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 15 Dec 2006 00:36 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message news:d914o2lp9ciqsok2pj3t87b9tfl95r57e9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:30:55 -0500, "Sancho Panza" > > The rabbi didn't complain about the trees. He made a > > request for his own display. Quite a difference there. > > His legal claim, the basis of his lawsuit, is that the > airport could not do a secular Christmas display without > also displaying Jewish religous and national symbols, > which if conceded leads to every damned real and > fabricated group claiming you cannot do a secular > Christmas display without also including their symbols, > and their symbols in a size and prominence they deem > appropriate, and in some cases, as with Kwanzaa, their > symbols will be as offensive and confrontational as they > can concoct them. Then your problem is not with secular groups or even 'christmas-haters', your problem is competing religious groups trying to grab a share of publically funded propaganda material. Which is probably why it is best for publically-funded organisations to stay out of the whole mess and leave it to the religions themselves to mount their own displays of whatever religious synbols floats their boats on their own property and at their own expense. > > We already had this business over mangers. The Supreme > court took the position that you could have a manger, > provided it was a minor part of a secular christmas > display. But then every manger was met by an unending > stream of "requests", until no one dared put out a > manger. And now that we have conceded no mangers, the > same tactic is being applied to ensure no Christmas > trees either. Diddums for the manger-lovers then.... if you mount the display on your opwn property at your own expense then you can have mangers galore in any color, shape, size or number. Its the public funding of religious displays which is th eissue. Funny, James, you mounted a loud and noisy attack upon environmentalism on the bais it was public funding of a religion. Now you think public funding of religious propaganda is cool. Guess like all bigots, it all depends on whether the public is funding your pet project or not that counts. > > -- > ---------------------- > 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 15 Dec 2006 00:44 Constantinople <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166141511.780454.49040(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > brique wrote: > > 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....... > > Brilliant: Rome provided free food and free theater to the Romans, and > therefore Americans and Japanese and others celebrate Christmas because > they live lives of quiet desperation. You might want to plug a few of > the gaping holes in your argument. However I'm not holding my breath. > Shame...... still, one can hope..... sure you are not turning blue?
From: brique on 15 Dec 2006 00:50 Sancho Panza <otterpower(a)xhotmail.com> wrote in message news:elsqm901mij(a)enews4.newsguy.com... > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166142441.213901.170750(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > > > Sancho Panza wrote: > > > "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message > > > news:g083o29k0sig4dskbku3fck5tq29gtdith(a)4ax.com... > > > > -- > > > > "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. > > > > > > 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. > There was an old joke, told in my schooldays about the christian child commiserating with the jewish child when told the jews didn't have a 'christmas'. 'But what do you do on Christmas Day then?' he asked. 'We go down to the warehouse and look at all the empty shelves and thank god for Christmas!' he replied.....
From: Tchiowa on 15 Dec 2006 01:19 flaviaR(a)verizon.net wrote: > 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. If anyone doubted that the root of this is a "war on Christmas" then this reference to undeclaring Christmas as a national holiday is final proof.
From: PTravel on 15 Dec 2006 02:02
"James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote in message news:3fc4o2pqt9pptgbvgouq76nobeuehrt2bk(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:38:37 -0800, "PTravel" >> 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 > > But if secular trees are objectionable, then any money > spent on the holiday is objectionable, then the holiday > itself is objectionable - after all the holiday must > cost the government money. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable. No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others. > And if the menorah is > conceded, then the principle that anything associated > with Christmas is establishing a religion is conceded, > in which case everything Christmassy has to go. Hunh? I'm sorry, but this sentence is impossible to parse. I have no idea what you're saying. > > And on past performance, we can expect those lawsuits to > follow shortly. Over the SeaTac issue? There wasn't a lawsuit and there won't be one. However, a lawsuit is the only vehicle to enforce the government's compliance with the restrictions of the First Amendment. That's what the Constitution requires. I assume you're not opposed to the Constitution, right? > When the government lets employees go > home for Christmas and thanksgiving, it is establishing > a religion :-) Actually, yes, my personal belief (as a lawyer, not as a non-Christian), is that the Establishment Clause is violated by the government letting employees go home for Christmas (not Thanksgiving, which is a non-sectarian -- or, perhaps, all-sectarian -- holiday particular to no religion). However, I don't set on the bench, and I never will so the government will continue to give the 25th (or the adjacent weekday) off as a holiday. > > -- > ---------------------- > 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 |