: Nosh1 | August 25, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

So can I expect to see statues of the Goddess Durga in front of NoVa City Halls in October for Durga Puja?

Posted by: Redial1 | August 25, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

hasaclue1 wrote:

"Honestly, people, read it. This issue was very contentious in Leesburg and deals with whether the local government MUST PROHIBIT any such display."

So will the good people of Loudon be OK with a Satanist display, a Muslim display, and Jewish display. Not likely. This is just another attemp by right-wing fundamentalists to Christianize the country.

Posted by: salanatoli | August 25, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

He is correct. The key is context and whether the locality allows all those wishing to put up displays a reasonable opportunity to do so.
You can't have the display in any way connote that there is an official connection with the local government.

Posted by: krickey7 | August 25, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Great- I look forward to all of the SATANIC displays in Va this holiday season.-NOT!!
Just more junk for Koo-koo-nelli trying to promote his right wing nut agenda!

Posted by: 10bestfan | August 25, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

My little home town in upstate New York had a similar "interpretation" by its right wingnut or a mayor.

The local Wicca group made them place their Pentagram next to the manger (it was bigger than the manger).

One of the rednecks up there drove over the Pentagram with his pickup truck.

Posted by: kjclark1963 | August 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to belatedly welcome a number of you to Banville, Va. I'd encourage the rest of you to keep your language clean and the name-calling to a minimum, and to use the "Report Abuse" links when others fail to do the same. Thanks!

Christopher Dean Hopkins
Deputy Editor, Local Politics and Government

Posted by: Christopher Dean Hopkins | August 25, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Who elected this funny man? I'm so glad I have my passport from a really free country and can escape when this gets out of hand here. Agree w/ceefer66: This guy governor? Good grief, time to leave....

Posted by: jeanlucca | August 25, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company