Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

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"
You will find Christmas trees in the houses of
Hindus, ancestor worshippers, and animists. Why
then do some Jews and many Muslims make a big deal
of *not* having a Christmas tree, as if it was made
of ham?

"PTravel"
Because it is not part of the culture, traditions or
heritage of Jews or Muslims (or Buddhists or
Shintoists).

Yet the shintoists do not have this problem that you
guys have. They celebrate christmas, and I have never
heard of a shintoist or a buddhist proceeding with
lawsuits against other people celebrating christmas.

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 aTrot, but as James so
eruditely points out these days, they are all the same murderous slave-camp
running phsychopaths.
But somehow, he was saved, one day he tripped over a copy of Atlas
Shrugged, which some discerning reader had rightly tossed into the garbage.
Gazing upon the photo of the Blessed St Ayn on the back, he fell deeply in
love, he abandoned his search for the Pivotal Point of Production and filled
with lust he ravenously devoured every word and was reborn.
Since then it has all been downhill.


--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken

Robibnikoff wrote in message
...

"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:32:40 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

I don't have a menorah in my home, but I don't sue
Jersey City

Because you're not even in the US and don't have standing?

I must have missed something. What the hell does Jersey City have to do
with
this?

Who knows, that is the mystery and all part of the great adventure we
undertake when trying to unravel the mind of the Magic Donut.

--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel
like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet

Mark K. Bilbo wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:44:10 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

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

How would you know? You're on the other side of the planet.

Mark, you are being too kind, james is not on this planet at all......

--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING
like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton

Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
Sancho Panza wrote:

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


I think he meant "Schindler"
That was the case brought up in the 13th Circuit Court relating to
whether or not a factory, owned by a non-jewish actor, can put up
Christmas trees and and have an actor pretend to be Santa by checking
his list. Not just any list. It would have to be Schindler's List.


Over here, there is a company who build 'lifts' ( called elevators in the
US, I beleive) anyway, guess their name.... yep....... Schindlers
Lifts......

Ben Kaufman wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:24:50 -0500, "Sancho Panza"

wrote:


"James A. Donald" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike Hunt" postmaster@localhost wrote in message

The hebrews of Jeremiah's day celebrated Christmas.
Declare it a Jewish festival, and move on.

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


And since when do "professed atheists" makes reference to the bible as
if it
were historical fact?

Dont you know, the official line these days is that 'Atheism' is a religion
too..... soon we intend to have out own Non-Pope, non-churches and
non-baptismal ceremonies. every non-sabbath (Tuesdays) we will not be
celebrating religous rituals and not praying to our non-god.
Why not not come along and not join us, it should be lots of fun, not.


Ben

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 20-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:59:39 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:
The Rabbi complained about trees.

"Mark K. Bilbo"
No he did not.

The sole purpose of the menorah was to bring the seattle
into violation of ACLU vs Schundler so that someone
could get a permanent injunction against the Seattle
city government celebrating Christmas just as they got a
permanent injunction against Jersey city.

This is INSANE!!!

He had no
intention of gradually lighting up the menorah over the
eight days of Hanukkah. It was just intended for
litigation purposesno.


How would you know anything about what's going on here? You're halfway
around the planet. Which country are you citizen of anyway? Australia
or
the US?

I can see where the previous posts have been leading up to
this one - I just can't see where he gets off saying any of it.

James Donald is a curious fellow who claims to be an
anarchist, but supports war and imperialism as long as
it is carried on by the American state without too much
expense. However, this venture into the establishment
of religion is new to me. In another thread, he has been
vigorously advocating the validity of racism. This too is
new. Perhaps he has been hanging out with extreme
right wingers a bit too much. As the bible says, he
that lieth down with dogs getteth up with fleas.

He also has a couple of sock puppets, but no one
else can really follow the curious turns and twsits of
his fertile imagination.


I fear that if one ever did learn to follow the curious turns and twists of
his fertile imagination......one would have left it far too late for taking
a shotgun into the barn and doing the honorable thing..... no, no, no ! Not
shoot the cat....sheeesh.....

"brique" wrote in message
...

Sancho Panza wrote in message
...

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:02:30 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
The airport's explanaton doesn't even stand up as a
feeble one. They had more than enough time to work out
the proper arrangements.

The last time, working out the proper arrangements
required two lawsuits and two lengthy court appearances.
Putting up a menorah on public property is extremely
dangerous, in that no one can know what constitutes
compliance with the proper arrangements.

That is because at least the airport people were clearly intransigent.

And what precisely is the danger from a menorah?


fire hazard.... all those candles near flammable trees.......

They could use light-emitting diodes.

"brique" wrote in message
...

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

Indeed, part of legal process is producing precedents, precedents for the
motion and , in rebuttal, precedents against the motion. The court will
then
give weight to one precedent or another or produce a new 'precedent'
itself.
Precedents are a guide to what other courts have doen in similar
situations
in the past, they are not a proscription or compulsion. That is reserved
for
decisions taken in the Supreme Court, or equivalent.

And as pointed out here previously, quite a few recent cases affect this
subject., inlcuding in the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court, in addition to
the already cited Capitol Square decision, has dlievered Engel v. Vitale,
Van Orden v. Perry, McCreary County v. ACLU and Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe.
Admittedly a tough jurisprudential topic, religious holiday observances are
covered by far, far more than one misunderstood and obsolete opinion in the
Third District.

brique wrote:

Dont you know, the official line these days is that 'Atheism' is a religion
too...

Using that argument, doesn't that mean public locations without
Christmas trees or menorahs are supporting the religion of atheism?

Can't they then be sued for NOT decorating?

Al Klein
So Christian kids are furious every year, when Jewish
kids get presents for 8 nights? I doubt it.

When you get eight presents of approximately equal
significance in a row, the likelihood is that seven of
them are socks and the eighth is a toothbrush. When you
get a bunch of presents on one really big day, the
probability that one of them is something worth telling
your friends about improves considerably.

You would have a better prospect of appeasing the kids
if you made the first day the really big present day,
and the subsequent days they got lesser presents.

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