Thread: Pathetic...

Christmass trees have nothing to do with christianty. Neither do Christmass decorations or Santa. I'm suprised the Christian Fundamentalists have'nt tried to get these things banned

Airports in the United States are typically governed by a semi-quasi government agency. This means they are public venues paid for by taxes and therefore displays of religious symbols are not allowed.

It's not the fault of the airport director. The rabbi ought to be chastised for pulling this stunt.

Christmas trees shouldn't be banned, however, since people don't associate trees with Christianity.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The article says the Rabbi has no intention of suing. (I know english isn't your first language so perhaps this is an honest mistake )
And what was the purpose of baiting this thread with the "Iran" comment?(see post #2)
Never mind I know the answer from post #5!

I might be wrong but it seems slightly inappropriate for any member and especially a moderator to be baiting and then throwing insults.

The rabbi threatened to sue through a law firm, the chain of events evolved from there. Perhaps you missed that bit while trying to find something to have a go at me for?

You have been getting your knickers in a twist over precious little quite a bit recently while continueing to 'dish it out' to others and conveniently ignoring the offensive remarks your pals post.

Originally Posted by stroller

Note that the article is about an incident in the US, a rabbi sueing for the right to put up a menorah. That's got little to do with Islam, Afro-Caribeans or immigrants, Sir Burr.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

They choose where they want to live.

Excuse me, but citizens born in the country do not choose, they simply stay where they are, as the majority of people do.

Neither the US nor the UK are religious republics, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, there is no reason why one religion should be allowed to flaunt their celebrations in public places, and others not.

In that case should all public places depicting religious symbols be compelled to promote the symbols of all religions, equally, and will that be according to local, national or global population, distribution relative to site location, perceived victim stature, tendency towards militancy, and or other measures?

Where does politically palatable fairness and equality end? Should cathedrals and churches be compelled to remove external symbols of Christianity in order not to offend religions that cannot afford luxuries like a large building from which its followers may connect with their object of reverence? Should mosques be threatened with closure if they persist in offending local infidels with early morning noise pollution, or are complainants to be viewed as racist, and what's the proposed maxumum for a second or subsequent offence?

How far do we need to go before even the thickest skinned pc fundamentalist suffocates in the rarified atmosphere of the perfect society he so brazenly and foolishly demands of us all? How about closing down all religious places of learning or worship that offend or may at some time and or under certain conditions offend observers of other faiths?

Terminal mugs!

Originally Posted by surasak

Airports in the United States are typically governed by a semi-quasi government agency. This means they are public venues paid for by taxes and therefore displays of religious symbols are not allowed.

It's not the fault of the airport director. The rabbi ought to be chastised for pulling this stunt.

Christmas trees shouldn't be banned, however, since people don't associate trees with Christianity.

A nondescript tree in some bleak field may be associated with nothing in particular, but a Christmas tree by implication and also its prominence in the 'festive season' is associated with Christmas, the celebration of JC's traditional birth, which is at the very heart of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by stroller

Excuse me, but citizens born in the country do not choose, they simply stay where they are, as the majority of people do.

Of course they choose! Are you saying that they don't have the choice of moving, or, staying? If they stay in the area they grew up in, then that is a choice.

As for the display of religious symbols, don't you find the blatant intolerance of other religions other than Islam in most Islamic countries a bit hypocritical when Muslims in Britain scream for religious tolerance?
I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but, as I have stated in another thread; the problem is too much tolerance for the intolerant. Maybe it's a coincidence that the most intolerant of immigrant groups to come to the UK are Muslim.
I don't think so. The UK, France, Spain, Holland, Switzerland and Australia are all having integration problems with their Muslim communities. How do you explain this?

They're all racist.

The tree itself has nothing to do with being a Christian or celebrating the birthday of Jesus. It is a hijacked symbol associated with Chrismas but is not a required feature of Christians celebrating the season, is it?

The menorah, on the other hand, is a symbol of Judaism as would be a manger scene depicting a baby Jesus unless you are suggesting that the menorah is simply a fixture hijacked by the Jews to celebrate Hannakah.

The fact that the rabbi in question is trying to equate a decorated tree on display to a religious symbol such as a menorah is in itself offensive and he's getting the hate mail and threatening phone calls he so richly deserves for pulling this frivolous shit.

I delivered a package yesterday to a couple who were obviously Hindu due to their name and depictions of various Hindu gods above their doorway, outside, etc. Inside the house? A decorated tree. A tree that represents a seasonal holiday. It has nothing to do with religion or being a Christian if one has such a tree as a decoration. A menorah, on the other hand, is a long standing symbol of the Jews and as such should be excluded from public places as should mangers and other such symbols.

people should be required to keep these types of religious fetishes in private.

i don't want to see your candles, listen to your say your prayers, or hear your songs....especially in the tax-payer funded public square.

it's hard to argue against people being allowed to wear crucifixes, yarmeulkes and hijabs, but the rest of this pageantry is an affront on my rights.

i respect your right worship in practically any manner in which you see fit, but you don't have the right to force me to endure it.

it's simple really.....keep it at home and in places of worship.


btw, i'm a US citizen, referring to the USA.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Of course they choose! Are you saying that they don't have the choice of moving, or, staying? If they stay in the area they grew up in, then that is a choice.

To have the choice of moving to a different country to live in is the privilege of few, though it's been getting easier over the last few decades.
But anyway, I feel this is going to a different topic - immigration and assimilation.

Glad to see common sense prevailed and they're putting the christmas trees back up. Next thing you know, they would've been banning the giving of christmas presents. The long arm of the law is sometimes ludicrously employed.

They took the trees down to avoid the cost of litigation since the wonderful U.S. court system doesn't typically force the plaintiff to pay for the defendant's legal bills. Rather than fight a costly lawsuit it was cheaper to simply remove the trees.

If we were a loser-pay-all system instead many of these cases would never be heard.

What is odd about this article the mention of litigation.
I watched O'Reilly interview the Rabbi today and there was no mention of any threats of litigation.

If the Rabbi indeed threatened litigation that would seem pretty insane.
According to the Rabbi all he did was offer a minora for placement.
Not mentioning the legal threat would be a glaring omission.
Definitely something wrong with this picture.

Originally Posted by raycarey

people should be required to keep these types of religious fetishes in private.

i don't want to see your candles, listen to your say your prayers, or hear your songs....especially in the tax-payer funded public square.

it's hard to argue against people being allowed to wear crucifixes, yarmeulkes and hijabs, but the rest of this pageantry is an affront on my rights.

i respect your right worship in practically any manner in which you see fit, but you don't have the right to force me to endure it.

it's simple really.....keep it at home and in places of worship.


btw, i'm a US citizen, referring to the USA.

But the xmas tree has nothing to do with religion?Especially if it's got a little fairy at the top.

Anyway,you don't have to endure it...just turn the other cheek and don't look.

Originally Posted by surasak

The tree itself has nothing to do with being a Christian or celebrating the birthday of Jesus. It is a hijacked symbol associated with Chrismas but is not a required feature of Christians celebrating the season, is it?...

Difference is that I was referring to traditional links; still, if we dismiss plagiarisms such as the tree, then so are the halo, the events leading to and the celebrations of Easter, the Mass, the cross, and other than in name the event itself that's celebrated at Christmas, little to do with Christianity since their roots are all in Paganism, as are most symbols and events adopted by early Fathers.

I have jewish friends who celebrate Christmas, so at the end the whole confusion doesn't really matter. I wouldn't mind celebrating jewish hollidays, so why not.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

The UK, France, Spain, Holland, Switzerland and Australia are all having integration problems with their Muslim communities.

One could argue that the lack of integration is due to racism and lack of opportunities. When you are not accepted and welcomed in the first place, it's hard to integrate. Knowing the Brits long history of ethnic tolerance when they were a colonial power, it's not hard to imagine why such an integration is not happening in the UK.

The French have an immigration problem with Algerians. Basically they are regarded as scums. They probably are but that's not the point. They can't integrate because the French don't want them period. OTH, we have Cambodgians and Vietnamese being fully integrated. Why ? because the French don't think Cambodgians and Vietnamese are scums. It's simple as that.

At the same time the government is not supposed to endorse any particular religion over another. Putting a menorah or a manger on public property amounts to endorsement of Christianity or Judaism and is verboten.

Until worship of trees adorned with ornaments and other objects becomes the foundation of a religion I say the decorative trees stay and the other symbols remain out of bounds on public grounds.

Nobody is stopping the rabbi from putting a menorah on his house, on his car, or outside his synogague. Nobody is infringing on his right to worship. Nobody is forcing him to remove a shirt with a menorah on it. That's what religious freedom is about.

The government is supposed to be neutral towards everyone and it can't be neutral if it allows divisive symbols to be displayed on property used by all.

IN fact the government does not have to be "endorsing" one religion over another but as endorsing all religions. All cultures are steeped in their religions some cultures combine religions. By this definition, the government is "endorsing " a religion as long as Christmas is a public holiday.

Originally Posted by surasak

he government is supposed to be neutral towards everyone and it can't be neutral if it allows divisive symbols to be displayed on property used by all.

These symbols are divisive only due to intolerance of others. By not displaying them they are playing up to the intolerant. I say display the symbols and celebrate the differences. Those that are offended? Tough shit.

Regarding the trees mentioned, we don't know whether there is a manger scene with them or not, often there is.

Originally Posted by Milo2

To argue a government should not acknowledge any influence Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or whatever other religion has had on its development is to view governance ahistorically.

Acknowledge in form of public seasonal displays in airports? I can think of less obtrusive ways ...

I read through all of the posts in this thread. It's interesting (actually, not interesting) to see the number of times "Islam/Muslims" is mentioned in this thread.

This thread is about:

1. Xmas trees being removed from a public airport in the U.S.

2. Whether the Rabbi should have complained to have his Menora put up.

3. Whether the airport should have added the Menora and/or other symbols.

4. Whether the airport should have removed the trees.


In this day in age, with many views on this issue in the public domain, I'm not surprised that the trees were removed. Not any different than a public courthouse removing the Ten Commandments, or school prayer, or other religious icons.