Re: Judge Orders Removal of Christmas Tree

[Guest guest]

" A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a Christmas tree from a

Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend non-Christians. "

Mmmmmmmmmmm what have Christmas trees to do with Christianity anyway?

>

>

> http://ca.news./s/afp/canada_justice_christmas

> <http://ca.news./s/afp/canada_justice_christmas>

> [ Canada News] <http://ca.news./> Canadian

judge

> orders removal of Christmas tree

> Thu Dec 14, 8:01 PM

>

> OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a

Christmas

> tree from a Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend

> non-Christians.

>

>

>

> In a letter to staff on Wednesday, Justice n Cohen said the

> decorated tree made non-Christians feel " they are not part of this

> institution " and was an inappropriate symbol to greet visitors.

>

>

>

> But the judge's order prompted an angry reaction on Thursday.

>

>

>

> " There's no reason why a Christmas tree can't be put wherever people

> want it to be. It's by no means an offense, I believe, to any

religion, "

> an attorney told broadcaster CTV.

>

>

>

> Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty called the decision " unfortunate. "

>

>

>

> " We enjoy the wonderful privilege of building a pluralistic,

> multicultural society, " he told the Toronto Star. But no one should

be

> " asked to abandon their traditions. "

>

>

>

> " It doesn't offend anyone when we celebrate Diwali at Queen's Park

(the

> Ontario provincial legislature) or celebrate Hanukah at Queen's

Park, "

> McGuinty said. " That's part and parcel of who we are. "

>

>

>

> Still, the artificial tree was moved to an administrative corridor

in

> the courthouse.

>

>

>

> More than 70 percent of Canadians identified themselves as

Christian,

> including almost 13 million Roman Catholics, in the last census in

2001.

>

>

>

> Muslims account for about two percent of the population. Jews,

> Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs each represent about one percent.

>

>

>

>

>

> Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The

> information contained in the AFP News report may not be published,

> broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written

> authority of Agence France Presse.

>

> [http://row.bc./b?

P=kCoVGM6.IkHfMvypRYI6ICix2N1RYEWCOnEABk3u & T=\

> 13vn83dme%2fX%3d1166162545%2fE%3d97645709%2fR%3dca_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%

3d2.\

> 1%2fW%3dHR%2fY%3dCA%2fF%3d3752210397%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%

3d4022BECE & U=1\

> 3995f57c%2fN%3d_SEzA86.Iqo-%2fC%3d292821.4843997.5984090.4726131%

2fD%3dF\

> OOT%2fB%3d2099064]

> [http://row.bc./b?

P=kCoVGM6.IkHfMvypRYI6ICix2N1RYEWCOnEABk3u & T=\

> 13vbc38db%2fX%3d1166162545%2fE%3d97645709%2fR%3dca_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%

3d3.\

> 1%2fW%3dJR%2fY%3dCA%2fF%3d2128348793%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%

3d4022BECE]

>

[Guest guest]

" A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a Christmas tree from a

Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend non-Christians. "

Mmmmmmmmmmm what have Christmas trees to do with Christianity anyway?

>

>

> http://ca.news./s/afp/canada_justice_christmas

> <http://ca.news./s/afp/canada_justice_christmas>

> [ Canada News] <http://ca.news./> Canadian

judge

> orders removal of Christmas tree

> Thu Dec 14, 8:01 PM

>

> OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a

Christmas

> tree from a Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend

> non-Christians.

>

>

>

> In a letter to staff on Wednesday, Justice n Cohen said the

> decorated tree made non-Christians feel " they are not part of this

> institution " and was an inappropriate symbol to greet visitors.

>

>

>

> But the judge's order prompted an angry reaction on Thursday.

>

>

>

> " There's no reason why a Christmas tree can't be put wherever people

> want it to be. It's by no means an offense, I believe, to any

religion, "

> an attorney told broadcaster CTV.

>

>

>

> Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty called the decision " unfortunate. "

>

>

>

> " We enjoy the wonderful privilege of building a pluralistic,

> multicultural society, " he told the Toronto Star. But no one should

be

> " asked to abandon their traditions. "

>

>

>

> " It doesn't offend anyone when we celebrate Diwali at Queen's Park

(the

> Ontario provincial legislature) or celebrate Hanukah at Queen's

Park, "

> McGuinty said. " That's part and parcel of who we are. "

>

>

>

> Still, the artificial tree was moved to an administrative corridor

in

> the courthouse.

>

>

>

> More than 70 percent of Canadians identified themselves as

Christian,

> including almost 13 million Roman Catholics, in the last census in

2001.

>

>

>

> Muslims account for about two percent of the population. Jews,

> Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs each represent about one percent.

>

>

>

>

>

> Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The

> information contained in the AFP News report may not be published,

> broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written

> authority of Agence France Presse.

>

> [http://row.bc./b?

P=kCoVGM6.IkHfMvypRYI6ICix2N1RYEWCOnEABk3u & T=\

> 13vn83dme%2fX%3d1166162545%2fE%3d97645709%2fR%3dca_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%

3d2.\

> 1%2fW%3dHR%2fY%3dCA%2fF%3d3752210397%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%

3d4022BECE & U=1\

> 3995f57c%2fN%3d_SEzA86.Iqo-%2fC%3d292821.4843997.5984090.4726131%

2fD%3dF\

> OOT%2fB%3d2099064]

> [http://row.bc./b?

P=kCoVGM6.IkHfMvypRYI6ICix2N1RYEWCOnEABk3u & T=\

> 13vbc38db%2fX%3d1166162545%2fE%3d97645709%2fR%3dca_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%

3d3.\

> 1%2fW%3dJR%2fY%3dCA%2fF%3d2128348793%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%

3d4022BECE]

>

[Guest guest]

Good point.

>

> " A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a Christmas tree from

a

> Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend non-Christians. "

>

> Mmmmmmmmmmm what have Christmas trees to do with Christianity anyway?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 15 Dec 2006 greebohere wrote:

> " A Canadian judge has ordered the removal of a Christmas tree from a

> Toronto courthouse lobby, saying it might offend non-Christians. "

>

> Mmmmmmmmmmm what have Christmas trees to do with Christianity anyway?

I'm not sure about trees, but in the US Supreme Court, they

decided to keep a Fresco depicting Mohammad with a sword,

despite complaints that someone didn't approve of an *image* of

Mohammad. The distributed tourist literature acknowledges that

Muslims may be offended but that it was intended to be

respectful, so it stays (and they're not going to replace it

with Bart Simpson or something).

Sometimes the courts, in a rare fit of sanity, do something

reasonable.

[Guest guest]

I think while what the judges did might abide by the Constitution

(freedom of expression, I presume) but I wonder if freedom of

expression as it was originally conceived extends to protecting the

rights of a person to grossly disrespect another's religious

mandates.

Would you approve of a decision by the Supreme Court to depict

Hitler urinating on a Menorah?

I certainly wish these artists who depict a crucifix in a jar of

urine would get censored somehow.

And I think the Muslims are right to complain about a visual

depiction of Mohammed if it goes against their religious beliefs.

There are laws, yes.

But there is also such a thing as respect for one's fellow human

beings, and I think in recent years people have discovered how to

legally insult others by claiming that what they are doing is

merely " art " in the name of " freedom of expression. "

Tom

Administrator

I'm not sure about trees, but in the US Supreme Court, they

decided to keep a Fresco depicting Mohammad with a sword,

despite complaints that someone didn't approve of an *image* of

Mohammad. The distributed tourist literature acknowledges that

Muslims may be offended but that it was intended to be

respectful, so it stays (and they're not going to replace it

with Bart Simpson or something).

Sometimes the courts, in a rare fit of sanity, do something

reasonable.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/2006 10:10:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vze2vfni1@... writes:

I'm not sure about trees, but in the US Supreme Court, they decided to keep a Fresco depicting Mohammad with a sword, despite complaints that someone didn't approve of an *image* of Mohammad. The distributed tourist literature acknowledges that Muslims may be offended but that it was intended to be respectful, so it stays (and they're not going to replace it with Bart Simpson or something).Sometimes the courts, in a rare fit of sanity, do something reasonable.

I don't know why they are offended, except perhaps from a lack of historical knowledge.

When Mohammad was thrown out of Mecca, he went to live with Bedouin tribesmen. Raiding and banditry is a part of Bedouin culture that was made use of even in WWI. Just read about Lawrence of Arabia to see this. Mohammed turned out to be a good tactician and was very successful in military ventures, including raiding caravans. His success drew men to him and they adopted Islam. Finally, he was able to go back to Mecca in force.

This was also a period of civil strife and war, which helped Mohammed spread his religion, especially amongst those who had no clan ties and were thus unprotected.

It is hard to find unsanitized versions of the history on the web. Most gloss over the less glamorous aspects of that period, but I did find one link that at least mentions the raids. This site seems to be straight with facts and even had a few things I didn't know.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/MUHAM.HTM

So, depicting Mohammed with a sword is historically accurate. Hamarabi should be depicted with a weapon well, as should some of the others I've heard that are up there. I believe some of them are actually. It should be remember that most of the old "lawgivers" were kings and so established and enforced their codes by the swords.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/19/2006 12:10:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

By Islam believes it is not allowed to make pictures of Mohammed or Allah.It has nothing to do with Mohammed having a sword or not.

That's true too.

[Guest guest]

By Islam believes it is not allowed to make pictures of Mohammed or

Allah.

It has nothing to do with Mohammed having a sword or not.

>

> I'm not sure about trees, but in the US Supreme Court, they

> decided to keep a Fresco depicting Mohammad with a sword,

> despite complaints that someone didn't approve of an *image* of

> Mohammad. The distributed tourist literature acknowledges that

> Muslims may be offended but that it was intended to be

> respectful, so it stays (and they're not going to replace it

> with Bart Simpson or something).

>

> Sometimes the courts, in a rare fit of sanity, do something

> reasonable.

>

>

>

> I don't know why they are offended, except perhaps from a lack of

historical

> knowledge.

[Guest guest]

On 19 Dec 2006 yarahui wrote:

> By Islam believes it is not allowed to make pictures of Mohammed or

> Allah.

>

> It has nothing to do with Mohammed having a sword or not.

I'm aware of the images thing, but don't see how *our*

depictions can be sacreligious to them, considering that they're

not being asked to create the fresco.

From my perspective, killing a bunch of people on their way to

work by blowing oneself up is offensive, and I can't understand

a religion that teaches total disregard for the unwilling guests

of an airborne jihad. But that's a different story.

- s

[Guest guest]

> From my perspective, killing a bunch of people on their way to

> work by blowing oneself up is offensive, and I can't understand

> a religion that teaches total disregard for the unwilling guests

> of an airborne jihad. But that's a different story.

>

> - s

>

funny, sad, and true, all at the same time. But people only care when

you step on their grass.

[Guest guest]

Doesn't say the Bible something alike as well? " Thou shalt not make

unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing

that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is

in the water under the earth " . Doesn't this mean God as well?

I understand your trouble with (as you wrote) " From my perspective,

killing a bunch of people on their way to work by blowing oneself up

is offensive " . But that is something different than a discussion

about a picture of Mohammed. Like you said.

I think it is better to seperate each discussion from the other.

Mixing up two different discussions is the base for feeding

misunderstandings. We have more than enough of those in this world.

>

> > By Islam believes it is not allowed to make pictures of Mohammed

or

> > Allah.

> >

> > It has nothing to do with Mohammed having a sword or not.

>

> I'm aware of the images thing, but don't see how *our*

> depictions can be sacreligious to them, considering that they're

> not being asked to create the fresco.

>

> From my perspective, killing a bunch of people on their way to

> work by blowing oneself up is offensive, and I can't understand

> a religion that teaches total disregard for the unwilling guests

> of an airborne jihad. But that's a different story.

>

> - s

>