Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RedStar9117 t1_j0zzv3a wrote

And we just elected a Jewish governor too

53

drahcirm t1_j0zxx2f wrote

Identity and faith based hatred and bigotry are a blight on our society, but are we actually sanctioning and celebrating 'official state' religious icons and symbols?

How is this uplifting at all?

25

citytiger OP t1_j10b2uh wrote

How is it not?

Hanukkah commemorates the recovery of Jerusalem and subsequent rededication of the Second Temple at the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire in the 2nd century BCE.

Jewish teaching says a menorah is not a religious or holy object.

10

AugustWolf22 t1_j13ermn wrote

That's religious though, the menorah is being lit in celebration of hannukah which is explicitly tied to Judaism.

4

Morasain t1_j138oag wrote

That makes no sense. Jewish teaching says? Non Jews don't care about what Jewish teaching says. Things affiliated with a particular religion are, by definition, religious. This goes for every single religion.

1

jezra t1_j10fhqg wrote

what was Harrisburg like in 2nd century BCE?

−14

citytiger OP t1_j10hoci wrote

Thats not the point here. A menorah is not a religious or holy object per Jewish teaching.

Hanukkah commemorates what I explained above.

3

Mclovinintheoven t1_j12aa8t wrote

would anyone of a faith other than jewish want a menorah in their home?

3

citytiger OP t1_j12dpfi wrote

The capitol is not a residence.

0

SolaVitae t1_j12xb67 wrote

I don't think that's the point he was making

3

Mclovinintheoven t1_j14g2fb wrote

How is having a religious symbol in the Capitol not s violation of the 1st amendment? And yes, everyone except some jews apparently view it as a religious symbol p90

0

citytiger OP t1_j14kt9m wrote

If there is a Christmas tree too its not a violation. If its not erected with government money its also not a violation.

1

drahcirm t1_j10p48z wrote

By other interpretations, it was commanded of Moses by God on Mount Sinai to make a very particular lamp... but it's not a religious symbol. Understood.

−5

fortpro87 t1_j1152tw wrote

That’s a wholly different candelabra

There are several differences between the two, notably adornments and amount of candle holders

10

vasya349 t1_j12ncii wrote

As long as every religion has a chance to be represented in a non-intrusive, appropriate manner, I don’t see the problem. I have no idea if that’s the case in Pennsylvania.

9

Dmatix t1_j13eowp wrote

A question, if you don't mind - how would you react to a Christmas tree in the same place?

9

thornaad t1_j14g5qk wrote

Christmas tree even though it's tempting to call it a religious symbol is not related to Christ or His birthday at all.

−1

Dmatix t1_j14gs9k wrote

That's nonsense. The Christmas tree is, well, a Christmas tree. Christmas, despite what some insist nowadays, remains powerfully Christian, as do all of its symbols, the tree included. That people suggest that it isn't just reinforces how powerful of a Christian normative mark US society has.

The Christmas tree, Santa Claus, all the rest of it - it's all Christian.

5

thornaad t1_j14hbye wrote

No. There's no Christmas tree (pine or épicea tree) related to the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. One could argue about the nativity scene with the little depiction of the crib, the donkey etc and ofc the baby Jesus... That's definitely linked.

Christmas trees with gifts and decorations, red and white fat old man with a beard delivering presents to kids on a sleigh with reindeers...

Nah.

−1

Dmatix t1_j14j2qo wrote

That's not how religion, culture or traditions work. That there wasn't a tree at the nativity scene doesn't mean a thing - the nativity scene didn't appear out of thin air when Christianity was formed either - it appeared centuries after.

The gifts, tree and all the rest are culturally Christian traditions, just like eating specific foods or giving Hanukkah money is Jewish cultural tradition. It cannot be divorced from it, and it is not some universal tradition with no background. It doesn't make it bad or anything, but it's important to acknowledge it for what it is.

3

isaacfisher t1_j12qpda wrote

I don't really get your point. Racism is a blight on our society, so we shouldn't celebrate the different cultures we have in the society?

5

SolaVitae t1_j12x6bq wrote

I think the issue is that the government is the one celebrating one religion exclusively. We tend to want less religion involved in our politics not more

7

isaacfisher t1_j12ypwd wrote

It's quite the opposite, its acknowledging a minority religion, and not* involving it in politics. Hannukah btw is not very religious holiday. Definitely not one of the main holy-days of Judaism, almost secular

3

SolaVitae t1_j12yxnw wrote

>It's quite the opposite, its acknowledging a minority religion, and involving it in politics.

How is that the opposite of what I said?

2

isaacfisher t1_j130zxz wrote

Sorry, I meant not involving in politics. It's just acknowledging not involving. And its another religion other than the mainstream one.

1

AugustWolf22 t1_j13f13n wrote

So as long as it's a minority religion you'd be ok with it being involved in politics?

2

drahcirm t1_j13j23a wrote

Did you read the article? The author specifically associates the display of religious iconography in the government building with all of the terrible recent antisemitic acts, as if it were a justification, or as a point of balance.

Both things can be wrong. There is a difference between celebrating culture and adopting and endorsing religious iconography (of any variety) in an official capacity within a government building.

3

cookskii t1_j1160cj wrote

Seriously man, people act like it’s 1930s Berlin

−13

ImmortalizedMan t1_j11y13q wrote

Separation of church and state, except of course for when......

6

dal33t t1_j16a389 wrote

...when what? What are you trying to imply?

2

FLORI_DUH t1_j144ywd wrote

Overt religious symbols in public government buildings will never be uplifting.

4

citytiger OP t1_j14da1s wrote

why?

−1

FLORI_DUH t1_j14djmg wrote

Because of a little concept called separation of church and state. It's never a good thing to see it eroded.

2

citytiger OP t1_j14kveu wrote

This does not erode that. This tradition has been done for years.

−1

FLORI_DUH t1_j14l2uz wrote

Putting religious symbols in government buildings is the very definition of erosion of the separation of church and state. How long the tradition goes back is utterly irrelevant.

1

AutoModerator t1_j0zru71 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

MrPeck15 t1_j104azi wrote

I want to fix the title and say it's a Hanukyia, but at this point I'm not sure of anything anymore

0

AugustWolf22 t1_j13em14 wrote

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - this is blatant favoritism towards a single religion by the local government. It's not uplifting, its a violation of the separation of church and state. Doesn't matter if its Jewish, or if it was a Christian, Muslim ect. Display, it should not be in a secular government building.

−1

citytiger OP t1_j13kpq6 wrote

No it’s not as there isn’t law mandating it must be in the capitol.

−1

AugustWolf22 t1_j13m13g wrote

Exactly, but there is an amendment in the US constitution that says it shouldn't be there.

0

citytiger OP t1_j13n9sb wrote

No it doesn’t say that. The state legislature didn’t mandate it must be there. There is no violation of the first amendment here.

2

AugustWolf22 t1_j13o6lz wrote

well then who put it there, if not the state legislature, and if it was the legislature then that surely counts as a mixing of government and religion?

1

citytiger OP t1_j13oxy7 wrote

The legislature did not. A local synagogue did. Did you even read the article?

1

AugustWolf22 t1_j13pa1p wrote

I skim read it, but must have missed that part/glossed over it. in that case I don't see too much of a problem here.

2

citytiger OP t1_j13q2x2 wrote

The article doesn't say that explicitly but it also does not mention the legislature did.

The state government merely allows the menorah to be there as such there is no violation of church and state.

3