Comments on The War On Christmas Comes Home

They wouldn't let him put up his fucking menorah because it would be "opening the floodgates" to all religions. Just what the Christian right is most scared of. Never thought I'd see it from the Port.

Want to see something really scary? Go to the Seattle PI thread on this - posters have linked it to Israel, the Jews killing Jesus, you name it. Scary shit.

A menorah is a specific religious symbol. I don't think a "Christmas" tree could be considered that. I know there are certain Xtian nutcase sects that specfically reject the Christmas tree as a pagan symbol.

All things considered, I think the Port really fucked up on this one. But that's nothing new. Imagine if they actually had to exist on their own without property tax money, like every other port authority. Why Eyeman doesn't take that one on, I'll never know.

Sea-Tac is huge. You mean to tell me they couldn't find a spot to put a single menorah—even an eight-foot tall one? Please.

catalina- paganism is a religion.

Well, after all, the Jews *are* responsible for all the wars in the world...

Christmas Trees have their roots in Germanic paganism. They have been co-opted by the christians for a festival for the birth of their savior. They are pretty though. And I enjoy seeing them. Especially the new red and purple mylar ones at the mall.

Where is fnarf? Is he mad at me?

According to Skoros v. City of New York, No. 04-1229 (2nd Cir. Feb.3, 2006)

The Menorah has "both religious and secular dimensions."

Apparently a Menorah large, small or otherwise with lighted bulbs is secular, whereas a Menorah lit with flame requires a blessing on the oil burned and as such is clearly religious.

Secular (actually pagan) evergreens without Christian symbols and electrically lit Menorahs exist side by side in many locales - certainly in places of commerce (malls) and occasionally in public spaces, without concerns.

Rabbi Bogomilsky reportedly wanted both trees and an electric Menorah at SEA-TAC, and after apparently some foot-dragging and stalling by the airport to move on his suggestion, he threatened a lawsuit. We know the rest.

Ironically, Gov. Gregoire will assist in lighting a menorah next week under the Capital Dome.

Sure one could argue that the christmas tree is not a religous symbol but only a symbol of the season...Umm, but you all are forgetting something huge. It's called a fucking "CHRIST-mas" tree for a reason! It is totally a religious symbol, and if they can't include everyone at Sea-tac then they were right to take them down.

Good thing I ended up a blond haired, blue-eyed Jew and I can make it past the security check just fine.

I've filed this story under "who gives a f**k".

I give a f**k when the folks who're up in arms tell the rabbi to 'watch his back'.

How about putting up a pink aluminum tree with rainbow dico ball decorations. No one could argue that THAT was any sort of Christian symbol. Maybe play Donna Summers singing MacArthur park, which is so meaningless yet so over the top that it's the perfect anthem for a Xmas tree.

"MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again."

Here's a thought. Who the fuck cares if they took the tree down? There are still plenty of trees out there. It's not like this hasn't happened before in other parts of the country. And if anyone says that this will lead to a Tree-Stapo coming into your house and hacking down your holiday tree I will scratch your eyes out. This is just yet another yearly manifestation of the self-important faux christian persecution complex that shows itself every time someone challenges the smallest part of the status quo.

Heh. So let's see ... due to infighting among religious folks, we end up with no religious symbols in a public space. Sounds okay to me. Sounds, furthermore, like a good illustration of why the wall of separation exists in the first place -- no public endorsement of one religion, no other religions feeling slighted.

only 15 more days until Holiday!!

And only 5 more days until Chrismukkah!

Yeah, I think the end result is quite neat.

Yep, got my aluminum pole all ready to go.

One of the more amusing aspects of the PI thread was reading the knee-jerk responses from all the right-wing moonbats who were just absolutely certain this was some "PC liberal" plot to destroy their right to do - whatever it is they do at this time of year.

The fact that their adversary is none other than a conservative (if I understand Hassidism correctly) religious nutbag such as themselves is, if not ironic, then at least humorous.

Thank you for the reminder, Ginger.

Now should I give a Holiday bonus to the folks who work for me and who would care less if I called it a Christmas bonus when it covers a month's rent or mortgage payment and a Holiday ham, turkey or proper bottle of liquor?

I do doubt they are going to sue me for calling it a Christmas bonus.

---Jensen

Some of these Christians haven't been reading their old Testament of late and its clear opinion on decorating trees:

Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Jeremiah 10: 1-4

This thread is begging for a Shoshanna post and Shoshanna is nowhere to be found!

I don't see why the airport needs to decorate in the first place. The rest of the damn planet's all needlessly decorated, and I'm sure it's a waste of Port money better used elsewhere to decorate in the first place. Just don't bother.

If there is no tree how will I know where to leave all the toys for the good little boys and girls?

Oh yeah and don't forget too take down that goddamn christmas tree at the westlake center. All those crappy christmas lights and kids and families
having a good time.
I want to put up my pentagram downtown but they won't let me.
Piss on em all.

I was just at the airport this morning and one of the gate agents heard people talking about the trees being removed. She said SeaTac officials opted to pull the trees down not because they didn't have the space for the menorah, but because they didn't have the money to buy an 8' menorah. The rabbi wasn't offering to donate one - he just wanted equal attention devoted to both holidays. Taking down the xmas trees was less expensive than buying an 8' menorah. I don't know if this is true, but it seems plausible.

There are still plenty of christmas decorations in the kiosks, stores, and on Starbucks cups. There's no escaping the holiday, giant trees or no giant trees.

#19: that's because Christians read the NEW Testament. Those Old Testament teachings are simply laughable, they're so antiquated. Nothing like the modern 1st Century teachings of the New Testament.

@24 - yet leviticus still seems to get some press.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

-Jesus H. Christ on the "old law", Matthew 5

As a New York Jew now living in Seattle, after reading through all of the comments on the pi (yea, I'm a masochist like that) I'm scared and want to go home.
Or maybe I should go back to Israel, as most of the comments say.
How is it so hard to grasp that a CHRISTmas tree is a religious symbol?
Jesus H...

Okay, I don't really care about the trees in the airport one way or the other. But...

How is it so hard to grasp that a CHRISTmas tree is a religious symbol?

You know what? Shut the fuck up.

Have you ever xeroxed something on a Canon copy machine?

Christmas trees are called that for the same reason all copy machines are called "xerox": marketing. There are lots of other holidays associated with lots of other religions that take place on or near the Winter Solstice. The so-called Christmas tree is an artifact of one of those pagan religious ceremonies. It's called a "CHRIST-mas" tree for the same reason some people call all colas "cokes." The Christians had the most successful marketing campaign ever-- partly because they burned the competition at the stake, but whatever. The point is that the tree itself has no more to do with celebrating the birth of Jesus than a fucking rabbit that hides chocolate eggs has to do with the death of same-- and when you stand there insisting, to the exclusion of all historical, scriptural or cultural context, that, "No, no, it's a Christmas tree," you mostly just end up sounding like a fucking moron. So shut your pie hole and read a fucking book.

Thank you.

joshua-

it might not historically be a symbol of christmas, but even if the tree was co-opted by christianity, it is now a symbol of christmas, which is theoretically a religious holiday. even when you argue that it's nothing more than a symbol of the season because it's roots are in paganism, well, paganism is also a religion. therefore, a christmas tree is not a secular symbol.

back east-

The overwhelming majority of the non-Christians who put Christmas trees up in their homes-- and there are millions of them --are not practicing pagans and aren't making any intentional reference to paganism with the trees. For most people, the "pagan" symbolism of the tree has been lost in history. So yes, to them it's secular and may therefore be termed secular in the general sense.

And, just as a point of order, paganism isn't "a religion." Paganism is hundreds of religions, many of which were practiced in ways so closely tied to the foundations of human society that it's pretty much impossible to separate them from the secular practices of those times. So, for example, Christmas, Easter and Halloween are all based on widespread seasonal festivals; seasonal festivals are basically related to the harvest; the harvest is a secular necessity in agricultural and pastoral cultures; celebrating it was (and remains for many people) a vaguely (or explicitly) religious occasion. Is the act of harvesting therefore a religious behavior? Are all holidays (aka "holy days") that fall on those points in the calendar necessarily religious, even if the people celebrating them have no intention of celebrating the death and rebirth of the harvest gods?

A christmas tree is a symbol of the harvest. Harvesting has been a religious activity for most people who have done it throughout most of human history. So yes, as far as that goes, it's religious symbol. But we continue to harvest on a seasonal rotation. Our lives continue to be measured in years, regardless of our religion-- or lack thereof. So the "pagan" symbolism of the tree being cut down and destroyed is also fundamental-- in a very practical way --to our perception of time and the cycle of life.

Of course, most people aren't thinking about any of that when they buy the tree. They just want something pretty to stash the presents under. But if we're talking symbolism, then the tree is as secular as, say, eating food.

"As a New York Jew now living in Seattle, after reading through all of the comments on the pi (yea, I'm a masochist like that) I'm scared and want to go home."

It can be scary out here in the woods with the savages. But unless you're a raver at a house party or a prostitute working in the Green River area, they won't harm you.

"they won't harm you."

Don't listen to this guy, Dre. My friend's cousin went out for a late night bagel wearing his Yarmulke and was never seen again. This is an extremely dangerous place for Jews.

Back east, I realize Paganism is a religion (although most Americans would give you a blank stare at that one)

The point I was trying (badly) to make is that in the context of the inane "war on Christmas" the Christmas tree itself is suspect, as the craziest of the Christians reject them as Pagan.

When you really think about it, what does a Fraser or Douglas Fir have to do with the birth of a child in the middle east two thousand years ago?

But - and here's where my secular humanism comes bubbling to the surface - what's the matter with Sea-Tac sponsoring a "holidays of many cultures" display (or something to that effect) in December? That way, every group that wanted to could have their own little thingy, with a gigantic "holiday tree" (celebrating our "Northwest Timber Heritage" or something inane like that) in the center.

Yes, I know this would mean that we might have to have a satanic holiday display. I don't care.

Reeeally? I can have my Pentagram put up
at westlake center

My gods, you people are deluded. A Christmas tree is (though originally pagan) now a symbol of -- what else? -- CHRISTMAS. Which, when last I checked was a CHRISTIAN holiday.

But don't take my word on this. Try the legal approach: Ask 12 random people on the street (a good approximation of a jury) whether they think that a Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas for Christians. I have a sneaky suspicion that 10 out of 10 times, enough of those people will say "yes" that the airport knew that it couldn't win that argument.

Now let's take a look at the legal rule that governs the issue. It's colloquially known as the "plastic reindeer rule" (or at least it was when I was studying for the bar). Under clear First Amendment doctrine (long and well established) a governmental body is not permitted to display symbols of any one religion on their own. To do so would constitute an endorsement of that religion in violation of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." and all that. If you want to display religious symbols, you have to do it in a way that favors no particular religion and also does not favor religion over non-religious symbolism. That's why you always see a Christmas tree or a creche next to a menorah and Frosty the Snowman (or a "plastic reindeer" for that matter).

Let's assume that the First Amendment applies to the airport's conduct. The Christmas trees on their own are a non-starter. Even if the airport believes that they aren't a Christian symbol of Christmas, the airport isn't going to risk making an argument that doesn't pass the giggle test (that is, you can't make it without giggling) and losing and then looking totally stupid. After all, this isn't Alabama, it's Seattle. So the airport was either going to find another religious symbol (a menorah) and a secular symbol (Rudolph) or it was going to make the Christmas trees go "bye-bye".

This isn't a hard one, people. It's pretty easy. And, unfortunately for the post that started this whole thread, it isn't a fanatical orthodox jew who is spoiling the holidays for fanatical Christianists everywhere, it is the good old secular Enlightenment values at the heart of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights.

And I say, God Bless them (the Rights) every one (except the 11th -- that one is *bullshit* as is the gloss given to the Second Amendment).

So there.

Damien, you would be most welcome to display your pentagram at Westlake, if it were up to me.

I'll make this even easier. Go out and ask 12 random people if the Christmas tree is a symbol of Thanksgiving, Eid or Passover. Guess what the answers will be.

I'll concede that the Christmas tree isn't as strongly religious as a creche and that its origins are pagan. But, really, now it is a symbol of how a lot of Christians celebrate the holiday commemorating the birth of their savior. And that's enough.

This isn't hard. Really.

Fighting over Christmas trees is both extremely funny and extremely sad all at the same time.

So much for the spirit of the holiday.

Actually I think it would be really cool if SeaTac had a bunch of different holiday decorations showing traditions from all different religions from all over the world. It would be interesting to see AND then everyone could maybe shut up.

Seriously people. Wasn't Jesus actually born in like February or something?

Jonathan, mass ignorance doesn't make a thing true. I appreciate that it can be used to establish a legal precedent, but that's a separate issue from the one I, at least, was addressing.

I'll concede that the Christmas tree isn't as strongly religious as a creche and that its origins are pagan. But, really, now it is a symbol of how a lot of Christians celebrate the holiday commemorating the birth of their savior. And that's enough.

Enough for what, exactly? I mean, if American Christians got rid of the cross completely and started using the American flag instead, would we have to change the flag? Is that all it takes? Fuck it, man, let's see if we can get them to start putting pictures of Abraham Lincoln on their bibles. I think the penny could use a new design.

Joshua --

Unfortunately I think you're a little unclear on what a symbol is: It's when a lot of people agree that one thing represents something else. So in the case of Christmas trees, "mass ignorance" (by which I assume you mean a lot of people somehow associating Christmas trees with Christmas, rather than with the pagan origins of the tradition of decorating trees or something else) does indeed make Christmas trees a symbol of the Christian holiday. That's how symbols *work*.

It doesn't mean that symbols (or Christmas trees) mean exactly the same thing to all people, of that they have always had the same meaning, it's just that a lot of people agree generally about what a symbol stands for.

Jeez. Didn't you people take high school English? Moby Dick (the white whale) -- what did you think that was about?

Again, this is not really hard.

As for your example of Christians deciding to worship the the flag so we'd have to ban the flag? I doubt it would work that way, not least because the flag was there first. And also because a lot of people agree that the flag doesn't symbolize Christianity, but the United States of America. And anyway, if it got that far, we probably won't have a First Amendment to invoke concerning the establishment of religion.

But then again, the cross became the symbol of Christianity as the official symbol of the Roman Empire when the Emperor Constantine put it on his flag.

As for your example of Christians deciding to worship the the flag so we'd have to ban the flag? I doubt it would work that way, not least because the flag was there first.

Um... you know, the tree was a pagan symbol first and, uh... yeah. Never mind.

Unfortunately I think you're a little unclear on what a symbol is: It's when a lot of people agree that one thing represents something else.

No, actually, I'm pretty clear on what a symbol is. That was my point: could "a lot of people" agreeing that an existing symbol-- like the flag --represents a religious sect actually result in the legal status of the symbol changing in the United States? According to the logic you've put forward, it could-- because any symbol can become a bona fide religious icon if enough people think it's so.

Thank god most people are too poorly educated to know that a standing pole is a phallic symbol from ancient pagan religions-- otherwise, according to your logic, we'd have to ban flag poles.

Your argument, taken to its logical conclusion, allows for that. Not that I don't think it's cute as the dickens how condescending you've been about "the giggle test" and everything, but you're essentially arguing that a popular but inaccurate colloquialism should be used to set the boundaries of the 1st Amendment.

Tell you what-- how 'bout we stop calling it a "christmas tree" and call it a "yule log" instead. All better?

Nope. Not all better. I didn't say it *wouldn't* work that way -- just that I doubted that it would.

I think your example of the trees first being first pagan and now Christianist symbols doesn't really get you far.

The First Amendment issue with the trees is not that they are Christianist, but that they are a *religious* symbol. (The various pagan religions were religions, too. Think Mithraic religion, Isis cult, Druids and so on and so forth). So just because one religion (Christianism) appropriated a symbol from another religious tradition doesn't detract from the fact that the symbol remains a religious one.

Of course, you could take issue with my implicit category of "religion" -- but that wasn't your point.

You asked the analytically different question of whether a secular symbol could be so appropriated by a religious group as to make its display without secular symbols and symbols of other religions a violation of the First Amendment. That's a completely different question, as I think you'll agree if you think about it.

My answer is: I don't know, but I think a Court would probably ask whether the religious character of the symbol had so supplanted the secular character that the display of the symbol could no longer reasonably be considered not to be an endorsement of the religion at issue. And in all honesty, if the US flag or penny assumes such a status, I don't think that the fact that they started as secular symbols would save them in a First Amendment analysis. Of course, as I said, it's almost a silly question because if it came so far, we probably wouldn't have much of political system that gave much weight to the First Amendment anymore, now would we?

A final point: Of course legal status turns on and is changed by what people think. This happens all the time. Even in the First Amendment context: The status of some things as obscene has changed a lot in the last 50 years, never mind the last 200. And such changes are not just the province of changing judicial interpretation, but also of active legislation enacted by a bunch of people elected by a bunch of other people based on their agreement about something.

In all honesty, what I find odd about your posts is what I'd call your somewhat strange investment in a Platonic ontology about the world. That is, you seem to think that there are Christmas trees (Yule Logs) and US Flags and that these things have a "true" or "real" meaning apart from the meanings that we give them.

Maybe I'm wrong about what you're saying, but I do find it bewildering. After all, Red White and Blue in France symbolizes the French nation, but here its the good 'ol US of A. I suppose you'd ask who's "right". The French or us. I just don't think that approach gets very far...

In all honesty, what I find odd about your posts is what I'd call your somewhat strange investment in a Platonic ontology about the world. That is, you seem to think that there are Christmas trees (Yule Logs) and US Flags and that these things have a "true" or "real" meaning apart from the meanings that we give them.

I'm not suggesting a Platonic ontology; I'm suggesting that the imagery of the tree is A) detached, in many people's minds from the religious occasion it supposedly celebrates and B) specifically related to harvests in a secular way. So a religion can have a hammer as a symbol, but a hammer can still be used, as a symbol, to indicate labor or carpentry or something else that has nothing much to do with the religious implications. That's not Platonic ontology, it's common sense: hammers suggest hammering and the associated tasks.

Cutting a tree down and destroying it indicates death and rebirth, which is a perfectly secular practice.

Duh.

Sure -- as is making crosses. But that is not the point and it doesn't divest the cross of its religious (Christianst symbolism).

But truthfully: Bored now.