Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

On 23-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" wrote:

A creche and a menorah are religious symbols. An Xmas tree is not.

One person's opinon. Nothing more.

Certainly not the government's opinion - as if they should have one at all!
But that's another story....

Susan

"Sancho Panza"
A creche and a menorah are religious symbols. An
Xmas tree is not.

One person's opinon. Nothing more.


Certainly not the government's opinion

The court's opinion, expressed in case after case, cases
I have repeatedly cited, is that a creche and a menorah
are religious symbols and a Xmas tree is not.

--
----------------------
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 29 Dec 2006 14:40:08 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On 28 Dec 2006 14:09:46 -0800, wrote:

All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war

And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.

Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery).

Not for the slaves.

Yes, also for the slaves. War has to be prevented or stopped. This has
absolute priority.

Remind me not to vote for you. War won't be stopped as long as the
dominant species on this planet is Homo sapiens. We evolved to fight
for what we want. (If we hadn't, we'd be extinct, and the dominant
species would be one that HAD learned to fight for what it wanted.)
Slavery, both de jure and de facto, must - and can - be stopped.

It does no good to work for an impossible goal while ignoring a goal
that can be achieved.

Without Roosevelt no WW2

Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a

regime change in Germany.

The "Polish" invasion of Germany was Hitler's doing.

There were human rights violations from Polish forces for months

Against Poles, not against Germans.

the intervention was necessary

A faked invasion is illegal, not "necessary".

Jozef Beck (Poland's Prime
Minister) did not want a peaceful solution but wanted Hitler gone. He
thought that the Generals will depose Hitler when war breaks out.

So why didn't he start the war? Hint: he didn't, Hitler did. The
reason for the war was the depression in Germany, coupled with
Hitler's insane hatred of Jews.

UK and F also did not want peace anymore but regime change in D
(Roosevelt convinced them so by seeding mistrust). Therefore they
declared war on D

Sorry, no, Germany declared war by faking a Polish invasion. Neither
England, France, the Netherlands nor the US declared war on Germany
until AFTER Hitler had started it.

but interestingly not on the USSR when Stalin invaded
Poland two weeks later from the other side.

Why should Germany declare war on the USSR for invading Germany's
enemy? Hitler was insane, not totally brainless.

Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most
people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have
done the same.

This does not speak favourably about the US.

One does what one can to weaken one's enemy, one doesn't act to
strengthen him.

Japan was not an enemy of the US before Roosevelt made them an enemy
(for his goal to save the Soviet Union).

Cite? (From reality, not from your imagination this time.)

I would like to see that every American would simply ignore these
parasites and state terrorists in Washington. They have no legitimacy.

Most of us do ignore them. So?

On 29 Dec 2006 15:09:48 -0800, wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
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?
Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature
evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species.
I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of
selfgovernment.
Usenet's not the place to get 10 years of education in 5 minutes. When
you understand how anthropoids work you may have a bit more
understanding of the problem.

Forget your pseudo-realism. Apparently you confuse 'how humans work'
with 'how humans work who claim to be the government'.

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

plonk

wrote:
On 26-Dec-2006, wrote:

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.

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)

Which means that not only do a majorityof Jews NOT celebrate Xmas
(even your numbers show this),

I never said a majority of Jews celebrated Christmas. I was responding
to someone who asserted in this thread that virtually no Jews
celebrated secular traditions that are associated with Christmas, such
as decorating trees. I thought examining some relevant surveys might
shed more light on approximately how widespread such behavior is. Half
of interfaith Jewish families and one fifth of entirely Jewish families
(if these survey numbers are to be trusted) is not "a scattering", even
if it is not a majority.

it is, as we all thought, only those who
do not really identify with being Jewish.

This was a survey of families that do identify as Jewish, and are
raising their children as Jewish, but where one partner was not
originally Jewish. I would suspect that non-religious interfaith
families have a significantly higher participation rate still. But I
doubt I could find a survey demonstrating this.

[...]

- Nate

wrote:
On 22-Dec-2006, "Constantinople" wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
[...]
I have plenty of Xian relatives and never once has any of them
ever called easter Passover!!
Your post is the first time I have ever even heard of such a thing.

Is the first language of your Christian relatives Spanish, French,
Russian, Portuguese, or Italian? If so, what do they call these
holidays in their first language?

There is no world outside of the English-speaking US. Despite this, I
hallucinate that some relatives of mine, including Mom, call Easter
"pascua".

Interesting how this is the first anyone's been hearing of it....

Just because it is the first time *you* have heard of it does not mean
that it is the first time *anyone* has heard of it. You are more than
welcome to verify for yourself that Spanish speakers have been
referring to Easter and Passover by the same word, "pascua", since well
before this was brought to your attention.

- Nate

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"Sancho Panza"
A creche and a menorah are religious symbols. An
Xmas tree is not.

One person's opinon. Nothing more.


Certainly not the government's opinion

The court's opinion, expressed in case after case, cases
I have repeatedly cited, is that a creche and a menorah
are religious symbols and a Xmas tree is not.

Except that your citations were 100% completely wrong. Try reading the
cases before you cite 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

On 3-Jan-2007, "PTravel" wrote:

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"Sancho Panza"
A creche and a menorah are religious symbols. An
Xmas tree is not.

One person's opinon. Nothing more.


Certainly not the government's opinion

The court's opinion, expressed in case after case, cases
I have repeatedly cited, is that a creche and a menorah
are religious symbols and a Xmas tree is not.

Except that your citations were 100% completely wrong. Try reading the
cases before you cite them.

Yes, I know what Ive read, and it's the opposite of what
he's written.
I also disagree with the courts, of course, but that's
a different story.
However, I can tell quite clearly why the decision was
made.

Susan

Al Klein wrote:
On 29 Dec 2006 14:40:08 -0800, wrote:
All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war
And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.
Better slavery than war (which is an even bigger slavery).
Not for the slaves.
Yes, also for the slaves. War has to be prevented or stopped. This has
absolute priority.
Remind me not to vote for you. War won't be stopped as long as the
dominant species on this planet is Homo sapiens.

Wrong. Humans are able to cooperate or ignore each other because that
is preferable to war. Everybody knows that except irresponsible
politicians and warlords.

We evolved to fight for what we want.

Fighting with peaceful means gets us what we want better and faster.

Without Roosevelt no WW2
Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt.
Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a
regime change in Germany.
The "Polish" invasion of Germany was Hitler's doing.
There were human rights violations from Polish forces for months
Against Poles, not against Germans.

Primarily against Germans.

the intervention was necessary
A faked invasion is illegal, not "necessary".

The Gleiwitz story was invented later, there was no attack on that
radio station, not even a fake one.

Jozef Beck (Poland's Prime
Minister) did not want a peaceful solution but wanted Hitler gone. He
thought that the Generals will depose Hitler when war breaks out.
So why didn't he start the war?

Of course he did but Hitler did not react for several months.

The reason for the war was the depression in Germany, coupled with
Hitler's insane hatred of Jews.

No, the reason was that Roosevelt wanted to save the Soviet Union,
Poland wanted East Prussia, and Churchill had an insane hatred of
Germans.

UK and F also did not want peace anymore but regime change in D
(Roosevelt convinced them so by seeding mistrust). Therefore they
declared war on D
Sorry, no, Germany declared war by faking a Polish invasion. Neither
England, France, the Netherlands nor the US declared war on Germany
until AFTER Hitler had started it.

UK and F declared war on Germany. For exactly that purpose they made
the guarantee to PL. If they had really cared about PL they would have
declared war on the SU as well who invaded Poland two weeks later. The
UK threatened to repeat the sea blockade of WW1, therefore Benelux and
western Scandinavia was occupied temporarily.

but interestingly not on the USSR when Stalin invaded
Poland two weeks later from the other side.
Why should Germany declare war on the USSR for invading Germany's
enemy? Hitler was insane, not totally brainless.

F and UK should have declared war on the USSR if they supposedly
"guaranteed" the borders of PL. But they didn't, it was a scam to
justify war on Germany. After they declared war on Germany there was no
war because Germany did not attack F and UK for several months.

I would like to see that every American would simply ignore these
parasites and state terrorists in Washington. They have no legitimacy.
Most of us do ignore them. So?

You ignore the IRS, the insane "war against drugs", the insane "war
against terror", the PATRIOT act?

James A. Donald:
The court's opinion, expressed in case after case,
cases I have repeatedly cited, is that a creche and
a menorah are religious symbols and a Xmas tree is
not.

PTravel wrote:
Except that your citations were 100% completely wrong.
Try reading the cases before you cite them.

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/985021.txt
: : This appeal concerns the constitutionality of
: : two Jersey City "holiday" displays. The
: : first, which featured a menorah and a
: : Christmas tree, was annually placed in front
: : of City Hall for several decades.
: :
: : [...]
: :
: : Justice Blackmun .... noted that the tallest
: : object in the display, the tree, is a secular
: : symbol [...]
: :
: : [...]
: :
: : Justice O'Connor concluded .... "By
: : accompanying its display of a Christmas tree
: : -- a secular symbol of the Christmas holiday
: : season ..."

http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1490p.txt
: : [...] Other than this tree, the creche and
: : menorah displays were unaccompanied by any
: : other traditional secular symbols of the
: : holiday season. [...]
: :
: : Later in his opinion Justice Blackmun [...]
: : conclusion was based largely on the fact that
: : he considered the Christmas tree to be a
: : secular symbol due to the fact that "many
: : Americans place Christmas trees in their
: : homes without subscribing to Christian
: : religious beliefs."