Nativity Scene Rejected at Washington Capitol

Townhall.com ^ | December 21, 2006

[Hadean]

The state's Christmas tree controversy has shifted from the airport to the Capitol, where the governor lit a menorah this week, but officials rejected a Nativity scene.

It all started earlier this month with the plastic holiday trees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

A rabbi wanted to add a large menorah to the display, but airport officials, worried about lawsuits and requests from other religions, ordered the trees removed instead. They put the trees back up a few days later _ without a menorah _ after Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky of Chabad Lubavitch in Seattle said he wouldn't sue.

Bogomilsky had made the same request last year for a menorah to go with the decorated trees at the state Capitol, and he said he was delighted Monday afternoon when Gov. Chris Gregoire lit a menorah, the candelabrum lit by Jews to celebrate Hanukkah.

But when Ron Wesselius, a real estate agent in Olympia, then proposed also adding a creche, a display depicting the birth of Jesus that is the religious basis for Christmas, he was turned down.

"I had been thinking about it, but it's one of those things _ you don't want to create waves," Wesselius said Wednesday. "But when I saw the menorah was there, I thought, 'Hey, why don't I ask?'"

He said he was surprised at the response.

Steve Valandra, a spokesman for the Department of General Administration, said officials were concerned that in comparison with a tree or menorah, a Nativity scene might carry a stronger impression of government endorsement of religion. Lawyers for the state felt there was insufficient time to fully research the issue, he said.

"Based on that, without having more time, we had to say no," Valandra said.

Wesselius said he hadn't decided whether to press state officials to change their minds.

[Suzy Quzy]

If there is a MENORRAH, there MUST be a Nativity Scene!! BOTH are RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS of the season they are celebrating!!! NO Nativity, No Menorah!! UNLESS we call it a Candlabra!

[silverleaf]

If I saw a state capital with only a lit menorah, I would conclude the government was endorsing Judaism.

So to Washington State, may we all say: "Mazel Tov!"

[kitkat]

Right out of the communist handbook: Destroy religion.

I hope all the Freepers who voted Democrat this year are happy. /sarcasm

[john316]

Subject: No Nativity Allowed in Washington, DC



No Nativity

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a nativity scene in Washington D.C. this Christmas. This isn't for any religious or constitutional reason. They simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the nation's capital.

There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

[john316]

Subject: No Nativity Allowed in Washington, DC



No Nativity

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a nativity scene in Washington D.C. this Christmas. This isn't for any religious or constitutional reason. They simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the nation's capital.

There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

[Polybius]

The state's Christmas tree controversy has shifted from the airport to the Capitol, where the governor lit a menorah this week, but officials rejected a Nativity scene.

Here we go again with Courts and/or politicians arbitrarily decreeing what is "secular" and allowed and what is "religious" and prohibited and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution be damned.

The State of Israel uses the Menorah as a state symbol and one might argue that the Menorah then can be considered quasi-secular but is there any basis in Judaism for ever claiming that the lighting of a Menorah is a secular act?

[CheyennePress]

Isn't it funny how the free excercise clause has become anything but?

[zerosix]

It's sad but after 2000+ years, there is still no room at the inn.

[beelzepug]

Would the Grinch be considered a religious or secular symbol? If the answer is religious, Gregoire needs to stay away from the capitol for the next two weeks.

[ladyjane]

I just had an interesting call with a person at the governor's office.

According to her, the governor didn't make the decision. The buildings and grounds people did. She just lit the candle because they told her to. HUH? It seems the janitors are running the state. LOL

And the menorah isn't religious because they didn't use sacred oils.

I asked if the governor was Jewish and the girl didn't seem to know for sure but didn't think so. She said the governor didn't have to be Jewish because lighting the candles wasn't religious. ROTFL


Give Governor Gregoire's Office a Call:
Governor's Office (360) 902-4111

or email

http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/

[ArcadeQuarters]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Maybe I need glasses. I don't see the part that prevents a governor from setting up a nativity scene.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think it's fine if someone puts a Menorah on public property.

I don't think the Governor should be lighting it. Lighting a Menorah is certainly a "religious act", and the representative of the state should not be performing a religious act.

That's where the line should be drawn. The government should not pay for, or participate in the placement of, religious symbols. But they should not prohibit the private display of religious symbols in the public square, except to provide a mechanism for an orderly assignment of space for the purpose, maybe for limited time periods, and with standard reviews for "good taste" but not "religious significance".

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, that pretty much sums up my opinion of her abilities and intelligance.

[Polybius]

That's where the line should be drawn. The government should not pay for, or participate in the placement of, religious symbols.

Then we must abolish the Chaplain Corps in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Taken together, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause do not mean that religion must be stripped from public life. In 1793, the laying ceremony for the Capitol cornerstone included a religious service in which George Washington participated. Since the First Amendment was ratified two years earlier and the Founding Fathers were alive and kicking and many were attending that ceremony, the original intent of the Founding Fathers is self evident.

Taken together, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause mean that the Government cannot establish one religion as the favored one as was the case with the Church of England.

That meaning has now been totally perverted by having some favored religions and some Politically Incorrect religions, to wit, lighting a menorah is a O.K. because it is "secular" because (insert Bravo Sierra excuse here) but a creche is verboten because it is "religious".

Primary net result: Judaism is now one of the Politically Correct established religions and Christianity is now one of the prohibited religions.

Secondary net result: Christians and Jews are at each other's throats every December.

The true meaning of the First Amendment allows ALL religious displays, as long as no religion is specifically discriminated against. If the Governor want to light a Menorah or place a creche, that is exactly what the First Amendment intended as long as no religion is considered to be favored above any other.

[SJackson]

I believe the original decision was based on the fact that Hanukah is a "minor" holiday, which in my mind doesn't make the Menorah a secular object. It's true that people, even non Christians, put up Christmas trees with no thought of Jesus or Christianity. I've never heard of a Menorah being used in non-religious fashon. Most recent decisions tend to equate the Menorah with the Creche.

That aside, it's a stupid arguement. The basis of the secular Holiday Season lies in religious holidays. Either put them all up, or end up recognizing the issue is too controversial and let people celebrate at home and Synagogue/Church.

[CharlesWayneCT]

That's different. The military is providing a life for it's servicepeople, and that life includes their religious needs. That is not government pushing religion, it is a special circumstance where government is being neutral toward religion by offering the religious lifestyle to it's servicepeople.

There is no comparison to a governor taking part in a religious demonstration as an official act.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I usually start my thought process by wondering how I would feel if the person taking an act was a witch, and the ceremony was a satanic ritual.

Since, after all, I'm rarely offended by acts of christianity.

[ladyjane]

I don't see the part that prevents a governor from setting up a nativity scene.

According to the governor's office it's out of her hands. The decisions are made by the janitors. They decide what kinds of decorations are put up in the rotunda. I guess she just shows up and lights the candles.