Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

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

Sancho Panza wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Thus there is no basis for complaint that Christmas trees and not
menorahs were displayed. To complain about such a think is like
complaining that banana trees and not orange trees were displayed.

Try to explain why one group shouuld have the right of display and
another
should not.

Simple. Because one is celebrating an official national holiday and the
other is not.

Any more questions?

Yes. That neglects to explain why there aren't similar decorations for New
Year's,

Calendars, babies, old men with sickles.

Labor Day, Memorial Day,

Cemetaries, flowers

Veterans' Day,

Flags,

Columbus Day,

Old spanish ships

etc etc

There are symbols that have evolved for every type of celebration.

James A. Donald:
But Xmastime is the time of the return of the
sun - it follows the shortest day of the year.
Nothing directly to do, except symbolically,
with the birth of that notorious Jewish heretic
that you seem to be so remarkably upset by.

Mike Hunt
That is the point. It is symbolically linked to
the birth of Christ, hence the name of the
holiday.

James A. Donald:
But then, your basic grievance, or flavia's basic
grievance, is having a holiday on christmas,


You know you've lost more than the argument when you
have to tell such major whoppers like this.

Read your own words.

--
----------------------
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 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:30:55 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
The rabbi didn't complain about the trees. He made a
request for his own display. Quite a difference there.

His legal claim, the basis of his lawsuit, is that the
airport could not do a secular Christmas display without
also displaying Jewish religous and national symbols,
which if conceded leads to every damned real and
fabricated group claiming you cannot do a secular
Christmas display without also including their symbols,
and their symbols in a size and prominence they deem
appropriate, and in some cases, as with Kwanzaa, their
symbols will be as offensive and confrontational as they
can concoct them.

We already had this business over mangers. The Supreme
court took the position that you could have a manger,
provided it was a minor part of a secular christmas
display. But then every manger was met by an unending
stream of "requests", until no one dared put out a
manger. And now that we have conceded no mangers, the
same tactic is being applied to ensure no Christmas
trees either.

--
----------------------
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 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:52:31 -0800, "PTravel"
Even granting that the Christmas tree is secular (and
I don't believe that it is), it is definitely not
all-sectarian.

It evidently includes Hindus, ancestor worshippers, and
animists, they being part of "peace on earth and
goodwill to all men"

So why not Jews and Muslims? Because some Jews and many
Muslims don't *want* to be included, not because they
are excluded, but because they intransigently and
unpleasantly fight off attempts to include 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

"Anarcissie"
Of course there is not an impermeable barrier
between religious and non-religious Winter Solstice
symbols and practices. For instance, some
Christians have been noticed adopting the menorah,


Oh good grief - why can't they just leave us alone????

A moment ago, you were arguing for mandatory inclusion
of the menorah.

As I said, no concessions can possibly settle this
dispute, for your basic objection is to a society in so
many people celebrate christmas that things come to a
stop. Any concession is merely a starting point for
further demands, for the real demand is to stop
christmas

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

James A. Donald wrote:
...
We already had this business over mangers. The Supreme
court took the position that you could have a manger,
provided it was a minor part of a secular christmas
display. But then every manger was met by an unending
stream of "requests", until no one dared put out a
manger. And now that we have conceded no mangers, the
same tactic is being applied to ensure no Christmas
trees either.

What the lovers of Christmas trees need to do is get
the Christ out of Christmas and make sure the holiday
is as ostensibly pagan or secular -- irreligious -- as
it is in fact. I've already suggested that Christmas be
renamed "Consumermas". Maybe someone can come
up with something better?

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:52:31 -0800, "PTravel"
Even granting that the Christmas tree is secular (and
I don't believe that it is), it is definitely not
all-sectarian.

It evidently includes Hindus, ancestor worshippers, and
animists, they being part of "peace on earth and
goodwill to all men"

I'm talking about Christmas trees, not sentiments of the holidays. "Peace
on earth and goodwill towards men" has nothing to do with the display of
Christmas trees.



So why not Jews and Muslims?

Because Christmas trees, which are part of the Christians tradition, are not
part of Jewish and Muslim cultural traditions, and never were. Perhaps
there will come a time when these aspects of Christmas are so secular that,
like Halloween, they lose all connection to the religious holiday. That is
certainly not the case now.

Because some Jews and many
Muslims don't *want* to be included,

You have a funny definition of "included." As I said, Christmas trees and
Saint Nick . . . I mean . . . Santa Claus are not, and never were, part of
the cultural traditions and heritage of Jews and Muslims. These
possibly-secular-but-clearly-sectarian symbols are part of the culture,
traditions and heritage of a different religion. Thank you for your kind
offer of your traditions and cultural heritage -- I believe we'll stick with
our own.

not because they
are excluded, but because they intransigently and
unpleasantly fight off attempts to include them.

That "intransigence" should be some indicator to you of just how deeply held
is the belief among non-Christians that the Christmas holiday and its
trappings are not secular and inextricably linked with Christianity. As
for, "unpleasant," please give me some examples -- I have no idea what you
mean.



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

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:43:29 -0800, Constantinople wrote:

brique wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

I notice nobody asking why it is tax money has to be spent on ornaments
rather than silly things like, you know, fixing potholes or even
something
really absurd like airport security...

That attitude could help explain why socialist countries have such a
reputation for being ugly, spirit-killing places.


What........ like the Bronx and South LA ?

Did you pick average, representative places in America (in which case
you have a point) or did you cherry pick the worst places in America
you could think of (in which case you don't)?

With something over half our population packed into cities, the Bronx and
South LA rather *are representative these days...

It's obvious that he picked two names that are associated in American
culture with negatives, same way as Beverly Hills (which is a city,
hence one of those places you say we're "packed into") is one of the
names that will easily come to mind if you're thinking of wealth.

"By the time of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which began in South
Central and spread throughout the city, South Central had become a
byword for urban decay, its bad reputation spread by movies such as
South Central, Menace II Society, Friday, South Central native John
Singleton's Boyz N the Hood, and rap group N.W.A's album Straight Outta
Compton."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/South_Los_Angeles

More than half of America is not "packed into" places like South LA.
South LA is well known because it stands out from the norm. If it were
average it would not be as well known.

That said, to say that I would much rather live in South LA than in
Pyongyang (the capital of a socialist state) is to make an
understatement so extreme as to establish a new category of
understatement.

James A. Donald
Judaism really does not quite fit into the American
model of separation of church and state, because
America is a nation state, and judaism is both
religion and nationalism.

flavia:
Considering that it's not like anyone is asking for
America to become Jewish or that Jews are even asking
to set up our own government

But some Jews are asking Americans to stop celebrating
Christmas, side by side with their highly unlikely
allies (commies and black muslims) while Hindus,
ancestor worshippers, Shinto worshippers, animists, and
the rest are not.

You demand that the airport display contains a menorah,
yet are full of outrage and indignation if somone
spontaneously puts up a menorah in his christmas
decorations.

The symbolism of a menorah spontaneously inserted in the
Christmas display is: "Peace on Earth and Goodwill to
all men, and of course all men includes Jews, if there
are any Jews silly enough to doubt it."

The symbolism of a menorah inserted in the Christmas
display under threat of lawsuit is: "You hate us, and we
hate you, you are a bunch of hateful Jew murdering
bigots, and your stupid Christmas is built on blood"
Like Kwanzaa, that menorah is spitefully intended to
spoil Christmas.

If the guy had just asked for the menorah, instead of
asking for it under threat of lawsuit, the meaning would
have been different and he doubtless would have got it.
Instead, he spitefully wanted a hate filled meaning. And
of course Kwanzaa - the same gimmick pushed by commies
and black muslims instead of Jews - is overtly a parade
of grievances.

--
----------------------
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 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 14-Dec-2006, wrote:

However, if it is tragically and incorrectly decided in the courts
that
to display Christmas trees is to endorse Christianity, then
Christmas
trees should be removed rather than overtly religious displays such
as
menorahs,

Menorahs have been deemed secular by the courts who have
also deemed the trees as secular, too, even tho' neither is.

Excellent. Then it should be perfectly fine to display just menorahs,
just Christmas trees, or both, or neither, without any implications or
any basis for lawsuits.

Thus there is no basis for complaint that Christmas trees and not
menorahs were displayed. To complain about such a think is like
complaining that banana trees and not orange trees were displayed.

Try to explain why one group shouuld have the right of display and another
should not.

I find it astounding that someone can even type the whole
farrago he did and not think he was going to get asked that.

Susan