Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 26 Dec 2006 11:17 On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:15:11 -0800, usenet_trash wrote: > PTravel wrote: >> <usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de> wrote: >> > Mike Hunt wrote: >> >> usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >> >> > PTravel wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> > >> > I see. Unfortunately municipalities are not autonomous but are required >> > by law to follow the rules of the federal and state institutions. >> >> Not quite. Municipalities are state actors and, pursuant to the process of >> selective incorporation under the 14th Amendment, the restrictions of the >> First Amendment apply with equal force. It's not a question of having to >> follow the same laws. It's a question of powers that were never ceded to >> government entities, federal, state or municipal, in the first place. > > The first Amendment only speaks about Congress. Why should > municipalities respect this? A little thing called "the Civil War." -- Mark K. Bilbo ------------------------------------------------------------ "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 26 Dec 2006 11:26 On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800, usenet_trash wrote: > Al Klein wrote: >> On 23 Dec 2006 00:30:32 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >> >Al Klein wrote: >> >> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States. >> >> >> >> That's a nice lie, but it doesn't fly in the face of Christian >> >> campaigns like "Jesus is the reason for the season" and "put the >> >> Christ back into Christmas". You can't have it both ways. >> > >> >Interesting, didn't know that there are such stupid campaigns in the >> >US. No wonder that non-Christians are severely annoyed about that. >> >> Fundamentalist Christians are trying to turn the United Stated into a >> Christian theocracy. They've gone quite a way in that direction >> during the last 6 years. > > That is really bad. If municipalities and counties would have more > autonomy, then the fundies would assemble in those areas with fundy > majority without disturbing all the others. There they can have their > little theocracies. Same with followers of other ideas who could > experiment only in their own county without forcing their view on > others. Sorry but ours is a union of *states. Municipalities and counties and other such polities are creations of the states. Since the states do not have the power to act with regard to the establishment of religion, they have no such power to grant to polities they create within the state. Since at least the Civil War, the Bill of Rights has been held (albeit inconsistently) to apply to the states. Fundamental rights are not something any polity in the US is allowed to tinker with. Allowing states autonomy in the realm of individual rights is, after all, how we had slavery in the US... -- Mark K. Bilbo ------------------------------------------------------------ "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" -Douglas Adams
From: Tchiowa on 26 Dec 2006 19:29 Sancho Panza wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167111017.883738.24510(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > >> However, what may or may not be done in China is irrelevant, as you and > >> Donald seem to miss. It is what is done in the U.S. that is relevant, > >> and > >> how the Christmas holiday is regarded here. The point of this long and > >> tedious thread is that, as a general rule, those from non-Christian > >> backgrounds don't celebrate Christmas, those that are from Christian > >> backgronds do. As a general rule, the only ones claiming that Christmas > >> is > >> a secular, non-religious holiday "for everyone" are those from Christian > >> backgrounds. > > > > Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only Christians > > allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists (for > > example) don't? > > One of the most eyebrow-raising examples yet in this thread of the weird. Why? That is what PTrvel is contending. > > If you want to say that only Christians celebrate "Christ's Birthday" > > then you would be right. But Christmas has become far, far more than > > that for the majority of Americans. > > If you want to say that Christmas has become nothing more than a giant > commercial sell, then come out and say it, man. Silly statement. Christmas is a celebration of Christ's Birthday *to some people*. For others it's a family get together. For others it means other things. You're trying to pigeonhole something in a fairly offensive manner.
From: Tchiowa on 26 Dec 2006 19:59 PTravel wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167111017.883738.24510(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > And I agree with the others. While this newspaper may in > > fact be a propaganda organ for the government that doesn't alter the > > fact that Christmas is celebrated in many parts of China. > > Not as it is here, nor for any purpose other than commercialism and > adaptation of "western" fads. Who said "as it is here"? You deny cultural bigotry yet this is another example. Just because they don't celebrate Christmas *exactly* as they do in the US doesn't mean they don't celebrate Christmas. They are allowed to do it differently and allowed to have different motives. > > One can't help but wonder given your animosity toward Christmas if you > > saw exactly what you wanted to see. > > I have no animosity towards Christmas. I only have animosity towards > violations of the First Amendment. Which, if you are the lawyer you claim to be, the courts have already said has nothing to do with Christmas Trees at the airport. They don't violate the First Amendment. So since that can't be the source of your animosity, what is? > > After all you have been saying that > > only Christians celebrate Christmas in America which is not only > > demonstrably false but silly in the extreme. > > And that is a complete lie. I've never said anything of the sort. ??? Of course you have. We've been arguing about that specific statement. > I'll say it one more time, and then I've had it with this thread: > > Christmas is a holiday celebrated almost exclusively by those whose > background, heritage, traditions and culture are Christian. Christmas is > not, for the most part, celebrated by those whose background, heritage, > traditions and culture are something other than Christian. All of a sudden "for the most part". Which agrees with what I said and disagrees with what you said. > >> However, what may or may not be done in China is irrelevant, as you and > >> Donald seem to miss. It is what is done in the U.S. that is relevant, > >> and > >> how the Christmas holiday is regarded here. The point of this long and > >> tedious thread is that, as a general rule, those from non-Christian > >> backgrounds don't celebrate Christmas, those that are from Christian > >> backgronds do. As a general rule, the only ones claiming that Christmas > >> is > >> a secular, non-religious holiday "for everyone" are those from Christian > >> backgrounds. > > > > Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only Christians > > allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists (for > > example) don't? > > Jews don't. Nonsense. I've seen it. > Muslims don't. Nonsense. I've seen it. > Atheists whose background, culture, heritage > and traditions are something other than Christian don't. Nonsense. Think about what you've said. About 70% of Americans claim Christianity as a "background". About 1/3 of those acknowledge that they are not religious. So somewhere between slight less than half and 2/3 of Americans are Christian. The others are not. Let's use the figure that benefits your argument the most: 2/3. You are thus arguing that 1/3 of all Americans don't celebrate Christmas!!! Are you serious? Are you saying that 1/3 of all Americans don't exchange gifts or cards on Christmas? Are you saying that 1/3 of all Americans don't all their children to sit on Santa's lap? Are you saying that 1/3 of all Americans children have never sung "Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer" or "Frosty the Snowman"? Are you saying that 1/3 of all Americans have never believed in Santa? Are you saying that 1/3 of all Americans don't watch "It's a Wonderful Life" or "A Christmas Carol" or "Miracle on 34th Street"? Your argument is so silly it's amazing. And it can only come from someone whose personal background is that you don't do these things and can't accept that the majority do. And think that if they do there is something wrong with that. And think that if an airport puts up secular decorations to respect those people that violates the Constitution even though the courts have ruled otherwise. That is clear animosity and clear cultural bigotry. You are as bad as you claim James to be. > > If you want to say that only Christians celebrate "Christ's Birthday" > > then you would be right. But Christmas has become far, far more than > > that for the majority of Americans. > > That's because the majority of Americans come have a Christian background, > culture, heritage and tradition. That doesn't render it a non-religious, > generally-observed holiday. It is, in fact, a generally observed holiday and is non-religious for many. > And, since this is exactly what I started my participation in this thread > with, and all that are left are the anti-semites and those who, like > yourself, can't seem to distinguish between the usual right-wing "war on > Christmas" lies and what I've been saying, I'll just let you pat each other > on the back and congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews are, and > how anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is anti-Christian. Sorry, I'm not a racist. I don't believe Jews are stiff-necked. You, on the other hand, as an individual definitely are. And people who don't celebrate Christmas are anti-Christian. But people who oppose other people celebrating Christmas by putting up a secular Christmas decoration in the airport are, in fact, anti-Christian. You keep trying to cover your true statements. > > > >
From: Tchiowa on 26 Dec 2006 20:02
Sancho Panza wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167111245.897787.194940(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > > So are you then saying that "part of Airbus" is the government of > > France? > > The Elysee Palace sure thinks it is. > > >> >> > Is a baseball stadium built with government bonds and run by the > >> >> > city > >> >> > "the government"? > >> >> > >> >> It sure is in most of the United States. The government usually leases > >> >> it > >> >> to > >> >> whomever it deems fit. > >> > > >> > But is it *THE GOVERNMENT*??? No, it's not. It's owned by the > >> > government. But it is NOT the government any more than Airbus is the > >> > government. > >> > >> Of course it is. Those municipalities can and do enter into, revise and > >> even > >> terminate said leases. If they're not the owner, who is? > > > > I'm going to try to speak slowly because you don't seem to be > > understanding. I'm not talking about who owns the corporation. I'm > > talking about whether or not the corporation is *THE GOVERNMENT*. It's > > not and it's silly to claim it is. > > > > I own my computer. Is my computer "Me"? > > > > Just because a government agency owns a corporation does *NOT* make > > that corporation "the government". > > > Deflection by non sequitor and double talk. Eg: The government owns a > corporation. The corporation is not part of the government. Overpowering > logic, huh? I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple fact. > >What governmental functions does a baseball park perform? > > Ask the yo-yo government officials who organize, vote and finance them. They > seem to think that there is some governmental function worth in the tens of > millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. You mean like the City Councils? Yes. They *are* the government. But what governmental functions does the ball park perform? You seem to have zero idea what a government is. |