November 14, 2008 2:05 PM
The war on Hanukkah
Last night the Golden City Council nixed Rabbi Levi Brackman's request for a menorah to be included alongside a Christmas tree (come get me, you "holiday tree" P.C. police!) in the city's holiday-season display. But jolly St. Nick is fine, because he has historical significance. Never mind the menorah's historical significance that goes to, oh, 600 B.C., right? Bizarrely, the council decided to next year revisit the issue of religious inclusiveness at holiday time, as Mayor Jacob Smith said the council should carefully think out such things. Because Christmas and Hanukkah and Eid are soooo radical, right?
Now, I come from a city where just the thought of the ACLU stepping in -- no distinct action -- caused the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to spend millions of dollars to remove a tiny cross from the county seal. That's changing every emblem and employee arm patch throughout the county, and without any opinion from the angry citizenry who saw the city's rich heritage being messed with. The little cross represented the area's founding by missionaries -- notice that the City of Angels is surrounded by "saint" cities such as San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Maria, San Diego, etc.
So why should Golden's citizens -- who showed up to speak out at the council meeting -- have no say in this issue? I don't remember the last time I saw Christians and Jews physically brawl over a nativity scene and a Star of David. For years in my last newsroom we had a Christmas tree and lit the menorah each night of Hanukkah, and had a "Chrismakkah" potluck on Dec. 25 with a prayer beforehand. When you're not tucking tail and running from groups lobbying and litigating for freedom from religion, you can pause to see that Americans, regardless of belief, are really cool when it comes to respecting others' beliefs. Why does the Golden City Council have such a low opinion of residents' capacity for religious tolerance?
November 14, 2008
9:59 PM
Mandos writes:
We are reaping the bitter harvest of Political Cowardice, the true meaning of 'PC'.
Fear of insulting anyone, at anytime, about anything, leads to insulting everyone at all times, over nothing.
November 19, 2008
1:15 PM
Ian writes:
There is no religious significance in the "Christmas" tree symbol apart from its long-forgotten origins in the pre-Christian pagan customs of Northern Europe. It has nothing to do with Christianity and nothing to do with Saint Nicholas/Santa Claus/Father Christmas. It is merely an attempt to brighten up the darkest and gloomiest days of the year at the winter solstice by reminding everyone that the greenery of spring and summer will return. Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, introduced the custom into Britain from his native Germany and from there it spread to America. Although it has no symbolic religious significance in Christianity (despite its name, which merely derives from the name now commonly given to the time of year that the custom is practiced), Christians are generally tolerant of it because Christ's official birthday was specifically chosen by the early Church to be at the time of the winter solstice and the birth of the new sun and thus coincide and harmonise with northern pagan celebrations of this season which included bringing greenery, such as the evergreen tree (and also, of course, holly and ivy), into their homes.
Given that the "Christmas" tree custom is NOT in any way specifically Christian (everyone, of all and no religion, can enjoy it), I would suggest, therefore, that Jews have no grounds whatsoever in demanding that a Jewish religious symbol be placed alongside such a publically displayed tree spuriously in the interests of "balance". If they do not object to the tree itself but only to the name given to it, then let them simply call it the "Hanukkah tree" amongst themselves. And if they do object to the tree itself, then I am afraid that that is their hard luck, because they are a tiny minority of the population of the USA and they have no right to dictate the customs of the vast majority.
November 19, 2008
1:19 PM
Ian writes:
Whoops sorry, that should be "publicly".