Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 17:25 On 14-Dec-2006, "Anarcissie" <anarcissie(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Apparently a lot of Christians are under the impression > that Christmas trees and Santa Claus are Christian > symbols, in spite of their obvious paganism. THat's why they are so adamant about them being shoved down everyone's throats. > I suppose > this irks people who find state-sponsored religious > displays offensive. Exactly. After all, I want anyone to point out where I've said anything about anyone's house? > I myself don't really care about the > religion part, I just find them banal. In fact, they'd be > less banal if more religion were involved. > > Of course there is not an impermeable barrier between > religious and non-religious Winter Solstice symbols > and practices. For instance, some Christians have been > noticed adopting the menorah, Oh good grief - why can't they just leave us alone???? It's bad enough they keep insisting they;ve replaced us! But, it's just another reason I want religious displays to be kept private. > just as they lifted Santa > Claus and the Christmas tree from the pagans. > I hadn't heard about the Santa part - I was sure he was strctly Xian! Susan > Holidays of enforced jollity are all part of living a life of > quiet desperation. As the great Quentin Crisp said, > "When people are happy there is no need for festivities."
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 17:28 On 14-Dec-2006, James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > It is also a nationalist symbol. But not the one used for Chanukah. Susan
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 17:31 On 14-Dec-2006, James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: > -- > "James A. Donald" > > > any one who not only does not celebrate it, but gets > > > upset and offended by other people celebrating it, > > > is indeed a bigot. > > "Sancho Panza" > > You would no doubt celebrate even more imams and > > others taking out their prayer rugs and doing their > > thing in the middle of a public place that you are > > using. > > There was no manger at the airport, nor any prayer. The > airport Christmas was carefully sanitized of anything > with the slightest connection to Christianity. Except for the Xmas trees. > The fact > that the threats of lawsuits continue Since you haven't shown yourself truthful so far, I requeat a link to this statement. > 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. Susan
From: Mark K. Bilbo on 14 Dec 2006 18:05 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote: > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:38:26 -0800, markzoom wrote: >> >> > >> > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:02:49 -0800, 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. >> >> >> >> By refusing to add a menorah to the airport display? >> > >> > It's not just some kind of festive decoration. >> > The menorah is the NATIONAL EMBLEM OF THE "STATE" OF ISRAEL Like the >> > eagle is to the US!: >> > >> > http://www.science.co.il/Israel-Emblem.asp >> > >> > I would find it highly offensive to have an 8 foot foreign state >> > emblem displayed by legal imposition in my country. But hey, maybe >> > yanks should know who their real masters are. >> >> That's stupid. > > Oh? I bet there would be an army of zionist shysters beating down doors > if a Muslim Iman insisted on an 8' crescent and moon displayed at US > airports on Muslim religious holidays. Well, they'd have to live with it wouldn't they? Just like they *do live with it in areas where allowing representations from all the major faiths are allowed. You *do know we already do this right? >> Doesn't matter what it means in Israel, this isn't Israel. > > So you wouldn't mind an 8' swastika, a symbol used in various current > and recognised religions, either then? If it was a legitimate part of their religion and not adopted post-WWII to make a "point," I'd be fine with it. > Many of those that know a Menorah is the official emblem of the Israeli > government would see it as a symbol of another invasion of territory. Invade who? Us? That would be laughable. >> Here, many regard it as a religious symbol. > > In the US, only less than 2% do. Did you know that there are just as > many muslims as jews in the US, btw? So what? I don't see anything in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights that specifies percentages. >> If we're going to let one >> religious symbol be displayed on public property at public expense, we >> should let all of them be displayed. > > You'll find that many places won't display anything at all instead of > being forced to incur the expense of purchasing and managing the > displays of dozens of minority religions on their festivals year round. Then maybe they should spend tax money on what tax money is *for. You know, fixing potholes, airport security, things like that. > In a way that would be victory for the zionist Rabbi too.... and a blow > to freedom. Not having tax funded blinky lights on plastic trees is a "blow to freedom?" Maybe to kooks... -- Mark K. Bilbo ------------------------------------------------------------ "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln
From: Sancho Panza on 14 Dec 2006 18:00
<constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166134980.971609.224110(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > flav...(a)verizon.net wrote: > > On 14-Dec-2006, constantinopoli(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > However, if it is tragically and incorrectly decided in the courts that > > > to display Christmas trees is to endorse Christianity, then Christmas > > > trees should be removed rather than overtly religious displays such as > > > menorahs, > > > > Menorahs have been deemed secular by the courts who have > > also deemed the trees as secular, too, even tho' neither is. > > Excellent. Then it should be perfectly fine to display just menorahs, > just Christmas trees, or both, or neither, without any implications or > any basis for lawsuits. > > Thus there is no basis for complaint that Christmas trees and not > menorahs were displayed. To complain about such a think is like > complaining that banana trees and not orange trees were displayed. Try to explain why one group shouuld have the right of display and another should not. |