Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: James A. Donald on 14 Dec 2006 03:46 "James A. Donald" > > But you guys are trying to suppress even the secular > > aspects of Christmas - you were suing against the > > display of Christmas trees, not the display of > > stables and mangers. You are suing against the > > stuff that people see in Singapore "Sancho Panza" > Pretty fast on the trigger with "you guys." Just what > guys do you mean? By "you guys" I mean everyone that gets so enraged by the symbols of Christianity that they cannot even stand symbols that are associated with the symbols of Christianity - I mean commies, militant Jews, radical islamists, Gaia worshippers, the usual. Hindus, animists and ancestor worshippers somehow never have this problem. -- ---------------------- 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
From: James A. Donald on 14 Dec 2006 03:49 "brique" > Nobody was 'sueing against the display of trees'. a > rabbi threatened to sue if the airport did not also > display symbols of his religion alongside the trees. But they were displaying trees, and not a manger, because the manger is a symbol of the Christian religion, and the trees are not. Further, past experience has shown you cannot settle this dispute by concessions. Any concession is met by further demands from additional complainants, for the real grievance is Christmas itself, as several people in this thread have made abundantly clear. -- ---------------------- 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
From: Tchiowa on 14 Dec 2006 04:03 brique wrote: > > But you guys are trying to suppress even the secular > > aspects of Christmas - you were suing against the > > display of Christmas trees, not the display of stables > > and mangers. You are suing against the stuff that > > people see in Singapore > > Nobody was 'sueing against the display of trees'. a rabbi threatened to sue > if the airport did not also display symbols of his religion alongside the > trees. And if they didn't add his symbol he would sue against the trees. Trees are *not* a religious symbol so the whole thing makes no sense unless you look at the Rabbi as just being a bigot trying to pick a fight. > The airport re-acted by removing the trees thus killing the whole > suit stone dead, there were now no religous symbols for anyone to demand > parity with. Nor were they any to begin with.
From: Tchiowa on 14 Dec 2006 04:06 Mike Hunt wrote: > 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. > > > > Yet, they can't seem to share the winter holiday season by permitting a > one Jewish symbol at the airport. Which "holiday" are you talking about? There is only one *NATIONAL HOLIDAY* and it isn't a Jewish Holiday so why would you put up a Jewish symbol? Putting up a Jewish symbol would be celebrating a holiday that is *PURELY* a religious holiday and not a national holiday and thus would be in clear violation of separation of church and state.
From: Tchiowa on 14 Dec 2006 04:08
James A. Donald wrote: > flaviaR(a)verizon.net > > Your insistence that "Christmas is now secular and > > erveyone must celebrate it or be considered a bigot > > [the upshot of your "only those with a grudge against > > it don;t celebrate it" post] " is not only insanely > > fascist and bigoted, but just not logical. > > No one must celebrate it, but any one who not only does > not celebrate it, but gets upset and offended by other > people celebrating it, is indeed a bigot. Exactly right. |