Is It Time to Ban Bicycling at Night?
The Desertification of Seattle Has Begun
Elevator or Hellevator? Maybe Take the Stairs
A Bodega in Ballard
The Jim Rose Circus & Jake "the Snake" Roberts Hit the Showbox Next Week
Well, guess what? The tide has turned once again in the War On Christmas - The Port of Seattle has decided to replace the trees it removed from the main passageway of the airport over the weekend. Rabbi Bogomilsky withdrew his suit, but we're guessing the reversal had more to do with the national attention the Port got than any actions on the part of the rabbi.
From a Port press release:
Port of Seattle staff will be reinstalling holiday trees later today at Sea-Tac Airport, after having removed them late last week under threat of a federal lawsuit to be filed by the Central Organization for Jewish Education Lubavitch. Port officials received word from Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky late this afternoon that his organization will not file a lawsuit at this time over the placement of a menorah at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Given that, the holiday trees will be replaced as quickly as possible.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That is too bad. Christmas trees don't belong there or in any other public space anyway.
First, the airport is a publicly funded and supported facility (not a church although there probably is a lot of praying at take off and landing.) Religious displays of any religion do not belong in a public space as this is a form of government endorsement of religion.
Our tax dollars should not be used to put up any these kind of religious displays or pay for the lighting of them. To a non-Christian like myself, a Jew, they are. Why do you think people call them "Christmas trees? If we truly believe in the concept of the separation of "church" or religion and state, then the decision is a correct one and I support it 110%.
Second, if we take the equal opportunity position of allowing Christmas trees, Menorahs (celebrating a Jewish religious military victory), or Kwanzaa (some family values there, whew) displays, then we would have to allow a display from alleged devil worshippers with an upside down broken crucifix, the numbers 666, the words "believe in Satan and yee shall be saved" and a sacrificial altar filled with human blood. It is only fair, after all. I fyou are going to allow one, then you must allow all.
Third, imagine what it would be like to live in a country (like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, or Afghanistan to name a few) where Christians are the minority and/or are not allowed to put up their symbols and have the dominant religion shoved down their throat. Then maybe you would understand how the rest of us feel about these so-called secular but religious displays.
We are a diverse country. Putting up displays like this separates us. Religion belongs in the home and in the appropriate religious institution. Public buildings are for public use. Period.
Christmas tree's have nothing whatsoever to do with christianity and the christian tradition of christmas.
Essentially, unless you are willing to endorse the idea that the majority of people who place christmas trees during the holidays are germanic pagans, christmas tree's are arguably a secular tradition, the same with yule logs and mistletoe.
If YOU choose to exclude yourself from holiday customs that have little to nothing to do with modern religious practice then thats your loss but don't be so ignorant as to assume christmas, in spite of it's name, and its symbology is exclusively a religous holiday. It's a cultural holiday as well.
The christmas tree, stockings, bright bobbles, and all the rest are vestigial pagan elements common to all germanic founded societies and should be well preserved as they neither foster nor inhibit any religous view and so do not contradict the constitution in any way. Now if you have a problem with the fundementally western (read germanic) cultural position of this country...well then tough *shrug* maybe you're in the wrong hemisphere.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
Trees that symbolize Christ's birth at the airport were not placed there by Act of Congress.
Taking them down seems to be a prohibition of the free exercise ov religion by those who put them up.
Words have meaning.
OMG, it's just a Christmas tree. It hardly threatens the separation between church and state.
I wanted a Christmas tree so much as a kid, but my parents were devout athiests. They gave in eventually and got one for me. Then the tree killed my parents. If only you could all understand how it hurts me to see them all over town -- just waiting to strike down the nonbelievers.
A previous poster commented that christmas trees were not religious because they are derived from pagan traditions. Well, paganism is a polytheistic form of religion.
That being said, I have no problem with the display of religious symbols in public. The "separation of church and state" is a myth that has grown out of people's desire not to be offended. However, I can't find anything in the constitution that says you have the right not to be offended. As pointed out by a previous poster, the only thing the constitution says about religion is that congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's it. There is nothing about "endorsing" religion, prayer in schools, religious displays on public property, advertisements for movies with religious tones, or any of the other crap that people threaten lawsuits over.
I'm with Seth. As a card carrying member of...wait, I'm not a member of anything and I really couldn't care what they put up in the airport, or on the city streets, or in the mall, or wherever. If us atheists don't care, why does anyone else? Putting a tree up doesn't mean "You must become a Christian" and no-one is trying to make you abandon your chosen faith. You have your beliefs, if others are screaming theirs from the rooftops does that mean you have to start yelling, too? The cacophony is killing me already.
If a Christmas tree morally offends you and makes you feel religiously opressed you have bigger issues than your freedom of religion being infringed upon.
Actually the line "seperation of church and state" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists that the Supreme Court as used as a basis for decisions on this issues. So while its not in the Constitution the term and its legal use is not a myth. Now most lawsuits citing it probably don't have a grasp of what Jefferson (and the other Founding Fathers) meant by the term, and I'm not claiming to either.
while i don't really care either way, i would like to people to stop pretending that christmas trees are "holiday" trees or in any way secular. even if you're not religious, putting up a tree in your home & decorating it with ornaments is a sign of celebrating CHRISTmas, not the winter season.
"Actually the line "seperation of church and state" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists that the Supreme Court as used as a basis for decisions on this issues."
Nobody ever said that the phrase hasn't been used in the past. Its constitutional basis, as most people imply, is a myth. Jefferson was not present at the constitutional convention. But really, who cares, it's just a shrubbery (not too big, not too small)!
There is a great article about this from Chabad at http://www.chabad.org/455712