December 11, 2006
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL--ADD A MENORAH:
Airport's trees stoking "war on Christmas" (Stuart Eskenazi, 12/11/06, Seattle Times)
The departure of Christmas tree displays at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — the Port of Seattle's response to a local rabbi's insistence that an electric menorah also be put up — is accelerating into an international spectacle in the so-called "war on Christmas."Posted by Orrin Judd at December 11, 2006 8:25 AMAnd that is not what Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky wanted.
"I am devastated, shocked and appalled at the decision that the Port of Seattle came to," he said Sunday.
Why would it have ended with the Menorah?
Wicca, Muslim, Native American religions, Zoroatrians, Hindus would have such claims also. The port authority as a governmental entity has no legal justification to discriminate amongst various claiments. (Hindu Shiva lingam or phallic symbol has as much right to display as the menorah)
Posted by: h-man at December 11, 2006 9:01 AMSure it does. Only monotheism is religion for purposes of the Constitution.
Posted by: oj at December 11, 2006 9:06 AM"Only monotheism is religion for purposes of the Constitution"
"To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held" and within the believers own scheme of things religious. USCA Const. Amend. 1: Civil Rights Act 1964 701 et seq., 717 as amended 42 USCA 2000e-16". Nothing there about monotheism.
The Rabbi, like many good men of faith, did not consider that the godless secularists might twist his well-meant request for inclusion into a repudiation of all religion instead...
Posted by: M. Murcek at December 11, 2006 10:22 AM1964
Posted by: oj at December 11, 2006 11:34 AM"1964"
Yes the dawning of a new age of Aquarius. Which is also a religion of sorts. So what?
Hinduism is not a religion protected by the constitution? Yes or no.
Posted by: h-man at December 11, 2006 12:10 PMA Christmas tree isn't a religious symbol. A menorah is.
Posted by: ray at December 11, 2006 3:19 PMAhmadinejad smiles.
Posted by: ghostcat at December 11, 2006 4:37 PMh:
Peyote isn't protected by the Constitution. Was that decision wrong? Does it oppress native Americans?
And if the Jews still offered sacrifices, how would the ACLU navigate that? Would PETA be storming the temple?
Posted by: ratbert at December 12, 2006 9:25 AMRatbert
The Peyote decision I presume (and I'm not a lawyer) followed the principle that a law may be enforced against individuals practicing a religion, if that law has legitimate justifications other than penalizing that specific religion. Doesn't relate to this case at all.
As to the specifics of a government entity displaying religious symbols, I fail to see how the government can play favorites amongst various religion and not be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Apparently OJ now agrees with me as evidenced by his silence on the subject.
Posted by: h-man at December 12, 2006 10:25 AMthe Constitution is a product of the Founding, not of Aquarians. Native superstition isn't a religion.
Posted by: oj at December 12, 2006 10:40 AM