Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"brique"
as in 'NEXT TO THE TREES'..... not 'TAKE DOWN THE
TREES'.....

James A. Donald:
But "next to the trees" was already forbidden under
ACLU vs Schundler, and would have immediately
resulted in lawsuit and a permanent injunction
against the airport "from continuing the practice of
erecting this or any substantially similar display,"

"Sancho Panza"
The problem for the poster is that a court in
Philadelphia does not have the power of law in
Seattle.

Courts are supposed to show respect for the findings of
other courts,

Respect is one thing. Alternative opinions are another. That might be a good
less for usenet, too.

and regardless of what the court would
have found, the lawsuit itself would have been a
punishment and deterrent.

Then they should have entered the fray.

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:37:53 -0800, "PTravel"
Absolutely and totally wrong. Third Circuit rulings
are not law in the 9th Circuit.

They are supposed to be respected by the ninth circuit,
and the ninth circuit is generally more hostile to the
religion than the third circuit, and the lawsuit in
itself would have been a punishment and deterrent.

That's completely fallacious. Look at what is happening in the Sixth Circuit
in Brooks v. City of Oak Ridge.

We should recall that this rabbi was reprimanded by his
fellow Jews and told to cut it out, which he did. The
Jews *did* save christmas, just as the title of this
thread says - but the reason he was reprimanded was that
he was unreasonable, confrontational, and up to no good.

An insidious way to transform a collegial conference into "a reprimand." The
proof of the error is that the rabbi is proceeding with his plans for next
year. And that is with no "reprimand."

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
--
On 18 Dec 2006 21:40:57 -0800, wrote:
I am skeptical that the rabbi had any intention of
trapping the airport in such a legal battle

He might not have sued the airport had it included the
menorah, but would have been unsurprised and
undistressed if someone else, preferably someone non
Jewish, then sued the airport.

A classic weasly skinback.

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:25:10 -0800, "PTravel"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:49:39 -0800, "PTravel"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...

When two districts disagree, the cases frequently end up before
the Supremes,

When two districts disagree, it winds up at the Circuit Court of Appeals.
When two circuits disagree, it winds up at the Supremes.

My apologies, I misspoke. For the word "district" please
subsitute "circuit". I had a massive brain fart there.

[...]

I don't understand the point of your digression, nor the gratuitous
insults
that accompanied it.

What insult was that?

You may not think I sound like a lawyer, but my clients, my firm (in which I
am a partner), and the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as the
United States Supreme Court (to which I'm admitted) think that I do.

Sounds like a compliment to me.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sancho Panza wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
On 19-Dec-2006, wrote:

And that makes them Christian, as has happened with
many facets of Christian religions.

Yet Halloween, St. Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, and
Thanksgiving are none of them considered "Christian" though
they were all examples of the same.

And most if not all are reejected by the same people.

Which of these holidays do you reject? Do you insist that Jewish
children have no business going trick-or-treating? Do you insist that
Jewish families have no business cooking turkey? Do you insist that
Jewish lovers have no business buying each other heart-shaped
chocolates? If not, why are you screaming that I'm a bigot for noting
(*noting*, not insisting, as you strangely seem to believe) that the
same cultural co-option can occur with decorating evergreens and
painted egg hunts?

Yes, many Jewish people do not participate in Halloween or St.
Valentine's
Day or St. Patrick's Day events, and teach their children not to, also.

The question was whether or not historically religious holidays can be
and are being celebrated in a secular fashion. Thus the relevant
question is not whether some Jews do not participate, but whether large
numbers of Jews and others do participate and do not see anything
particularly religious about the modern celebration of these
historically religious holidays.

On the contrary. Advocates of public displays vociferously repeated how
non-Christians flocked to join in the celebrations. Some even went further,
sayiing non-Christians should participate.


And, more to the point of the
discussion, whether those participants who were arguing that
historically religious holidays cannot be celebrated in a secular
fashion might already be doing so, proving to themselves, at least,
that in principle this is possible.

And we don't really care whether they want to or not, right?


As a matter of fact, it seems that some Christian groups have
a growing problem with many aspects of Halloween.

Many complain about its secularity, how the historical Christian roots
have completely disappeared from its cultural celebration.

Only in certain selected communities. Christian churches continue to observe
the days surrounding Halloween as sacred.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:59:36 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

wrote:
I just wanted to comment on Ray's post hoc argument.
If people are willing to put their faith in a post
hoc argument, then the advocates of greater state
intervention do indeed have plenty of "evidence" on
their side, pretty much for free. After all, as
technology has progressed people have,
unsurprisingly, been living better and better lives.

Ray Fischer
Except in the late 19th century at the start of the
industrial revolution and the creation of large
monopolistic corporations. Then living standards and
life expectancy took a dip.

Living standards rose by an extraordinary amount at the
start of the industrial revolution.

For whom?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"James A. Donald"
We have already had the lawsuit against the display
of Christmas tree plus menorah, which led to a
permanent injunction against Jersey City. Had
Seattle complied with the demand for a menorah, a
similar permanent injunction would have been brought
against Seattle.

"Sancho Panza"
That is pure baseless fantasy. The all-seeing,
all-knowing Karnak pretends once again to know what
will happen in an entirely different court with
different precedents and case law thousands of miles
away.

The court is likely to follow precedent, and whether it
does or not, the likelihood of a lawsuit would itself
deter people - and did deter people.

And that is derived from scratching where?

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
James A. Donald:
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.

No it has not

Yes, it has.

liar

It might be advisable to re-examine the case you cite so often here,
Schundler. That is precisely what the Court of Appeals found.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:43:18 -0800, "PTravel"
wrote:


"James A. Donald" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:37:53 -0800, "PTravel"
Absolutely and totally wrong. Third Circuit rulings
are not law in the 9th Circuit.

They are supposed to be respected by the ninth circuit,
and the ninth circuit is generally more hostile to the
religion than the third circuit, and the lawsuit in
itself would have been a punishment and deterrent.

More garbage. The 9th isn't "hostile to religion."

A lot of people seem to equate "not favoring my religion" as
"hostile to religion".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:51:04 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

"Sancho Panza"
Oh, please. Parity is a compeletely alien concept for
a certain mind-set.

The relevant supreme court precedent is ACLU vs
Schundler, and you are lying about what it says.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Schundler. The Supreme Court's most
recent decision on this subject is Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board
v. Pinette.