Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: brique on 14 Dec 2006 18:32 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message news:m573o21998r14k7m3t5k4oa8jrc0dsqc97(a)4ax.com... > "James A. Donald" > > > 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. > > "Sancho Panza" > > But you are saying in posts right around this one that > > it is not a religious symbol. > > It is not a religious symbol. It is something that > reminds you guys of a religious symbol - as I said, a > symbol of a symbol. You see the tree and think about > mangers. The fact that you are taking offense shows > that no concessions whatever can ever stop you from > being offended. > > The manger is not there because we already had this > thing - people tried putting up a manger *and* a > menorah, and just got a longer queue of people > threatening lawsuits and engaging in lawsuits. So they > gave up on mangers. Now it is happening all over again > with any indications of Christmas whatsoever. Um..... you really have wondered down the garden path with this one James.... the thread, which you are so eager to misrepresent, is nto about 'removing trees' whether they be religious symbols or not. The facts of the case, which you continually ignore, is that the rabbi who threatened to sue did so because he wanted equal represetation for his religious symbols alongside the trees. So, he thought the trees were christian symbols, anyway. The case never reached court becasue the airport reponded by deciding noit to have any symbols, religious, secular or ambigously religious/secular/pagan. After the media fuss, the rabbi then withdrew his threat of litigation and the airport put the trees back. You,meanwhile, haver got the wrogn end of the tree and are indulging in your usual obtusely tangental meanderings. Get a grip, man. > > -- > ---------------------- > 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: brique on 14 Dec 2006 18:33 Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166124936.750332.298810(a)80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Anarcissie wrote: > > > 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." > > Witty, but as a serious statement about societies, incorrect and > perverse. > Hardly, what else were 'bread and circuses' then.......
From: Constantinople on 14 Dec 2006 18:43 brique wrote: > <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166119034.117505.237550(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > > > > > I notice nobody asking why it is tax money has to be spent on ornaments > > > rather than silly things like, you know, fixing potholes or even > something > > > really absurd like airport security... > > > > That attitude could help explain why socialist countries have such a > > reputation for being ugly, spirit-killing places. > > > > What........ like the Bronx and South LA ? Did you pick average, representative places in America (in which case you have a point) or did you cherry pick the worst places in America you could think of (in which case you don't)?
From: brique on 14 Dec 2006 18:51 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message news:8993o2hul2ejh9iphq0djvm4573glv520u(a)4ax.com... > "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. We thought we had a deal, the deal > being to hide away anything with the slightest religious > connotation, and we followed that deal, and it turns out > we do not have a deal. Where do we go from here? > > Maybe we need to build a big separation wall, with those > who cannot stand Christmas on one side of the wall and > those who want to celebrate Christmas on the other, and > then ethnically cleanse whoever is on the wrong side of > the wall. :-) I think both sides of your 'wall' are a pack of silly buggers who should be sent to bed without any mince pies....... > > -- > ---------------------- > 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 19:08
Ben Kaufman wrote: > On 14 Dec 2006 01:06:37 -0800, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >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. > > Ah constitutionally based bigotry, way to go! > > Ben Not bigotry. Where talking about secular vs. religious. Do you struggle with that concept? |