Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

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.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On 15-Dec-2006, "PTravel" wrote:

"Mike Hunt" postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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 for the same reason that the Supreme
Court ruled that creches are not religious symbols -

Did they do that?
I thought they did that for the *trees*....

- because many members
of the dominant culture can't conceive of the idea that their cultural and
traditional practices are not universal. This thread is proof of that.

Alas.

Susan

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:50:10 +1000, James A. Donald
wrote:

:
I have suggested for a long time (okay, not online)
that we have Solstice on the 22nd,

People, however, want the distribution of presents to be
at the same date for everyone

Too late - most of the Orthodox Churches are more than 3 days out of
sync with the Roman Church.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

On 15-Dec-2006, "PTravel" wrote:

Not really. The US is pretty much controlled by a tiny zionist
minority.

Oh. I see.

Of course.
This is why Xmas is a national holiday &* there's the national Xmas tree,
and government funded facilities display Xmas paraphanelia and REFUSE,
to the point of inciting discrimination lawsuits, to display chanukiyot.
Stuff like that is all proof of the ZOG.

Susan

May I, and I ask this most respectfully, as you a question?
Could you tell me how much education you've had and where you received it?
I'm very curious, because I see sentiments like this on a fairly regular
basis (at least on the Internet), and I'm really curious about the
background of people who believe it. I'm not looking to belittle you --
I'm just genuinely perplexed by those who say this.

On 15-Dec-2006, "Anarcissie" wrote:

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.

Well, not if they're both secular.

But that's the basis for the display; that the tree is secular.

Neither one deserves
anything.

But if one does so does the other, that was my point.
Not that they both do.
For my money ( talking taxes), I'd rather neither.

The idea of symbols deserving something comes
from some framework connecting the symbols to an idea
of display-worthiness. For example, we are all supposed to
be patriots, so the American flag is to be displayed on
public property -- there are no doubt several flapping around
at the Seattle airport. But while the administrators of the
Seattle airport could decide to decorate with a selection of
secular symbols of the Winter Solstice holiday (wreathes,
trees, Santa Claus, menorahs, Kwanzaa posters, etc.)
there is no obligation for them to choose any or all of
them, and there was no obligatory basis to demand that
a particular one be included if another was.

Yes, there are public accomodation laws (I think this is what they are
called).

Susan

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

wrote in message news:KWohh.2258$Jb6.1189@trnddc03...

On 15-Dec-2006, "PTravel" wrote:

"Mike Hunt" postmaster@localhost wrote in message
. ..
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 for the same reason that the Supreme
Court ruled that creches are not religious symbols -

Did they do that?
I thought they did that for the *trees*....

I believe that they did, i.e. "creches are holiday symbols of the winter
season and not religious." The reasoning is absolutely bizarre and
reflects, I think, the extent to which Christianity has attempted to
inculcate itself into government.. However, my recollection of those cases
said, essentially, you can't just display a creche, you must display it with
other "traditional" winter seasson paraphenalia, e.g. menorahs.


- because many members
of the dominant culture can't conceive of the idea that their cultural
and
traditional practices are not universal. This thread is proof of that.

Alas.

Susan

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

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:37:04 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

"Anarcissie":
Yes, that's the question. Why is it so important?

Because there is no stopping point, no possibility of
compromise. Every concession has been met by demands
for further concessions, and the net effect of all these
concessions is starting to seriously inconvenience,
aggravate and offend the white, Protestant Christian majority. Who's
been known to kill uppity minorities so you people better shut up!

--
Mark K. Bilbo

ROTFLOL!
I love it!

Susan

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....

Susan

On 15-Dec-2006, "Robibnikoff" wrote:

If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why do basically just
Christians use them?

Even though they're an obvious Pagan symbol?
--

Look up a term called "replacement theology".
Tho' it usually refers to what they've done (or want
to do) to Jews/Judaism, it applies here, as well.

Susan