Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

wrote:
On 15-Dec-2006, James A. Donald wrote:

But if the trees are symbols of a religion, the way the
menorah is

As you uave been told, the government has declared them
both secular. So, if insist the menorah is religious, you have
to agree the tree is. And if you insist the tree isn't, then you
have to agree that the menorah deserves to be disaplyed
with it.

Well, not if they're both secular. Neither one deserves
anything. The idea of symbols deserving something comes
from some framework connecting the symbols to an idea
of display-worthiness. For example, we are all supposed to
be patriots, so the American flag is to be displayed on
public property -- there are no doubt several flapping around
at the Seattle airport. But while the administrators of the
Seattle airport could decide to decorate with a selection of
secular symbols of the Winter Solstice holiday (wreathes,
trees, Santa Claus, menorahs, Kwanzaa posters, etc.)
there is no obligation for them to choose any or all of
them, and there was no obligatory basis to demand that
a particular one be included if another was.

wrote:
On 15-Dec-2006, James A. Donald wrote:

But if the trees are symbols of a religion, the way the
menorah is

As you uave been told, the government has declared them
both secular. So, if insist the menorah is religious, you have
to agree the tree is. And if you insist the tree isn't, then you
have to agree that the menorah deserves to be disaplyed
with it.

Well, not if they're both secular. Neither one deserves
anything. The idea of symbols deserving something comes
from some framework connecting the symbols to an idea
of display-worthiness. For example, we are all supposed to
be patriots, so the American flag is to be displayed on
public property -- there are no doubt several flapping around
at the Seattle airport. But while the administrators of the
Seattle airport could decide to decorate with a selection of
secular symbols of the Winter Solstice holiday (wreathes,
trees, Santa Claus, menorahs, Kwanzaa posters, etc.)
there is no obligation for them to choose any or all of
them, and there was no obligatory basis to demand that
a particular one be included if another was.

In article ,
James A. Donald wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:13:36 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why
do basically just Christians use them?

You live in a world of your own. Everyone celebrates
Christmas except people who have an axe to grind.

And true scotsmen do not put sugar in their pudding, of course.

I have no axe to grind. I don't celebrate christmas. I don't even buy
christmas gifts, and I receive no christmas gifts myself. I wish
people "Happy New Year", but never initiate a "Happy Holidays" nor a
"Merry Christmas" greeting (though I will certainly answer one if
given).

Perhaps by "Everyone" you mean "A lot of people", or perhaps even
"Most people I know"?


--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

In article .com,
wrote:

wrote:
On 14-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:38:26 -0800, markzoom wrote:


Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:02:49 -0800, 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.

By refusing to add a menorah to the airport display?

It's not just some kind of festive decoration.
The menorah is the NATIONAL EMBLEM OF THE "STATE" OF ISRAEL

NO, IT IS NOT.
The chanukiah "menorah" used at Chanukah has eight branches and one in
the middle; the Israeli Menorah has six and one in the middle. It is
distinctly
different and for a reason that bigots like markzoom will never grasp - and
on
purpose.


A menorah is used both as the Israeli state symbol and at Chanuka. Are
you saying one isn't a menorah, stupid?

The name "menorah" correctly refers exclusively to a 7 branch
candelabrum; the Israeli state symbol does in fact contain a menorah
(a 7 branch candelabrum).

Although the Hanukah candelabrum is often INCORRECTLY called a
"menorah", it's proper name is either "Hanukyah" or "Hanuka-menorah";
these names refer exclusively to a 9 branch candelabrum. Hanukah
displays do not include menorahs (7 branch candelabra); the Israeli
state symbol does not include hanukyahs (9 branch candelabra).

Just because something is incorrectly -called- a menorah does not
mean that it -is- a menorah. As the White Knight said:

'The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes."'

`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel
interested.

`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little
vexed. `That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged
Aged Man."'

`Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice
corrected herself.

`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called
"Ways and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'

`Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.

`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really is
"A-sitting On A Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'


While the hanukyah is often called simply a "menorah", those which
appear in Hanukah displays are distinct from those that appear in the
Israel state emblem; just as the one that appears in the Israeli state
emblem is distinct from the 3 branch candelabra familiar from many a
costume drama, even if the latter were to be called a "menorah".


--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

James A. Donald wrote in message
...
--
"brique"
Um..... you really have wondered down the garden path
with this one James.... the thread, which you are so
eager to misrepresent, is nto about 'removing trees'
whether they be religious symbols or not. The facts of
the case, which you continually ignore, is that the
rabbi who threatened to sue did so because he wanted
equal represetation for his religious symbols
alongside the trees. So, he thought the trees were
christian symbols,

But if the trees are symbols of a religion, the way the
menorah is, then there is no place for them a government
owned public space - so if he is conceded to be right,
then all is conceded. Sooner or later all Christmas
trees everywhere will have to be removed from all
government owned public spaces everywhere. The first
concession will prove the necessity for all the
subsequent concessions.

But that is not a problem of rational behaviour, that is a problem of folk
like yourself taking matters to ridiculous extremes to prove a point, often
based on an erroneuos assumption that 'something' _really_ means something
else. Then more folk like yourself leap to defend the matter not because the
'something' means something else but because to even question the
'something' means 'something else' again. That is, the rabbi assumed the
trees were religious symbols (an error) but you view his stance not as an
error but as an attack upon 'Christmas' as a whole and therefore an attack
upon christianity itself. Your defence then becomes that the trees _are_
symbols of christian celebration and find yourself now giving substance to
the rabbi's stance, not because he or you are right, but because you now
choose to share the same error.
Between you, you dig a nice big hole, jump in and then start screaming you
were pushed.
****wits, the lot of you.


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

Ray Fischer wrote:

Sounds like Pittsburg, or Baltimore, or any one of several other
run-down US cities.

Or, possibly Pittsburgh.

In article P_pgh.6972$it5.601@trndny06, wrote:

On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arturo Magidin:
The vast majority of americans identify the candelabrum (7- or
9-branched) with Hanukah, not with the state of Israel. They call both
"menorah" (the former correclty, the latter incorrectly), and usually
misidentify a 7 branched candelabrum as a Hanukyah and think
"Hanukah". Few are aware of the difference, and the overwhelming
association is that of the holiday, not the political association
(exactly the opposite of the shubhtika, where most people will
misidentify it as political rather than religious). In any case, you
claimed that the 9-branch candelabrum -is- the "national emblem of
the "State" of Israel". And that is, quite simply, false. Explain it
away all you want now, you were still wrong.

:
Liar.

Susan:
Explaining how he's wrong makes you a liar??

I know attributions are a bitch, but:

I wrote the first paragraph. markzoom wrote the single word
response. The message you are replying to is from "Sancho Panza".


markzoom:
I never specified the amount of bloody candles of any menorah,

Susan:
Which wasn't exactly the point of your post, but....

markzoom:
so I am
not wrong about any number.

:Susan:
Actually, he is BECAUSE he didn't specify ---

markzoom:
It's a menorah wether it's got seven or nine candles.

Susan:
- because this is not so.
You explain it beautifully above.

And here you are misattributing: the person who explained it above was
me; the message you are replying to is by "Sancho Panza", who then
wrote:

Sancho Panza:
How about 5 or 11 or 13 or 25?

As if he won't say whatever comes into his "head" to support his hatred.

You might want to note that you are basically piggybacking for your
reply; it might clear up the problem of the "you"; half of the time
you are addressing markzoom, half of the time you are incorrectly
addressing Sancho. Just a point to clarify where the comments are
being directed...

--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

"Mike Hunt" postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

On 15-Dec-2006, Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:


PTravel wrote:

Actually, yes, my personal belief (as a lawyer, not as a non-Christian),
is
that the Establishment Clause is violated by the government letting
employees go home for Christmas (not Thanksgiving, which is a
non-sectarian -- or, perhaps, all-sectarian -- holiday particular to no
religion).

Thanksgiving Day IS a Federal Holiday.


I thought when he said "not Thanksgiving" he was trying
to exempt that from his stricture.

Susan

I thought he was saying that government employees couldn't stay home for
Thanksgiving. Of course he also said "go home", so the syntax was a
bit difficult to follow for some of us with English as a second language.

My point was that Thanksgiving (which, of course, is a federal holiday) is
either non-sectarian or all-sectarian. The first Thanksgiving was a shared
feast between Massachusetts Native Americans and the survivors of the
Mayflower expedition. It wasn't a religious holiday, though the Puritans
would almost certainly have started the celebration with a prayer of the
thanks. The Native Americans, on the other hand, would have started with
whatever cultural tradition was appropriate for them. As such, from its
inception, it was both secular and all-sectarian -- an inclusive holiday
that assumes many different cultural traditions (there was an interesting
program on the Discovery Channel called, I think, "Difficult Crossing,"
about this period). Thanksgiving is, therefore, an appropriate official
holiday for a non-sectarian or all-sectarian country.

As I explained in another post, Christmas is not all-sectarian, even if
aspects of the holiday can be considered "secular" in the sense that some
posters are using the term. Christmas is exclusive to the cultural heritage
and traditions of Christians, and is completely foreign to other cultures,
including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc.
As such, I believe it is inappropriate to recognize it as an "official"
holiday for non-sectarian (or all-sectarian) America.

Tchiowa wrote in message
ups.com...

brique wrote:
Tchiowa wrote in message
ups.com...

James A. Donald wrote:

Your insistence that "Christmas is now secular and
erveyone must celebrate it or be considered a bigot
[the upshot of your "only those with a grudge against
it don;t celebrate it" post] " is not only insanely
fascist and bigoted, but just not logical.

No one must celebrate it, but any one who not only does
not celebrate it, but gets upset and offended by other
people celebrating it, is indeed a bigot.

Exactly right.

So, anyone who isnt a christian or who doesn't pretend to be a christian
for
christmas is a bigot?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? No one said that. It isn't
that anyone who isn't Christian is a bigot, it's that anyone who tries
to block celebration of a national holiday because their are offended
by the holiday is a bigot.

The original statement I responded to was :

"No one must celebrate it, but any one who not only does
not celebrate it, but gets upset and offended by other
people celebrating it, is indeed a bigot."

Now, how is your comprehension?

see the second part of the first sentence?

'but any one who not only does not celebrate it'

He is not just saying those who object to the celebration are bigots, he
precedes that by saying the bigots are _not only_ those who do not celebrate
it. He has created two groups of bigots, those who do not celebrate and
those who object to the celebrating.

Thus my response to enquire ( which is signified by the question mark at the
end of the sentence) if that was what he really meant to say.

My response asks if those who do not celebrate it ( such as non-christians
or atheists) are bigots unless they _pretend_ to celebrate it ( in
contradiction to their own religious beliefs, or , in the case of an
atheist, their total lack of beleif. )

Now, let's examine your comprehension issues in which you allude to a
statement never made and a response not given......

"Sancho Panza" wrote in message
...

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
--
"James A. Donald"
any one who not only does not celebrate it, but gets
upset and offended by other people celebrating it,
is indeed a bigot.

"Sancho Panza"
You would no doubt celebrate even more imams and
others taking out their prayer rugs and doing their
thing in the middle of a public place that you are
using.

There was no manger at the airport, nor any prayer. The
airport Christmas was carefully sanitized of anything
with the slightest connection to Christianity.

If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why do basically just
Christians use them?

Even though they're an obvious Pagan symbol?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet