All Comments (19)

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

A few years ago I heard a town had banned from display in the town hall as poinsettias were a Christian symbol. To show they were in the Christmas spirit they put up a symbol of peace. To wit a dove with an olive branch.

The fact that one is a plant of Mexican origin and the other from Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak! Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.

If the story was true it either showed ignorance of the reason why the dove and olive branch are a symbol of peace or someone was trying to forward a Jewish perspective on Christmas. Why both are not acceptable is odd.

More so since there is an admonition for us not to drag trees into our homes and decorate them like the pagans do. A custom that comes from Germans like Chuck Colson's ancestors who were pagan tree worshipers.

Hewitt Rose, I offered HersheyPark simply as an observation about cultural versus dogmatic iconography, not to make a point about government neutrality on religious matters.

True, the Seattle airport is owned by the city. But unlike a courthouse, it is a facility for the use of the public. So I believe the principle of government neutrality as having a different practical application for this type of facility. The city would be constitutionally safe in not allowing any religious displays at the airport. But to me, that seems an unnecessarily punitive way of protecting that neutrality. It also feeds into the whole "War on Christmas" paranoia. By allowing displays from all religions without showing favoritism, the city can maintain its neutral stance while avoiding baseless accusations that it is being hostile to religion. If nothing else, it gives the Bill O'Reillys and Ann Counters less reason to bash Seattle.

The same principle applies if religious groups want to use public school buildings during off-hours. This is common in my community. To preserve neutrality, the school system must treat all such requests equally, without bias for or against any religion.

Courthouses are a different matter, since these are facilities for official government business. The principle of neutrality demands no religious displays in the facilities' lobbies or other common areas.

I think you and I are in general agreement about the principle of government neutrality. I just wanted to explain my reasoning. Did you read the David Saperstein piece elsewhere on this site?

Tonio:

The Seattle airport is owned by the city of Seattle. Thus, what symbols the city chooses to display, whether it owns them or not, is a government function. The Constitution demands government be neutral on matters of religion, neither establishing or abridging religion.

By contrast, Hershey Park is a private company. It can display what it wants to. It chooses to be accomodating to chocolate lovers of many religous faiths.

Sok7:

Your constitutional history is in error. The Constitution was designed to protect government from religion as well as religion from government. Look at every theocracy; they all end up as homicidal tyrannies that corrupt the religion on which they were founded. The Founders steered us well clear of those rocks.

Your characterization of secularists is also in error. Insisting on religous liberty and government neutrality on religion does not constitute an attempt to convert anyone to any faith.

The founding fathers thought their First Amendment 'Freedom of Religion' was to be the freedom to worship God in a way that best suited each man, free of government interfearance.

Modern secularists confuse this 'Freedom of Religion' with a Freedom from Religion. In a way, the vocal-athiests are much like the most fervent evangelicals - they are both constantly trying to convert people to their respective faiths.

Science is a great thing, but it is not a substitution for faith or spirituality. Science only increases our knowledge, not our wisdom.

im a muslim- salaams all- having said that- if decorations and trees help christians to remeber God and connect with their spiritual life i say more power to them--- theres alot of days in the year- if people of other faiths want to represent themselves- let jewish people take yom kippur- hannuka is not an important jewish holiday- why compete?
i like christams carollers and trees,

ps yay pittsburgh!

Oops, that should be "that distinction is largely irrelevant."

Hewitt Rose, my position is that Christmas trees are a cultural symbol of Christianity. A Nativity is a dogmatic symbol, since it is directly inspired by the Gospels.

But I also believe that distinction is largely relevant when it comes to issues of government neutrality.

Why would it have to be the city of Seattle that would put up the religious symbols? Why wouldn't the city let religious groups do it on their own? Make an open invitation to groups in the Seattle-Tacoma area, set dates for when displays can be mounted and when they must be taken down, and set guidelines for taste if necessary. Some religious groups might not accept the invitation, but that should not be the city's concern. I would include atheistic groups as well. I consider myself an "atheist sympathizer," but I wouldn't know what symbol to use for atheism. I do know that the U.S. military uses an atomic symbol for the headstones of atheist solders killed in battle.

As an aside, I noticed recently that HersheyPark had cultural Christmas symbols, meaning Santas, trees, and wreaths. One corner had a menorah and two dreidles. Dutch Wonderland had mostly cultural symbols, except for a Nativity.

Norrie & Bob:

Seattle assumed Christmas trees were religious symbols when they argued that if they had to put up a menorah, then they would have to put up symbols of every religion, so they would put only only Christian symbols. That is not a rational position, but that is the position they took.

While I agree with you that Christimas trees have been drained of all religious meaning, many do not. In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburg ACLU,492 U.
S. 573 (1989), 7 of 9 justices assumed that Christmas trees were symbols of Christianity, though they disagreed over the implications of that assumption.

May I suggest a couple of hot tom-n-yerrys. It won't solve the problem but will help decrease tension. Until the fight begins. "Gabriel Heater was saying, Peace on earth, good will to men but then somebody slugged uncle Ken and the fight was on again." Everyone yest go nauts at Chyristmas on that yolly holly day.

Maybe the Christmas tree should be renamed the Season tree or Xmas tree. That might help and only use 5 pointed stars at the top with no angels. Do Jews believe in angels? How about Buddahists?

Other than the truth of the matter, which is that a "Christmas" tree is indeed a religious symbol, it should be noted that a "Christmas" tree is a pine tree or fir tree that has been cut down for the sole purpose of temporary decoration - and I would submit that the last thing we human beings ought to be doing at this ongoing stage of destruction of the earth's resources is cutting down trees for frivolous purposes. A New Yorker cartoonist expressed it most poignantly by means of his drawing of a wasteland consisting of scores of tree stumps which were all that remained after the trees had been cut down in order to provide temporary decorations. The caption of the cartoon was: "The St. Nicholas Day Massacre." - BHW

"These three visions of our country -- Christian America, Religious America, and Secular America – have battled for supremacy for over two centuries now, and as the events at Seattle- Tacoma Airport reveal, no resolution is in sight (even though the airport has now temporarily restored the Christmas trees to their former locations)."

Your three "visions" are straw men. The first amendment assures that no religious symbol will survive in the public sector. It's simply a matter of getting the arguement into a court, which isn't likely because it's such a meaningless legal issue today.

A xmas tree isn't a religious symbol, that's why they are back up in the airport (with the advice of an attorney perhaps). A manger scene or cross (like a menorah, or crescent) would be a completely different issue, however.

Have a warm and wonderful holiday season!

Professor Sarna, you must know that a *Christmas tree,* even if it called that, is not a religious symbol. It*s a pleasing concrete artifact of the winter season. If it*s a symbol of anything, it*s a symbol of the slostice and the returning sun. Perhaps it*s a symbol of the sun-worshipers - and aren't we all sw*s in winter? A tree has no religious content to it, no matter what it*s called. It was Rabbi Bogilmiski who attempted to place the first religious symbol in the airport, and that was wrong. *Christmas trees* antedated Christianity and most Christian clerics opposed the the bringing of trees into homes at the solstice, saying that it was a pagan practice. Even if you claim to be able to transmute a tree into a religious symbol, it has no Christian content. You could, with equal validity, call it a Moses or a Chanukkah tree.

Hewitt Rose is right - the issue is really about Constitutional neutrality on religion. The language that Mr. Sarina quoted from Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. was mistaken and a violation of the principle of neutrality. But I'm not sure from Mr. Sarina's article whether he agrees.

I think my "town square" concept from another thread would be a good example for the airport to follow. The airport could invite religious groups in the Seattle-Tacoma area to put up their own displays. Not just Christian and Jewish, but all religions, and if there's a local atheist group, invite them as well.

There may be three views that people argue, but as a matter of law we are a secular country that gurantees freedom of religion. The Constitution never mentions God in any substantive way, but rather guarantees freedom of religion and rejects a religous test for office.

Mr. Sarina's quote from Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1881) has long been overruled. See Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962)(rejecting a similar argument that school prayer was an acceptable part of our secural heritage).

Knowing the law, the proper solution at the Seattle airport is easy. The airport should have displayed both the Christmas trees and the menorah. Instead, Seattle took down the Christmas trees so as to reframe the issue from "Seattle discriminates against the Jews" to "the Rabbi tries to destroy Christmas." By refusing to consider putting up trees and the menorah, Seattle calculatingly presented the public with the false choice of "only trees" or "no trees."

Seattle's PR tactics succeeded. There was a public outcry against the Rabbi, who retreated. The Christmas trees, and only the Christmas trees, are back up, as Seattle wanted.

Mr. Sarna tries to frame the debate as an honest, unresolved three-sided discussion. But that is a false framing. The debate is between Constutional neutrality on religion, so as to preserve freedom of religion, and the enemies of religious freedom and the Constitution who want the state to establish their religion or some syncretic religion as the state religion.

I am God. You know me well for I reside in your heart. My nature is your nature.

Like you, I love a good fight, to watch. Those who do my divine will fight hard for my entertainment. I love it when the streets run red with blood. I've been around since your beginning, in your heart, and there has been a lot of fighting. Look there in your heart and you will find me for it is the most cruel, ruthless and above all else violent that I love the most. It is they that will receive the greatest reward both here and when they join me in my kingdom.

Fear not for all who die for my enjoyment are welcomed into my kingdom. There they can fight some more, on and on for all eternity. Like you, I just love it. Throwing Christmas trees out of airports is kind of yawny, no blood just lawyering. I'm sure you agree.

One other thing. The Bible is not a hoax. It's my word and you can interpret it as you please for I please that you so do. All interpretations are correct except for one and you know what that is. Don't let those peace makers get control. I love fighting, people tearing each other limb from limb with war being a sheer delight. Never forget, my will must be done or else I'll be unhappy and you certainly don't want that.

Merry Christmas and remember you are all my children. All sons are my sons and all daughters are my daughters. Celebrate your birthday. Take a day off from fighting but don't forget. Time marches on and so do those who do my divine will.

Oohhh... let's put up some Muslim symbols in airports and see how many passengers decide not to board.