From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

This could be the last year for Durham’s tree tradition

Durham’s Human Rights Commission has recommended ceasing the longtime tradition, with members saying it is associated with the Christian faith and Christmas celebrations, which may be exclusionary to some people who follow different faiths or are atheist.

The issue came up this year because Rabbi Berel Slavaticki at the UNH & Seacoast Chabad Jewish Center asked to place a 9-foot menorah in the same public park on Main Street where the tree is lit.

Slavaticki was asked to complete an application for a permit, which was denied by Town Administrator Todd Selig because of concerns about vandalism and public safety. It was agreed that Slavaticki could host a one-time ceremony at a different public park, which took place Sunday evening, the first night of Hanukkah.

On Monday, Selig said that he has received correspondence about decorating the town’s tree over the years, but he views it as a nonreligious symbol. A menorah is a religious symbol and subject to more scrutiny, Selig said.

“The menorah raised a broader concern for me. I have a concern about the display of religious symbols on public property. We should have it for all, or none at all,” Selig said.

The menorah request and whether to have a tree on the public square at public expense were discussed at the Human Rights Commission’s Nov. 26 meeting, and that led to the panel’s recommendation.

Selig said there isn’t room on the small plot of land known as Memorial Park for symbols from every religion, so community members will have to talk further about what should be done with the tree. The Parks and Recreation Department might come up with a “winter carnival” theme instead of the traditional lighting of the Christmas tree, he said.

“I think it’s a topic we really need to be thoughtful about,” Selig said.

Kitty Marple is the chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the town council. She said she could support a winter carnival theme.

“I am a person of no religious affiliation. These things don’t bother me, but I understand how they might bother someone else,” Marple said.

Marple said the commission has not gotten a lot of feedback from residents on the issue yet.

Sally Tobias is a member of the town council and said the annual tree lighting in Durham is not a religious ceremony and is a tradition that takes place throughout the country during the darkest time of the year.

“The whole idea behind the lights is to bring light into darkness. It’s a positive thing,” Tobias said.

Tobias said she is looking forward to having an in-depth conversation on the subject. Residents in Durham are not afraid to take on tough issues and it may be time to evaluate the meaning behind the tree, she said.

The Human Rights Commission in Durham is the group that pushed for the celebration of Indigenous Peoples’ Day on Columbus Day. The town council approved that idea in September 2017.

That was the whole article.

Here is the problem with it.  I don’t normally read the Union Leader, I caught this article reposted.  Comment after comment that I have seen boils down to “the snowflake Jooos are destroying Christmas.”

Nobody bothered to ask Town Administrator Todd Selig why he thought that a Christmas tree wasn’t religious but a Menorah is, or why he felt that the only accommodation he felt the Rabbi deserved was one night?  Or why he thought that anti-Semitic vandalism of the Menorah was an appropriate hecklers veto?

Nobody thought to ask him why he didn’t do a 5 minute Wikipedia search on this topic.

There are two SCOUTS cases and one Court of Appeals case that addresses this issue.

Lynch v. Donnelly was a 1984 SCOUTS case that decided a Christmas tree, Santa, and Nativity Scene were all permitted on city property and didn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union was a 1989 SCOTUS case that decided that a Christmas Tree and Menorah in front of a town hall were allowed under the 1A but a Nativity Scene in the courthouse was a violation.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler was a 1999 Third Circuit Court case in which a Christmas Tree, Menorah, and Nativity Scene were challenged on 1A grounds.  Jersey City kept adding more secular decorations such as a snowman and Kwanzaa menorah until the court decided that it wasn’t a violation by being super inclusive.

Allegheny v. ACLU is the most interesting of the cases because the Menorah and Nativity Scene were both challenged as being in violation and the Court decided 6-3 that the Menorah wasn’t in violation.  Some arguments were that the Menorah has become a quasi-secularized symbol since Hanukkah is a minor holiday and the city doesn’t do anything for more significant holidays like Rosh Hashanah or Passover.  Some argued that in front of the building wasn’t a problem but inside a courthouse was.  Others argued that showing the Tree next to the Menorah next to each other showed plurality while the Nativity Scene alone was an endorsement of one religion.

Regardless, in all three cases a Christmas tree was allowed and in two cases a Menorah was allowed.

What Selig by rejecting the Menorah but keeping the tree was violating both the Third Circuit and SCOTUS.  It seems like the town Human Rights Commission is going overboard for no reason established by SCOTUS.

But in not addressing any of this “the Jews killed Christmas in Durham” is the narrative that is allowed to flourish.

Thanks for that.  Your lack of journalistic responsibility is noted.