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 15 Dec 2006 00:01 On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > <markzoom(a)digiverse.net> wrote in message > news:1166132173.007401.32580(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > > The vast majority of americans identify the candelabrum (7- or > > > 9-branched) with Hanukah, not with the state of Israel. They call both > > > "menorah" (the former correclty, the latter incorrectly), and usually > > > misidentify a 7 branched candelabrum as a Hanukyah and think > > > "Hanukah". Few are aware of the difference, and the overwhelming > > > association is that of the holiday, not the political association > > > (exactly the opposite of the shubhtika, where most people will > > > misidentify it as political rather than religious). In any case, you > > > claimed that the 9-branch candelabrum ->is<- the "national emblem of > > > the "State" of Israel". And that is, quite simply, false. Explain it > > > away all you want now, you were still wrong. > > > > Liar. Explaining how he's wrong makes you a liar?? > > I never specified the amount of bloody candles of any menorah, Which wasn't exactly the point of your post, but.... > > so I am > > not wrong about any number. Actually, he is BECAUSE he didn't specify --- > > It's a menorah wether it's got seven or nine candles. - because this is not so. You explain it beautifully above. > > How about 5 or 11 or 13 or 25? As if he won't say whatever comes into his "head" to support his hatred. Susan
From: flaviaR on 15 Dec 2006 00:03 On 14-Dec-2006, "PTravel" <ptravel(a)travelersvideo.com> wrote: > James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message > news:v622o2tj3c41ot7vdvffj2ht4nv4nrkgd5(a)4ax.com... > > flaviaR(a)verizon.net > >> Your insistence that "Christmas is now secular and > >> erveyone must celebrate it or be considered a bigot > >> [the upshot of your "only those with a grudge against > >> it don;t celebrate it" post] " is not only insanely > >> fascist and bigoted, but just not logical. > > > > No one must celebrate it, but any one who not only does > > not celebrate it, but gets upset and offended by other > > people celebrating it, is indeed a bigot. > > I agree. I haven't heard anyone get upset or offended by anyone > celebrating > Christmas. The concern in Seattle was using government funds, i.e. tax > dollars paid into the general fund, to pay for it I should have realized this was part of it. Good grief. > -- particularly to the > exclusion of all other "secular" holidays that are grounded in a specific > religion's tradition. > > So, who do you know that is upset and offended by anyone celebrating > Christmas? No one. But he sure is pretending otherwise. Susan
From: flaviaR on 15 Dec 2006 00:07 On 14-Dec-2006, "PTravel" <ptravel(a)travelersvideo.com> wrote: > > 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 "Santa" is just another word for "Saint" > 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. And rightfully resent being called bigoted for doing so. Susan
From: flaviaR on 15 Dec 2006 00:08 On 14-Dec-2006, "Sancho Panza" <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166141832.527881.315180(a)t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > The rabbi didn't complain about the trees. He made a request for his > > > own > > > display. Quite a difference there. > > > > No. He made a request for his own display AND THEN THREATENED TO SUE TO > > TAKE DOWN THE TREES NOT TRUE, TCHIOWA IS A LIAR. He wanted ot sue them for not including the menorah. WHich I thought was dumb, but he was trying to make a point, however clumsily. > if his request wasn't met. > > Not originally. Only after the Christians and the media went full blast. Not even then. Susan
From: James A. Donald on 15 Dec 2006 00:13
-- "brique" <> 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, But if the trees are symbols of a religion, the way the menorah is, then there is no place for them a government owned public space - so if he is conceded to be right, then all is conceded. Sooner or later all Christmas trees everywhere will have to be removed from all government owned public spaces everywhere. The first concession will prove the necessity for all the subsequent concessions. -- ---------------------- 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 |