Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: PTravel on 14 Dec 2006 22:03 "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message news:rm14o25b0k8shl8efj5onoh6hlcguirgo9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:52:31 -0800, "PTravel" >> Even granting that the Christmas tree is secular (and >> I don't believe that it is), it is definitely not >> all-sectarian. > > It evidently includes Hindus, ancestor worshippers, and > animists, they being part of "peace on earth and > goodwill to all men" I'm talking about Christmas trees, not sentiments of the holidays. "Peace on earth and goodwill towards men" has nothing to do with the display of Christmas trees. > > So why not Jews and Muslims? Because Christmas trees, which are part of the Christians tradition, are not part of Jewish and Muslim cultural traditions, and never were. Perhaps there will come a time when these aspects of Christmas are so secular that, like Halloween, they lose all connection to the religious holiday. That is certainly not the case now. > Because some Jews and many > Muslims don't *want* to be included, You have a funny definition of "included." As I said, Christmas trees and Saint Nick . . . I mean . . . Santa Claus are not, and never were, part of the cultural traditions and heritage of Jews and Muslims. These possibly-secular-but-clearly-sectarian symbols are part of the culture, traditions and heritage of a different religion. Thank you for your kind offer of your traditions and cultural heritage -- I believe we'll stick with our own. > not because they > are excluded, but because they intransigently and > unpleasantly fight off attempts to include them. That "intransigence" should be some indicator to you of just how deeply held is the belief among non-Christians that the Christmas holiday and its trappings are not secular and inextricably linked with Christianity. As for, "unpleasant," please give me some examples -- I have no idea what you mean. > > -- > ---------------------- > 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: constantinopoli on 14 Dec 2006 22:08 Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:43:29 -0800, Constantinople wrote: > > > 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)? > > With something over half our population packed into cities, the Bronx and > South LA rather *are representative these days... It's obvious that he picked two names that are associated in American culture with negatives, same way as Beverly Hills (which is a city, hence one of those places you say we're "packed into") is one of the names that will easily come to mind if you're thinking of wealth. "By the time of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which began in South Central and spread throughout the city, South Central had become a byword for urban decay, its bad reputation spread by movies such as South Central, Menace II Society, Friday, South Central native John Singleton's Boyz N the Hood, and rap group N.W.A's album Straight Outta Compton." http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/South_Los_Angeles More than half of America is not "packed into" places like South LA. South LA is well known because it stands out from the norm. If it were average it would not be as well known. That said, to say that I would much rather live in South LA than in Pyongyang (the capital of a socialist state) is to make an understatement so extreme as to establish a new category of understatement.
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 23:40 On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > <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. I find it astounding that someone can even type the whole farrago he did and not think he was going to get asked that. Susan
From: James A. Donald on 14 Dec 2006 23:41 "James A. Donald" > > If the Airport had put up a bloody great crucifix > > instead of Christmas trees, you could *then* ask for > > a menorah to balance it, and could *still* > > reasonably be rejected on the grounds that if we put > > up a menorah, we would soon have to put up two > > hundred and seventeen national flags. "Sancho Panza" > If someone insists on flaunting their ignorance so be > it. But as has been posted here quite a few times > already, the Hanukah candelabrum is different from the > Israeli candelabra. The difference is too slight to notice at a casual glance. -- ---------------------- 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: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 23:42
On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > > > Try to explain why one group shouuld have the right of display and > another > > > should not. > > > > Simple. Because one is celebrating an official national holiday and the > > other is not. > > > > Any more questions? > > Yes. That neglects to explain why there aren't similar decorations for New > Year's, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, Columbus Day, etc etc And it also begs the question of why we violate our Constitution with a "National Holiday" that is clearly religious in nature. So when we finally get Xmas undeclared a national holiday, we all know who the outraged Xians will have to thank for bringing the injustice & violation to our attention. Susan |