If William Kelly Does Not Understand Simple Facts About Displays In Illinois State Capitol Building, How Can He Be Comptroller For Entire State?

Kelly says: "There is a lot of false information coming out about what happened yesterday."  He's right...and it's coming from Kelly.

 

by RFFM.org staff writer

 

On Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009 GOP candidate for Illinois state comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to remove a sign placed in the state capitol Rotunda by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.  A statement on Kelly's website reads, "As a candidate for comptroller, I believe it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars to denigrate and mock good people of faith." 

 

Critics say William Kelly was attempting to use the Springfield Nativity Scene display for his own political agenda.  Kelly's actions were not spontaneous.  RFFM.org learned Kelly issued a press release on December 22, 2009 which read, "GOP candidate for comptroller, William J. Kelly, plans to remove the American Civil Liberty Union’s atheist display at the Illinois Capitol in Springfield, Illinois."

 

Clearly, from the beginning, Kelly did not have his facts in order regarding exactly what was on display in the Illinois state capitol Rotunda building.  Standing in the center of the state capitol floor was a Nativity scene sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  There was a Hanukkah Menorah also on exhibit; a sign from the Illinois Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supporting the right of these religious displays to stand in the state capitol; and an easel which related a message from a group of pagans posing as atheists which call themselves the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  It is obvious Kelly did not actually know who put up the displays in the capitol Rotunda and which groups said what on their signage.  According to his own press release, Kelly originally intended to abscond with the ACLU sign which actually supported the right of the religious displays to stand in the capitol. 

 

Most egregious is the fact Mr. Kelly says, "...it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars..."  The truth of the matter is all of the displays in the state Capitol Rotunda are privately funded.  That's what makes them legal.  This, plus the fact all the displays are temporary demonstrates Kelly acted without possession of the facts involving why the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee was able to erect a Nativity scene for the second year in a row.  The only money Illinois taxpayers spent regarding the displays was the cost involving the 15 law enforcement officers who escorted Kelly out of the Rotunda, before briefly detaining him to write up an incident report. 

 

If Kelly was not in possession of the simple facts regarding his blatant attempt to attract publicity, especially the economic aspects of the issue, some critics ask: "How could Kelly be comptroller for the entire state of Illinois?" 

 

In a phone conversation with Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, Kelly said, "We won't let them take the Nativity scene out of the state capitol building." 

 

"I was stunned," said Zanoza, "I asked Kelly whether he was running for state comptroller, Secretary of State or Governor.  Even if Kelly was elected state comptroller, Kelly would have no input into who could or could not obtain a permit to place a display in the state capitol building.  It was a foolish boast, but I genuinely had compassion for the man because he was so ill-informed."

 

Zanoza went on to say he is happy this year's display of the Nativity scene went on virtually without a hitch.  Thousands of people came to the capitol Rotunda to see the Nativity scene.  One committee member told me she was nearly brought to tears when she saw a family, consisting of a Father, Mother and three young children who were viewing the statues of Joseph, Mary and the Christ child.  A five year old, the oldest of the children, said, "I love baby Jesus!"  With a loving smile, the Father looked at his son and said, "I love baby Jesus, too!"   

 

"This is what the Nativity scene is all about," said Zanoza.  "It is a celebration of the birth of Christ.  It's truly unfortunate there are those who put their own agenda above others."

 

Zanoza says the Springfield, Illinois Nativity scene is not about controversy.  The actions of individuals like Mr. Kelly is what led to officials in the state of Washington prohibiting all groups from displaying any exhibits--religious or otherwise--in that state's capitol building in Olympia.  

 

"I'm kind of glad the Nativity scene is coming down for this Christmas season," said Zanoza.  "We don't need individuals like Kelly ruining something wonderful for their own selfish political purposes." 

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

 

Illinois State Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly Uses Springfield Nativity Scene For Publicity Stunt:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/12/illinois-state-comptroller-candidate-william-j-kelly-uses-springfield-nativity-scene-for-publicity-s.html 

 

State Journal-Register article by Bernie Schoenburg: Surely he jests:  http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1136811925/Bernard-Schoenburg-Hoffman-Giannoulias-duel-over-Bright-Start-accord 

 

ACLU Again Not Challenging Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene: Isn't That Special! It Is: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/aclu-again-not-challenging-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-isnt-that-special-it-is.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Comments

[R. Jean Cohoon]

Just goes to show how out of touch POLITICIANS are with the public they CLAIM to support.

[Charlie]

The one thing that Illinois seems to be rich in is a wealth of politicians that do not research or think before acting. Sadly, this infection seems to be common to members of both parties. -c

[Cedric Katesby]

Good article but there is just one odd turn of phrase.

...a group of pagans posing as atheists...

Is this a variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
;)
Calling someone a "pagan" is not the same as calling them an atheist.

Richard Dawkins said it best: We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.