Er…no? Why should you have to? It certainly speaks for the airport and the Rabbi in question. It’s already been invoked a few times in the discussion I was referring to. I didn’t mean “that” as in “all possible discussion on the topic of religious symbols anywhere”, I meant “that” as in “this silly argument about how the menorah was somehow religious but the Christmas trees weren’t, American Constitutionally speaking”. Neither are, so they should display both or neither.
Just dropping in to remark that I now have the title of this thread running through my head to the tune of “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt”. Thanks a lot, Dutch.
Nobody speaks for all of us. When deciding what can legally be done without offending the Federal Constitution, however, the Supremes are the collective speaking voice that counts. Since a cite would be nice, I give you, as a present for the Festivus holiday of your choice, County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472(1989).
However, it’s worth noting Allegheny v. ACLU is hardly a unanimous declaration on these matters. It had several opinions . . . let’s see . . . well, I’ll just post who held what as listed in the opinion as indicative of the lack of uniform thought:
I doubt they even agreed on what to order for lunch that day.
Very few people were arguing the religiousity of the Christmas tree/menorah from the perspective of the American Constitution. As a Canadian, I don’t find a decision by SCOTUS should end the debate as you have suggested.
Why? If it is determined that neither is religious, but secular, why should one secular object not be allowed to stand alone in public?
Deja vu. Jodi, fixamundo link please?
Then you can assume I was speaking to those “very few” people, as well as addressing the events of the story, which didn’t happen in Canada. I have no idea what your continued objection here is. There are any number of aspects of this story which people of all nations can continue to argue about. Whether the menorah should be, according the law of the land where its display was disputed, excluded because it is religious where the Christmas tree is secular is not one of them.
As for why, well, I said “should”, not “must”. Because a policy of displaying one specific holiday’s symbols and no others is bound to alienate customers, it’s better to display none, in my opinion.
I pretty much agree with you, but it’s kind of weird, because a Christmas tree doesn’t really “symbolize” anything, like the menorah does…it’s a decoration. It would be more appropriate to include some other Hanukkah decoration that is not religious, but there really is nothing analagous.
What WOULD be more analagous would be to have a nativity scene and a menorah, because each of those things actually symbolizes something about the religious aspect of the holidays. I’m sure that the last thing the airport wants to do is put up something as blatantly religious as a nativity scene, though. I think public places often put up Christmas trees as a way to be festive, but avoid religious overtones, and they deliberately avoid very obviously religious displays.
And can you imagine them trying to split the check!
Here’s the correct link. One scholar on the subject I knew said that, despite lots of research and the great deal of commentary in the area, the simple truth is that the decisions in the area are hopelessly incoherent.
Well, the SeaTac says its worried that it’ll be sued for having a religious symbol as part of the display but not including other religious symbols. Since a menorah is is considered secular for these purposes (public displays in government buildings), I would think that you too would cry bullshit on SeaTac’s reasoning. SeaTac may in fact be sued for this in the future, though more likely they would be asked first to include other symbols. Sort of like this time.
Well, one symbol could stand alone. That’s the other reasoning SeaTac gives–that there was a lot of planning that went into this display to ensure it was secular and that just adding stuff willy-nilly wouldn’t be cool. They could have responded to the request to include a menorah with this rational and seen where that got them. Instead, they did not respond to the request until a lawsuit was threatened, and then the response was to take down the entire display…not just Christmas trees, but everything.
IMO, this can only mean one thing…the people at SeaTac who are supposed to be in charge of this situation are idiots. This does not surprise me in the least…idiots abound in any large organization.
Here’s something else to kick around. When I was growing up, there was a fairly large, affluent Jewish community here. The kids used to share their matzoh with us (in the spring), and several of them had the so-called, “Hannukah bushes” aka Christmas trees but decorated with dreidles and who knows what (Latkes? mini-menorahs?).
So, not all conifers sacrificed at this time of year are for Christians. I like the pagan part of Christmas best.
As for Sea-Tac: I don’t see the issue of having some kind of display that respects and recognizes other faiths who have holidays around this time. I am amazed that they don’t already do so.
I thought Hannukah was 8 nights, not 7?
Watched the Colbert Report last night, did you? 
Insofar as the discussion goes, that Christmas trees are religious in their symbolism, I’d like to point out that the local fancy plant nursery sells every kind of decoration you can imagine, including blown-glass pickles, policemen, phoenixes, penguins, dogs, horses, silver shimmery whatsits and yes…even crèche models of blown glass. If you hang a penguin or pickle on your Christmas tree…does it become religious by association?
creche. With an accent grave over the first e.
Would it be fair to say they take the “fun” out of “fundamentalist”?
The closest I can think of a Christmas tree being religious would be a Jesse tree.
To my knowledge “how many people might consider a symbol religious” is never the basis for the decision as to whether or not to permit government funded displays of religious icons on public property. Why? I think common sense. I’ve already pointed out how ludicrously stupid the concept of worrying about what every single person who works at the location feels towards the symbol.
The test is whether or not the government is trying to establish a religion, or to give preference to religiosity or any religion in particular.
Several displays of the Ten Commandments have been found constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. This is because the displays in question feature the Ten Commandments as an early form of legal code, and thus it is presented as a symbolic display about the rule of law, and is not there to promote Jewish or Christian ideals.
Whereas other Ten Commandments displays have been found to be unconstitutional and ordered removed from public property, it has nothing to do with what X number of people feel about the symbol or how many people feel it might be religious, it has to do with how the display as a whole is interpreted. If it is religious in nature the government can’t have it up. That’s precisely why, I think, a Menorah would be problematic but I can’t see how a Christmas tree is. To deny the existence of a wholly secular Christmas is ludicrous.
I can’t accept as practical any system which bases decisions on how every single person interprets a symbol symbols have different meanings to every single person in the world. If it isn’t proselytizing, and isn’t what would be consideedr a religious display (when analyzed by legal professionals like judges, not every single person that happens to see or have helped put up the display) then I see no problem with it.
I don’t see any reason to really go into this much further. This is the pit, and it’s easier to call you and every one else like you a blithering moron that is obviously just nitpicking and being retarded because you hate Christians and Christmas.
Ultimately, believe it or not, countries have celebrations that are not religious in nature. Thanksgiving is almost exclusively a secular holiday, for example. The United States federal government also happens to recognize Christmas as a federal holiday. The United States President has a pretty big Christmas tree each year. All of this passes muster because there is a secular celebration that takes place in December that has long been separated from the religious one that occurs on the exact same time.
Santa Claus and Christmas trees are part of a secular celebration, they have absolutely nothing to do with the celebration of the birth of Christ, NOTHING, whatsoever. Just as many Christian holidays were held around traditional pagan ones in the early days of Christianity, so that the people who were recently converted could still enjoy their seasonal festivities around the same time, today many secular holidays are held around the same time as traditional religious ones, so people can enjoy the festivities despite not being religious themselves, or despite not having a strong interest in the religious aspect of the festivities.
This is an incredibly simplistic view when it comes to the public display of symbols. And it also is basically asserting that all we care about int his thread is the constitutional/legal issues, which isn’t the case. So your attempts to say that is all that matters is completely off base.
Wasn’t what I was referencing at all, douche bag.
I’m talking about how the Lubovitchers routinely harass other Jews to try and convert them, it has nothing to with freedom of speech and everything to do with being annoying twats. They’re like Judaisms version of Mormons, sure, some of them are probably fine people. But who really likes it when Mormon missionaries come annoying you at your home?
No, it isn’t. It’s tied to Christmas, wholly different thing, as there is a very secular celebration of what was once an exclusively religious holiday.
Ever heard of St. Valentine’s Day or St. Patrick’s Day? I guess you’d argue that those are intrinsically religious holidays, despite the fact they are widely celebrated by millions who are not Catholic, and give no special recognition to the Saints in question whatsoever.