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 23:44 On 14-Dec-2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail(a)com.mkbilbo> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote: > > 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... Certainly to those who expose themselves and their politics so thoroughly as markzoom. Or did you miss what he called the rabbi....? I left it in, above.... Susan
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 23:47 On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > > It is also a nationalist symbol. No, it isn't - this has been covered. Nationalism is > > confrontational and excursionist. Christmas trees are > > not. > > > > If the Airport had put up a bloody great crucifix > > instead of Christmas trees, you could *then* ask for a > > menorah to balance it, Except for the fact that the courts who have said the trees are secular have also said the same about the menorah (or, to be more accurate, since therehas been a deliberate attempt to blur the two, the chanukiah). > > 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. > > If someone insists on flaunting their ignorance so be it. And in direct answer to several posts explaining where he is wrong. > But as has been > posted here quite a few times already, the Hanukah candelabrum is > different > from the Israeli candelabra. Of course, stubborness and prejudice may > delay > this simple understanding. > > > > Judaism really does not quite fit into the American > > model of separation of church and state, because America > > is a nation state, and judaism is both religion and > > nationalism. Islam, of course, violently contradicts > > the American model of separation of church and state, > > since separation of church and state is a violation of > > Islam. > > You no doubt would feel more comfortable with tax-supported Christian > schools and similar programs. > Which is what we have here. Ooops. > > >In consequence, the policy of treating Judaism > > and Islam as if they were Christian religious sects does > > not really work, and this unpleasant confrontation over > > a christmas display that had been carefully purged of > > the slightest religious element is an indication of > > that. > > If someone insists on falling over one's arguments, including theological > abstractions, in wide-ranging public forums, so be it again. It will be > curious to see whether anyone can make sense of the above statement. I have, but not that which he intended people to make. Susan
From: James A. Donald on 14 Dec 2006 23:47 "James A. Donald" > > shows that you guys are entirely unappeasable, that > > no concession will suffice, that any concession > > merely strengthens demands for further concessions. flaviaR(a)verizon.net > That would be you, actually. You are the only one who > keeps teling this lie. You demanded a menorah be included, and expressed outrage when you heard that some people spontaneously included menorahs -- ---------------------- 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 23:56 On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > > > "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message > news:g083o29k0sig4dskbku3fck5tq29gtdith(a)4ax.com... > > There was no manger at the airport, nor any prayer. The > > airport Christmas was carefully sanitized of anything > > with the slightest connection to Christianity. > > If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why do basically just > Christians use them? And why are they only brought out at Xmas? Susan
From: flaviaR on 14 Dec 2006 23:58
On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166142441.213901.170750(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > > If the trees have no connection to Christianity, why do basically just > > > Christians use them? > > > > Simply not true. A lot of non-Christians including members of other > > religions and atheists who celebrate Christmas as a non-religious > > holiday put them up. > > With the basic intent of stimulating sales revenues from the Christians. > Macy's is a good example of that. The other point is that this "logic" is like saying that since there are more members of the phony Kabbalah Kult out in California than rabbis who actually learn the real thing that this means that the Kabbalah is no longer what the rabbis learn, but what the cult pushes. Susan |