Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: Mike Hunt on 15 Dec 2006 02:32 Sancho Panza wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166142337.379979.249960(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > >>Sancho Panza wrote: >> >>><constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1166134980.971609.224110(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>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. >> >>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 I take it you haven't been to the Mummer's Parade in Philly.
From: Mike Hunt on 15 Dec 2006 02:59 PTravel wrote: > > 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). Thanksgiving Day IS a Federal Holiday.
From: constantinopoli on 15 Dec 2006 03:43 Mike Hunt wrote: > constantinopoli(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:02:49 -0800, 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. > >> > >>By refusing to add a menorah to the airport display? > > > > > > If there's a choice between displaying all religions and displaying > > none - and that was ultimately the choice - then the better option is > > to display none. > > > > Christmas trees are nonreligious as all obvious traces of Christianity > > are removed (a nativity scene would constitute an obvious Christian > > element). Christmas is in fact a federal holiday and therefore secular > > (since the federal state is secular), and so to celebrate Christmas is > > not, by itself, to celebrate Christianity. > > Nonsense. Are you referring to the same Federal government that puts "In > God We Trust" on the currency. Or, perhaps the one where Chaplains say > prayers in both houses of Congress? Okay. But while the state cannot prevent something from being religious if it is in fact religious (and a statement that we trust in God is religious), the state does not *make* something religious. When holidays are organized by religious communities for religious purposes, they are religious by virtue of that, and if anyone participates in the celebration, then he is participating in the religious activity of that community and therefore celebrating their religion along with them. Thus when I am invited to a Passover Seder, the ritual is clearly about Judaism and is intended to perpetuate Judaism. Judaism is front and center throughout the Passover Seder. But since Christmas is, for most of us, not now organized by religious communities but is, as I pointed out, a national holiday set aside by a secular state, and since, furthermore, for many of us there is nothing religious about our celebration of it, then it is secular for us. I'm not sure what would be left over if we took the religion out of the Passover Seder. There would be nothing left. But for many Americans, even (to their chagrin) many Christians, Christmas has a substantial part which has nothing to do with Christianity, including the fact that it is a federal holiday, and for those of us who are not Christian and who celebrate Christmas, that part is all of it.
From: markzoom on 15 Dec 2006 04:42 Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:36:56 -0800, markzoom wrote: > > > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:38:26 -0800, markzoom wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Mark K. Bilbo wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:02:49 -0800, 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. > >> >> > >> >> By refusing to add a menorah to the airport display? > >> > > >> > It's not just some kind of festive decoration. > >> > The menorah is the NATIONAL EMBLEM OF THE "STATE" OF ISRAEL Like the > >> > eagle is to the US!: > >> > > >> > http://www.science.co.il/Israel-Emblem.asp > >> > > >> > I would find it highly offensive to have an 8 foot foreign state > >> > emblem displayed by legal imposition in my country. But hey, maybe > >> > yanks should know who their real masters are. > >> > >> That's stupid. > > > > Oh? I bet there would be an army of zionist shysters beating down doors > > if a Muslim Iman insisted on an 8' crescent and moon displayed at US > > airports on Muslim religious holidays. > > Well, they'd have to live with it wouldn't they? Just like they *do live > with it in areas where allowing representations from all the major faiths > are allowed. You *do know we already do this right? Hehehe, I can imagine how jewish owned enterprises open to the public would react to having to display a swastika, or crescent moon+star. > > >> Doesn't matter what it means in Israel, this isn't Israel. > > > > So you wouldn't mind an 8' swastika, a symbol used in various current > > and recognised religions, either then? > > If it was a legitimate part of their religion and not adopted post-WWII to > make a "point," I'd be fine with it. You, maybe, but there'd be hordes who wouldn't. > > > Many of those that know a Menorah is the official emblem of the Israeli > > government would see it as a symbol of another invasion of territory. > > Invade who? Us? That would be laughable. Not really. The US is pretty much controlled by a tiny zionist minority. > > >> Here, many regard it as a religious symbol. > > > > In the US, only less than 2% do. Did you know that there are just as > > many muslims as jews in the US, btw? > > So what? I don't see anything in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights that > specifies percentages. Just letting you know who the biggest whiners are, it sure isn't the quiet muslims. > > >> If we're going to let one > >> religious symbol be displayed on public property at public expense, we > >> should let all of them be displayed. > > > > You'll find that many places won't display anything at all instead of > > being forced to incur the expense of purchasing and managing the > > displays of dozens of minority religions on their festivals year round. > > Then maybe they should spend tax money on what tax money is *for. You > know, fixing potholes, airport security, things like that. I'm atheist, sounds fine with me. > > > 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?" Laws being imposed on what, how many and whose religious symbols being displayed would. > > Maybe to kooks... Religious kooks, yes. > > -- > Mark K. Bilbo > ------------------------------------------------------------ > "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned > and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and > the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong > its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until > all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic > is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever > before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions > may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln
From: Ray Fischer on 15 Dec 2006 04:49
<constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. That's either sarcasm or appalling ignorance and jingoism. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |