Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

Dan Clore wrote in message
...
brique wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:03:16 -0800, PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"James A. Donald"

First of all, the Shintoists don't celebrate Christmas. Second of all,
perhaps their religion is compatible with Christianity. Mine is not.

It
is always Jews, black Muslims, and commies.

"Commies"? Good grief. What "commies" would that be? Name one law
suit
over government endorsement of religion that was brought by "commies."

James took a wrong turn and got lost in the fifties...

Oh no, back then he was a commie..... desperately trying to educate the
ockers in the class struggle, getting laughed at when he tried to sell
the
sacred texts containing the Good Word of Lenin to the ungrateful mocking
proletariat.
Some say he was a Stalinist, some say he was a Trot, but as James so
eruditely points out these days, they are all the same murderous
slave-camp
running phsychopaths.

Well, *he* says that he was a Trot, then a Maoist, then
(rather incredibly) an anarcho-syndicalist, but was
miraculously saved from his worship of Pol Pot, apparently
by a chance encounter with a Cambodian in a donut shop.

A lonely man on a dark night.... a welcoming sign blinks through the
rain.... he enters the donut shop... little does he know it will change his
life.. for Donald has entered.........

....the Twilight Zone........


--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Hunt wrote:
The issue isn't that the Rabbi wanted the Christmas ornaments removed,
but he wanted representation of his religion a this public facility.

That request was denied, even though the last Supreme Court case on the
subject agreed with the Rabbi.

The fact that the airport management took down the Christmas ornaments
leads me to believe that they knew they were in violation of that
ruling.
Why didn't they simply allow the Menorah to be displayed? Could it be
they are anti-semitic

Could it rather be that you are anti-goy?


Perhaps he is a self-hating goy in the pay of Mossad?

Mike Hunt wrote:
Sancho Panza wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sancho Panza wrote:

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
groups.com...

The US Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is nothing wrong
with a municipal organization or any government entity putting up
secular decorations to celebrate Christmas. Had they put up a Manger
scene or pictures of a Baby Jesus they would have been contrary to
court rulings. But a Christmas Tree is not.

Got the case name or number on that?

Lemon


If you're talking about LEMON ET AL. v. KURTZMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 403 U.S. 602 March 3, 1971,
Argued June 28, 1971, Decided, could you please point out where the decision
mentions either Christmas or tree? FYI, I'm using the findlaw version. If
it's in Lexis or Westlaw, I'd be much obliged.


The legal action filed due to an issue of the government paying of
teacher salaries at non-public schools

However, it also established the "Lemon Test" which has three points

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either
advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive
entanglement" with religion.

Exactly. And subsequent rulings are that a Christmas Tree has a
"legitimate secular purpose" and does not run afoul of either of the
other 2 clauses.

PTravel wrote:
and commies."

I have no idea what Tchiowa's agenda might be.

Opposing your bigotry, primarily.

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dan Clore wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Dan Clore wrote:

You refer to a independent local governing body and then in your
concluding sentence call it a local "government" body. Not the same
thing.

Pedantic? No. It's the crux of the statement. The airport is *NOT*
the
government.

In the same way that the a town or city government is *NOT*
the government.

No, they are they government.

The airport is a business owned by the government. They can sell it to
a private firm it they'd like. It's supported by user fees rather than
taxes (assuming properly run). It makes a profit, hires its staff,
etc.

And until that happens, it remains part of the government.

No, it remains a corporation owned by the government. It is *not* the
government.

And that is why the employees are classified as government employees,
security is government security, and financing is government financing.

And those employees are *not* the government and the financing is *NOT*
the government.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:38:39 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:

Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:17:55 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
"James A. Donald"

Maybe theologians, mystics or other wise men can
explain how anything in the Old Testament can
reference Christmas.

Christmas is a christian name for a celebration that
predates christ by thousands of years.

Easy for someone who denies Christ to throw out.

It does seem pretty odd for a soi-disant atheist to refer to
Jesus as the "Christ", which is not his name but a title
equivalent to "Messiah". Those who don't believe in
Christianity ipso facto do not believe that Jesus
legitimately holds this title.

Expect to see oddness when someone attempts to defend a devisive position on
Christmas by proposing it is secular.

Ben

wrote in message
oups.com...

PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Most of the people going through Seattle airport will be
eagerly anticipating what the Christmas trees symbolize.
Will even one person be eagerly anticipating whatever it
is that an eight foot menorah amidst Christmas trees symbolizes?

Hey, my personal preference would be that none of this stuff go up -- I
don't want tax dollars paying for menorahs, either.

Isn't Seattle airport a private enterprise?

No, it's not.

brique wrote:
wrote:
Mike Hunt wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States. Jewish and
Muslim and other religious holidays are not.

For many Jewish people, the same is true of Hanukah

It is the sole responsibility of the airport management what they
display. To threaten them with a lawsuit is foul play. The rabbi could
have asked if they would also display something else.

He did, for weeks before hand, they didn't get back to him... when he got a
lawyer to contact them, they freaked and pulled the whole display. now they
say they are in talks with him and other religous groups as to how best
organise future displays.

Ah ok. These details were not reported in the media. Good that we have
the net for correction.

Mike Hunt wrote:
wrote:
PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Most of the people going through Seattle airport will be
eagerly anticipating what the Christmas trees symbolize.
Will even one person be eagerly anticipating whatever it
is that an eight foot menorah amidst Christmas trees symbolizes?

Hey, my personal preference would be that none of this stuff go up -- I
don't want tax dollars paying for menorahs, either.

Isn't Seattle airport a private enterprise?

It's a "municipal corporation"...
http://www.portseattle.org/about/
What is a municipal corporation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation

I see. Unfortunately municipalities are not autonomous but are required
by law to follow the rules of the federal and state institutions.

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

Mike Hunt wrote:
Sancho Panza wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sancho Panza wrote:

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
groups.com...

The US Supreme Court has made it very clear that there is nothing
wrong
with a municipal organization or any government entity putting up
secular decorations to celebrate Christmas. Had they put up a Manger
scene or pictures of a Baby Jesus they would have been contrary to
court rulings. But a Christmas Tree is not.

Got the case name or number on that?

Lemon


If you're talking about LEMON ET AL. v. KURTZMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 403 U.S. 602 March 3, 1971,
Argued June 28, 1971, Decided, could you please point out where the
decision
mentions either Christmas or tree? FYI, I'm using the findlaw version.
If
it's in Lexis or Westlaw, I'd be much obliged.


The legal action filed due to an issue of the government paying of
teacher salaries at non-public schools

However, it also established the "Lemon Test" which has three points

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either
advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive
entanglement" with religion.

Exactly. And subsequent rulings are that a Christmas Tree has a
"legitimate secular purpose" and does not run afoul of either of the
other 2 clauses.

But when asked for the specific case you gave Lemon. Now you are saying
there are other cases. Could you cite any of them?