Replies

"It's a long decision. You left out the preceding paragraph"
I left out a whole lot- which you should read. Including O'connor's concurance: "[it] is not regarded today as a religious symbol. Although Christmas is a public holiday that has both religious and secular aspects, the Christmas tree is widely viewed as a secular symbol of the holiday, in contrast to the creche which depicts the holiday's religious dimensions." ...By accompanying its display of a Christmas tree - a secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season - with a salute to liberty, and by adding a religious symbol from a Jewish holiday also celebrated at roughly the same time of year, I conclude that the city did not endorse Judaism or religion in general, but rather conveyed a message [492 U.S. 573, 640] of pluralism and freedom of belief during the holiday season." ".

(From your remarks you missed that it was the menorah that was at issue, not the tree. )

It is clear that the trees did not raise a First Amendment issue for the Rabbi, any more than a snowman or Santa would have. Whether one agrees or not that the tree is secular, it was deemed so by the Supreme Court so they could keep their Lemon Test.
Displaying a menorah OTOJ does raise a First Amendment issue. It doesn't look like it would be hard to address it, the trees are already there and just a "liberty sign" would meet "Alleghany". But It opens them up to other demands by other groups today: Wiccans and Moslems and various Christian and other sects.

Sure it's academic, but facts matter. The Rabbi did not have a case.

Something else that I have not really heard commented on is, The guy's a RABBI.

It's not like he was the local Grandma Cookie Cutter Brigade, or part of a Boy Scout troop from a Jewish neighborhood.

He's a Rabbi.

If a Catholic priest were to walk in there and demand a Cross be put up, does anybody else think it kinda, sorta, maybe or even MIGHT be religious in nature?