Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did A Lone Rabbi Mean to Ban Christmas Trees?
Townhall.com ^ | December 10, 2006 | Michael Medved

Posted on 12/11/2006 8:14:08 AM PST by beaversmom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 481-493 next last
To: Kirkwood

I think you are right.


121 posted on 12/11/2006 9:22:00 AM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: King Moonracer

Good grief! People can be so self-absorbed and taken with their own importance.


122 posted on 12/11/2006 9:22:52 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
They will have no legal standing, but Sea-Tac would rather not litigate. Since the ACLU gets money everytime they win one of these "civil rights" cases, they have little to lose.

Yes they would. And Sea-Tac would lose. For better or worse the case law on this has been settled for years. If a public agency wants exclusively Christian displays during the Christian season, to the exclusion of others, they're out of luck.

123 posted on 12/11/2006 9:23:53 AM PST by SJackson (had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
I see the light of G-d in every person I see.

But because religious artifacts may not be displayed in public any more, and people are religious artifacts to me, it is time to ban all people.

Everywhere.

124 posted on 12/11/2006 9:24:01 AM PST by Lazamataz (That's the spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
He threatened to sue if the menorah wasn’t put up and gave a two day deadline to remove the trees.”

That is not a direct quote, and he claims he made no such demand.

125 posted on 12/11/2006 9:24:42 AM PST by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 97-103)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
the rabbi’s lawyer made the mistake (yes, it was a mistake) of threatening a federal lawsuit

Yeah, OK. This is the equivalent of BJ Bill Clinton saying he "mistakenly" inhaled. The lawyer had every intention of threatening a lawsuit.

126 posted on 12/11/2006 9:24:50 AM PST by Sicon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor

If his intentions were so PURE, why did he hire a lawyer? That's suspect, to me!


127 posted on 12/11/2006 9:26:36 AM PST by JENINMO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

If SeaTac takes down all displays of anything, they don't lose. If the menorahs go up, somebody will sue. Probably the ACLU. Even with the SCOTUS ruling, they'll sue. The lawsuit itself is the weapon, not the verdict.


128 posted on 12/11/2006 9:26:59 AM PST by AmishDude (I coined "Senator Ass" to describe Jim Webb. He may have already used it as a character in a novel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

not where I was going. denying the right to display the menorah while displaying trees is the problem. that is what the court addressed in regards to trees and menorahs.


129 posted on 12/11/2006 9:27:22 AM PST by APRPEH (id theft info available on my profile page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

Thank you for the email address. I just sent him a message.... "Merry Christmas, Grinch."

For anyone who missed it, his email is rabbi@chaiseattle.com


130 posted on 12/11/2006 9:27:55 AM PST by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Good one.


131 posted on 12/11/2006 9:28:43 AM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker

**" Please allow *this* Jew to go on record that this rabbi AND his lawyer are idiots."**

And please allow this Jew to add that the title of Rabbi OUGHT to indicate wisdom, sanctity, and holiness, not this kind of shameful arrogance.


132 posted on 12/11/2006 9:30:08 AM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper
You lost me. Are you saying the Port Authority's decision to put up Christmas trees was illegal? Or are you saying the Port Authority's decision to tear down the Christmas trees is illegal?

The Port Authority's decision to bar the Menorah was illegal. The Holiday Trees (Sea-Tacs description, not mine) are irrelevant. Other than if a public agency is going to display a Christmas Tree, they're stuck with including a Menorah, or other religious symbols, if requested. Even if they call it a Holiday Tree.

133 posted on 12/11/2006 9:31:34 AM PST by SJackson (had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
I heard Rabbi Bogomilsky state very clearly on TV he did not want the Christmas trees to be removed. The airport management made that decision.
134 posted on 12/11/2006 9:32:01 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublicanFlyersFan
Lovely Christmas tree.

Merry Christmas to you too.

135 posted on 12/11/2006 9:32:57 AM PST by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom

I object to the word "clergy" and "clergyman" in this article. Those words developed and have been used up until the last 30 years or so to denote Christian ministers or priests, not Jewish rabbis or Moslem imams, or any other group's leader.

Just as you wouldn't call a Presbyterian minister a "priest" or a Catholic priest, a "rabbi" we shouldn't use "clergyman" for rabbi or some other non-Christian group.


136 posted on 12/11/2006 9:33:27 AM PST by AnalogReigns (real conservatives have conservative values...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
That is not a direct quote, and he claims he made no such demand.

We can probably guess that his threat was NOT: Put up a Menorah or I'll sit here and pout.

He actions involved some type of threat. Otherwise, why were they delivered by HIS attorney?
137 posted on 12/11/2006 9:34:46 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

It's remarkable. A normal person reading the piece and then the comments can only come to one of three conclusions. One, many don't read but jump to comment. Two, many are illiterate. Or, three, some find any reason to bash Jews.

It is very likely that appealing to such as the airport authority requires the help of a lawyer. This dragged on for years. It is possible in the heat of an discussion the lawyer threatened a suit about the lack of Menorah (there is nothing on the record to indicate, and this comment states, that he ever threatened a suit about the trees)

Then the airport authority when bananas and removed the trees.

The Rabbi is apologetic for whatever part he played in the airport authority losing its mind. Which reasonable person would contemplate the authority acting this way?

There is an identical issue in my home town. It continues to be argued and the Menorah is still missing and the Christmas tree is still present year after year. Mayor is Jewish.

Whatever happened, in this article, Medved is writing of the Rabbi's contrition for any pain caused even inadvertently by his actions.

But yet, in many of the responses we somehow fail to see the Christian forgiveness and charity that is so pronounced and celebrated around such trees. Why is that? I'll be charitable in the spirit of the season, I'll blame illiteracy.





138 posted on 12/11/2006 9:35:35 AM PST by Sabramerican (Says the piano player: America's greatest legacy will be to create a Palestinian State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

At least you didn't say you were offended by the term. If that had been the case, I would direct you to hire a lawyer.


139 posted on 12/11/2006 9:35:47 AM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
We can probably guess that his threat was NOT: Put up a Menorah or I'll sit here and pout...He actions involved some type of threat. Otherwise, why were they delivered by HIS attorney?

Because this is long settled case law. The court would have ordered Sea-Tac to display a Menorah. Obviously Sea-Tac didn't want to do that.

140 posted on 12/11/2006 9:36:20 AM PST by SJackson (had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 481-493 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson