All Christmas trees were removed from the Seattle-Tacoma Airport because a Rabbi wanted a Menorah.?

Question

What is your opinion? Should we have just added the Menorah? We have been decorating the Airport for years, why now?

Answer 1

This is result of the "politically correct" lunacy of the day----
the Menorah could have been ADDED in display of its own---
There is room for all who care to be aboard in the proper times and places within the works of what we have going on as a society----but---- the favoritizm of one over another at the exclusion of any turns out to be far more of a divider of people than any type of "observance" and certainly doesn't help to unite people at all !!!

Answer 2

The Supreme Court has held that a Christmas tree is not a religious symbol, but rather a secular symbol. I have no problem with that decision, as a liberal. Religious accommodations, such as the footbaths you refer to, have long been upheld by the courts. I also have no problem with reasonable religious accommodations. Be careful how you categorize people’s beliefs. The ACLU, for instance, has fought for the rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas. The individual rights being protected have to analyzed in context. Also the facts of the Seattle airport controversy were that a local rabbi wanted a Menorah also displayed and the response of the Seattle airport was to remove the Christmas trees. That was just silly.

Answer 3

This situation appears to invoke an element of Constitutional law known as "The Anti-Establishment Clause". The Constitution (First Amendment) recites that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Issues similar to this have been argued before the Supreme Court. In 1989 the court reviewed a case in which public property was used to display a Nativity scene inside the court-house. However, outside the court-house there was a Menorah and other non-religious holiday items (e.g., a santa figure, some deer, etc.). The court held that having the Nativity scene all by itself was an improper endorsement of religion, but the Menorah was just fine because it was not exclusively presented without other "holiday" elements.

So it may appear that the Airport may avoid Constitutional issues if it accommodates all religions that choose to provide a display.

Answer 4

I think the airport did the right thing. Here's why:

~ From a business standpoint, it was the right thing to do to avoid a lawsuit.

~ It will discourage other extreme religious nuts from making the same complaints, demands and threats of litigation.

Many are pointing the finger at the airport for this decision, but the truth of the matter is...if this extremist Rabbi wouldn't have threatened a lawsuit, this wouldn't have happened. The Rabbi went about proving his point entirely the wrong way. This is the problem with living in a litigous society like ours. You threaten to sue so that you'll get what you want...but it doesn't always turn out that way!

Answer 5

I think we should have added the Menorah. We have to remember that this country is very diverse and if we recognize one religion why not another? He did not ask to have the tress removed either that is not what he wanted. It would not hurt to add a Menorah lots of other airports have had it for years.

Answer 6

Hello from Canada!!

To me this is not difficult. Why counldn't the Seattle-Tacoma Airport put up both, Christmas Trees and Menorahs??

That would solve the problem!!

Answer 7

If you want to be upset, be upset at the airport.

No-one was suing or threatening to sue. A rabbi asked to put a menorah in the airport--even offering to pay for it. The airport immediately said no and removed the trees. No one ordered, or even asked them to. Even the Rabbi in question was upset about the removal of the trees.

The media also owes him an apology for reporting that he was threatening to sue over the menorah--This is a blatant falsehood.

If anyone is irresponsible it is the airport. They sent a clear message that non-Christian faiths are not welcome, they overreacted and chose an unnecessary and divisive "solution", and they made it seem like Jewish religous leaders were trying to ban Christmas--creating negative feelings towards the Jewish faith.


Someone at the airport should be paying for this with their job.

Answer 8

Just add the menorah!..... I don't think that it was his point to have every thing else removed. I may be wrong about that. But it seems like we have gotten the idea that it is better to do nothing than to do anything.

My children play the online game neo-pets... they call this month the month of celebrating. What a great way to include every one.

Answer 9

Should have just added the Menorah. I heard their comments, that "every other religion would have wanted a display too". So what?

Here's the thing...allow any religous display that is not meant to be offensive or derrogatory, but make the group pay for it. That will cut down on their fear of fringe groups popping up wanting a 'satanists display' or whatever. Any number of churches will jump at the chance to fund the display. Besides, it's completely legally definsible under the 'cultural heritage display' laws, even on public property.

This is one area where the ACLU is destroying our society. They were meant for a greater purpose than turning our "freedom of religion" into "freedom FROM religion".

I'm not the least bit offended by a Menorah, the Kwanzaa candles, etc. I'll respect your religion if you respect mine. And THAT'S what Jesus would do.

Answer 10

We are so stupid in Seattle! Just add the Menorah. Christmas and Hanukkah are always at the same time of year, it is not hard to add one thing to your display.

We are always so worried about offending someone, that everyone has to suffer.