Bogomilsky retreats … but so does the airport

Paul K. writes:

As of this morning Bogomilsky has withdrawn his threat of a suit and the trees have been restored to their position in the Seattle Airport.

“We are not going to be the instrument by which the port holds Christmas hostage,” Bogomilsky’s lawyer, Harvey Grad said…. The rabbi had received “all kinds of calls and emails,” many of them “odious,” Grad said, adding he was “trying to figure out how this is consistent with the spirit of Christmas.”

Having graciously postponed litigation until next year, Bogomilsky wants to reclaim his position as victim in this incident, struggling to understand how the anger he stirred up is “consistent with the spirit of Christmas.” Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for him to figure out how his actions have been consistent with the principles of Judaism?

By the way, however irked I may be by Bogomilsky’s behavior, I note that at no time does he threaten violence, a ground rule for civilized discourse we can no longer take for granted.

LA writes:

I’m trying to figure out why this incident has worked out so differently from so many other similar incidents. For example, few years ago, a Muslim group demanded representation for its holiday in Grand Central Terminal during Christmas season, and the Terminal authorities just got rid of all the Christmas things, just as the airport did in this case. But that did not lead to a public outcry and a reversal, as has happened here.

LA continues:

Port spokesman Bob Parker said: “We look forward to sitting down after the first of the year with not only Rabbi Bogomilsky but others as well, and finding ways to make sure there’s an appropriate winter holiday representation for all faiths. We want to find out a way to celebrate the winter holidays that is sensitive to all faiths.”

So, the airport will end up yielding to every group.

- end of initial entry -

Robert C. writes:

“We want to find out a way to celebrate the winter holidays that is sensitive to all faiths”.

That is not what they really want. They want to find a way to celebrate Christmas that is sensitive to all faiths.

If they wanted to celebrate the “winter holidays” in a way sensitive to all faiths then they might put up a menorah in an interval centered around Hannukah, and the same for Iad (sp?). But that is not the case. Those symbols are required to go up in exactly the same time period for which the Christmas symbols are up.

Instead they are trying to express the idea that Christians are not strong enough to get exclusive space for their own symbols at their own most sacred holiday, even though 95% of Americans celebrate the festival. Or perhaps you can put it better.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2006 11:38 AM | Send