Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, wrote:
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.

That works well for non-Fundamentalist sects. The basis of
Fundamentalism is that the Fundamentalists have to force everyone to
live according to their (the Fundamentalists') beliefs, so whether
they confine themselves to a single house or the whole world, they'll
still try to force their beliefs on everyone else.

They can only force their beliefs in those areas where they have the
majority.

Not even close. Fundamentalists are a small majority in the United
States. But the president cater to them, and Congress is afraid of
them, so they get laws passed due to nothing having to do with their
numbers.

If the autonomous political areas are small, then each will
get a different character and will attract people who like this or that
flavour.

But not in the United States, since "autonomous political areas" is a
totally illegal concept.

If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted

It may be by some species - it's not by humans, and hasn't been since
we became "civilized".

For that purpose the autonomous political entities have
to be as small as counties to get more choices.

I live in a county with a population of a couple of million. It
stretches from a cosmopolitan area to a completely rural area. The
various towns are completely different in character, and the county
legislature often can't agree on things.

The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.

That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.

On 27 Dec 2006 09:18:31 -0800, wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

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.

That's the point - since no one should control the country, there's no
government support of religion. That's what fundamentalists call
"liberal control". If they can't control everything, if "control"
rests in ALL the people, it's "liberal control". That's the way it's
supposed to be, the reason the country was founded.

If they don't like the country as it was founded - no religious
control - they're free to form their own theocracy somewhere else -
but the US is not a theocracy, whether the fundies like it or not.

And isn't it true that missionaric democratizers want to conquer and
democratize the entire world?

Those, at present, are Christian fundamentalists. Most of us are
willing to assist any country in becoming a democracy - theocrats
insist on "democratizing" the entire world in their own image, a
Christian dictatorship.

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

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.

So, let's recap, shall we?

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.

You supported your arguments as follows:

"The Supreme Court said Christmas trees were secular in Lynch v. Donnely."
Except that the Supreme Court didn't say anything of the sort -- you
were wrong.

"The Supreme Court said secular displays like Christmas trees were
constitutional in Lemon v. Kurtzman."
Except that the Supreme Court didn't say anything of the sort -- you
were were wrong.

"Not everyone who celebrates Christmas is a religious Christian."
Of course not, but Christmas is, virtually exclusively, observed by
those whose culture, heritage, tradition and background is Christian. Your
distinction
is pointless, and you've never responded to mine.

"Christmas is observed by Jews -- I know some Jews who celebrate it."
Who cares? You don't speak for Jews and, obviously, you're not Jewish.
The Jews who have posted to this thread have told you you're wrong -- Jews
FOR
THE MOST PART don't celebrate Christmas. Do some Jews celebrate
Christmas? Sure -- Jews in interfaith relationships might, and some
all-Jewish families
might even do presents or a tree so their children don't feel excluded.
However, that does not, in any way, change two facts: (1) Christmas is, and
remains, a
holiday that is celebrated, almost exclusively, by those whose
traditions, culture, heritage and background is Christian, and (2) Christmas
is NOT celebrated,
almost entirely, by those whose traditions, culture, heritage and
background is something other than Christian. Christmas is NOT an "American
holiday," nor
is it a universal one.

"Anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is un-American."
Of course that's ludicrous, and simply circular logic, i.e. "Since
Christmas is an American holiday, anyone who doesn't celebrate it is
un-American." Because the
fundamental premise is wrong, the syllogism is wrong. Of course, you've
denied saying it. However, I provided the google cite to your direct quote.
As with
your misrepresentations about the Supreme Court rulings, you are now
simply tacit about this error.

"Anyone who thinks SeaTac shouldn't put up Christmas trees hates Christmas
and wants to stop people from celebrating it."
Again, as has been explained to you countless times, no one who posted
to this thread hates Christmas. I don't hate Christmas. I don't care who
celebrates
it -- if you like celebrating Christmas feel free. There has never
been any effort to pass laws to stop private individuals or businesses from
celebrating
Christmas, there has never been a lawsuit intended to stop private
individuals or businesses from celebrating Christmas. The objection is not,
and never
has been to Christmas, but to Government endorsement of, or preference
for, or excessive entanglement with, religion (which, by the way, is what
Lemon v. Kurtzman holds -- you should read it sometime).

"SeaTac isn't supported by taxes, it's supported by user fees."
Now we're starting to descend into the land of the absurd, as the
distinction between a user fee and a tax is merely technical -- both are
subject to the
restrictions of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
However, as it happens (and as someone else posted), SeaTac is supported by
both, i.e.
it receives taxes and user fees.

So, your points, i.e. Christmas is secular, Christmas trees are secular,
Christmas is generally observed as a non-religious holiday, are not only
unsupported, but have been rebutted, generally and specifically. So what is
left?

Let's see:

You: "You said Christmas is only celebrated by Christians."
I didn't say that -- I said, "Christmas is celebrated, almost
exclusively, by those whose culture, heritage, traditions and background is
Christian."
You: "Aha! You're qualifying what you said!"
I've always qualified what I said, since only a fool speaks in
absolutes. However, so what? What has that to do with the topic?
You: "You said Jews don't celebrate Christmas. I know some that do."
Again, so what? Jews in interfaith marriages with partners who have
Christian backgrounds may celebrate Christmas, just as their partners may
celebrate Jewish
holidays. 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. The point is, and always has
been, that Christmas is not and never was part of the culture, heritage,
tradition and
background of Jews (or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists). However, as
I've noted, you're not Jewish, and your contention has been directly
contradicted
by the Jews who have posted to this thread. Do you think you know what
we believe better than we do? Or do you simply think you have the right
to dictate beleifs to us?
You: "People who don't celebrate Christmas are anti-Christian."
And, I suppose, people who don't celebrate Yom Kippur are anti-semites?
Some may be but, more likely, most are simply not Jewish -- why would
non-Jews want to observe a holiday that is celebrated, almost exclusive,
by those whose culture, heritage, background and traditions are Jewish?.
Similarly, some who don't celebrate Christmas may be "anti-Christian,"
whatever that is supposed to be, but the vast majority simply don't come
from a
background, tradition, culture or heritage that is Christian. Of
course, according to you, "anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is
un-American," but
I've already shown the fallacy of that kind of circular thinking.

So you're left to strain at gnats. Strain away, I'm tired of this thread
and, partciularly, tired of you.

As I said, Donald's agenda is obvious: he's an antisemite, a racist and a
bigot.

I think I've figured out your agenda. You're not an antisemite, a racist or
a bigot. You're just one of those internet nuisances who likes to argue for
the sake of arguing. You'll spend 50 posts on whether or not I used the
term, "almost exclusively," consistently, while completely ignoring the
central premise of my point. You'll spend 100 posts on who in China reports
on Christmas, while ignoring the substance and significance of the reports.
You'll spend 200 posts citing Supreme Court cases that, clearly, you've
neither read nor understood because you think it gives you the opportunity
to prove an "actual lawyer" wrong. What's next? Criticisizing typos?

And, of course, whenever you're shown that you're simply wrong about
whatever little piece of minutia you've latched onto to further your
argument, you simply cut it out of your next post and move on to something
equally ludicrous.

I've made one mistake in this thread -- wasting my time trying to explain
anything to you. You're not interested -- you just want to argue.

Argue away. I'm done.

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.


--
----------------------
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:
[...]
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.

This article from MyJewishLearning.com suggests that about one-fifth of
entirely Jewish families have, at one time or another, put up a
Christmas tree:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holi...sChristmas.htm

So if these numbers hold generally, about 1/5 * 2/3 + 1/2 * 1/3 = 30%
of households identifying themselves as "Jewish" have, at one time or
another, displayed a Christmas tree. At least as many have celebrated
a secular Christmas holiday, with or without a tree (only about half of
the interfaith Jewish families planning on celebrating Christmas were
going to display a Christmas tree. In my estimation, a sizeable
fraction of Christians likewise fail to display a Christmas tree,
though most celebrate Christmas. The article gives no indication of
whether or not entirely Jewish families who have not displayed a
Christmas tree might otherwise celebrate Christmas-associated
traditions in a secular manner).

[...]

- Nate

Al Klein wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, wrote:
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.
That works well for non-Fundamentalist sects. The basis of
Fundamentalism is that the Fundamentalists have to force everyone to
live according to their (the Fundamentalists') beliefs, so whether
they confine themselves to a single house or the whole world, they'll
still try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
They can only force their beliefs in those areas where they have the majority.
Not even close. Fundamentalists are a small majority in the United
States. But the president cater to them, and Congress is afraid of
them, so they get laws passed due to nothing having to do with their numbers.

You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county
assembly?

If the autonomous political areas are small, then each will get a
different character and will attract people who like this or that flavour.
But not in the United States, since "autonomous political areas" is a
totally illegal concept.

Not quite. The states have some autonomy. There should be more of them,
and they should be smaller. West Virginia seceded from Virginia as
well, so it is not that impossible if the will is there.

If peaceful coexistence and noninterference is commonly accepted
It may be by some species - it's not by humans, and hasn't been since
we became "civilized".

I don't see that California is attacking Nevada, or Sweden attacking
Finland, or Chile attacking Argentina. It is possible if the agreements
are good enough.

For that purpose the autonomous political entities have
to be as small as counties to get more choices.
I live in a county with a population of a couple of million. It
stretches from a cosmopolitan area to a completely rural area. The
various towns are completely different in character, and the county
legislature often can't agree on things.

Before the rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th century Germany was
only an umbrella organization of independent political units.

Even Goethe praised this non-centralism:
The Politics of Johann Wolfgang Goethe
http://www.mises.org/story/357

The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.

Why is this believe so widespread?

wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 26 Dec 2006 18:47:51 -0800, wrote:

The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.
That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.

Why is this believe so widespread?

There's the U.S.'s own history, and there's also the history
of the 20th century breakups of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-
Hungary, the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia,
where decline or disapparance of the central authority led to
wars between the successor states and sometimes within
them. Perhaps Iraq is becoming yet another example of the
genre. In the contemporary world, there is also the question
of how small entities can deal with great powers, including
multi-national corporations.

These are not conclusive arguments, of course, but they
might be of concern to many people.

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".

And, as I noted earlier in this thread, the same argument may be made
for Thanksgiving or Halloween or St. Valentine's Day. You have agreed
elsewhere in this thread, as most would agree, that Halloween is a
secular holiday, but in fact there are some who do not. There are Jews
who think it is too Christian or too pagan, and there are Christians
who think it is too pagan. And some people of any religion complain
when their own holidays are secularized, as the secular celebration of
their holiday competes with the religious celebration!

[...]

- Nate

James A. Donald
AT&T was a government created and enforced monopoly.

Ray Fischer
And REGULATED.

Which is precisely what made it bad, and Standard Oil
good. Government regulation is in practice always to
suppress competition and raise prices. Standard Oil
brought prices down, AT&T held prices up.

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

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'......



Got the citation?