Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

Ray Fischer wrote in message
...
wrote:
brique wrote:
James A. Donald wrote in message
...
James A. Donald :
As I said, the people who object to christmas in
America are for the most part not those with a
religious axe to grind, but those with a nationalist
axe to grind - Jews, commies, and Muslims, not
Hindus, Buddhists, and shintoists, people who worry
about becoming American, not people who worry about
becoming christian.

Ray Fischer
There are no people who object to Christmas. You're
just a religious, racist, and xenophoboc bigot.

And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to?

It doesn't matter what religion, race or nation _you_ consider yourself
to
belong to... the point is you obviously fear and despise anyone else
who
doesn't belong to the same sub-set of humanity as yourself.

You don't have to explain the point of Ray Fischer's remark. Meanwhile,
you missed the point of James's response.

The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by
dragging in a red herring.

I think I got the point of James response very well...... it was
point-less....


--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote in message
...
"brique"
Is it not curious that those who are so ready to damn
and blast any publication which lauds the triumphs of
socialism are so ready to trust it so implicitly when
it happens to publish material which seems to so back
up their argument?

But we have seen lots of other sources saying the same
thing, including random bloggers who have no particular
axe to grind

Oh, those old 'random' bloggers..... and no doubt as many equally 'random'
blogger shwo woudl rebut your claim..... but they are unreliable, no doubt
excessively 'liberal', 'random' bloggers, no doubt, so unlike your 'random'
bloggers and their unimpeachable reputations as purveyor of truth and
beauty....

Next, james proves that capitalism is the natural order by citing a 'random'
blog which says sloths enforce property rights by ****ing on passing
ants......

John wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:41:26 -0000, "brique"
wrote:

SNIPPED


To all you nutcakes who contributed 5000 messages to this thread from
the following groups:

alt. abortion

alt.anarchism

alt. atheism

soc.culture.jewish

XMAS IS OVER!!

Save your thoughts for next year.

maybe you can attack or defend Kwanzaa.

You had to say it...... ****...... now we got another 5000 threads to
go........

James A. Donald wrote in message
...
"Anarcissie"
'So here's the thing: if you're running some johnny-
come-lately export-oriented religion from the Middle
East and you pull off a hostile takeover of a European
pagan winter festival, you can't really complain if
your customers start to ignore the rebranding.'

Quite true. But there are only handful of people
complaining about people ignoring the rebranding. They
are not threatening to sue anyone in order to enforce
the inclusion of a nativity scene to balance the
christmas trees.

The lawsuits, the aggravation, the war on christmas, the
hostility and hatred, comes from people who take the
rebranding far more seriously than Christians do.


So that's your motive then, taking it more seriously than the christians do,
lucky they got you to stand up for them..........

wrote:
And now that this regulated government-enforced monopoly is gone,
things are much better.

Ray Fischer
But you like monopolies.

liar.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

brique wrote:
Sancho Panza wrote in message
...

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"brique"
It is an interesting notion that james seems to
hold... that non-christians celebrating christmas are
being 'american' whilst those who have no interest in
celebrating a different religions festival are fearful
that to do so will make them 'american'. How this fear
of being 'american' affects those who are not even
resident in the USA, such as the Shintoist in Japan,
the Jews in Europe, the Muslims in Indonesia or the
Bhuddists in Australia who do not celebrate christmas

But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America,
*do* celebrate Christmas.

And? Is that bhuddist policy ? Or the personal choice of _some_ bhuddists?
And just how do they 'celebrate' christmas? They take the day off work,
visit family and friends, have a party..well, so what..... or are you
suggesting they only do that on Christmas day and not any other day-off they
might have, like at a weekend or whenever? Really, James, you are clutching
at straws, next you will contend that the mere fact of waking up and getting
out of bed on 25th december constitutes 'celebration'......

They put up decorations, exchange gifts, send Christmas cards, kids go
see Santa at the mall, etc.

It's a personal choice of some Buddhists, just like it's a personal
choice of some Jews, some Muslims, some Atheists, and (yes!) some
Christians.

In article . com,
says...

PTravel wrote:

[...]

My wife is Chinese, so we do something special for lunar New
Year. Does that mean that lunar New Year is a "universal
holiday observed by all cultures"? Evidently so, in your book.

Rather, it means that lunar New Year may be a secular holiday. And so
we do see, for example in San Francisco, a large, secular celebration
at Chinese New Year, in which people of all faiths and non-faiths, both
Chinese and not, participate, using city resources and city money as
part of a celebration that is regarded as entirely secular in spite of
the fact that the vast majority of residents of San Francisco do not
have a "Chinese background". Likewise with St. Patrick's Day
celebrations, etc.

Could someone use the same argument you are using to relegate such
celebrations to private homes and businesses? Why, yes, of course they
could. "Why should I have to contribute taxes and permit the use of
public streets to encourage the celebration of this eastern religious
holiday?" The non-Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might protest
"But I am not Chinese, and I celebrate this holiday in a secular
fashion", or the Christian Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might
protest "But I am Christian, and I only celebrate Chinese new year in a
secular fashion, with revelry and fireworks, while keeping eastern
philosophies and religious beliefs out of my celebration". Whereupon
our hypothetical Lunar New Year grinch would argue "It does not matter
if you celebrate in a secular fashion. Historically, this holiday is
only celebrated by those whose backgrounds are rooted in eastern
religions, and the vast majority of those whose backgrounds are
non-eastern do not celebrate it. Public funds and public spaces should
not be set aside for this festival, because *I* think it is religious,
whether or not *you* do".

I guess those New Orleans Catholics should kindly keep their "Mardi Gras"
festival quietly in their homes. For shame - using public streets.

Banty

PTravel wrote:

So, let's recap, shall we?

Sure. Can you do it honestly?

This thread was about the propriety of SeaTac putting up Christmas trees,
and the subsequent response of a Chabad rabbi who objected.

Your points: Christmas is secular, Christmas trees are secular, Christmas is
generally observed as a non-religious holiday.

Apparently not.

The argument you and I were having was based on my statement that
Christmas is part of American culture. You said it wasn't and said that
only people from Christian backgrounds celebrate it in American AND
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE.

Then, when myriad examples were cited you claimed you didn't say that.
You claimed that you said that *FOR THE MOST PART* no one else does.
And called me a liar for saying you had.

So I quoted your exact statements and, stunningly, you denied saying
what was in front of your face. And called me a liar again.

So I disected the sentences so you could see exactly where you said
"confined to" and "restricted to" and other absolutes.

So you respond "I'm sorry, I was wrong". Oops. That's not what you
said.

You said "Let's recap" and promptly ignored the core of the argument
you and I were having.

Stunningly dishonest.

dishonesty snipped

Ray Fischer
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended
several monopolies and created competition in
several businesses

James A. Donald:
Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard
Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling
and falling radically,

Ray Fischer
When was that?

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price. When it was
broken up this had no immediate effect on the price of
petroleum products, but six years after the breakup, the
government proceeded to regulate the industry,
forbidding competition by means more effective than
merely breaking up the company that had kept cutting
prices, wherupon prices rose a great deal.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:26:50 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

The real motivation of all the hate that has been spewed in this
thread was revealed in the conversation between Nathan Folkert and
Flavia:
: : wrote:
: : Christianity is not *inherent* in these
: : traditions, nor could it be, as these traditions pre-date
: : Christianity, probably by millenia.
: :
: : wrote:
: : Which still means Jews have no business using them.

My understanding is that Flavia is a Jew.

I disagree about Jews having no business using them -- they can do as
they please for all I care.

But this is not antisemitism rearing its ugly head.