Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

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

Tchiowa
Exactly right.

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

I am not a christian, I don't pretend to be a christian,
and I celebrate christmas.

by pretending to be a christian, adopting christian beleif structures and
symbolism


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

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:38:37 -0800, "PTravel"
I haven't heard anyone get upset or offended by anyone
celebrating Christmas. The concern in Seattle was
using government funds, i.e. tax dollars paid into the
general fund, to pay for it

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.

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*! And Christmas is an
*AMERICAN* cultural tradition, not just a religion.

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:

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

Even granting that the Christmas tree is secular (and I don't believe that
it is), it is definitely not all-sectarian. Yes, the Christmas tree, per
se, is not a religious symbol in the same sense as a cross or a creche (or
Jewish star). It is, however, part of the traditions and culture of a
specific religion -- Christmas trees certainly play no part in the heritage
of non-Christian religions.

The point, which no one seems to get, is that, though the majority of
Americans have a Christian heritage and tradition, that does not mean that
Christian culture and tradition is synonymous with
American culture and tradition. The objection is not to Christians or
Christmas, but to the assumption that, because it is the predominant culture
in the U.S., it is a universal culture. America, by definition, is
non-sectarian, per the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment has
been construed (in cases like Lynch) to mean "all sectarian." It that's
what the Establishment Clause is going to mean, then we should be
all-sectarian, which is most-decidedly does not mean, "only the largest
sect."

Christmas trees are not universal. They are not part of the culture,
heritage and traditions of those Americans whose families, ancestors,
backgrounds and beliefs are other than Christian. Are Christmas trees
secular? Perhaps, depending on how you define the term. Are they all- or
non-sectarian symbols? Absolutely not.

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


Certain religious bigots and atheists want the holiday cancelled so
that they can feel like the beat the Christians. It's silly and idiotic.

Please identify one person, either in this thread or anywhere else, who
wants to "cancel" Christmas. Please identify one person, either in this
thread or anywhere else, who wasnt to "beat the Christians." I've never
heard of anyone who wants to eliminate Christmas, Christmas celebrations or
Christmas symbols, including Christmas trees. The only objections I've
heard (and the only objection I have) is paying for them with government tax
dollars.

Tchiowa wrote in message
ups.com...

Sancho Panza wrote:
"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?

Simply not true. A lot of non-Christians including members of other
religions and atheists who celebrate Christmas as a non-religious
holiday put them up.


Has anybody raised thepossibility that the trees may have been put there by
that sinister government department responsible for pushing Gaian
tree-worship in schools?
James would know..... come on James..... do tell.....

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:38:37 -0800, "PTravel"
I haven't heard anyone get upset or offended by anyone
celebrating Christmas. The concern in Seattle was
using government funds, i.e. tax dollars paid into the
general fund, to pay for it

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.

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*! And Christmas is an
*AMERICAN* cultural tradition, not just a religion.

Certain religious bigots and atheists want the holiday cancelled so
that they can feel like the beat the Christians.

Really? Name them all.

It's silly and idiotic.

Yes, you are.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet

"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.

Who is exactly trying to block the celebration of this holiday?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
On 14-Dec-2006, 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?

If there's a choice between displaying all religions and displaying
none - and that was ultimately the choice - then the better option is
to display none.

Which is fine, just so long as you don;t BLAME the people who only asked
for
equal time.

No, the Rabbi asked for special consideration, not equal time. He asked
for his religious symbol to be displayed because Christmas symbols were
being displayed. But Christmas is the holiday therefore Christmas
symbols are appropriate.

If the Rabbi wants Hannukah to be a national holiday then let him ask
for that.

Perhaps you could explain how seeing a mennorah displayed would hurt you.
In my town, they display a nativity scene, a mennorah and a tree.
Everyone's happy.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet

wrote in message
oups.com...


Okay. But while the state cannot prevent something from being religious
if it is in fact religious (and a statement that we trust in God is
religious), the state does not *make* something religious. When
holidays are organized by religious communities for religious purposes,
they are religious by virtue of that, and if anyone participates in the
celebration, then he is participating in the religious activity of that
community and therefore celebrating their religion along with them.
Thus when I am invited to a Passover Seder, the ritual is clearly about
Judaism and is intended to perpetuate Judaism. Judaism is front and
center throughout the Passover Seder. But since Christmas is, for most
of us, not now organized by religious communities but is, as I pointed
out, a national holiday set aside by a secular state, and since,
furthermore, for many of us there is nothing religious about our
celebration of it, then it is secular for us.

Well, Passover isn't celebrated in the context of an organized religious
community -- it's celebrated at home. However, that really isn't relevant
because you are right -- the government can't recognize Passover because it
is clearly a religious celebration.

However, you contend that Christmas is not a religious celebration because,
for many who celebrate it, it lacks any religious component. I assume you
mean that, for many, "Christmas" means presents under the tree rather than
midnight mass. That misses, however, two key points:

1. The fact that some observe a holiday in a secular manner doesn't mean it
is not a religious holiday. Many Jews, too, observe Passover in a secular
manner -- for them it means an opportunity to have a dinner with family, eat
some traditional foods, have some drinks, etc. Sounds a lot like "secular
Christmas," doesn't it? However, whether some Jews only observe the secular
components of the holiday doesn't, in any way, change its fundamental
religious character. As you note, Passover is, indisputably, a religious
holiday. Christmas is as well, and for exactly the same reasons. Which
brings me to my next point.

2. Christmas, whether observed as a secular or religious holiday, is an
observance unique to Christian culture, heritage and tradition. It is not,
and has never been, a part of the culture, heritage and traditions of, for
example, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. Whether or not those whose
heritage, culture and tradition is Christian (irrespective of their
religious beliefs) observe the holiday in a secular or non-secular fashion
is simply irrelevant because Christmas never was, and is not now, a
universally-recognized holiday in the sense that, for example, Thanksgiving
and the Fourth of July are for Americans. Perhaps, in the future, there
will come a day when Christmas is so divorced from its religious context
("Christ's Mass," i.e. a celebration of the birth of the baby Jesus) that it
will become completely secularized and universal, as has Halloween. It is
certainly not completely secularized and universal now.


I'm not sure what would be left over if we took the religion out of the
Passover Seder. There would be nothing left. But for many Americans,
even (to their chagrin) many Christians, Christmas has a substantial
part which has nothing to do with Christianity, including the fact that
it is a federal holiday, and for those of us who are not Christian and
who celebrate Christmas, that part is all of it.

As I said, it doesn't matter how those with a Christian heritage, tradition
and culture observe Christmas. It matters whether those who don't have a
Christian heritage, tradition and culture observe Christmas. The simple
fact is, they don't. It's a moot argument whether Christmas is
predominantly secular or predominantly religious. For those who don't have
a Christian heritage, tradition or culture, it's a holiday that we observe
from the outside looking in because it forms no part of our culture and
traditions.

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

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


Did Congress make Christmas a national holiday because it had nothing to
do with religion? I doubt it.

Congress made it a national holiday for the same reason that the Supreme
Court ruled that creches are not religious symbols -- because many members
of the dominant culture can't conceive of the idea that their cultural and
traditional practices are not universal. This thread is proof of that.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote:

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 Like the
eagle is to the US!:

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-Emblem.asp

I would find it highly offensive to have an 8 foot foreign state
emblem displayed by legal imposition in my country. But hey, maybe
yanks should know who their real masters are.

That's stupid.

Oh? I bet there would be an army of zionist shysters beating down doors
if a Muslim Iman insisted on an 8' crescent and moon displayed at US
airports on Muslim religious holidays.

Well, they'd have to live with it wouldn't they? Just like they *do live
with it in areas where allowing representations from all the major faiths
are allowed. You *do know we already do this right?

Hehehe, I can imagine how jewish owned enterprises open to the public
would react to having to display a swastika, or crescent moon+star.

You do understand, don't you, the difference between a privately-owned
business and the government? SeaTac is not a private business. It's a
government-owned facility that is paid for and operated with tax dollars.
No one has ever suggested that a private business should have to display the
symbols of all religions and beliefs, or that it should not display any. My
firm, which is privately owned, has a Christmas tree and poinsettas in the
lobby. There's no menorah, despite the fact that many Jews work here. And
there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because this is a private firm
and can do whatever it wishes.

What you don't seem to understand is that SeaTac IS a "Jewish owned
enterprise." It's also a Catholic-owned enterprise, a Protestant-owned
enterprise, a Muslim-owned enterprise, etc. We all own it because it is an
enterprise operated by OUR government -- every tax payer supports it.




Doesn't matter what it means in Israel, this isn't Israel.

So you wouldn't mind an 8' swastika, a symbol used in various current
and recognised religions, either then?

If it was a legitimate part of their religion and not adopted post-WWII
to
make a "point," I'd be fine with it.

You, maybe, but there'd be hordes who wouldn't.


Many of those that know a Menorah is the official emblem of the Israeli
government would see it as a symbol of another invasion of territory.

Invade who? Us? That would be laughable.

Not really. The US is pretty much controlled by a tiny zionist
minority.

Oh. I see. May I, and I ask this most respectfully, as you a question?
Could you tell me how much education you've had and where you received it?
I'm very curious, because I see sentiments like this on a fairly regular
basis (at least on the Internet), and I'm really curious about the
background of people who believe it. I'm not looking to belittle you -- I'm
just genuinely perplexed by those who say this.



Here, many regard it as a religious symbol.

In the US, only less than 2% do. Did you know that there are just as
many muslims as jews in the US, btw?

So what? I don't see anything in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights that
specifies percentages.

Just letting you know who the biggest whiners are, it sure isn't the
quiet muslims.

Why do you consider requiring government compliance with the Constitution
"whining"? The Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment is . . .well .
.. . first, is a misnomer, because it is not a list of rights granted to
citizens by the sovereign, i.e. the federal government. Rather, it is a
list of restrictions on government power because the enumerated powers were
never ceded to the government upon the formation of the country. When the
government usurps power that was not ceded to it, i.e. when it violates the
restrictions listed in the Bill of Rights, it does so illegally and acts as
a tyrant. Refusing to allow the government to usurp powers never ceded to
it is no more nor less than the opposition of tyranny.

So tell me . . . why is opposing tyranny a bad thing?


Not having tax funded blinky lights on plastic trees is a "blow to
freedom?"

Laws being imposed on what, how many and whose religious symbols being
displayed would.

I absolutely agree -- it would violate the First Amendment, which provides
that Congress shall make no law establishing religion. Two hundred years of
relatively consistent jurisprudence on this point is summed up in Lemon v.
Kurtzman: the Establishment Clause is violated when state actors, i.e. the
government and anyone working for the government, endorses, shows a
preference for, or becomes excessively entangled with, religion.



Maybe to kooks...

Religious kooks, yes.


--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and
the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever
before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions
may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:42:48 -0800, markzoom wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote:

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 Like the
eagle is to the US!:

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-Emblem.asp

I would find it highly offensive to have an 8 foot foreign state
emblem displayed by legal imposition in my country. But hey, maybe
yanks should know who their real masters are.

That's stupid.

Oh? I bet there would be an army of zionist shysters beating down doors
if a Muslim Iman insisted on an 8' crescent and moon displayed at US
airports on Muslim religious holidays.

Well, they'd have to live with it wouldn't they? Just like they *do live
with it in areas where allowing representations from all the major faiths
are allowed. You *do know we already do this right?

Hehehe, I can imagine how jewish owned enterprises open to the public
would react to having to display a swastika, or crescent moon+star.

What are you talking about? What people do on their own property isn't the
issue.

So you think "religious diversity" laws wouldn't eventually extend to
private property frequented by the public, like a shopping mall?


Doesn't matter what it means in Israel, this isn't Israel.

So you wouldn't mind an 8' swastika, a symbol used in various current
and recognised religions, either then?

If it was a legitimate part of their religion and not adopted post-WWII to
make a "point," I'd be fine with it.

You, maybe, but there'd be hordes who wouldn't.

Then they would have to get over it wouldn't they?

Many of those that know a Menorah is the official emblem of the Israeli
government would see it as a symbol of another invasion of territory.

Invade who? Us? That would be laughable.

Not really. The US is pretty much controlled by a tiny zionist
minority.

Oh, I get it. You're a loon.

Not at all, just massively better informed than you. Jimmy Carter is
tackling this very subject right now, amongst many, many others.
You may not have twigged it yet but Israel-loyal zionists are playing
the main hand in pitting the west against the muslims.


Here, many regard it as a religious symbol.

In the US, only less than 2% do. Did you know that there are just as
many muslims as jews in the US, btw?

So what? I don't see anything in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights that
specifies percentages.

Just letting you know who the biggest whiners are, it sure isn't the
quiet muslims.

Are you saying "good" minorities keep their mouths shut instead of acting
as if their equal under the law?

Well the less than 2% zionist minority play a hugely disproportionate
part in the US administration and policy making and shaping processes.
Conversly, show me some muslim-american politicians involved in that
alleged "democracy".



If we're going to let one
religious symbol be displayed on public property at public expense, we
should let all of them be displayed.

You'll find that many places won't display anything at all instead of
being forced to incur the expense of purchasing and managing the
displays of dozens of minority religions on their festivals year round.

Then maybe they should spend tax money on what tax money is *for. You
know, fixing potholes, airport security, things like that.

I'm atheist, sounds fine with me.

It would solve the problem entirely.

Yes.


In a way that would be victory for the zionist Rabbi too.... and a blow
to freedom.

Not having tax funded blinky lights on plastic trees is a "blow to freedom?"

Laws being imposed on what, how many and whose religious symbols being
displayed would.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about people being forced by law to display clutter from
all religions if the display one.


Maybe to kooks...

Religious kooks, yes.

Yeah, okay. Sure. Whatever.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and
the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever
before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions
may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln