Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
The bottom line of all these comparisons is that
capitalism makes people rich and free,

That's a known falsehood. Capitalism concentrates
wealth into the hands of a very few, leaving the
majority poor and with few freedoms.

Except in every country that actually exists or has
existed The more capitalist the country, the richer and
more free the ordinary people,

That's an outright lie. When corporations own everything the people
are not free to do anything the corporations don't allow.

You mean when corporations hijack the state. The problem lies not with
the corporations but with corporations abusing state power to prevent
competition and get themselves corporate welfare.

brique wrote:
But at no time did the rabbi demand the removal of thr trees, he demanded
parity in display of religous symbols in public spaces at public expense,
as the Supreme Court precedent had held he was perfectly entitled to do.

The problem is the existence of public spaces. If anything were private
these problems would not exist.

James A. Donald wrote:
"Mike Hunt" postmaster@localhost wrote in message
The Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas.

Robibnikoff wrote:
Didn't use to be - It's Pagan.

wrote:
Would you care to document which individual in
particular went and found a pagan custom and
adopted it? Most of us think Luther just decided
to decorate a tree because it looked pretty.

James A. Donald:
Jeremiah Chapter 10, verse 2
: : 2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way
: : of the heathen, and be not dismayed at
: : the signs of heaven; for the heathen are
: : dismayed at them.
: :
: : 3 For the customs of the people are vain:
: : for one cutteth a tree out of the forest,
: : the work of the hands of the workman,
: : with the axe.
: :
: : 4 They deck it with silver and with gold;
: : they fasten it with nails and with
: : hammers, that it move not.


This does not seem to have any relevance.

The claim was that the tree originated with Luther. The
evidence I posted rebuts that claim.
(Endless nonsense snipped)

No, it does not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

wrote:
PTravel wrote:

"James A. Donald" wrote:

Most of the people going through Seattle airport will be
eagerly anticipating what the Christmas trees symbolize.
Will even one person be eagerly anticipating whatever it
is that an eight foot menorah amidst Christmas trees symbolizes?

Hey, my personal preference would be that none of this stuff go up -- I
don't want tax dollars paying for menorahs, either.


Isn't Seattle airport a private enterprise?


It's a "municipal corporation"...


http://www.portseattle.org/about/

What is a municipal corporation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation

wrote:
PTravel wrote:
"James A. Donald" wrote:

Most of the people going through Seattle airport will be
eagerly anticipating what the Christmas trees symbolize.
Will even one person be eagerly anticipating whatever it
is that an eight foot menorah amidst Christmas trees symbolizes?

Hey, my personal preference would be that none of this stuff go up -- I
don't want tax dollars paying for menorahs, either.

Isn't Seattle airport a private enterprise?

No, and this is only an issue because it is government, not
private (the first amendment to the US Constitution
guarantees, in the words of founding father Thomas
Jefferson, "an eternal wall of separation between Church &
State").

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/...edanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Hunt wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States. Jewish and
Muslim and other religious holidays are not.

For many Jewish people, the same is true of Hanukah

It is the sole responsibility of the airport management what they
display. To threaten them with a lawsuit is foul play. The rabbi could
have asked if they would also display something else.


He did, for weeks before hand, they didn't get back to him... when he got a
lawyer to contact them, they freaked and pulled the whole display. now they
say they are in talks with him and other religous groups as to how best
organise future displays.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Anarcissie wrote:
I read that the "Christmas" trees have now been restored.

It would help if Christians would acknowledge that the
Christmas tree is non-Christian. Alternatively, they could
go on believing that it is right for them to impose their
religion on everyone else, as they have in the past, but
be more open about it: 'Here's a Christmas tree in your
face, because we have the power to put it there."

How is the private preference about the decoration a "forcing of
religion"? Even in the time of the communist Eastern bloc christmas
trees were put up. It is not a religious tradition, but a cultural one.
Anyway, who does not like it is free to boycott it.


The issue is more of why should one particular religous festival have
decorations relating to that festival erected at public expense in public
places, whilst decorations for another religions festival occurring in the
same period not deemed as worthy of such public expense. You can boycott
the festival, yes, but it is a lot harder to boycott your share of the
public purse subsidising it.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
The bottom line of all these comparisons is that
capitalism makes people rich and free,

That's a known falsehood. Capitalism concentrates wealth into the
hands of a very few, leaving the majority poor and with few freedoms.

That happens when the state is involved. It is not the fault of free
enterprise and voluntary exchange.


Of course it is..... capitalists buy the state, they buy those politicians
who can pass legislation favourable to themselves. In return bankroll th
eonly party political bandwagon and they provide a nice retirement home for
those politicians who have doenm their public duty on their boards... check
any major corporation and check the CV's of their members, there is no such
thing as seperation of state and enterprise, one seeks to own the other, in
capitlaism, the businessmen seek to own the state, in communism the state
seeks to own the businesses. generally, under both systems, the ordinary
worker gets ****ed while a strata of lower and middle management types get
to bitch, in both cases, that they are taxed too much, the workers are too
damn lazy and pray they get promoted to the upper management and can really
get their snouts in the trough..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Fischer:
Look at England and the US before unions existed and
before anti-monopoly laws were created.

Unions existed in England in thirteenth century, and the
anti-monopoly laws have generally been aimed at
forbidding competition, rather than preventing monopoly.

I just wanted to comment on Ray's post hoc argument. If people are
willing to put their faith in a post hoc argument, then the advocates
of greater state intervention do indeed have plenty of "evidence" on
their side, pretty much for free. After all, as technology has
progressed people have, unsurprisingly, been living better and better
lives.

Except in the late 19th century at the start of the industrial
revolution and the creation of large monopolistic corporations.
Then living standards and life expectancy took a dip.

The dip was caused by rapid population increase. Living standards and
life expectancy are usually constantly improving when this process is
not hindered by war or other forms of arbitrary violence. Monopols are
only dangerous when they are enforced by the state.


Rapid population increase? Where and how? You can't be refering to a sudden
increase in the birth-rate, but there was a increase in infant
mortality.Perhaps you refer to a rapid increase in urban populations to
serve the burgeoning industries located there? In which case overcrowding,
disease and general poor health and mortality asscoiated with lack of
facilities, hygeine, poor safety in factories, medical services, etc were
not restricted to the early years but continued, in Britain , right up to
and past the Second World War.

As for the 'dangers' of state-imposed monopolies....study the accident and
mortality rates for private coal-mining in the UK then compare with the
rates for the nationalised industry. Of course there were 'dangers'... the
major one being that private investors could no longer get a dividend form
owning the shares.... how terrible, they had to go invest somewhere else....
poor dears...

wrote in message
ups.com...
brique wrote:
But at no time did the rabbi demand the removal of thr trees, he
demanded
parity in display of religous symbols in public spaces at public
expense,
as the Supreme Court precedent had held he was perfectly entitled to do.

The problem is the existence of public spaces. If anything were private
these problems would not exist.


Would make it bloody tedious walking home though, every ten or twenty yards
you get to freely negotiate the toill for walking past each neighbours
house..... and while you were out, who was collecting the tolls for the
neighbours walking past your house?