December 13, 2006
The "litigious Orthodox rabbi" and the "overzealous, politically correct officials terrified" of everything religion-related.
The Seattle Christmas tree incident. It's an American holiday tradition: arguing about religion and threatening litigation. What would the season be without it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
I'm thinking there should be a mechanism in place so people can prosecute those complaints on an anonymous basis (I guess an association is an easy way). From what I can see in Seattle, the Rabbi sort of took a beating in the press and the street corners, and was almost intimidated into withdrawing his claim. This is not exactly what happened, but my reading between the lines. There were many complaints and people whispering about this around town.
It would be fun to come up bogus headlines for this tradition!
"Baby Jesus sued by atheists for creche back rent."
"Camel statues at creche encouraging smoking for pre-teens as stealth advertising, lawsuit claims."
"Three wise men from Iraq Study Group bearing gifts to Savior Obama, claims pro-war supporters."
Carry On!
Religion - use it or lose it, eh?
"Nice People Finish Last"
Cheer up, George, we can be as big a bastard as Leo Durocher was too!
Have a bit of faith in our ability to cold cock people when they aren't looking!
When the desire not to offend is mixed with a punitive legal system unwilling to reject unserious claims, we are left with officials damned no matter what path they choose.
Imagine the poor airport spokeswoman, Terri-Ann Betancourt, desiring nothing more than for this to go away, admits defeat and withdraws the "holiday trees" (note: not "Christmas" tress). If she didn't, demands to display Wiccan pentacles, Islamic crescents, and Mormon underwear would create even more work. But she is even more villified for removing the non-denominational trees.
I don't pretend to have an answer. 50 years ago, the US wasn't terribly concerned admitting that the majority of its citizens were Christian. Now, we-e-ell, hoo boy, one doesn't permit such an egregious act.
Another reason my kids stayed out of public schools was their dogged determination to remove all references to Christianity from school, but promote all other religions (for the sake of diversity). For example, pictures of pumpkins were allowed, but not jack-o-lanterns. Too Jesusey, I guess.
In the US, the only appropriate response for officials appears to be the prone position.
"Tribal council of squirrel elders claims creche violates traditional hunter-gatherer grounds. Prof. Chomsky decries 'State-sponsered famine.' Althouse files amicus brief; 'NIMBY', says lawprof."
"Christian group to try and stop city cost-saving measure of only two wise men -- and fewer barnyard animals -- as 'Rumsfeldizing' the holiday season."
Victor: I think--think--that originally he was anonymous. At least, when I blogged about this a few days ago, I linked to a report and newscast that did not contain his name, and I even noted that he was anonymous--something I had a problem with, by the way.
If one person can have that much effect--especially via threatened lawsuit and a two-day deadline--I think it's utterly appropriate that we know who it is.
Of course, I also think it's utterly wrong if he was threatened or harassed--as distinct from sharply criticized, of course.
It's an American holiday tradition: arguing about religion and threatening litigation.
Which says that the airport official was either itching for a fight or an idiot (or both) but either way, unfit for her position.
I lived in Seattle for fifteen years. This kind of thing can happen more easily there because most of the people are new to the area and there aren't any clear traditions. No one knows quite what to do at a wedding, or any ceremony.
Seattle wasn't even there a hundred and sixty years ago.
Now it's a booming metropolis but the institutions aren't very deeply rooted. There are very few true Seattleites who were born and raised there. Almost everyone has just blown in from some other place.
There is a small Jewish newspaper but it's circulation is only about 4000.
Many of the younger people are not very much into church-going. They are more likely to see Starbucks as their church.
Niceness and political correctness are rife in Seattle there because there aren't any other traditions to go by. Even Portland has an older feeling to it. Seattle is just like some brash young person without much wisdom. The kind of person who took away the trees and then put them back is a microcosm of Seattle. Humor doesn't really even exist in such a place (it's discouraged) because there isn't enough of a common sensibility for anyone to make jokes. So everything gets taken too seriously. It's a stupid city, but very pretty.
Of course, Seven Machos has evidence that "the sight of a holiday symbol bothers" the rabbi, and that he demanded it be removed, right? Not that he wanted a menorah side-by-side with the tree, and that it was the airport management that decided it was easier to remove the tree than to allow the menorah? Maybe SM should be disgusted with himself for being unable to read what the article said, rather than with the rabbi.
Last time I checked, the Christmas tree was a symbol of secularied Christmas. There is NOTHING religious about a Christmas TREE, unless you are worshipping Target.
I understand protesting a manger scene, a cross, or a nice big Jesus Saves sign. I do not agree with the protest, but I understand the thinking behind such an endeavor. But protesting a Christmas tree shows a complete lack of understanding as far as I can see.
Trey
There's been some decent discussion about this at soundpolitics.com. Most there were rather furious with the rabbi.
I'm undecided at this point. Apparently, the Port was in a bind as to whether they could put up a specifically religious symbol (menorah). The trees, I gather, are considered either by state or federal courts to be secular in nature and therefore okay to put up. The rabbi only started requesting a menorah in October which, by government standards, is a very brief amount of time to deal with that issue.
I'm tending to think there was far too little communication and each side just kept upping the ante and letting it spiral out of control.
One other note: One reason we didn't know who the guy was, was because when it all blew up it was over the sabbath so the rabbi didn't talk to the media or anyone for that period.
In my mind I think the airport officials did the right thing in taking down the trees in the first place. Not because they were being politically correct but because it was more of a "screw you then" reaction. Fine...... you want to force us to put up religious symbols because we have some secular plastic trees with bows....no more trees. Now go away we are busy trying to run a business here.
More and more I get the feeling that we are dealing with people who have not progressed beyond being children throwing temper tantrums to get their way. Instead of throwing themselves on the floor and creating a scene, they bring frivolous lawsuits. I just wish we could treat them like they deserve....a quick swat on the behind and send them to their room until they learn to respect other people and behave.
Since when is a Christmas tree secular? It's a CHRISTMAS tree. What is wrong with wanting a Chanukah menorah along side it?
The Christmas tree is a religious symbol on public property. And you know what, even as an ACLU member and Jew, I'm perfectly fine with that. But it violates the First Amendment to allow religious symbols from one religion, while barring them from others.
The Supreme Court has already sort of addressed a similar case in 1989's County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which involved a challenge of a holiday display that included a creche, menorah, and a large Christmas tree that was part of the display but not challenged. The Court allowed the menorah as a secular symbol of Chanukah because the tree acted as a secular representation of Christmas, hinting that the menorah without the tree, and the tree without the menorah, would violate the Establishment Clause.
Who gives a damn if the airport receive lots of letters wanting the tree back? Constitutional rights do not hinge on elections, and certainly not on a letterwriting campaign by a church group.
I am disappointed that the rabbi backed down under fire. This wasn't a question of overzealous, politically correct officials-this was a question of officials caught putting religious symbols in a public space and forbidding other religious from putting up their own religious symbol at their own expense.
And, just a side note, to quote Judge Judith Sheindlin, please don't pee on my leg and tell me it it's raining. Holiday trees? Who the hell do you think you're kidding? Show anyone in the country, age 5 to 100, a picture of the trees and ask them what they are. The answer will be Christmas trees. Calling a menorah a means of adding more light to the station wouldn't fly, and calling a Christmas tree a holiday tree is only a tacit acknowledgement of their religious nature and the airport's attempt to concel it's unconstitutional actions.
Since when is a Christmas tree secular?
Well, I've looked again in my New Testament and found some good bits about mangers, and magi, and a busy inn. Nothing about a tree.
Christmas is a religious holiday. Honoring the Christ-child is a religious expression.
But, sacred trees have long been frowned upon by Christian leaders.
The religious symbol of Christmas is the nativity scene. There's nothing religious about a tree, not for Christians at least. I suppose we could say it's a religious symbol for pagans.
Unless you know something I don't it's a cultural expression.
The rabbi wanted more than just the installation of a menorah. He wanted to put in his own 8-ft menorah, and to preside over a lighting ceremony on each of the 8 nights, which I think is a bit much. It's an airport.
Victor: From what I can see in Seattle, the Rabbi sort of took a beating in the press and the street corners, and was almost intimidated into withdrawing his claim.
So what's his claim? Religious persecution? That a religion was established at Sea-Tac in violation of the 1st Amendment? He strikes me as an opportunist promoter. It's an airport. I think they did the right thing.
Bard: The Court allowed the menorah as a secular symbol of Chanukah because the tree acted as a secular representation of Christmas....
Sounds like some creative judging there. If the tree wasn't secular, then the menorah wouldn't be either?
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" reminds me just how ridiculously pedantic, cognitively miniscule, and predictable is the Left.
Pine trees don't establish a religion, no matter how you twist it. Bullshit.
For example, pictures of pumpkins were allowed, but not jack-o-lanterns. Too Jesusey, I guess.
Perhaps things were different where you grew up, but the reason my public high school banned Halloween symbols is that Christians complained that they were Satanic.
I want to see if I understand what you lawyers are saying.
It's Christmas Tree intended to celebrate Christmas.
Removing it is an attack on Christmas and an attack on Christians.
Trees are not mentioned in the bible in conjunction with the birth of Jesus.
So the Christmas Tree is not really a religious symbol but removing it is in fact an attack on Christians, Christianity, and Christianists.
Jews, atheists, and members of other religions that ask about this are members of the ACLU and squeak.
Jews, atheists, and members of other religions that don't ask about this are rational members of society.
Democrats keep Republicans from mentioning politics at the dinner table.
Is that what you guys are saying?
And yes, among the Jewish community most view Christmas trees as pretty, benign, and secular.
Do you have any data for this, or is does this truthiness come from your gut is telling you?
My gut tells me that most Jews I know view Christmas trees as pretty, benign, and non-secular. But I admit that I have no data and have done no polls and have read no polls on this.
"Is that what you guys are saying?"
Nope.
amzbd: It was the airport's reaction that got the trees involved.
No. The rabbi noted the Christmas trees and tried to use them as an in for his menorah. He had his lawyer helpfully send the airport the relevant case law.
"when it all blew up it was over the sabbath so the rabbi didn't talk to the media or anyone for that period." Hee, hee, hee.
It's Christmas Tree intended to celebrate Christmas.
This is correct (although, as noted earlier, it was called a "holiday tree" for various inane PC reasons).
Removing it is an attack on Christmas and an attack on Christians.
It is certainly an attack on Christmas. Many Christians also perceive it as an attack on them because they correctly identify the impulse behind the move as hostility to Christianity.
Trees are not mentioned in the bible in conjunction with the birth of Jesus.
Also correct. You could look it up, you know.
So the Christmas Tree is not really a religious symbol but removing it is in fact an attack on Christians, Christianity, and Christianists.
Nobody in this thread has mentioned Christianists, probably because they don't actually exist.
As for the rest of your point, if Christians demanded that government institutions stop serving bagels on the grounds that they were "Jewish food", Jews would rightly view that as an attack on them even though the bagel has no role in their faith. The reason Christians view the anti-tree campaign as an attack on Christians and Christianity is that the *attackers* view the tree as a symbol of Christianity. They are attacking the trees because they think those trees represent a religion they want driven from the public square.
The fact that there are hundreds of millions of people around the world (such as atheists like myself) who celebrate Christmas as a strictly secular holiday escapes the notice of the dolts at the ACLU.
Re; "Is that what you guys are saying?"
No. I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure.
The real question is why do we waste so much public money on all this Christmas crap anyway? If a commercial enterprise wants to promote itself and sees a fiscal advantage of putting up decorations for this holiday or that, fine, but it annoys me when tax dollars are blown on this stuff.
(The town immediately next to mine easily waists tens of thousands of dollars every year draping their main street in Christmas decorations. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad, except they have some of the worse roads in the area.)
Re: "The town immediately next to mine easily waists tens of thousands of dollars every year draping their main street in Christmas decorations."
Economically, probably not a waste. If many people shop for Xmas presents (and they must, inasmuch as many stores make their entire year in the last quarter), then this is advertising for shopping in the town.
It also signals that your town has some vestige of character, cheering the grey streets in the dead of winter (said differently: would you rather live in Bedford Falls or Pottersville?).
So, only a waste if one does not think in economic terms, i.e., by how people actaully behave.
Economically, probably not a waste.
Yeah, it is. I know you have to trust me on that, but it has zero economic impact on the town's businesses. (Especially now that the economic center of the town barely borders the far west bit of the main street at the freeway entrance.)
So why is there not sufficient opposition to their use to eliminate it, if so completely useless?
Does there remains a purpose not yet disclosed?
As I was reading this post, somehow I just knew this was a Chabad thing. Every time I see one of those box tube aluminum Menorahs I want to scream.
I really dislike being accosted on the street - by anyone - but I deeply resent the implication that I need to do something to prove myself as a Jew. Yeah, I'm secular, but if I'm Jewish enough for the Nazis (or Iranians) I think I should be Jewish enough for Chabad.
amzbd: Let me clarify...did Chanukah not coincide with Christmas, the rabbi would have still made his request.
If Chanukah didn't coincide with Christmas, it would hardly be celebrated at all. It's celebrated mostly to give Jews something to do around Christmas time. (Hmm, why don't Christians conjure up a holiday in September?)
The rabbi's mission, as he sees it, has nothing to do with the fact that he used the Christmas tree installation as an opportunity to get the menorah in. That's what the case law was all about. They didn't say that menorahs must be displayed at airports full stop.
And it sounds like the rabbi's intent with the menorah and the mitzvahs and the ceremonies was explicitly religious, quite unlike the display of the trees.
My version of It's a Wonderful Life would star Rita Hayworth in a role that make Gilda look like a Shirley Temple movie! Town boor George Bailey caps himself in the first reel, (his angel is drunk and falls down on the job) and the whole berg becomes a swingin' place! (Maybe God sends Jimmy back as Rita Hayworth just to open his mind to other...possibilities!) My title?
Potter's Way
I agree with Pogo.
The statement "But it violates the First Amendment to allow religious symbols from one religion, while barring them from others" is not true. Menorahs are not banned at all, sir, they are simply irrelevant. They are not "equal" symbols, as every Jew I know says the holidays occur at roughly the same time of year and that is the only similarity.
This is not a search for equality in any rational sense of the word--it is sibling rivalry. If we keep it up, we'll be just as peaceful as the Middle East one day, with all our rivalries and little else honored.
But it violates the First Amendment to allow religious symbols from one religion, while barring them from others
If display of religious symbols on government property violates the establishment clause, allowing LOTS of religious symbols does, too.
The amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless it establishes every religion it can think of at the same time, in which case its ok". That's just the half-assed compromise the courts came up with because telling Christians "you have to display other religious symbols too" annoys them less than saying "take down that cross".
Sounds like people on this are demanding that the Christmas trees stay. And that they absolutely do not want a menorah to be there (which is all the rabbi wanted).
How is that not anti-semitism?
Revenant -- The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a religion. This is commonly known. Having a Christmas tree or any number of religious symbols on government property or subsidized by the government in no way establishes a religion.
Allow me to quote myself:
If display of religious symbols on government property violates the establishment clause, allowing LOTS of religious symbols does, too.
Spot the word in that sentence that renders your claim pointless. Hint: begins with "I", ends with "f", two letters. As in, IF the establishment clause doesn't forbid displaying religious symbols, then displaying them is ok, but IF it does, then displaying lots of them obviously isn't the answer.
However, as your claim that displaying a religious symbol on government property doesn't constitute establishment of religion violates both common sense and current Supreme Court rulings, I'd have to say I think you're wrong on this one. Christmas trees, od course, are not religious symbols and therefore should be fine regardless.
Seven Machos, in our system of government, some things are set outside the realm of what the public gets to vote on. The Establishment Clause is one of them. If the 99-1 win every time, schools would still be segregated, African-Americans would still be drinking from Negro water fountains, and interracial marraige would still be banned in the South.
Seven Machos, having certain religious symbols on government property while BARRING OTHERS, does establish a religion.
Again, what do you mean by the menorah being "banned"? The airport took down all symbols after the rabbi's complaint.
Should we also consider that the Islamic crescent is "banned" simply because it is absent?
Interesting, Cedaford. So in the same breath, you say that Christmas, er, holiday trees are secular, and in the other, you blame a Jewish conspiracy of trying to twist the Establishment Clause to attack the Christian culture. Antisemetism aside, one may wonder how a Christmas tree can be part of the Christian culture, and yet simultaneously be secular. I don't think gentiles are stupid. You on the other hand....
Oh, yay! So in your fourth point, you simultaneously get a shot in against Muslims AND Jews. You're now equating attempting to put a menorah next to a Christmas tree as trying to "conquer Christians." You display antisemetism, antimuslim tendencies, and paranoia, all at once. Well done sir.
As for Patca, I didn't say the menorah was banned, I said it was barred. It was not allowed to be placed in the airport. In County of Allegheny, the Supreme Court found the menorah and the Christmas tree to be equal symbols.
Moving onto Seven Machos, I'm truly not sure what the heck you're trying to say. During the decades when segregation was in place, separate water fountains were common. Er, yes, that was rather my point. I'm not sure what yours is. And yes, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. More than a decade after the practices I mentioned were stopped by the Supreme Court and after the shockwaves from that had lessened. The Court led the way and didn't allow popular sentiment to justify maintaining a system of oppression against African-Americans.
Christmas tree is to Christmas what the Easter Bunny is to Easter.
They are capitalist distractions to Christian Holy days.
Yes, it is a Christmas tree, but it is also an Easter Bunny. They are capitalist add ons that have overwhelmed the sacred origins of these Holy days.
I am thinking that the dreidel is similar, but not as capatilistically exploited because there are not as many Jewish folks as Christian folks in our country.
As a Christian, I would give up 25 publice trees for a single manger.
Trey
Post a Comment