Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

wrote:
On 15-Dec-2006, (Arturo Magidin) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

wrote:
On 14-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:38:26 -0800, markzoom wrote:


Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:02:49 -0800, Laura Sanchez wrote:

Too bad Christianity doesn't return the favor.


Excuse me? It's Christians that are the only ones defending
Israel
and
denouncing anti-Semitism.

By refusing to add a menorah to the airport display?

It's not just some kind of festive decoration.
The menorah is the NATIONAL EMBLEM OF THE "STATE" OF ISRAEL

NO, IT IS NOT.
The chanukiah "menorah" used at Chanukah has eight branches and one in
the middle; the Israeli Menorah has six and one in the middle. It is
distinctly
different and for a reason that bigots like markzoom will never grasp -
and
on
purpose.


A menorah is used both as the Israeli state symbol and at Chanuka.

Amazing how he can be told the facts over & over & be so solidly in denial.

You are in denial that a menorah is still called a menorah wether it's
got 7 or 9 bloody candles. And anyone can establish this truth with a
simple google for menorah sellers.
The sheer obstinance with which you perpetuate blatant lies is amazing.

Are
you saying one isn't a menorah, stupid?

Oh, I bet he wet himself thinking he could pretend to have a valid reason to
call me that....

Which are you saying is not a menorah, stupid?


The name "menorah" correctly refers exclusively to a 7 branch
candelabrum; the Israeli state symbol does in fact contain a menorah
(a 7 branch candelabrum).

Yes, this is about the fourth time at least that he's been told this.

And the zilionth time you've been proved wrong or lying.


Although the Hanukah candelabrum is often INCORRECTLY called a
"menorah", it's proper name is either "Hanukyah" or "Hanuka-menorah";
these names refer exclusively to a 9 branch candelabrum. Hanukah
displays do not include menorahs (7 branch candelabra); the Israeli
state symbol does not include hanukyahs (9 branch candelabra).

Just because something is incorrectly -called- a menorah does not
mean that it -is- a menorah.

Good luck making him accept yet more facts he dislikes :-)

??? You better go and tell your fellow jewish people what your personal
new dictat for the term "Menorah" now is.


Susan

As the White Knight said:

'The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes."'

`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel
interested.

`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little
vexed. `That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged
Aged Man."'

`Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice
corrected herself.

`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called
"Ways and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'

`Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.

`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really is
"A-sitting On A Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'


While the hanukyah is often called simply a "menorah", those which
appear in Hanukah displays are distinct from those that appear in the
Israel state emblem; just as the one that appears in the Israeli state
emblem is distinct from the 3 branch candelabra familiar from many a
costume drama, even if the latter were to be called a "menorah".


--
================================================== ====================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
================================================== ====================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:37:54 -0500, Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:36:19 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

The proposed names show that you guys are not prepared to accept even
the secular aspects of Christmas.

There's nothing secular about Christ's Mass.

Indeed. Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him. :-)

Ben

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:43:20 GMT, wrote:


On 15-Dec-2006, Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:46:53 GMT, wrote:


On 15-Dec-2006, James A. Donald wrote:

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. So, if insist the menorah is religious, you have
to agree the tree is. And if you insist the tree isn't, then you
have to agree that the menorah deserves to be disaplyed
with it.

The tree is religious; it's just not Christian.

Heehee - yes, there is that.
But, then again, that would mean you could bring in the creches, too :-)

Susan

Ah, but since they "know" that "Zeus" is not "God" they don't see it as any with
more significance than "Halloween" decorations.

Ben

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:43:58 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:20:49 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:16:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
PTravel wrote:

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable.
No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable
is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one
religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others.

This is not government subsidization of *anything*!

Yes, it is.

Who did the government give money to?

Sea-Tac International Airport.

So the airport is a cultural tradition??????

Statement made was that the government was subsidizing a cultural
tradition. Unless you're claiming that the airport is a cultural
tradition your reply was nonsense.

As most of your replies are.

You wrote "who." Trying to back out now?

No. Just hoping for an intelligent response. You're saying that the
government giving money to the airport is subsidizing a cultural
tradition?

Read the original statement and the question. The question relates to
the statement.

Where do you think the money is coming from Skippy? Even if that
particular municipal corporation is self-funding, it remains an arm of a
government. Created, sustained, regulated, overseen, and existing because
and at the will of a government.

Or are you going to try to claim something bizarre as that the Post Office
isn't a governmental body?

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum.
-Havelock Ellis

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:45:38 +0000, flaviaR wrote:

On 17-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:47:47 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

"James A. Donald"
shows that you guys are entirely unappeasable, that
no concession will suffice, that any concession
merely strengthens demands for further concessions.


That would be you, actually. You are the only one who
keeps teling this lie.

You demanded a menorah be included, and expressed
outrage when you heard that some people spontaneously
included menorahs


You idiot.

Just because she personally isn't comfortable with the symbols of her
belief system being co-opted by others has nothing at all to do with the
matter.

That & the fact that I didn't demand anything be included,
but rather spoke up for the reason the rabbi felt he had to sue....

I get irritated with the people like Dumald who can't seem to understand
that you don't have to "agree" with someone to defend their fundamental
rights as a citizen. I mean, sheesh, I'm an atheist, I don't agree with
*any religion. I still have this weird idea that US citizens have rights.

This whole thing is breathtakingly stupid. The man's request wasn't
anything extraordinary. How much time and money could it have cost to
include a menorah (is that the right term, I'm getting confused in here
with all the debate about which is which)? He even offered to *donate one.

I just love how it's supposed to be the "season of giving" and people are
screaming like a spoiled two year old that they don't want to share...

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:38:57 -0500, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:37:54 -0500, Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:36:19 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

The proposed names show that you guys are not prepared to accept even
the secular aspects of Christmas.

There's nothing secular about Christ's Mass.

Indeed. Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him. :-)

When we don't want an official government religious holiday, they
scream that it's a secular holiday. But to their own they scream that
they should retain its religiosity.

Christianity is truly whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it
to be. It's been so redefined that it's worthless.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When
has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not
obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"
- Richard Dawkins
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:33:42 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

On 15 Dec 2006 11:42:08 -0800, wrote:
SNIP
Actually it's the *zionist* faction of the tiny 2% jewish minority who
have hugely disproportionate control over the USAy. One would have to
be not just a kook but a completely ignorant moron not to have twigged
it by now.

I'll let you in on a little secret. It's those Yarmulkes. They incorporate
alien technology that allows the wearer to control the minds of powerful
politicians and presidents.

Ah hah! I always wondered what those were for!

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum.
-Havelock Ellis

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:35:10 -0800, markzoom wrote:

wrote:
On 14-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote:


In a way that would be victory for the zionist Rabbi too.... and a blow
to freedom.

Not having tax funded blinky lights on plastic trees is a "blow to
freedom?"

Maybe to kooks...

Certainly to those who expose themselves and their
politics so thoroughly as markzoom. Or did you miss
what he called the rabbi....? I left it in, above....

Susan

My "politics" happen to based on ethics, which zionism and it's
proponents so clearly lack. Are you saying the Rabbi isn't a zionist?

I don't care if he's a purple pistachio, he made a simple, reasonable
request for inclusion that wouldn't have taken that much time nor money to
honor. Instead, the airport bureaucrats hiked their skirts and ran around
like headless chickens shrieking the sky was falling.

I'm wondering why it's so difficult for people to believe that
governmental bureaucrats acted like a bunch of morons...

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
-Woden

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:15:51 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:51:22 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:

Mike Hunt wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Not bigotry. Where talking about secular vs. religious. Do you struggle
with that concept?


Did Congress make Christmas a national holiday because it had nothing to
do with religion? I doubt it.

Congress made it a national holiday because it's part of the culture.
And that includes Santa Claus, wreaths, trees, reindeer, elves and a
whole of secular facets.

And, of course, we'll all just ignore that it's Christ Mass...

That would be the adult way for you to handle it, yes.

You mean ignore that after hollering until their hoarse in *public that
Christmas isn't religious, the good Christians file into church to
celebrate the holiday?

We're not that stupid. We notice.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind
of world:.... a world in which oil reserves are controlled
by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West..."
-George Bush

Wait... oil reserves?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:31:16 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:

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

Kissmyass ..... then you could keep all the songs and not have to change the
scansion.....

Or we could use the term used by English Puritans when they
banned the holiday as a devilish invention of Satanic
Papists, in 1652: Antichrist's Mass. (Washington Irving
quotes this in an essay on the celebration of Christmas in
England in _The Sketchbook_. He reports that the local
pastor where he attended Christmas services gave a lengthy
sermon justifying the holiday because of this controversy
(in 1820!). This same pastor also demanded that all
decorations that included mistletoe be taken down because
they were remnants of Druidism.)


It is funny that Protestants used to *hate Christmas because it originated
with the RCC...

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because
if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather
than that of blindfolded Fear"
- Thomas Jefferson