The Nativity Nightmare
I grew up near Wadena, Minnesota (in fact, I was actually born at Wesley Hospital in Wadena... and I was married in Wadena), so the decision made by the Wadena city council this past week grabbed my attention and it's been the talk of this region ever since.
It isn't the first time this city of about 4,200 people made the state and national news. Five years ago, an EF-4 tornado ripped through Wadena, destroying homes, businesses and the public school. Amazingly, there was no loss of life. Many said God was watching out for the city.
Which brings me to the city council's decision on Tuesday of this week. The Christmas nativity scene at the Burlington Northern Park in Wadena, which has been a traditional display for many years, will no longer be featured in the city park.
A concerned citizen, Tyler Rud, questioned the constitutionality of the city funding and maintaining a symbol of Christianity. He went to the "big guns," so to speak, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which was happy to flex their muscle at the city council. The lawyer for the FFRF wrote to the city: "Local governments may not violate the U.S. Constitution on the basis of it being popular with local residents."
I emphasize that one citizen in a city of 4,200 had an issue.
The city council (smartly) decided to not display the nativity scene in face of a substantial lawsuit. Money speaks very loudly to small town America and I am guessing the city of Wadena isn't bathing in cash.
But this leads me to an issue which I perceive as a massive double standard. The city of Wadena, like most cities in this country, has other Christmas decor which will be hung throughout the downtown area -- wreaths, garland, lights -- and this is also funded and maintained by local government; how is this not a violation of the Constitution? It is symbolic of Christmas. It is representative of Christmas. Just because we don't see a figure of baby Jesus in a manger, doesn't mean it is not of the same spirit.
How about the national Christmas tree in Washington DC? This has been a tradition since 1923, but how on earth can this be Constitutional?
Again, we don't see the three wise men surrounding Mary and Joseph in a stable, but a 48-foot tall decorated tree adorned in lights is a rather imposing representation of Christmas.
That tree is funded and maintained (at considerable expense) by the US government, and it is symbolic of and representative of Christmas.
And the Christmas holiday is by definition the observation and celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
What is the difference between the national Christmas tree and a nativity scene in a small town city park?
That, my friends, is my question of the day.
It isn't the first time this city of about 4,200 people made the state and national news. Five years ago, an EF-4 tornado ripped through Wadena, destroying homes, businesses and the public school. Amazingly, there was no loss of life. Many said God was watching out for the city.
Which brings me to the city council's decision on Tuesday of this week. The Christmas nativity scene at the Burlington Northern Park in Wadena, which has been a traditional display for many years, will no longer be featured in the city park.
A concerned citizen, Tyler Rud, questioned the constitutionality of the city funding and maintaining a symbol of Christianity. He went to the "big guns," so to speak, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which was happy to flex their muscle at the city council. The lawyer for the FFRF wrote to the city: "Local governments may not violate the U.S. Constitution on the basis of it being popular with local residents."
I emphasize that one citizen in a city of 4,200 had an issue.
The city council (smartly) decided to not display the nativity scene in face of a substantial lawsuit. Money speaks very loudly to small town America and I am guessing the city of Wadena isn't bathing in cash.
But this leads me to an issue which I perceive as a massive double standard. The city of Wadena, like most cities in this country, has other Christmas decor which will be hung throughout the downtown area -- wreaths, garland, lights -- and this is also funded and maintained by local government; how is this not a violation of the Constitution? It is symbolic of Christmas. It is representative of Christmas. Just because we don't see a figure of baby Jesus in a manger, doesn't mean it is not of the same spirit.
How about the national Christmas tree in Washington DC? This has been a tradition since 1923, but how on earth can this be Constitutional?
Again, we don't see the three wise men surrounding Mary and Joseph in a stable, but a 48-foot tall decorated tree adorned in lights is a rather imposing representation of Christmas.
That tree is funded and maintained (at considerable expense) by the US government, and it is symbolic of and representative of Christmas.
And the Christmas holiday is by definition the observation and celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
What is the difference between the national Christmas tree and a nativity scene in a small town city park?
That, my friends, is my question of the day.
