So the good Rabbi, in the spirit of goodwill towards all men decided to sue the Sea-tac airport if they wouldn’t put up his 8’ menorah along with the Christmas trees.
Thanks to him the airport took down all 14 Christmas trees.
He said he threatened to sue" so we could bring extra light with Hannukah’s universal message of hope,"
Ya right.
See http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_121106WABseatacemployeesKC.1c5a3708.html
Read the story at all, TFD?
(My bolding)
But hey, if it wasn’t because the Rabbi wanted to get rid of the Christmas trees, why was it they were taken down, instead of giving in? Hmm. What superb reason could the airline have for this?
Yes, you see, putting up 14 trees (one of which was 15-20 feet tall), plus other general christmassy decorations, is perfectly fine. But gosh, if they’d had to put up symbols of other religions celebrating something at this time of year, why, they’d have no time to do any work at all! 
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Read the story at all, TFD?
Sure, threatening to sue for the display of a religious symbol of “hope” is not in the spirit of the season. Other rabbis agree it was an assholish move.
And don’t give me this shit that the Christmas tree is a Christian religious symbol. Middle east Christians like the Maronites and the Coptic would disagree along with the founding fathers of the USA.
And refusing to display a religious symbol of hope is what, exactly?
Other rabbis, if you’re talking about the ones in the story, say that it was a good idea but with unforseen consequences. Hell, the leader of the Christian Coalition says it wasn’t his intention to remove the trees. And let’s not forget the Rabbi himself - who says that the removal of the trees is appalling.
Yes, because all Christians are exactly the same, aren’t they? What Fred Phelps considers a Christian symbol is the same as what you consider one, right? Of course not.
A christmas tree, not a religious symbol. This is, perhaps, the stupidest argument i’ve ever heard on this board. Does the, I don’t know, name not give you a slight clue? Does putting a star on top represent Rigel 7?
There are plenty of atheists on this board and of those who have children, I find it highly unlikely that they won’t have a Christmas tree in their home this season.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.”
I am one of those athiests, and I too will have a christmas tree. Nevertheless, just as many religious symbols can be seen as secular, there is a considerable proportion of society which considers having christmas trees part of the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Can you say that none of the workers at the airport have this view? Could you say that no people travelling this Christmas will see those trees and think of their religion?
And yet we do call it a rose. We could call christmas trees “holiday shrubs”; but we don’t, because most people would say they’re a symbol of Christianity.
You can desecrate a cross. You can desecrate a menora. Can you desecrate a Christmas tree?
But then people hearing the name would think of vacationing presidents rather than Christmas.
Nope, I reckon TFD’s got a point on this one.
The Rabbi tried to get clever, without realising that he was going to leave the airport with very little alternative but to take down the christmas trees. Otherwise they face the prospect of every man and their belief insisting that they display their symbol too.
All in all, it was an arsehole thing to do.
You can if someone invests religious belief in it. Crosses and menorahs (menori? not certain on the plural of that) are merely the more recognisable and agreed upon symbols of their respective religions, with less secular meaning. As far as crosses go, If I were to destroy a skull and crossbones, that might not be desecration if it were in a pirate flag, but it might well be if it were part of a cemetary.
It’s whether or not the tress in this case had secular or religious meaning that’s important; so i’ll ask again, where are you getting your information that all the airport workers think the trees are a secular symbol? And that travellers won’t be reminded of Christianity when they see them?
(Have you dropped your claim that it was scrooge-like for the Rabbi to do this, yet, since he merely wanted to add another symbol of hope, not take away others?)
Just my opinion, but it would seem that if the Rabbi *didn’t realise * what would happen, he was not an arsehole. Especially if he wanted the trees to stay, which indeed he does.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see the problem with “every man and their belief” wanting to display their symbol? There can’t be that many religions celebrating a holiday at this time of year, and if they’re supplying the symbols, it’s not like there would be any cost to the airport. Institute some limit on size and number, and no problem.
I will say though that i’m confused as to what basis the lawsuit could have had. Surely as a private company, the people who own the airport are entitled to display whatever symbols they want?
Being Jewish, I never had one as a kid, and none of my friends did either. If atheists grew up with one, they might indeed have one for the celebration.
If WalMart removed all Christmas trees, don’t you think Bill O would have a fit?
I heard a representative from the airport say that they were going to be too busy losing luggage, er faciliating travel at the busiest time of the year to be able to handle the lawsuits. What lawsuits? Beats me. But this is a great example of what the First Amendment is all about. If you put in any religious symbol, and aren’t prepared to put in all, or even anti-religious symbols, you’re establishing.
I don’t know about SeaTac, but most airports are basically government entities. But I also don’t understand why running out and getting a menorah would have been such a big deal.
I think there is a difference between a request to add a menorah, possibly the next year to have time to plan where it goes so as to have proper power, etc. and demanding that a menorah be added this year at the last minute and threatening to sue if your demand is not met. Sounds like the good Rabbi acted like the latter, which makes him an asshole in my book.
IIRC, one of the articles on this said it was supposed to be an inflatable menorah. Well, Christmas displays get tackier all the time, so I guess Judaica has to be equally tacky.
I don’t know which scenario explains things better: that their baggage-handlers are doubling as their legal department, or that their lawyers are stowing luggage.
I’m no lawyer, but I think I understand this anyway. A while back the Krishnas (among other annoyances) finally prodded the Supreme Court into declaring that an airport is not a public forum, but there’s a loophole: if the public agency administering the facility creates a public forum there, say by allowing some public speech, then it must be treated as such for First Amendment purposes. Once that happens, it’s impermissible to discriminate by, for example, allowing access for some expression and arbitrarily (or repressively) excluding all else. Reasonable rules for access and conduct can be enforced, but if these are obeyed people can’t be barred from the forum the agency has created. Lawyers, am I close here?
If that’s true, and if erecting Christmas trees (not intrinsically objects of veneration, true, but still symbols widely understood to affirm and celebrate a religious holiday) rises to the level of creating a public forum, I’m not sure the sudden disposal of the Christmas trees necessarily gets them off the hook. Having created the forum when it suited them to do so, with the obvious intent for it to last at least through a certain date, the agency seems on really shaky ground when it seeks to suddenly close the forum when threatened with the prospect that others may seek to use it. It’s kind of like making the lawn in front of city hall available as a playground “for everyone,” only to chase everyone out and slam the gates when the Jewish kid shows up to play ball.
And you know that the Rabbi immediately went forward with the suit before any response - how? And that the menorah is actually mentioned as being 8’ tall does rather suggest that one was ready and prepared; it really doesn’t seem like a huge deal to move it into a suitable position in the airport. Sounds like someone’s jumping to conclusions.
And it appears to be because the Rabbi has changed his mind about suing. Presumably because he didn’t want them removed in the first place. What an *un-scroogelike * thing for him to do.
I don’t see how any reading of my post could lead one to think that I said “the Rabbi immediately went forward with the suit before any response”. What I said is “threatening” to sue is asshole-ish behavior. Did you see this
in the link in the OP?
You’re right; I misread your post. Apologies. You can have a free insult at me, since I was snarky to you. 