Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

On 14-Dec-2006, "PTravel" wrote:

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

"Santa" is just another word for "Saint"

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.

And rightfully resent being called bigoted for doing so.

Susan

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

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...


The rabbi didn't complain about the trees. He made a request for his
own
display. Quite a difference there.

No. He made a request for his own display AND THEN THREATENED TO SUE TO
TAKE DOWN THE TREES

NOT TRUE, TCHIOWA IS A LIAR.
He wanted ot sue them for not including the menorah.
WHich I thought was dumb, but he was trying to make a point, however
clumsily.

if his request wasn't met.

Not originally. Only after the Christians and the media went full blast.

Not even then.

Susan

On 14-Dec-2006, "Anarcissie" wrote:

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?

Ihave suggested for a long time (okay, not online) that we have
Solstice on the 22nd, and everyone can glam out to their heart's
conent - and then let the XIans have their nice, dignified Xmas
back and then everyone can be happy.
Except if the pagans object - I'll go check.

Susan

--
"brique"
Um..... you really have wondered down the garden path
with this one James.... the thread, which you are so
eager to misrepresent, is nto about 'removing trees'
whether they be religious symbols or not. The facts of
the case, which you continually ignore, is that the
rabbi who threatened to sue did so because he wanted
equal represetation for his religious symbols
alongside the trees. So, he thought the trees were
christian symbols,

But if the trees are symbols of a religion, the way the
menorah is, then there is no place for them a government
owned public space - so if he is conceded to be right,
then all is conceded. Sooner or later all Christmas
trees everywhere will have to be removed from all
government owned public spaces everywhere. The first
concession will prove the necessity for all the
subsequent concessions.

--
----------------------
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:
any one who not only does not celebrate
[Christmas], but gets upset and offended by other
people celebrating it, is indeed a bigot.

Tchiowa
Exactly right.

"brique"
So, anyone who isnt a christian or who doesn't pretend
to be a christian for christmas is a bigot?

I am not a christian, I don't pretend to be a christian,
and I celebrate 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

Constantinople wrote in message
ps.com...

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)?


Why would it matter, random or cherry-picked, I produced two places which
could fairly be described as ugly-spirit-killing places. But they are not in
socialist countries, have liitle publicly-funded ornamentation and lots of
potholes. What explains that again?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:13:36 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why
do basically just Christians use them?

You live in a world of your own. Everyone celebrates
Christmas except people who have an axe to grind. I
celebrate Christmas, and I am not Christian, most Asians
in Asia celebrate Christmas, and most Asians in Asia are
not Christian.

--
----------------------
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 in message
oups.com...

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.

Its obvious you wish to associate 'ugly, spirit-killing places' with
socialist countries. It may well be true that socialist countries are ugly
and lacking in public ornamentation, but my examples point out that
non-socialist countries are not immune to the same combination.



"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 wrote in message
...
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.

Then your problem is not with secular groups or even 'christmas-haters',
your problem is competing religious groups trying to grab a share of
publically funded propaganda material. Which is probably why it is best for
publically-funded organisations to stay out of the whole mess and leave it
to the religions themselves to mount their own displays of whatever
religious synbols floats their boats on their own property and at their own
expense.


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.

Diddums for the manger-lovers then.... if you mount the display on your opwn
property at your own expense then you can have mangers galore in any color,
shape, size or number.
Its the public funding of religious displays which is th eissue. Funny,
James, you mounted a loud and noisy attack upon environmentalism on the bais
it was public funding of a religion. Now you think public funding of
religious propaganda is cool. Guess like all bigots, it all depends on
whether the public is funding your pet project or not that counts.


--
----------------------
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 15:38:37 -0800, "PTravel"
I haven't heard anyone get upset or offended by anyone
celebrating Christmas. The concern in Seattle was
using government funds, i.e. tax dollars paid into the
general fund, to pay for it

But if secular trees are objectionable, then any money
spent on the holiday is objectionable, then the holiday
itself is objectionable - after all the holiday must
cost the government money. And if the menorah is
conceded, then the principle that anything associated
with Christmas is establishing a religion is conceded,
in which case everything Christmassy has to go.

And on past performance, we can expect those lawsuits to
follow shortly. When the government lets employees go
home for Christmas and thanksgiving, it is establishing
a religion :-)

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