Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:09:54 -0000, "brique"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Irrelevant.
Under copyright and design rules one would be an infringment of the
other.

So, the American flag has 5 red stripes, 3 white stripes, and 39 green stars
on a black rectangle in the lower right hand corner..... well, close enough,
eh?

Would a picture of a Turkey Buzzard violate the US copyright on the
Bald Eagle?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:01:28 -0800, "PTravel"
You must have missed my other posts. You are wrong.
Christmas is not an American cultural tradition. I'll
cut and paste, rather than repeat myself:]

Repetition ignored again.

The fact that the Christians slapped their brand name
over a pre-existing cultural celebration does not make it
Christian, any more than the superbowl is Busch, or
whoever is sponsoring the superbowl this time.

If the brand name really ticks you off, you could revert
to the original name "saturnalia".

--
----------------------
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

wrote in message
ups.com...
brique wrote:
James A. Donald wrote in message
...
[...]
Jews and Muslims should do the same. Jews should
put up trees filled with symbols of life and growth and
snow beginning to melt and give presents on the day that
the sun grows stronger, and the rabbi should piously
announce that since no one actually knows what day the
foundation stone of the temple was laid, they are
commemorating the building of the temple or some such,
by merriment, getting together with family, and being
mindful of peace on earth and goodwill to all men.
Indeed in Dubai, the only major place on earth that
contains a reasonable supply of that semi mythical
creature, the moderate Muslim, the moderate Muslims are
quietly sliding towards doing exactly that "ummh, we
Muslims celebrate Christs birth also - especially in
shopping malls"

So, your solution is that everyone should become christians, if not,
they
should at least pretend to be christians. So, will you return that
respectful gesture by fasting during Ramadan? Will you synbolically bath
in
the Potomac in solidarity with the Hindus bathing in the Ganges? Will
you
don a kippa and recite the Torah at Seder? Will you light candles at
your
ancestors graves and bang drums all night to keep the shintoists happy?
Or is it all one-way traffic, as usual?

Off the top of my head, I can think of major community-inclusive
celebrations in San Francisco for St. Patrick's Day, Chinese New Year,
the Japanese Cherry Blossom Festival, Dias de los Muertos, Cinco de
Mayo, Carnaval, Pride, and others, where probably a majority if not an
overwhelming majority of the celebrants are not culturally or
religiously affiliated with that of the celebration, or even really
know in any detail what the original cultural or religious significance
of the celebration is.

If somebody's going to throw a party, why not take advantage of it? If
the Hindu community had a big Diwali celebration that was open to the
whole community, people would go and celebrate. They probably do in
the south bay.

What I would view as odd, distasteful, or even possibly deranged is if,
say, some part of the Irish community, rather than have an inclusive
St. Patrick's Day celebration, threatened to sue the city to revoke its
licenses if the Chinese New Year parade did not include shamrocks and
green beer.

The matter here is that james has stated that not celebrating christmas is
the act of a bigot.
Plain and simple, that's his line. Oh, it is just getting developed into be
'un-american' as well but I dont know if he will continue to develop that
thread of his.... theory..
My view is that if you want to join in any religious celebration, or observe
less familiar religons at prayer, go ahead, have fun, it will broaden the
mind if nothing else. but not wishing to join in is not the act of a bigot,
demanding the compulsory involvment af all in a religous celebration is.


- Nate

Dan Clore wrote:

Or we could use the term used by English Puritans when they
banned the holiday as a devilish invention of Satanic
Papists, in 1652: Antichrist's Mass. (Washington Irving
quotes this in an essay on the celebration of Christmas in
England in _The Sketchbook_.

For those in the US, you don't have to go that far -- the celebration of
Christmas was banned in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1659:

http://www.masstraveljournal.com/fea...1chrisban.html

The ban was lifted in 1681, but it wasn't until the Commonwealth was invaded
by the devil worshipping, papist, Irish that the holiday got much
attention.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

James A. Donald wrote in message
...
James A. Donald:
But if secular trees are objectionable, then any
money spent on the holiday is objectionable, then
the holiday itself is objectionable - after all the
holiday must cost the government money.

"PTravel"
Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas
isn't objectionable. No one thinks so, and certainly
no one has said so. What is objectionable is
government subsidization of the cultural traditions
particular to one religion, particularly to the
exclusion of all others.

But you have just told us that Christmas is a cultural
traditions particular to one religion

In which case, according to your interpretation of the
first amendment, Christmas has got to go.

Public funding of christmas has to go, according to the Constitution..... of
course, the christians can always fund it themselves, should be rather
revealing as to how eager they are to pay for those trees out of church
funds. of course, they can always choose to get the Constitution chnaged
instead, it will probably be a bit cheaper.


--
----------------------
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 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:44:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:27:32 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Ben Kaufman wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 16:08:38 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Ben Kaufman wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 01:06:37 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Mike Hunt wrote:
Laura Sanchez wrote:

Too bad Christianity doesn't return the favor.



Excuse me? It's Christians that are the only ones defending Israel and
denouncing anti-Semitism.


Yet, they can't seem to share the winter holiday season by permitting a
one Jewish symbol at the airport.

Which "holiday" are you talking about? There is only one *NATIONAL
HOLIDAY* and it isn't a Jewish Holiday so why would you put up a Jewish
symbol?

Putting up a Jewish symbol would be celebrating a holiday that is
*PURELY* a religious holiday and not a national holiday and thus would
be in clear violation of separation of church and state.

Ah constitutionally based bigotry, way to go!

Ben

Not bigotry. Where talking about secular vs. religious. Do you struggle
with that concept?

You fail to realize, perhaps, that the national holiday of Christmas is secular
and does not give Christians any special decoration rights.

I never said that it did. But since it is a national holiday the
airport has just as much right to put up Christmas trees at Christmas
as it does to put up pictures of Lincoln on President's Day.

Whoa. The airport has *NO* rights. It's a municipal corporation. It exist
purely to serve the public.

And celebrating public holidays and traditions helps that.

Yeah, putting up cheap plastic decorations gets people's luggage to the
right airport.

Sheesh.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity is to religions as Windows is to operating systems.
-Scott (#1045)

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:20:49 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:16:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
PTravel wrote:

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable.
No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable
is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one
religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others.

This is not government subsidization of *anything*!

Yes, it is.

Who did the government give money to?

Sea-Tac International Airport.

So the airport is a cultural tradition??????

Statement made was that the government was subsidizing a cultural
tradition. Unless you're claiming that the airport is a cultural
tradition your reply was nonsense.

As most of your replies are.

You wrote "who." Trying to back out now?

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.

brique wrote:

Nope, it shows that a day off work is a day off work and I certainly dont
feel the need to pretend to worship or thank some imaginary deity or their
offspring for it.

Conditions permitting, it is a great day to go skiing, at least the
cross-country version. You've got the trail mostly to yourself. I did take
me a few years to sort out Christmas and Easter. On Easter, you can buy
food or go to a restaurant if you're hungry; on Christmas you better have
made prior arrangements and stocked the larder. I recall a princely meal of
frozen TV dinner crap from a Stop'N'Rob while I was still learning the
ropes.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ray Fischer wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:16:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
PTravel wrote:

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable.
No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable
is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one
religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others.

This is not government subsidization of *anything*!

Yes, it is.

Who did the government give money to?

Sea-Tac International Airport.

So the airport is a cultural tradition??????

So you're an illiterate moron?

Statement made was that the government was subsidizing a cultural
tradition.

Christmas, in particular.

Unless you're claiming that the airport is a cultural
tradition your reply was nonsense.

The airport is government, idiot.

No it's not.

It's *owned by* the government but it is not the government. It is a
municipal corporation. Do you need help with that?

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:20:49 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:16:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
PTravel wrote:

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable.
No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable
is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one
religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others.

This is not government subsidization of *anything*!

Yes, it is.

Who did the government give money to?

Sea-Tac International Airport.

So the airport is a cultural tradition??????

Statement made was that the government was subsidizing a cultural
tradition. Unless you're claiming that the airport is a cultural
tradition your reply was nonsense.

As most of your replies are.

You wrote "who." Trying to back out now?

No. Just hoping for an intelligent response. You're saying that the
government giving money to the airport is subsidizing a cultural
tradition?

Read the original statement and the question. The question relates to
the statement.