Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

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.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Just so. Long-distance phone rates have plummeted.
It usually costs little more to call across the
country than across the street.

AT&T was a government created and enforced monopoly.

And REGULATED.

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

But you like monopolies.

Your claim was that absent government regulation,
industry would be monopolized.

No, that's not what I wrote, since clearly there are
government-allowed monopolies.

The telephone monopoly was not merely government-allowed, but
government-created and government-enforced.

And government controlled.

But those monopolies are
tightly regulated. Regulations which you want to end.

And controls which you want to end.

Stupidly.

--
Ray Fischer

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

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

But you waid that to refute James' posting. But it was *not* what he
said nor was it what the article implied. He said that they celebrate
Christmas. You said they didn't. When a whole lot of proof came out
that they do, indeed, celebrate it. You add the qualifier "as it is
here". Changes the meaning of what you said and complete negates your
attempt at refutation.

And it's a tad dishonest.

What is dishonest is your complete misrepresentation of what I've written.

What is amazing is your apparent inability to understand what *YOU*
wrote.

You deny cultural bigotry yet this is another
example. Just because they don't celebrate Christmas *exactly* as they
do in the US doesn't mean they don't celebrate Christmas.

It means it's irrelevant. How hard is it for you to stay on topic?

Hard hard is it for you not to add new qualifiers and change what
you've been saying?

I haven't changed anything. You're still lying. Go back through the
thread.

I did. And I quoted you where you clearly did *NOT* use the qualifiers
you are using now.

See below for definitive proof.

My point: the celebration of Christmas is not universal and confined,
primarily, to those who have a tradition, heritage and culture of
Christianity. Donald the antisemite's response -- "they celebrate
Christmas
all over China." First, that's not true, and second, whatever
observance
is made in the name of western cultural chic is strictly and solely
commerical -- UNLIKE HERE.

Are you tracking?

Yes, but you seem to be lost. Your point was *NOT* "primarily" as you
state above. You said they didn't do it, PERIOD. Now you are backing
off and adding qualifiers.

Another lie.

See below. Then apologize.

Second, the claim that it is strictly and solely commercial may be true

Oh, it may be true, hunh? I thought you said you knew more about China than
I did and I was wrong.

Do you struggle with English? When the phrase "while something may be
true something else...." indicates not that the first thing may or may
not be true but indicates that the truthfulness of the first part has
no bearing on the second part.

Another lie?

You throw that word around a lot. Particularly when you're proven
wrong. See below.

but it is also true for many in the US, *PLUS* that's not what you said
originally. You are again changing what you said because you've been
proven wrong. So you are trying to pretend that you said something
different.

Not only have I not been proven wrong, but you've failed, totally, to
respond to the points that I have made.

You originally said they didn't celebrate it in China. Several people
have posted that they do. Now you say that they don't celebrate it "as
it is here". The addition of the qualifier is tantamount to a
confession that your unqualified statement was wrong.

For a very large percentage of Americans, Christmas is already secular.

But not for the majority of Americans whos BACKGROUND, CULTURE, TRADITION
AND HERITAGE IS NOT CHRISTIAN -- for them, Christmas is a Christian
tradition that has no cultural relevance to themselves.

More qualifiers?

Wow. Maybe we should team up together and find the imposter who has
been using your posting ID to say things like:

"First of all, the point isn't whether "Christians" celebrate it, but
whether the celebration is confined to those whose culture, tradition
and heritage is Christian. The answer is, yes, that's who celebrates
Christmas. Those whose culture, tradition and heritage is something
else do not celebrate Christmas. In particular those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Jewish or Muslim do not celebrate Christmas."

Right, that's what I said. I never said that "Christians" celebrate it.
You've copied what I wrote word for word, yet you're completely incapable of
grasping the difference between "Christian" and "someone whose background,
culture heritage and traditions are Christian."

Try to read slowly. See if you understand what *YOU* wrote. You asked
if the celebration "is confined to" a certrain group then responded
that it was. That means, by definition, that *NO ONE* outside that
group is involved. *NO ONE*. So in that sentence you have specifically
said that *NO ONE* who is not a Christian or has a Christian background
celebrates Christmas. But now, as you see above, you are saying "not
for THE MAJORITY". A qualified statement instead of an absolute. So you
have changed your statement. And my statement that you have made
absolute claims that NO ONE other than those with a Christian
background celebrate Christmas is proven conclusively by your words
above. You said it.

Apologies for calling people "liars"?????

"Christmas, on the other hand, is restricted to those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Christian, is not either all-sectarian or
non-sectarian, and is not universal. It is certainly not part of
American culture, but only Christian American culture. "

There you go, sport -- exactly right. It's part of Christian culture,
tradition, heritage and background, not American culture, tradition,
heritage and background.

You didn't say above that it is "part of Christian culture". You waid
it is "RESTRICTED TO". Yes, it's part of Christian culture. It's also
part of the culture of many non-Christians. As you yourself acknowledge
with your new qualifiers of "THE MAJORITY" instead of an absolute.

Again, you made the statement absolute and now you are adding
qualifiers. And my statement that you have made absolute claims that NO
ONE other than those with a Christian background celebrate Christmas is
proven conclusively by your words above. You said it.

Apologies for calling people "liars"?????

And do you know why?

Because we who are do not have a Christian culture, tradition, heritage and
background but, nonetheless are Americans DON'T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.

Whoa? Who posted that? Someone must be forging your ID again. Because
this statement says quite conclusively, without qualifiers, that only
those from a Christian background celebrate Christmas and absolutely no
one else!!! Which you have repeatedly denied saying.

"No, I'm of the opinion that when one particular tradition is confined
to those of a particular background, it's not "universal," or
"American," or whatever else you want to call it. "

Read that last one over and ponder its meaning.

Yes. Ponder the part where you say that the tradition is "confined" to
a single group. Which as I've posted above conclusivelyproves my
statement that you have made absolute claims that NO ONE other than
those with a Christian background celebrate Christmas. You said it.

Apologies for calling people "liars"?????

"No one finds Christmas offensive. It is not, however, cross-cultural."

and

"You did, when you said Christmas has become part of American culture.
Did I misunderstand you? Do you agree that the observance of Christmas
in America is, for all intents and purposes, confined to those whose
heritage, tradition and culture is Christian?"

How many more do I need to re-post for you? Who is that masked man
pretending to be you and saying those things?

And I never denied it.

Yes you did. You have repeatedly in this post and the previous called
me a liar for saying that you claimed that only those of Christian
background and absolutely no one else celebrated Christmas. Yet here
are several posts where you said exactly that.

Read below -- THAT is what I've said.

No. That is what you are saying *NOW*.

That's what I've been saying right along.

Then who posted the statements above?

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

But some do which is *NOT* what you said repeatedly, as quoted above.

Are you seriously going to contend that because some small minority of Jews
observe Christmas, it's a universal holiday?

I never said nor implied that it was a "universal" holiday among Jews
or anyone else. I did say that it is part of American culture. And it
is.

No -- you are so closed minded that you've made up a position for me, and
completely ignored what I've actually said. You are the bigot if you
believe that we who don't come from a Christian culture, tradition and
heritage have any interest whatsoever in observing those holidays and
other
observances which are peculiar to it.

The bigotry is you assuming that because a person is not Christian he
doesn't observe a holiday that is a national tradition and a national
holiday.

No, your bigotry is assuming that because you observe Christmas, everyone
else does.

I never said nor implied that.

Now who is lying?

You, on the other hand, as an individual definitely are.

Yeah, right. What holiday am I forcing you to observe?

None. But you are trying to limit Americans in their observation of
Christmas by trying to prevent them from putting up secular decorations
at the airport.

Except that they're not secular decorations.

Christmas Trees have no meaning in Christianity. None.

But people
who oppose other people celebrating Christmas by putting up a secular
Christmas decoration in the airport are, in fact, anti-Christian.

Again, you've totally ignored what I said. I don't oppose anyone
celebrating Christmas. Go nuts -- put up trees and tinsel, bankrupt
yourself buying presents, play Christmas music to your hearts content.
Just
don't do it with my tax money.

Which tax money? Airports are funded by user fees.

Another lie.

Really? You don't see user fees on your plane tickets? The airlines
don't pay landing fees? The shops aren't paying user fees?

That's what pays to run the airports.

Besides, the rule is that the majority gets to decide where tax money
is spent.

No, that's not the rule. Did you take civics in high school? The majority
doesn't get to violate the Constitution, regardless of what the majority
would like to spend its money on.

The majority isn't violating the Constitution. And that wasn't even the
point of the statement.

No, you keep lying about my true statements and making up positions I've
never held.

Are you going to help me find the forger using your identity?

I've already shown up your lies.

And I've documented yours.

You're not stupid, so I don't believe you were simply mistaken. That
means
your lies are deliberate.

Why do you deliberately lie?

I see. Quoting your words is lying. That it?

No -- quoting my words and saying they mean something else is lying.

Which words did I distort? Did you not say that it is "confined" to a
specific group? Did you not say that it does not "cross cultural
barriers"? Did you not say that it is "restricted" to a certain group?

You made those statements about exclusivity that are demonstrably
wrong. You are now backing out of them by putting in qualifiers about
"majorities" or "in large part" or something similar. You've been
proven wrong. Let's see what kind of Jew you are. Honest enough to
admit you've been lying repeatedly about what you've said? Or dishonest
enough to ignore your own statements?

wrote in message
But China Daily is not the only source for such arguments. Hundreds of
blogs report similar things. For example, here is a blog from someone
in Xi'an, posted today:
(http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog...166969880.html)

"Sancho Panza"
If China can make Google, Yahoo etc. adapt to its
censorship rules without so much as a peep, than every
realistic reader should be skeptical in the extreme
about anything involving the Internet in China.

You also need a tinfoil hat to prevent the chinese from
beaming microwaves at your brain.

--
----------------------
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
Your claim is not that the Chinese government
monitors and censors the media, nor that the
Chinese media makes up statistics and stories, but
that the Chinese government creates fake flickr
accounts in English, fabricates the life of
visiting American volunteers in China, fakes a
bunch of commentary and pictures of them and their
friends over the course of many months, all to
finally fake a couple of pictures of Christmas
trees in public areas in Xi'an. To what end?

Sancho Panza
Yup, a full-fledged customer of Beijing's
propaganda. Definitely a sight to behold.


It's good to know exactly what you think is going on.
So are the Thais in with the Chinese government and
the American bloggers on the fake Asian Christmas
conspiracy, or is this a completely independent
project by the emperor's propaganda ministry? Maybe
they hire the same consultants to fake their
photographs, and the same fake bloggers to post fake
stories about a secular Christmas holiday happening in
Bangkok?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldunfurled/332611099/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/interna...ery/332263509/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krashkraft/331933420/
http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/Thail...og-112859.html
http://whatismatt.com/the-nightmare-before-xmas/

On reading this conversation I find myself grinning from
ear to ear.

--
----------------------
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 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:18:47 -0800, usenet_trash wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, usenet_trash wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Dec 2006 00:30:32 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States.
That's a nice lie, but it doesn't fly in the face of Christian
campaigns like "Jesus is the reason for the season" and "put the
Christ back into Christmas". You can't have it both ways.
Interesting, didn't know that there are such stupid campaigns in the
US. No wonder that non-Christians are severely annoyed about that.
Fundamentalist Christians are trying to turn the United Stated into a
Christian theocracy. They've gone quite a way in that direction
during the last 6 years.
That is really bad. If municipalities and counties would have more
autonomy, then the fundies would assemble in those areas with fundy
majority without disturbing all the others. There they can have their
little theocracies. Same with followers of other ideas who could
experiment only in their own county without forcing their view on
others.

Sorry but ours is a union of *states. Municipalities and counties and
other such polities are creations of the states. Since the states do
not have the power to act with regard to the establishment of religion,
they have no such power to grant to polities they create within the
state.

This refers only to public places. I guess the Amish do it by using only
private places, isn't it? Why is secession not accepted?

Secession was ended as an option by the Civil War. The individual is free
to leave the country, you just can't take the country with you. g

Yes, the Amish and others build their communities with private land and,
hence, can do what they want. Anybody can. But that's not the point in
these squabbles, the fundies want to control *others. Even if you could
give them a city, they'd want the county. Give them county, they'd want
the state. They're not happy with just their own space, they want yours
too.

Since at least the Civil War, the Bill of Rights has been held (albeit
inconsistently) to apply to the states. Fundamental rights are not
something any polity in the US is allowed to tinker with.

States are still much to big as autonomous entities.

Allowing states autonomy in the realm of individual rights is, after
all, how we had slavery in the US...

It would have been abolished anyway without war, like in all the other
countries.

Probably. But the actual central issue of the Civil War is what we're
talking about now: the autonomy of the states. What emerged from the war
was a direct relationship between the federal government and the citizens
that bypasses the states. The central government guarantees individual
rights even against the states whereas before, the Bill of Rights was held
to apply only to the federal government.

Maybe it's a mixed bag as a strong central government emerged and that has
its downside but, personally, I rather like the idea that individual
rights trump *all polities in the US.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,
witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling
from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the
ones that need help?" -Jon Stoll

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Don't start lying, moron. Until the anti-monopoly
loaws of the 1930s there was little competition.
The anti monopoly laws were to discourage, rathe than
produce, competition.
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended several monopolies and
created competition in several businesses.
Bull****. Dangerous monopolies only exist because of the state.
A claim which you keep making but haven't the brains to support.
It's pretty obvious that all you do is parrot right-wing propaganda.
Tell me the name of one monopoly which is/was dangerous and
exists/existed without the state.
Your question is stupid

No, the question is not stupid, because it directed you
to make a valid point:
because any monopoly that exists without the
state becomes the state. Thus, your argument reduces to whining about
all government and wishing for anarchy.

Any state can be called a forced monopoly. And vice versa any forced
monopoly can be called a state. Why are you defending the state then?
Without force no lasting monopoly is possible.

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Monopolies can only thrive with force. Without force there will always
be competition.
And monopolies can impose their own force.
If monopolies are not forced by the state they are limited in their
ability to impose force. For instance the only shop in a small village
can charge higher prices, but if these prices are to high the customers
would seek alternatives.
When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop elsewhere because there
is only the one business.
But only temporary (without state enforcement).
So you claim, again without any justification.

You are to ideologically blinded to see it, apparently.

Got any more idiotic propaganda to share?

That would be your task.

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:18:47 -0800, usenet_trash wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, usenet_trash wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Dec 2006 00:30:32 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States.
That's a nice lie, but it doesn't fly in the face of Christian
campaigns like "Jesus is the reason for the season" and "put the
Christ back into Christmas". You can't have it both ways.
Interesting, didn't know that there are such stupid campaigns in the
US. No wonder that non-Christians are severely annoyed about that.
Fundamentalist Christians are trying to turn the United Stated into a
Christian theocracy. They've gone quite a way in that direction
during the last 6 years.
That is really bad. If municipalities and counties would have more
autonomy, then the fundies would assemble in those areas with fundy
majority without disturbing all the others. There they can have their
little theocracies. Same with followers of other ideas who could
experiment only in their own county without forcing their view on
others.
Sorry but ours is a union of *states. Municipalities and counties and
other such polities are creations of the states. Since the states do
not have the power to act with regard to the establishment of religion,
they have no such power to grant to polities they create within the state.
This refers only to public places. I guess the Amish do it by using only
private places, isn't it? Why is secession not accepted?

Secession was ended as an option by the Civil War. The individual is free
to leave the country, you just can't take the country with you. g

How is this practice different from the Soviet Union or China?

Yes, the Amish and others build their communities with private land and,
hence, can do what they want. Anybody can. But that's not the point in
these squabbles, the fundies want to control *others. Even if you could
give them a city, they'd want the county. Give them county, they'd want
the state. They're not happy with just their own space, they want yours too.

No, I know quite a lot of fundies. They feel the same about liberals
who do not want their own but want to control the whole country. And
isn't it true that missionaric democratizers want to conquer and
democratize the entire world?


Since at least the Civil War, the Bill of Rights has been held (albeit
inconsistently) to apply to the states. Fundamental rights are not
something any polity in the US is allowed to tinker with.
States are still much to big as autonomous entities.

Allowing states autonomy in the realm of individual rights is, after
all, how we had slavery in the US...
It would have been abolished anyway without war, like in all the other countries.
Probably. But the actual central issue of the Civil War is what we're
talking about now: the autonomy of the states. What emerged from the war
was a direct relationship between the federal government and the citizens
that bypasses the states. The central government guarantees individual
rights even against the states whereas before, the Bill of Rights was held
to apply only to the federal government.

Maybe it's a mixed bag as a strong central government emerged and that has
its downside but, personally, I rather like the idea that individual
rights trump *all polities in the US.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,
witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling
from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the
ones that need help?" -Jon Stoll

Sancho Panza wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which
account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish
families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate
Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular
celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123)

That is sure authoritative. Thanks. The methodology was especially
impressive.

More informative than just making **** up.

I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely
Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual
to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular
traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a
survey.

As a matter of fact, that would be an excellent suggestion for those folks
at PNN, InterfaithFamily.com. Maybe they should also ask about the
reciprocal, except that might be too hard to understand.

PNN is a news source for non-profits that just happened to carry this
story, and interfaithfamily.com is an organization founded for families
in which one partner is Jewish and one is not, with the intention of
encouraging the preservation of Jewish traditions in mixed families.
Not that they would necessarily be uninterested in also having an idea
of secular Christmas practices by Jews, or for that matter secular
adoption of any religious traditions by adherents of other religions or
by the non-religious, it is not really a question in either
organizations' scope.

- Nate