I'm an Atheist, and even I hope this guy loses

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113575672&ps=cprs

This guy has filed a lawsuit against the appearance of a cross, first erected in 1934 to honor veterans who died in The Great War. The SCOTUS will hear this case soon. Here's hoping the cross stays.

[olevetonahill]

Dayum JM another Milestone we agree again

Can I have a Hallelujah.

Ive read the 1st amendment
No where does it say we HAVE to be separate:mad:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


Its time to take back our country , By force or peaceable means

[SicEmBaylor]

Yep.

I have a real problem with these sorts of lawsuits. I distrust evangelical influence on government, and my own religion is pretty watered down.

HOWEVER, I like the idea that the government acknowledges a higher authority than itself. I shudder at the thought of completely religion-neutral government that believes itself to be the highest authority over man.

I also believe that's about the extent to which our Founder's believed religion should be involved with government.

[yermom]

Some Jewish and Muslim veterans maintain that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans.

why a cross? why not something American? what does any of this have to do with Jesus?

[Turd_Ferguson]

why a cross? why not something American? what does any of this have to do with Jesus?huh:confused:

[olevetonahill]

why a cross? why not something American? what does any of this have to do with Jesus?

Its been there since 1934
Would Yall quit being apologist :mad:

[Turd_Ferguson]

Its been there since 1934
Would Yall quit being apologist :mad:concur.

[olevetonahill]

WE as white,Black or any other Christians do not OWE an apology to any other religion or country but to our OWN

If you really do not believe that This country was founded on Christian beliefs. Then You have Never Read nor understood History

[SicEmBaylor]

The fact that it's a cross is entirely appropriate and makes perfect sense.

In 1934 and prior, you'd be very hard pressed to find non-christians in the US armed forces. It was overwhelmingly christian and nearly totally white. This isn't a racist statement -- it's a simple fact. There were of course some jews, but I can probably count the number of muslims in our armed forces prior to 1934 on one hand (if there were any at all).

The idea that historical fact, memorials, places, etc. should be beholden to modern political correctness is absurd.

Crosses were, for most of our history, a common symbol to honor our war dead.

[yermom]

and that makes it right?

[SicEmBaylor]

and that makes it right?

It's neither right nor wrong. It's just the way it was.

[olevetonahill]

Ya think ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Flanders_Field_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg

[olevetonahill]

and that makes it right?

Let ONE mother ****er try to take One down
Yes Its RIGHT :mad:

[olevetonahill]

It's neither right nor wrong. It's just the way it was.

Dont be wishy washy
YES its RIGHT

[olevetonahill]

Holy bacon deep fried on a stick!
Are you **** heads so PC that ya cant see what is right and wrong ?

**** PC :mad:

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, I don't disagree it was completely right and appropriate at the time.

I don't really have anything against a giant cross memorial now, but I think we have a lot more troops of various faiths these days than we did in 1934 and a giant cross may not be the best way to represent ALL of them. But that has nothing to do with the cross in this lawsuit.

And of course I still think the cross should be used as headstones.

[JLEW1818]

Obama needs to step up!!

[iwannabelikesam]

If you really do not believe that This country was founded on Christian beliefs. Then You have Never Read nor understood History

This country was founded with some Christian ideals, but more importantly, it was founded as a nation free of a government sanctioned religion.

[OUAlumni1990]

Obama needs to step up!!

Obama needs to shut up!!

:D

[CrimsonJim]

Good jorb, JohnnyMack, you've opened up a can of worms this time!

[olevetonahill]

Dayum JM another Milestone we agree again

Can I have a Hallelujah.

Ive read the 1st amendment
No where does it say we HAVE to be separate:mad:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


Its time to take back our country , By force or peaceable means


This country was founded with some Christian ideals, but more importantly, it was founded as a nation free of a government sanctioned religion.

What part of the 1st amendment did you not understand?

]prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[CK Sooner]

"A Nation Under God"

[iwannabelikesam]

Ya think ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Flanders_Field_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg

Fail.

Those are personal grave markers. If they only allowed christian crosses then there would be a problem. But they allow more than just christian crosses, they also have jewish star of davids, islamic star and crescents, etc. There is a difference between that and a christian statue or monument on government land

[olevetonahill]

Good jorb, JohnnyMack, you've opened up a can of worms this time!

JM my Hero :cool:

[olevetonahill]

Fail.

Those are personal grave markers. If they only allowed christian crosses then there would be a problem. But they allow more than just christian crosses, they also have jewish star of davids, islamic star and crescents, etc. There is a difference between that and a christian statue or monument on government land

WTF are you Talkin about ? Those ARE crosses
Yes there are others

Remember
prohibitingthe free exercise thereof;
You are kinda slow aint ya

Did ya ride the short Bus ?:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

Fail.

Those are personal grave markers. If they only allowed christian crosses then there would be a problem. But they allow more than just christian crosses, they also have jewish star of davids, islamic star and crescents, etc. There is a difference between that and a christian statue or monument on government land

Before it was an historical Monument
http://http://kilby.sac.on.ca/towerslibrary/pages/users/819.152.jpg

[iwannabelikesam]

WTF are you Talkin about ? Those ARE crosses
Yes there are others

Remember
prohibitingthe free exercise thereof;
You are kinda slow aint ya

Did ya ride the short Bus ?:rolleyes:

You are challenged and you first instinct is an ad hominem attack? Your not interested in real debate then, so I will revert to ad hominem as well. I don't feel like arguing with a senile old man who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and does not wish too understand it, only distort it to match what he thinks it should be.

[Sooner04]

In God We Trust

[SicEmBaylor]

Fail.

Those are personal grave markers. If they only allowed christian crosses then there would be a problem. But they allow more than just christian crosses, they also have jewish star of davids, islamic star and crescents, etc. There is a difference between that and a christian statue or monument on government land

Uh, I believe those crosses and that particular Christian statue is on government land. It looks like a national cemetery to me.

Get your own facts straight before you start name calling.

[JLEW1818]

In God We Trust

THANK YOU!!!!:cool:

[olevetonahill]

You are challenged and you first instinct is an ad hominem attack? Your not interested in real debate then, so I will revert to ad hominem as well. I don't feel like arguing with a senile old man who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and does not wish too understand it, only distort it to match what he thinks it should be.

Debate me all you want bro
When did you Challenge me ?

You said I was wrong I said I was right
Go fer it girl

[olevetonahill]

Uh, I believe those crosses and that particular Christian statue is on government land. It looks like a national cemetery to me.

Get your own facts straight before you start name calling.

Its ****in "Flanders Field"
Ya dip ****s

[olevetonahill]

So iwannabelikesam
Debate me .
I posted Flanders field YOU said they were personal monuments

Carry on

[Collier11]

and that makes it right?

what exactly makes it so "wrong" this is weak sauce

[SCOUT]

Yep.

I have a real problem with these sorts of lawsuits. I distrust evangelical influence on government, and my own religion is pretty watered down.

HOWEVER, I like the idea that the government acknowledges a higher authority than itself. I shudder at the thought of completely religion-neutral government that believes itself to be the highest authority over man.

I also believe that's about the extent to which our Founder's believed religion should be involved with government.
^^^^This


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[iwannabelikesam]

Uh, I believe those crosses and that particular Christian statue is on government land. It looks like a national cemetery to me.

Get your own facts straight before you start name calling.

I do have my facts straight. The individual grave markers in the national cemetery of our nations heroes represent the religion of the respective person the marker represents. Each religion is given fair consideration.

The christian statue is a completely different situation. If other religions were given fair chance to display their own symbols next to the cross then it would be okay. But then you could either have that, with our nations park land cluttered up by various religious symbols or you could have nothing. But to have them only have the christian cross violated the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

[olevetonahill]

Im59
Dont even Try to take a cross down off a Vets Grave .
I will put an asswhoopinon ya Oral Roberts cant Pray off .

[Collier11]

If this stuff really offends some of you so much that you feel the need to sue, that is pretty sad

[olevetonahill]

I do have my facts straight. The individual grave markers in the national cemetery of our nations heroes represent the religion of the respective person the marker represents. Each religion is given fair consideration.

The christian statue is a completely different situation. If other religions were given fair chance to display their own symbols next to the cross then it would be okay. But then you could either have that, with our nations park land cluttered up by various religious symbols or you could have nothing. But to have them only have the christian cross violated the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Bold part
Not so much arsewipe

That Pic Is of Flanders field
Ya got a clue where that is ?

[olevetonahill]

Where In hell did ALL of Americas "Men in Black " go

mbbGi3mTjCo

[iwannabelikesam]

If this stuff really offends some of you so much that you feel the need to sue, that is pretty sad

Personally, I am not offended by the cross that was in the story in the original post. In fact I agree with the gesture and honor behind it. However, just because I am not personally offended does not mean it does not violate out Constitution.

[Collier11]

nothing about that violates the constitution, hell it is now on private land anyway

[SicEmBaylor]

I do have my facts straight. The individual grave markers in the national cemetery of our nations heroes represent the religion of the respective person the marker represents. Each religion is given fair consideration.

This isn't true at all. I don't know how many national cemeteries you've been to, but there are often Christian symbols displayed independent of an individual's marker.


The christian statue is a completely different situation. If other religions were given fair chance to display their own symbols next to the cross then it would be okay. But then you could either have that, with our nations park land cluttered up by various religious symbols or you could have nothing. But to have them only have the christian cross violated the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Displaying a symbol is not tantamount to the establishment of a state religion. It's an acknowledgement and reflection of the nation's shared and common culture which is historically and predominantly Christian. Now like I said, these days our armed forces are much more religiously diverse so I don't think a giant cross really represents them in the same way that it did in 1934. And I certainly don't believe that existing monuments and memorials should be unearthed to appease modern and fleeting senses of political-correctness.

[CrimsonJim]

“If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me put this another way....

Do you think every soldier buried under a Cross marker was a devout Christian? Almost certainly not. Those crosses aren't JUST a Christian symbol -- they're a symbol of shared heritage. In this sense, the display of crosses isn't some evangelical move by the government to spread Christianity from sea to shining sea -- it's just a symbol of our common heritage.

There's nothing wrong or unconstitutional about it.

[olevetonahill]

Personally, I am not offended by the cross that was in the story in the original post. In fact I agree with the gesture and honor behind it. However, just because I am not personally offended does not mean it does not violate out Constitution.

Dude do really want me to go Die ?:D


" from his grey spek to me
my meaningless powers of spek sahll greatly add to your green, just go ahead and die old man, you are no longer wanted by the world, it is time to go."

[starclassic tama]

hahahaha. pretty sure sam wouldn't wish an old vet to die... it's scary how serious some people take a MESSAGE BOARD

[iwannabelikesam]

This isn't true at all. I don't know how many national cemeteries you've been to, but there are often Christian symbols displayed independent of an individual's marker.


Displaying a symbol is not tantamount to the establishment of a state religion. It's an acknowledgement and reflection of the nation's shared and common culture which is historically and predominantly Christian. Now like I said, these days our armed forces are much more religiously diverse so I don't think a giant cross really represents them in the same way that it did in 1934. And I certainly don't believe that existing monuments and memorials should be unearthed to appease modern and fleeting senses of political-correctness.

I tend to agree personally, because I view it as relics to our christian majority past. But I don't think the 1st Amendment agrees because it promotes one religion over another with a simple display.

You seem intelligent and well-versed and even though you disagree, present your argument respectfully, that's honorable of you.

Like I said, I don't personally agree with what the 1st Amendment would say here, but it does need to be applied as fairly and evenly as possible, so I like to present the devil's advocate (or would that be god's advocate?) side.

[Collier11]

Oh yeaaa, youre here

[olevetonahill]

hahahaha. pretty sure sam wouldn't wish an old vet to die... it's scary how serious some people take a MESSAGE BOARD

I tend to believe what a person says

[SicEmBaylor]

hahahaha. pretty sure sam wouldn't wish an old vet to die... it's scary how serious some people take a MESSAGE BOARD

Spek is a DEADLY serious business.

For Halloween I'm going to go as a giant red rectangular-dot and scare the **** out of small children and insecure SF posters. :D

[olevetonahill]

iwannabelikesam
Son you still havnt addressed the fact that you Didnt have yer facts straight
The Pic I posted was from "Flanders Field"
NOT a National monument here ;)

[Collier11]

its easier to ignore ignorance

[SCOUT]

I tend to agree personally, because I view it as relics to our christian majority past. But I don't think the 1st Amendment agrees because it promotes one religion over another with a simple display.

You seem intelligent and well-versed and even though you disagree, present your argument respectfully, that's honorable of you.

Like I said, I don't personally agree with what the 1st Amendment would say here, but it does need to be applied as fairly and evenly as possible, so I like to present the devil's advocate (or would that be god's advocate?) side.
If a cross establishes the religion of Christianity, wouldn't a void be the establishment of Atheism?

[iwannabelikesam]

If a cross establishes the religion of Christianity, wouldn't a void be the establishment of Atheism?

or would it be an establishment of agnosticism?

Are atheism and agnosticism even religions?

[SCOUT]

or would it be an establishment of agnosticism?

Are atheism and agnosticism even religions?

I suppose that is my point. They are symbols. They don't establish anything.

[starclassic tama]

I tend to believe what a person says

i meant the real sam, the guy iwannabelikesam wants to be like.

atheism and agnosticism are the absence of religion. so while they are religious beliefs, they aren't organized religions.

[olevetonahill]

iwannabelikesam
Son you still havnt addressed the fact that you Didnt have yer facts straight
The Pic I posted was from "Flanders Field"
NOT a National monument here ;)


or would it be an establishment of agnosticism?

Are atheism and agnosticism even religions?

Are ya still waffling ?

[JLEW1818]

Sam is christian!

[iwannabelikesam]

I suppose that is my point. They are symbols. They don't establish anything.

I disagree, it is a christian cross on display and not any other religious display. The government either supports the cross up there and nothing else and goes against the 1st Amendment or it can have an open forum for all religious symbols, or actually another option, it can have nothing (I don't believe having nothing would be supporting atheism or agnosticism)

[Collier11]

why is it being there mean the govt is supporting it? I certainly dont see how the govt is favoring anything or establishing anything either

[iwannabelikesam]

why is it being there mean the govt is supporting it? Quit being a baby, good grief. Atheists and the like just want something to bitch about in most of these cases

Because it is the only thing that can be there. A christian cross is it. Nothing else.

And I am no atheist (or anything like).

[olevetonahill]

He said he wanted a Debate yet all he does is run and Hide :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

Because it is the only thing that can be there. A christian cross is it. Nothing else.

And I am no atheist (or anything like).

Wait a Minute Einstein where is it written that "ONLY " a cross can be displayed there ?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Dont be wishy washy
YES its RIGHT

The Mexicans are your allies on this, olevet.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1112/536695061_f6954e8f4a.jpg


http://fatherjohn.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/crucifix.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

It is a Christian cross, but I think the intent is really the issue here.

Ask yourself this: Is the government intentionally trying to spread the acceptance of and/or establish Christianity as the state's official religion?

or

Are the crosses merely signifining that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers are of christian heritage?

If I thought for a minute that it was the former then I would agree it's inappropriate, but I don't think the government intended to spread or establish an official religion by erecting any monument or memorial with a Christian symbol.

[SCOUT]

I disagree, it is a christian cross on display and not any other religious display. The government either supports the cross up there and nothing else and goes against the 1st Amendment or it can have an open forum for all religious symbols, or actually another option, it can have nothing (I don't believe having nothing would be supporting atheism or agnosticism)

There has always been a strong Christian influence in this country. Granted, that seems to be wavering but it sure wasn't in 1934. Displaying a symbol associated with a religion does not establish it as the only religion. You don't believe that having nothing supports, or more importantly establishes, atheism or agnosticism. I don't believe that a cross establishes the religion of Christianity.

I make the word change to establish because I think the distinction is important. In fact, I would suggest that our founding Fathers wanted support for religion, but not legislative endorsement. It was a fundamental moral compass in much of what we live by today. Pick whichever religion you want it to be, but a higher power was a very common theme. Besides, why would they protect "the free exercise thereof," if they didn't want anyone to do it.? Don't get me started on the part about establishing no law...

My biggest beef with some interpretations of the 1st amendment is that people believe it says that there is a freedom from religion rather than of religion.

[olevetonahill]

The Mexicans are your allies on this, olevet.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1112/536695061_f6954e8f4a.jpg


http://fatherjohn.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/crucifix.jpg


You really are stupid arnt you ?:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

My biggest beef with some interpretations of the 1st amendment is that people believe it says that there is a freedom from religion rather than of religion.

This :D

[iwannabelikesam]

It is a Christian cross, but I think the intent is really the issue here.

Ask yourself this: Is the government intentionally trying to spread the acceptance of and/or establish Christianity as the state's official religion?

or

Are the crosses merely signifining that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers are of christian heritage?

If I thought for a minute that it was the former then I would agree it's inappropriate, but I don't think the government intended to spread or establish an official religion by erecting any monument or memorial with a Christian symbol.

I agree, I don't believe there is any intent at all. However, I don't believe that matters, because whether it is intending to or not, it is giving preference to one religion over another.

I would be curious to know what other peoples thoughts would be if this would have been another religions display instead of a cross. I know SicEm would say that would be different because his argument is based on this particular display reflecting our nations christian majority past. But what do other people think had this been something else other than a christian display?

[CrimsonJim]

I sure miss seein' Juan at the hideout....

[iwannabelikesam]

It certainly has been fun discussing with some of you, but I must end my time here tonight. I hope to pick up again tomorrow, depending on my workload and how many more pages this will go before I can read it again (hopefully not too much for me to have the time to catch back up)

Boomer Sooner
Good Night

[olevetonahill]

I

I would be curious to know what other peoples thoughts would be if this would have been another religions display instead of a cross. ?

Put up a ****in hexagon in honor of Our Fallen.
Ill defend it
Now when Ya gonna Debate me ?

[SCOUT]

I agree, I don't believe there is any intent at all. However, I don't believe that matters, because whether it is intending to or not, it is giving preference to one religion over another.

I would be curious to know what other peoples thoughts would be if this would have been another religions display instead of a cross. I know SicEm would say that would be different because his argument is based on this particular display reflecting our nations christian majority past. But what do other people think had this been something else other than a christian display?

This is a fun argument, but help me tie it in with your others. How does having a cross confound, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which law is being established by displaying a cross, a menorah, a crescent, a void, a Buddha, etc.?

BTW, if a majority of Buddhist died in WWI during a specific battle I would unconditionally support a Buddha being displayed in recognition.

[olevetonahill]

It certainly has been fun discussing with some of you, but I must end my time here tonight. I hope to pick up again tomorrow, depending on my workload and how many more pages this will go before I can read it again (hopefully not too much for me to have the time to catch back up)

Boomer Sooner
Good Night

So YOU said you wanted to Debate this with me

Then you Run and hide :rolleyes:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You really are stupid arnt you ?:rolleyes:

that's not a Christian thing to say, now olevet

[olevetonahill]

This is a fun argument, but help me tie it in with your others. How does having a cross confound, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which law is being established by displaying a cross, a menorah, a crescent, a void, a Buddha, etc.?

BTW, if a majority of Buddhist died in WWI during a specific battle I would unconditionally support a Buddha being displayed in recognition.

Ditto

It goes back to being a "White Anglo Saxon Protestant "

We be da devil :rolleyes:

I say again I aint apologizing fer being Christian, White ,
and fairly affluent

I did Not cause the problems of this Country so dont expect ME to fix em .

If ya got a beef with something Rise above it and Fix it yerself

[olevetonahill]

that's not a Christian thing to say, now olevet

I never really said I were Christian now did I jaun ?

Im just defending the Right Of a Cross on PP:P

[SicEmBaylor]

Slightly off subject...

But...do you know what the best monument to WASPs is? Modern civilization.

[olevetonahill]

Slightly off subject...

But...do you know what the best monument to WASPs is? Modern civilization.

No **** ?

[SicEmBaylor]

No **** ?

Obvious to us but many would disagree.

[Soonerus]

Geez, you guys are boring...

[yermom]

This is a fun argument, but help me tie it in with your others. How does having a cross confound, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which law is being established by displaying a cross, a menorah, a crescent, a void, a Buddha, etc.?

BTW, if a majority of Buddhist died in WWI during a specific battle I would unconditionally support a Buddha being displayed in recognition.

because the SCOTUS ruled it that way.

and they did limit this to Christians when they wouldn't let other groups erect something in the same place

[yermom]

what exactly makes it so "wrong" this is weak sauce

the argument of "that's the way it always was" doesn't fly. lots of things that were stupid were going on in 1934

[SCOUT]

because the SCOTUS ruled it that way.

and they did limit this to Christians when they wouldn't let other groups erect something in the same place

I am not familiar with you case you are referencing. Would you mind giving me a leg up on the research?

[Collier11]

the argument of "that's the way it always was" doesn't fly. lots of things that were stupid were going on in 1934

what I am saying is, that particular monument doesnt disrespect any particular religion, it doesnt promote any religion, it simply honors the dead who fought for one nation under God

[yermom]

I am not familiar with you case you are referencing. Would you mind giving me a leg up on the research?

there are lots of cases. i'm just saying that the law of the land is also based on the interpretations of the SCOTUS and precedence not just verbatim out of the Bill of Rights

[yermom]

what I am saying is, that particular monument doesnt disrespect any particular religion, it doesnt promote any religion, it simply honors the dead who fought for one nation under God

how does a cross not promote Christianity?

if it was a huge Star of David and your grandfather was a Christian that died in WWI and this was supposed to be a memorial for him, would that not bother you?

[SCOUT]

there are lots of cases. i'm just saying that the law of the land is also based on the interpretations of the SCOTUS and precedence not just verbatim out of the Bill of Rights

I guess that is the crux of the discussion though. The intent of the founders was pretty clear. It has become muddied over the years based on political appointees.

I would like to see where they limited it to Christians though. That sounds pretty specific.

[olevetonahill]

how does a cross not promote Christianity?

if it was a huge Star of David and your grandfather was a Christian that died in WWI and this was supposed to be a memorial for him, would that not bother you?

Dave , Please dont be so Obtuse :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

there are lots of cases. i'm just saying that the law of the land is also based on the interpretations of the SCOTUS and precedence not just verbatim out of the Bill of Rights

So then you don't think we have the "Right to keep and bare arms "

[yermom]

I guess that is the crux of the discussion though. The intent of the founders was pretty clear. It has become muddied over the years based on political appointees.

I would like to see where they limited it to Christians though. That sounds pretty specific.

FTA:

In 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross, but the request was refused.

[SCOUT]

FTA:

That is kind of vague. This was a war memorial similar to the one in question?

[olevetonahill]

I guess that is the crux of the discussion though. The intent of the founders was pretty clear. It has become muddied over the years based on political appointees.

I would like to see where they limited it to Christians though. That sounds pretty specific.

It wasnt
It said That Congress shall not pass a law "Establishing" a religion, Nor Prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Holy monkey shat
Is this that hard to understand ?

Some one puts up a Cross in the Desert in 1934 and Now Its the Gov, Doing it ?:rolleyes:

[yermom]

there are lots of cases. i'm just saying that the law of the land is also based on the interpretations of the SCOTUS and precedence not just verbatim out of the Bill of Rights

So then you don't think we have the "Right to keep and bare arms "

ask the citizens of DC or Chicago about that one

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;2728819]

ask the citizens of DC or Chicago about that one

And how did that shat werk fer em ?:D

[yermom]

It wasnt
It said That Congress shall not pass a law "Establishing" a religion, Nor Prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

Holy monkey shat
Is this that hard to understand ?

Some one puts up a Cross in the Desert in 1934 and Now Its the Gov, Doing it ?:rolleyes:

it was in a national park, but they apparently gave the land to some private owner to get around it, that's part of the court issue. if they allow that as a loophole, who knows what else people could get away with

[yermom]

[QUOTE=yermom;2728824]

And how did that shat werk fer em ?:D

i'm just pointing out how things work, not my beliefs

[SCOUT]

it was in a national park, but they apparently gave the land to some private owner to get around it, that's part of the court issue. if they allow that as a loophole, who knows what else people could get away with

You're right. People may have more personal property as a result. More land could potentially be privatized!

The horror

[yermom]

yeah, some rich Christians now have more land with a cross, the ten commandments, and a nativity scene all visible from the highway or city hall or whatever

[olevetonahill]

it was in a national park, but they apparently gave the land to some private owner to get around it, that's part of the court issue. if they allow that as a loophole, who knows what else people could get away with

Ok Bro
The monument was set up in 1934
Then some Madlin ohare type decided to Fight it . So some one decided to deed it to Private
Give me a break

My Gawd we let them Commies get away with this where will they Stop ?:rolleyes:

[yermom]

so the government can spend tax dollars to promote the state religion of Christianity and then get away with it by giving away or selling the land to some private entity?

that still sounds like promoting Christianity to me

[SicEmBaylor]

so the government can spend tax dollars to promote the state religion of Christianity and then get away with it by giving away or selling the land to some private entity?

that still sounds like promoting Christianity to me

They're not promoting anything -- they're acknowledging the fact that those they are honoring are overwhelmingly (at that time likely entirely) Christian. It's a monument recognizing the shared faith of those deceased -- not some sort of establishment of Christianity.

[olevetonahill]

yeah, some rich Christians now have more land with a cross, the ten commandments, and a nativity scene all visible from the highway or city hall or whatever

Ya say that like its a bad thing !
Hell put up a Muslim Virgin Ill go worship her :D

[olevetonahill]

so the government can spend tax dollars to promote the state religion of Christianity and then get away with it by giving away or selling the land to some private entity?

that still sounds like promoting Christianity to me

Wait a Minute My young friend

Are you saying this Monument was originally paid for By the Tax payer ?

[yermom]

They're not promoting anything -- they're acknowledging the fact that those they are honoring are overwhelmingly (at that time likely entirely) Christian. It's a monument recognizing the shared faith of those deceased -- not some sort of establishment of Christianity.

i have a hard time believing there were no non-Christian soldiers killed in WWI

[olevetonahill]

They're not promoting anything -- they're acknowledging the fact that those they are honoring are overwhelmingly (at that time likely entirely) Christian. It's a monument recognizing the shared faith of those deceased -- not some sort of establishment of Christianity.

Oh Bullshat sicem
Anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS that a cross was a Universal sign of Respect for the dead
Now not so much cause we gots to be concerned we dont offend the the later early church of the fukus :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

i have a hard time believing there were no non-Christian soldiers killed in WWI

You My young friend have a hard time believing anything :cool:

[yermom]

Wait a Minute My young friend

Are you saying this Monument was originally paid for By the Tax payer ?

the land it's on was. but that's not really what i'm saying. i'm saying that if you allow them to just change ownership to make it okay, some politician with an agenda can just easily get around the law

[SicEmBaylor]

i have a hard time believing there were no non-Christian soldiers killed in WWI

You're still missing the point. It isn't about the individual soldier's personal religious beliefs. Look back at my post about atheist-soldiers.

It's a reflection of shared cultural heritage. Of course not every one of those soldiers was a devout-Christian, but I can almost guarantee you that every one of them had a Christian heritage.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh Bullshat sicem
Anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS that a cross was a Universal sign of Respect for the dead
Now not so much cause we gots to be concerned we dont offend the the later early church of the fukus :rolleyes:

This is exactly what I've been saying.

[olevetonahill]

“ HERE RESTS IN HONORED GLORY AN AMERICAN SOLDIER KNOWN BUT TO GOD
Yup that settin up a religion

Give me a ****in break

Yall have the FREEDOM to bitch cause an AMERICAN soldier
Died on the Battle field
Be he Muslim, atheist, Christian, Or Non believer .
He Fought . He Died . he Was wounded For ur Freedom to bitch

If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you can read this in English, Thank a Soldier :cool:

[Okla-homey]

Our nation's second highest award for heroism is a cross.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9859/af125pxusaairforcecross.png
Air Force Cross -- there's an Army and Navy equivalent called the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross respectively

Funny thing, no one has ever refused to accept it because they were offended. There are no athiests in combat.

[olevetonahill]

Our nation's second highest award for heroism is a cross.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9859/af125pxusaairforcecross.png
Air Force Cross -- there's an Army and Navy equivalent called the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross respectively

Funny thing, no one has ever refused to accept it because they were offended. There are no athiests in combat.

My Man :D

[JohnnyMack]

Slightly off subject...

But...do you know what the best monument to WASPs is?

Indian reservations?

I keed. I keed.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Oh Bullshat sicem
Anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS that a cross was a Universal sign of Respect for the dead


you're completely ignorant of how Jews feel about this. it is not universal. never was. From their perspective, Jesus was NOT their savior. If you put a cross on a Jew's grave, you need to go remove it. You are showing disrespect. Big time.

And those of you who appeal to "the majority were overwhelmingly Christian" argument ignore that the purpose of constitutional rights is to protect the rights of the minority.

[Collier11]

i have a hard time believing there were no non-Christian soldiers killed in WWI

Some 80% of Americans still claim to be Christians or believe in God, im sure in 1934 that number was much higher

[Frozen Sooner]

Our nation's second highest award for heroism is a cross.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9859/af125pxusaairforcecross.png
Air Force Cross -- there's an Army and Navy equivalent called the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross respectively

Funny thing, no one has ever refused to accept it because they were offended. There are no athiests in combat.

Except for Pat Tillman, I guess.

[iwannabelikesam]

"A Nation Under God"

I'm not sure what that quote refers to. Do you mean "one nation, under god" in reference to the Pledge of Allegiance? The Pledge was written in 1892, and did not include the words "under god." Those words weren't officially added to the Pledge until 1954.

[iwannabelikesam]

Slightly off subject...

But...do you know what the best monument to WASPs is? Modern civilization.

Or WASCs?

[iwannabelikesam]

i'm just pointing out how things work, not my beliefs

Exactly, that's what this is all about. That's where we are arguing from. The Constitution, and not letting personal beliefs and allegiances get in the way of it.

[iwannabelikesam]

Our nation's second highest award for heroism is a cross.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9859/af125pxusaairforcecross.png
Air Force Cross -- there's an Army and Navy equivalent called the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross respectively

Funny thing, no one has ever refused to accept it because they were offended. There are no athiests in combat.

That is clearly not a christian cross, there is nothing christian about that at all.

Not to be a jerk, but the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is asinine.

[JohnnyMack]

A bit more on the subject:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1007/p02s01-usju.html


Supreme Court takes up case of cross on federal land
A white cross has stood in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will look at issues related to the First Amendment's separation of church and state.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the October 6, 2009 edition

Washington - It is well known that you can't put a cross up on government property. Such a religious symbol on federal land would suggest an endorsement of religion in violation of the First Amendment's mandated separation of church and state.

But what happens when the cross in question has been on the same remote hilltop in a federal preserve in the Mojave Desert since 1934?

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving not just a cross in the desert, but a host of thorny issues that could significantly change the national debate over religious symbols and monuments erected on government property.

Among key questions is whether ordinary citizens have legal standing to police potential government violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

The justices are also expected to examine whether federal judges overstepped their authority when they refused to acknowledge an act of Congress transferring the cross and its surrounding hilltop to a private landowner in a land swap.

The case, Salazar v. Buono, involves a nine-year tug of war over a five-foot-tall white cross erected atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve in southeast California.

The cross was first placed on the hill 75 years ago by the Death Valley post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to fallen service members during World War I. The veterans neither sought nor obtained permission to place the cross on federal land. For years, the ad hoc memorial went unchallenged.

That changed in 2001, when Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee, filed suit alleging that a cross on federal land violated the First Amendment's mandated separation of church and state.

A federal judge agreed and ordered the cross removed. While the appeal was pending, Congress entered the fray. In an effort to rectify the establishment-clause violation, Congress authorized a land swap – the one-acre hilltop site plus the cross in exchange for five acres of private land elsewhere. The idea was that if the cross was on private land – albeit surrounded by a federal preserve – the cross would no longer violate the establishment clause.

Both the federal judge and a federal appeals court disagreed. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the continued presence of the cross on the hilltop sends a message of government endorsement of a particular religion. The appeals court affirmed the federal judge's order that the cross be removed.

In an appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said that Mr. Buono lacks legal standing to bring an establishment-clause challenge. She said he does not object to the cross itself. Instead, his contention is that the government should allow other religious symbols to be displayed near the cross.

Ms. Kagan says that the cross offends his view of the Constitution, as opposed to being an infringement of his religious views.

The federal courts, Kagan also argues, were wrong not to recognize that the land swap had eliminated the establishment-clause issue.

Buono's lawyers counter that the land swap did not erase the establishment-clause violation because the government continues to exert control over the site of the cross. In addition, the government continues to follow a policy of "favoritism" toward the cross and its sponsors, says Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which is representing Buono.

Pending the outcome of the case, the cross remains atop Sunrise Rock. But as ordered by a federal judge, it is concealed within a plywood box.

So can/should/will the 9th circuit overrule Congress in this case?

[iwannabelikesam]

A bit more on the subject:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1007/p02s01-usju.html



So can/should/will the 9th circuit overrule Congress in this case?

Thanks for posting, good article. I think it is very unfortunate that this whole issue is like this, so sticky and thorny, especially for what this cross intends to honor. But the Constitution is the Constitution. There can't be exceptions made, because then, where would it end?

A potential solution for those who think it should stand, a Constitutional Amendment changing the 1st Amendment. Obviously that would take a ****load of work and would take forever to actually happen. (though I don't think it would ever even pass, or come close to it)

[iwannabelikesam]

Addition to my sig. I think it fits somewhat into our discussion here. Thomas Jefferson, the man atheist claim who was an atheist, the man christians claim he was a christian, the man agnostics claim he was an agnostic...

[Collier11]

That is clearly not a christian cross, there is nothing christian about that at all.

Not to be a jerk, but the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is asinine.

so now we are deciphering the type of cross? I thought you were earlier saying that a cross represents Christianity?

[iwannabelikesam]

so now we are deciphering the type of cross? I thought you were earlier saying that a cross represents Christianity?

No need to play coy. A christian cross is one that represents the cross that jesus was crucified upon. The medal you posted has nothing to do with jesus and the crucifixion. It's not hard to tell the difference.

[Collier11]

so what does the cross at this site have to do with Jesus or the Crucufixion? I dont see any images of Jesus Christ on or around the cross

[iwannabelikesam]

so what does the cross at this site have to do with Jesus or the Crucufixion? I dont see any images of Jesus Christ on or around the cross

If you don't see how that cross up there is a christian symbol, then sorry, I can't help you. You are in the extreme minority in this thread. Everyone else is arguing this cross should stay because it was erected in a time when our nation had a christian majority.

[Collier11]

Im just saying, the original argument was that the cross represents Christianity so it cant be there, then you said not all crosses represent Christianity, if that is the case then who is to say what cross does or doesnt represent Christianity? This shows how asinine the argument is IMHO. The cross wasnt put there to disrespect anyone or any set of beliefs

[iwannabelikesam]

Im just saying, the original argument was that the cross represents Christianity so it cant be there, then you said not all crosses represent Christianity, if that is the case then who is to say what cross does or doesnt represent Christianity? This shows how asinine the argument is IMHO. The cross wasnt put there to disrespect anyone or any set of beliefs

What if a hexagram was there in its place to honor veterans and the dead? I find it hard to believe you wouldn't view it as a Magen David.

[JohnnyMack]

If you don't see how that cross up there is a christian symbol, then sorry, I can't help you. You are in the extreme minority in this thread. Everyone else is arguing this cross should stay because it was erected in a time when our nation had a christian majority.

I happen to think it's a ****ty, political correctness stunt by some ********* intent on disrespecting the very people who gave him the right to act like a ********* in the first place. Remember this guy didn't ask for the cross to be removed, he wanted a Buddhist monument erected alongside it. He's not fighting the establishment clause, rather he's trying to marginalize the original monument to the point that it becomes more of a joke than any thing solemn.

[Collier11]

But you just said a cross doesnt soley represent Christianity, crosses have long been distributed to honor the dead, doesnt mean it was honoring them as Christians.

[iwannabelikesam]

I happen to think it's a ****ty, political correctness stunt by some ********* intent on disrespecting the very people who gave him the right to act like a ********* in the first place. Remember this guy didn't ask for the cross to be removed, he wanted a Buddhist monument erected alongside it. He's not fighting the establishment clause, rather he's trying to marginalize the original monument to the point that it becomes more of a joke than any thing solemn.

Trying to get another religious symbol alongside it IS fighting for the 1st Amendment. To give all religions freedom in an open forum. I regret that this act does seem to marginalize what the original intent of the cross was to do (honor the dead and veterans), but the Constitution is the Constitution. You can't pick and choose where it applies and where it doesn't.

[iwannabelikesam]

But you just said a cross doesnt soley represent Christianity, crosses have long been distributed to honor the dead, doesnt mean it was honoring them as Christians.

By christians.

[Collier11]

This has nothing to with 1st Amendment, please show me where a national religion is trying to be established. Please tell me where someones rights were violated?

[Collier11]

By christians.

Reaching for straws

[yermom]

I happen to think it's a ****ty, political correctness stunt by some ********* intent on disrespecting the very people who gave him the right to act like a ********* in the first place. Remember this guy didn't ask for the cross to be removed, he wanted a Buddhist monument erected alongside it. He's not fighting the establishment clause, rather he's trying to marginalize the original monument to the point that it becomes more of a joke than any thing solemn.


put up a monument, a VFW logo, something. why does it have to be a cross?

[JohnnyMack]

You can't pick and choose where it applies and where it doesn't.

You don't remember the Bush/Cheney years, do you?

:D

[yermom]

Reaching for straws

so you see it all over China or India?

[Collier11]

put up a monument, a VFW logo, something. why does it have to be a cross?

Its not like it is a brand new monument going up, it has been up for 75 years and it is just now offending someone? I think these people need to find something better to gripe about

[JohnnyMack]

put up a monument, a VFW logo, something. why does it have to be a cross?

Because as SicEm pointed out earlier at the time the cross was erected (1934, not last week) a common method for honoring those who had perished was with a symbol that reflected the cultural and demographic makeup of the region. For that area it happened to be done with a cross.

When this old boy put up that cross back in the 30's it'd be hard for me to imagine that he did so a) with the permission of the US Govt. or b) in an effort to promote/advance his religious beliefs. We're talking about an obscure piece of rock in a remote part of land that happens to be comprised of some private land and some government owned land. He didn't jam a copy of the ten commandments down on top of half-dome, he put up an old wooden cross as a remembrance to those people he knew that had died in The Great War. I see it as a commonly accepted cultural identifier, not the promotion of one set of beliefs over another.

While I haven't read the decision from the 9th circuit as to their reasoning for denying the move by congress to transfer this land into private (VFW) hands I would imagine they saw it as some sort of slippery slope into allowing religious monuments to quickly and easily inserted into public hands in areas that were up until that point government owned. However I think in this instance common sense should have overruled their fears of a tyrannical right-wing christian agenda.

[yermom]

right, he did it without permission on public land. now they are fixing the glitch ;)

they are promoting Christianity when they won't let someone else erect an analogous shrine.

[JohnnyMack]

right, he did it without permission on public land. now they are fixing the glitch ;)

they are promoting Christianity when they won't let someone else erect an analogous shrine.

It's. Not. A. Shrine.

[yermom]

why is a Christian symbol standing there any different from a Buddhist one?

[JohnnyMack]

why is a Christian symbol standing there any different from a Buddhist one?

Stop being a turd.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Stop being a turd.:mad:

[Collier11]

why is a Christian symbol standing there any different from a Buddhist one?

How is it a Christian symbol, does it say anything about God or Christianity on the cross, last time I checked the cross doesnt soley represent Christianity...in fact, "The cross is one of the most ancient human symbols, and is used by many religions, such as Christianity. It is frequently a representation of the division of the world into four elements (Chevalier, 1997) (or cardinal points), or alternately as the union of the concepts of divinity, the vertical line, and the world, the horizontal line"

[JohnnyMack]

why is a Christian symbol standing there any different from a Buddhist one?

But to answer your question, it is my opinion that the cultural and historical significance of the monument outweighs any religious overtones that may accompany it. There is no cultural or historical significance to a Buddhist shrine being erected next to it. Now I'm sure you could go back and find out who the 3 practicing Buddhists who fought for our country during WWI were and find out if their surviving relatives are somehow offended. The lack of pragmatism in this whole deal is offensive.

[Turd_Ferguson]

How is it a Christian symbol, does it say anything about God or Christianity on the cross, last time I checked the cross doesnt soley represent Christianity...in fact, "The cross is one of the most ancient human symbols, and is used by many religions, such as Christianity. It is frequently a representation of the division of the world into four elements (Chevalier, 1997) (or cardinal points), or alternately as the union of the concepts of divinity, the vertical line, and the world, the horizontal line"Now be fair C11...it's no different than anything with a rainbow on it must be connected to homosaxuality.

[C&CDean]

If you don't see how that cross up there is a christian symbol, then sorry, I can't help you. You are in the extreme minority in this thread. Everyone else is arguing this cross should stay because it was erected in a time when our nation had a christian majority.

Just so you know smart guy, our nation still has a christian majority. By a long, LONG shot. The obtuse few like you and yermom are in the vast minority. It's a cross. Get over it. Or get the **** out.

And like ol' Juan said, the messicans are pretty much all Catholic. When they finally become the majority (sooner than you might think), there'll be crosses with Jesus hanging on them and really cool Virgin Mary paraphernalia in the back window of every government vehicle.

[Collier11]

Now be fair C11...it's no different than anything with a rainbow on it must be connected to homosaxuality.

rainbows have always been ghey though, now even more so ;)

[iwannabelikesam]

Just so you know smart guy, our nation still has a christian majority. By a long, LONG shot. The obtuse few like you and yermom are in the vast minority. It's a cross. Get over it. Or get the **** out.

And like ol' Juan said, the messicans are pretty much all Catholic. When they finally become the majority (sooner than you might think), there'll be crosses with Jesus hanging on them and really cool Virgin Mary paraphernalia in the back window of every government vehicle.

Sure, the majority claim to be christians. But are they really? How many self-described christians really do follow the bible like a christian is supposed to? The fact is people have become more apathetic than anything. Although polls continue to show that the percentage of people who identify themselves as christians continues to decrease over time, while those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic continuities to rise, and rise at the greatest rate

BTW, I think it's great that you want to get rid off anyone who disagrees with you, brilliant actually.

[soonerinkaty]

Whoever thinks that cross is attacking their religion or any other religion, is a limp wrist.

That case is rediculous.

iwannabelikesam: congrats, you may not be trolling, but you'd be a damn good one.

[iwannabelikesam]

Whoever thinks that cross is attacking their religion or any other religion, is a limp wrist.

That case is rediculous.

iwannabelikesam: congrats, you may not be trolling, but you'd be a damn good one.

Sigh, have you read the thread? I don't see anyone saying it is attacking their religion. What do you want me to say, I'm sorry I believe in the Constitution?

[JohnnyMack]

Sigh, have you read the thread? I don't see anyone saying it is attacking their religion. What do you want me to say, I'm sorry I believe in the Constitution?

So you don't think it's possible for something to have cultural and historical significance and at the same time be religious? It's one or the other?

[soonerinkaty]

I pledge of Allegiance to the flag of
the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.

I think the cross should stay

[iwannabelikesam]

I pledge of Allegiance to the flag of
the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.

I think the cross should stay

Laughable. Further proof you have not read the thread. I posted this earlier in response to some talking about the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Pledge was written in 1892, and did not include the words "under god." Those words weren't officially added to the Pledge until 1954.

I hope some on here would argue adding the words "under god" should not have been done, because it made a change to something of historical and cultural significance that was done a certain way for the longest time.

[iwannabelikesam]

So you don't think it's possible for something to have cultural and historical significance and at the same time be religious? It's one or the other?

Sure, something can be both.

[Collier11]

then get over it

[iwannabelikesam]

then get over it

Get over the Constitution? Sorry, I will not do that.

[Turd_Ferguson]

don't feed the troll...

[Collier11]

Get over the Constitution? Sorry, I will not do that.

Weak sauce, no one is asking you to get over the constitution. You just admitted that particular representations can have more than one meaning, obviously this one has several so quit trying to act like it is only meant for the Christians to overthrow everyone elses rights and religious freedoms, that is weak and laughable

[Fraggle145]

My thoughts...

I dont really have a problem with the cross just due to when it was erected etc... It was probably a symbolic gesture. I would probably still prefer it if they just made it something official and non-religious, but if they left up the cross it isnt going to change my daily quality of living (or it wouldnt have until it became this huge cluster ****).

I do have a problem with the land swap, I think that opens a can of worms where we could end up with 10 commandments outside every government building that is surrounded by now private land. And I think the land swap does show a preference for christianity, especially after the refusal of the buddhist monument.

Under God wasnt added till 1954. In God We Trust wasnt official until 1956.

To go back to symbols have different ancient meanings is kind of weak sauce. So does the swastika (ancient symbol for luck) but everything gets placed in the current cultural context.

That's all I got for now.

[Turd_Ferguson]

My thoughts...

I dont really have a problem with the cross just due to when it was erected etc... It was probably a symbolic gesture. I would probably still prefer it if they just made it something official and non-religious, but if they left up the cross it isnt going to change my daily quality of living (or it wouldnt have until it became this huge cluster ****).

I do have a problem with the land swap, I think that opens a can of worms where we could end up with 10 commandments outside every government building that is surrounded by now private land. And I think the land swap does show a preference for christianity, especially after the refusal of the buddhist monument.

Under God wasnt added till 1954. In God We Trust wasnt official until 1956.

To go back to symbols have different ancient meanings is kind of weak sauce. So does the swastika (ancient symbol for luck) but everything gets placed in the current cultural context.

That's all I got for now.Not to split hair's, but I thought it was on coins back in the 1800's.

[C&CDean]

Sure, the majority claim to be christians. But are they really? How many self-described christians really do follow the bible like a christian is supposed to? The fact is people have become more apathetic than anything. Although polls continue to show that the percentage of people who identify themselves as christians continues to decrease over time, while those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic continuities to rise, and rise at the greatest rate

BTW, I think it's great that you want to get rid off anyone who disagrees with you, brilliant actually.

So, now you're the authority on how a self-described christian is supposed to act?

It's been mentioned here already, but the "no atheists in a foxhole comment" holds very true. There's also no (or very damn few) atheists lying on a deathbed either.

Also, I'm glad that you're happy that the group of people who don't believe in anything but themselves continues to rise. Oughta make you proud.

And finally, I don't want to get rid of anyone. However, when someone comes in and challenges our traditions/history then **** em'. Go start a new country where you worship yourself. Or a science book. Or whatever it is that makes you groove.

[Fraggle145]

Not to split hair's, but I thought it was on coins back in the 1800's.

Ya like in the 1860s, but it wasnt officially recognized by congress until 1956 or whatever...

Heh, I guess that is pretty close to what is happening here actually.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/funny-pictures-cat-is-doing-camouflage-right.jpg

[iwannabelikesam]

So, now you're the authority on how a self-described christian is supposed to act?

It's been mentioned here already, but the "no atheists in a foxhole comment" holds very true. There's also no (or very damn few) atheists lying on a deathbed either.

Also, I'm glad that you're happy that the group of people who don't believe in anything but themselves continues to rise. Oughta make you proud.

And finally, I don't want to get rid of anyone. However, when someone comes in and challenges our traditions/history then **** em'. Go start a new country where you worship yourself. Or a science book. Or whatever it is that makes you groove.

So I guess you are an expert on atheists now? You really actually think there are no atheists in foxholes, or on their deathbeds? I'll say it again, that expression is completely asinine.

[iwannabelikesam]

My thoughts...

I dont really have a problem with the cross just due to when it was erected etc... It was probably a symbolic gesture. I would probably still prefer it if they just made it something official and non-religious, but if they left up the cross it isnt going to change my daily quality of living (or it wouldnt have until it became this huge cluster ****).

I do have a problem with the land swap, I think that opens a can of worms where we could end up with 10 commandments outside every government building that is surrounded by now private land. And I think the land swap does show a preference for christianity, especially after the refusal of the buddhist monument.

Under God wasnt added till 1954. In God We Trust wasnt official until 1956.

To go back to symbols have different ancient meanings is kind of weak sauce. So does the swastika (ancient symbol for luck) but everything gets placed in the current cultural context.

That's all I got for now.

Good post.

[iwannabelikesam]

Weak sauce, no one is asking you to get over the constitution. You just admitted that particular representations can have more than one meaning, obviously this one has several so quit trying to act like it is only meant for the Christians to overthrow everyone elses rights and religious freedoms, that is weak and laughable

I don't see how people can think that cross is not a christian cross. It blows my mind.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I don't see how people can think that cross is not a christian cross. It blows my mind.I don't see how people can think that cross is a Christian Cross and get their panties in a wad over it.

[Collier11]

So I guess you are an expert on atheists now? You really actually think there are no atheists in foxholes, or on their deathbeds? I'll say it again, that expression is completely asinine.

There are a lot more people on their deathbed or in foxholes who turn to God than those who do the opposite

[iwannabelikesam]

There are a lot more people on their deathbed or in foxholes who turn to God than those who do the opposite

I agree, this is probably true.

[iwannabelikesam]

don't feed the troll...


I don't see how people can think that cross is a Christian Cross and get their panties in a wad over it.

:confused: :pop:

[Fraggle145]

There are a lot more people on their deathbed or in foxholes who turn to God than those who do the opposite

The reason why I hate this argument is that it basically says this to me:

"God is better than nothing."

or

"I dont have to have faith until the end. So i can not follow any of the principles and still get away with it because I have nothing left to lose."

I mean i can get it and all that. I just dont think that the argument is all that strong. It just doesn't seem very genuine.

[Collier11]

Depends how genuine that person is being while on their deathbed or in their foxhole

[C&CDean]

The reason why I hate this argument is that it basically says this to me:

"God is better than nothing."

or

"I dont have to have faith until the end. So i can not follow any of the principles and still get away with it because I have nothing left to lose."

I mean i can get it and all that. I just dont think that the argument is all that strong. It just doesn't seem very genuine.

Genuine or not, when people are looking down the barrell of a loaded gun fixin' to go BANG! they suddenly find this acute awareness of a supreme being and their very near meeting. Weird actually. If you've never been there, then you don't know what I'm talking about. If you have, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Way, WAY back in the day when I was attending nursing school (yeah, get over it) when we were doing geriatric care at the nursing homes I got to see some folks on their way out. Those who had God in their lives went very peacefully in most cases. Those who did not, or believed that this life we're living is all there is suffered greatly. Not to mention their families.

[Fraggle145]

Genuine or not, when people are looking down the barrell of a loaded gun fixin' to go BANG! they suddenly find this acute awareness of a supreme being and their very near meeting. Weird actually. If you've never been there, then you don't know what I'm talking about. If you have, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Way, WAY back in the day when I was attending nursing school (yeah, get over it) when we were doing geriatric care at the nursing homes I got to see some folks on their way out. Those who had God in their lives went very peacefully in most cases. Those who did not, or believed that this life we're living is all there is suffered greatly. Not to mention their families.

I mean when the guy broke into our house and had my girl and I on the floor I didnt have the god moment. I just kind of thought: "Well this is it." Don't get me wrong I had adrenalin pumping and was scared ****less, but I didnt even think about god.

I see your point and I can see how it would even be right for the majority of people at the moment or near the end. I just dont think it applies to everyone...

And I guess if I was a religious person I'd want those professing to be part of my faith to be genuine about it. Just strikes me weird is all.

[Collier11]

who is to say it isnt genuine, by the Christian faith a murderer can go to Heaven if he asks for genuine forgiveness

[Fraggle145]

I'm not saying none of them are genuine, sure some are, that wasn't my point. I am just saying that it isn't the best argument for god and belief that I have heard.

[Collier11]

I got ya, just sayin :)

[iwannabelikesam]

I'm not saying none of them are genuine, sure some are, that wasn't my point. I am just saying that it isn't the best argument for god and belief that I have heard.

You have been spot-on this entire thread, imo.

The worst part about me and my religious beliefs, is that I happen to share them somewhat closest to you dirty libs. And the people I mostly agree with politically, are mostly far different in their religious beliefs.

[Collier11]

^^^ That will go over well

[stoopified]

Dayum JM another Milestone we agree again

Can I have a Hallelujah.

Ive read the 1st amendment
No where does it say we HAVE to be separate:mad:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


Its time to take back our country , By force or peaceable meansHalleluah ,brother

[iwannabelikesam]

^^^ That will go over well

:confused:

[Collier11]

you basically just said Repubs love God, libs hate him

[iwannabelikesam]

you basically just said Repubs love God, libs hate him

No, that's not really at all what I said.

[Collier11]

mmmkay

[SicEmBaylor]

N/M

[Okla-homey]

I'm not saying none of them are genuine, sure some are, that wasn't my point. I am just saying that it isn't the best argument for god and belief that I have heard.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the living Lord. Choose wisely.;)

[SoonerKnight]

Obama needs to shut up!!

:D

That is funny because:



Obama administration attorneys contended that Buono did not have legal standing to file the suit in the first place because he's a Christian and was not harmed by the cross' presence.

Obama and his Admin are against this idiot and believe the cross should stay!

[bluewcc]

Sure, the majority claim to be christians. But are they really? How many self-described christians really do follow the bible like a christian is supposed to? The fact is people have become more apathetic than anything. Although polls continue to show that the percentage of people who identify themselves as christians continues to decrease over time, while those who identify themselves as atheist or agnostic continuities to rise, and rise at the greatest rate

BTW, I think it's great that you want to get rid off anyone who disagrees with you, brilliant actually.



None. Everyone screws up. The Christians are just forgiven.

[Leroy Lizard]

Next in the crosshairs: The Liberty Bell. Do we grind down the inscription that quotes the Bible?

[yermom]

fix the crack, while you're at it ;)

[I Am Right]

fix the crack, while you're at it ;)

Davy Crockett has done that already.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I think this is a stupid lawsuit.

[Uncle Ernie]

Genuine or not, when people are looking down the barrell of a loaded gun fixin' to go BANG! they suddenly find this acute awareness of a supreme being and their very near meeting. Weird actually. If you've never been there, then you don't know what I'm talking about. If you have, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Way, WAY back in the day when I was attending nursing school (yeah, get over it) when we were doing geriatric care at the nursing homes I got to see some folks on their way out. Those who had God in their lives went very peacefully in most cases. Those who did not, or believed that this life we're living is all there is suffered greatly. Not to mention their families.

I've never been behind the empirical school of thinking. That being you don't know something unless you actually experience it. I've been shot at and I disagree that you can’t know what it’s like unless you were looking down the proverbial barrel. Just before my 18th birthday I had a loaded gun stuck in my face because I went down the wrong back road. I wasn't thinking about god when diving back into the Plymouth. I was thinking "I hope this is the road we came in on because we're leaving on it right f*cking now!" If I had spent time thinking instead of leaving I probably would have been shot. To me that “near meeting” is called an adrenalin rush. You get the same feeling when a semi crosses the center-line or when you were single and 25 your girlfriend was “late” and she wasn’t talking about dinner.
And telling people to get out of their own country because their beliefs are different? Wow! Extraordinarily red-neckish. I see how many people on this board slam Obama but I haven’t seen you or ANYONE tell them like it or leave it. Ever heard of Ellis Island? You might try leaving the front porch more often. In your head not physically. Yeah I know your response already. Fire away.

[Collier11]

Not to speak for Dean but im pretty sure his point is that This country, like it or not, genuine or not, is a large majority Christian, some numbers put it over 80%. This country has long been a Christian majority, since way before I was born. Some of the frustration comes from the very small minority always getting their way when they "claim" to be hurt or insulted. Its time to start sticking up for what the country believes in and not just what a small minority believes in.

[yermom]

I think this is a stupid lawsuit.

you are a sorry excuse for a lib

[yermom]

Not to speak for Dean but im pretty sure his point is that This country, like it or not, genuine or not, is a large majority Christian, some numbers put it over 80%. This country has long been a Christian majority, since way before I was born. Some of the frustration comes from the very small minority always getting their way when they "claim" to be hurt or insulted. Its time to start sticking up for what the country believes in and not just what a small minority believes in.

so when the hispanics are the majority are we going to change the national language to Spanish?

[Fraggle145]

Not to speak for Dean but im pretty sure his point is that This country, like it or not, genuine or not, is a large majority Christian, some numbers put it over 80%. This country has long been a Christian majority, since way before I was born. Some of the frustration comes from the very small minority always getting their way when they "claim" to be hurt or insulted. Its time to start sticking up for what the country believes in and not just what a small minority believes in.

See, I think there is a distinction here. This makes it sound like the same thing a lot of people like to tell me in the global warming threads, just because it is the majority doesnt mean that we have to just accept it.

"What the country believes in"

What does that even mean? I think there needs to be a balance between the majority and minority. I think you just have to be able to see the otherside of the issue and instead of seeing it that the minority always gets there way change your perspective and think about how they see the majority. I bet its pretty much the same.

Obviously the majority is going to get what it wants most of the time by definition of being the majority. It can start to sound like whining when they start complaining about the minorities getting something here and there. Its sounds a lot like "Why am I not getting my way all of the time!?"

I hope that at least made some sense... I am not all here today.

[Collier11]

See, I think there is a distinction here. This makes it sound like the same thing a lot of people like to tell me in the global warming threads, just because it is the majority doesnt mean that we have to just accept it.

"What the country believes in"

What does that even mean? I think there needs to be a balance between the majority and minority. I think you just have to be able to see the otherside of the issue and instead of seeing it that the minority always gets there way change your perspective and think about how they see the majority. I bet its pretty much the same.

Obviously the majority is going to get what it wants most of the time by definition of being the majority. It can start to sound like whining when they start complaining about the minorities getting something here and there. Its sounds a lot like "Why am I not getting my way all of the time!?"

I hope that at least made some sense... I am not all here today.

I never meant to imply that anyone should HAVE TO agree or believe in what the majority does, my only point is this for example, if a cross is put up in freakin Time Square, a cross which many on here have said represents the Christian faith which is the overwhelming faith of this country, why should it be taken down cus some 5% here or there doesnt like it. It isnt actually hurting them, affecting them, and it certainly isnt pushing a religion on them. Just cus that cross is up, there is still no one being forced to be a Christian

[Fraggle145]

I never meant to imply that anyone should HAVE TO agree or believe in what the majority does, my only point is this for example, if a cross is put up in freakin Time Square, a cross which many on here have said represents the Christian faith which is the overwhelming faith of this country, why should it be taken down cus some 5% here or there doesnt like it. It isnt actually hurting them, affecting them, and it certainly isnt pushing a religion on them. Just cus that cross is up, there is still no one being forced to be a Christian

But that is your opinion man, and because you are christian you have a biased point of view that it isnt hurting them etc...

It can be affecting them that is for sure. For me it reminds me of how people did try to force me into being a christian etc... and didnt let me make up my own mind. And then would outcast you if you didnt give in. Its not something I like to remember. So I wouldnt want it up in times square. I'm just saying just because you dont see the negative effects doesnt mean they aren't there. Religion and faith have very strong emotions tied to them so they often invoke strong reactions on both sides. That is why religious symbols are often the most difficult to deal with.

the cross also just by being up and by definition what symbols do says this is the reigning ideas/ideals around here. If that is over your own church that is fine. But it isnt the reigning ideal of America, where religion and government are meant to be separate. And obviously if you are in the minority you dont want those two issues confused.

And also there is the obligatory argument by the same token if it doesnt have an effect then why cant other groups put up their symbols all over the place. Or why if it doesnt have an effect do you need to put it up in the first place.

I am just saying why just because it is something the majority would accept or even want does it have to be every time? Especially if there are slights (either real or imaginary). Is there no room for the little guy to just have a tiny piece without having to hear about it all the time.

I guess it just comes down to the perception of fairness.

[Collier11]

but you and I both know that in almost every case where someone throws a big fit and sues to have something relatively Christian removed from something, it is rarely about them being hurt by it and more about them wanting to get their way

[SCOUT]

I am a Methodist and have no problem going to National Jewish Hospital, Baylor Medical Center, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center or Southwestern University Hospital - St. Paul. I also wouldn't think that by me getting treatment their, and that they are trying to convert me to their religion.

[Fraggle145]

I am a Methodist and have no problem going to National Jewish Hospital, Baylor Medical Center, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center or Southwestern University Hospital - St. Paul. I also wouldn't think that by me getting treatment their, and that they are trying to convert me to their religion.

Right but it isnt called Times Christian Square, NYC

[SCOUT]

No it isn't time square. I was demonstrating the fact that a religious symbol doesn't necessarily equate to establishing a religion for those around or within the area.

[Fraggle145]

but you and I both know that in almost every case where someone throws a big fit and sues to have something relatively Christian removed from something, it is rarely about them being hurt by it and more about them wanting to get their way

See dude that is your opinion again.

How do you know they arent actually bothered by it?

You assume because it is something that wouldnt be a big deal to you because you are in the majority that it shouldnt be a big deal to them. And you assume they are just trying to get their way because it isnt your way, when in fact they could have a very good motivation behind it from their perspective.

[Collier11]

Listen, im not immune to those who have different feelings and beliefs than I do, I like to think im a very accepting and understanding person and Im certain that anyone who really knows me would say the same. I just think that too big of a deal is made out of this stuff, I mean really, was this persons feelings really hurt and were their beliefs really threatened cus of the cross honoring the fallen soldiers? I only used Times Square as an extreme hypothetical.

People are too sensitive these days, on both sides I will admit. These same people have no qualms about spending the money that says In God We Trust or getting off of work for Christmas though

[Collier11]

and again, having a cross up is not govt sponsored religion

[Fraggle145]

Earlier in the thread I said the cross in this instance wasn't that big of a deal. The only thing I had a problem with was the landswap, just because I envision the extreme scenario of a bunch of courthouses on public land surrounded by now private land with the 10 commandments all over them.

I dont think you arent accepting or we probably wouldnt get along - was just trying to provide the view of the other side. :) And I agree both sides are way to sensitive, but it's religion and everyone seems to find a way to eventually get their panties in a twist about it.

[Collier11]

I think the big problem is there are too many fanatics on both sides

A) Those who push their religion or views to the point that it pisses people off and they themselves arent accepting of others views

B) Those who despise organized religion so much that they refuse to see the good in it and refuse to respect those peoples opinions because of this

Therefore we are stuck with the really good people on both sides who are feeling left out and feel like they are being chastised without merit

[PDXsooner]

a cross which many on here have said represents the Christian faith which is the overwhelming faith of this country,

whether or not 80% of people in this country claim to be christian i do not know. but one thing i do know is that the definition of "christian" is night and day between oklahoma and oregon. it's also night and day between oklahoma and boston. i mention those two places because i lived in each for a long time.

[olevetonahill]

A Jew was In an Accident , Rushed to the ER and woke up in a room in a Catholic Hospital.
Looked up and there was the Cross.
Nurse came in and said I know yer Jewish and I hope That Cross dont offend ya .
Jew said
No Mame , Its all good to see one of our OWN do good . :cool:

[Collier11]

whether or not 80% of people in this country claim to be christian i do not know. but one thing i do know is that the definition of "christian" is night and day between oklahoma and oregon. it's also night and day between oklahoma and boston. i mention those two places because i lived in each for a long time.

A christian is a christian brother, there is no other definition

[JohnnyMack]

Earlier in the thread I said the cross in this instance wasn't that big of a deal. The only thing I had a problem with was the landswap, just because I envision the extreme scenario of a bunch of courthouses on public land surrounded by now private land with the 10 commandments all over them.

I thought about that to and I think that that might be a major reason the SCOTUS decides to just toss it back to the 9th.

I think in this instance however the historical significance of the monument outweighs this clown's tender sensibilities.

[Sooner_Havok]

My 2 cents, religious carp, on private land, paid for with private funds = cool with me. If Devon wanted to put a giant freaking 50 foot cross on top of their new tower, rock on man.

Religious carp on public land, even if funded privately, = not cool man. Does it establish a "state religion"? No. But it ain't right. Giving or selling public land to a private entity for the purpose of putting a religious monument on it = not cool either. (Also unconstitutional under the Oklahoma Constitution)

Look, I don't care what invisible man you pray to, and I don't care how you choose to display your faith. But the government NEVER should do something for one faith that it isn't willing to do for every faith. And we all know what happens when you open the door for everyone. You get flying spaghetti monsters, beer volcanoes, and midgets. So unless you want a cross standing next to a crescent moon & star, next to a star of david, next to a FSM statue, next to mighty Thor, keep the religious stuff on private property.

[Collier11]

what if it was a statue on public land of the Spaghetti Monster, that guy is all kinds of Satanic

[Sooner_Havok]

what if it was a statue on public land of the Spaghetti Monster, that guy is all kinds of Satanic

Hell no, now if you wanted to place the FSM and his beer volcano inside your office building, or on the roof, go for it. But the only monuments that should be placed on public lands are monuments to America and its heroes. You want a 35 foot bronze statue of Patton on the state capitol, I can get behind that.

[Frozen Sooner]

what if it was a statue on public land of the Spaghetti Monster, that guy is all kinds of Satanic

I pray for your eventual salvation and pastification.

[PDXsooner]

A christian is a christian brother, there is no other definition

i know that sounds nice, but it couldn't be further from the truth. i have been to methodist and united church of christ churches (i'm agnostic) -- and their view of southern baptists is one of pure disgust.

[Collier11]

Denominations of religion are different yes, but a Christian is a Christian. Now that certainly doesnt mean that some dont see it that way, but thats not the way it is intended

[PDXsooner]

Denominations of religion are different yes, but a Christian is a Christian. Now that certainly doesnt mean that some dont see it that way, but thats not the way it is intended

i disagree. because there is no standard definition of "christian". i've had pretty deep conversations with a lot of people who consider themselves "christians" and i came away with the realization that they are not all on board with a singular definition.

[Collier11]

Sure there is, a Christian is a follower of Christ. It can be found in the Bible or in the dictionary.

[PDXsooner]

i was told by a baptist minister here in oregon that the only way to salvation is through jesus christ. i asked him what that meant and he said that you will not go to heaven unless you accept that christ is the son of god. i told him that i guess i'll be sitting in hell next to ghandi and the dalai lama.

i had a methodist pastor tell me the he call's himself a christian because he learned the word of god through christ's teachings.

both are followers of christ i guess, but both are pretty fundamentally different.

[starclassic tama]

Not to speak for Dean but im pretty sure his point is that This country, like it or not, genuine or not, is a large majority Christian, some numbers put it over 80%. This country has long been a Christian majority, since way before I was born. Some of the frustration comes from the very small minority always getting their way when they "claim" to be hurt or insulted. Its time to start sticking up for what the country believes in and not just what a small minority believes in.

like it or not, that number is dwindling. here is some research for you: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year.

[SicEmBaylor]

I believe in God, but I have a lot of problems with organized religion. I think the Bible's stories are clearly meant to convey ethical and moral lessons and way too many people have misinterpreted the book and taken it literally which absurd considering the number of times it has been translated, re-worded, re-arranged, etc.

I also have a lot of problems with certain aspects of Christianity. I just can not accept the fact that a good human being who lives a moral and ethical life should be denied reward in the afterlife purely because he or she wasn't a Christian. I'm a firm believer that good people will rewarded regardless of their religion.

Having said all that, I'm constantly amazed at how hostile some on the left are toward individuals who are more dogmatic. It's as if someone of faith constitutes a major threat to their world view. Some are so hostile to anyone of faith that they demand the eradication of every religious symbol even when those religious symbols are more a representation of shared heritage then some attempt to evangelize the entire nation.

I just get disgusted by people who scream the loudest and claim offense over an issue that doesn't have a damned thing to do with them. I think the real issue is that some people use the claim of offense to pursuit their own agenda. To that I say, get a f-ing life.

[Collier11]

Preach it hippie! ;)

[JohnnyMack]

i was told by a baptist minister here in oregon that the only way to salvation is through jesus christ. i asked him what that meant and he said that you will not go to heaven unless you accept that christ is the son of god. i told him that i guess i'll be sitting in hell next to ghandi and the dalai lama.

i had a methodist pastor tell me the he call's himself a christian because he learned the word of god through christ's teachings.

both are followers of christ i guess, but both are pretty fundamentally different.

This is from the book The Power of Myth:


MOYERS: In the Christian story the serpent is the seducer.

CAMPBELL: That amounts to a refusal to affirm life. In the biblical tradition we have inherited, life is corrupt, and every natural impulse is sinful unless it has been circumcised or baptized. The serpent was the one who brought sin into the world. And the woman was the one who handed the apple to man. This identification of the woman with sin, of the serpent with sin, and thus of life with sin, is the twist that has been given to the whole story in the biblical myth and doctrine of the Fall.

MOYERS: Does the idea of woman as sinner appear in other mythologies?

CAMPBELL: No, I don't know of it elsewhere. The closest thing to it would be perhaps Pandora with Pandora's box, but that's not sin, that's just trouble. The idea in the biblical tradition of the Fall is that nature as we know it is corrupt, sex in itself is corrupt, and the female as the epitome of sex is a corrupter. ...The idea of the supernatural as being something over and above the natural is a killing idea. In the Middle Ages this was the idea that finally turned that world into something like a wasteland, a land where people were living inauthentic lives, never doing a thing they truly wanted to because the supernatural laws required them to live as directed by their clergy. In a wasteland, people are fulfilling purposes that are not properly theirs but have been put upon them as inescapable laws. This is a killer. The twelfth-century troubadour poetry of courtly love was a protest against this supernaturally justified violation of life's joy in truth. So too the Tristan legend and at least one of the great versions of the legend of the Grail, that of Wolfram von Eschenbach. The spirit is really the bouquet of life. It is not something breathed into life, it comes out of life. This is one of the glorious things about the mother-goddess religions, where the world is the body of the Goddess, divine in itself, and divinity isn't something ruling over and above a fallen nature. There was something of this spirit in the medieval cult of the Virgin, out of which all the beautiful thirteenth-century French cathedrals arose.However, our story of the Fall in the Garden sees nature as corrupt; and that myth corrupts the whole world for us. Because nature is thought of as corrupt, every spontaneous act is sinful and must not be yielded to. You get a totally different civilization and a totally different way of living according to whether your myth presents nature as fallen or whether nature is in itself a manifestation of divinity, and the spirit is the revelation of the divinity that is inherent in nature.

[PDXsooner]

Having said all that, I'm constantly amazed at how hostile some on the left are toward individuals who are more dogmatic. It's as if someone of faith constitutes a major threat to their world view. Some are so hostile to anyone of faith that they demand the eradication of every religious symbol even when those religious symbols are more a representation of shared heritage then some attempt to evangelize the entire nation.

I just get disgusted by people who scream the loudest and claim offense over an issue that doesn't have a damned thing to do with them. I think the real issue is that some people use the claim of offense to pursuit their own agenda. To that I say, get a f-ing life.

i agree. i have no problem with christmas celebrations in public schools, bible quotes, things like that. i consider them more tradition than religion anyway.

[iwannabelikesam]

I haven't kept up with this thread and haven't read anything since my last post in here. But I did want to add this.

What about scientology? Scientology is pretty much universally made fun of and disrespected. I remember people posting they are tired of people not respecting their christian beliefs. Do you christians respect the beliefs of scientologists, as outrageous as they are? And what is so outrageous and laughable about what scientologists believe and not what christians believe? They are both equally absurd and unlikely, imo.

[Collier11]

Scientology isnt a religion

[JohnnyMack]

I haven't kept up with this thread and haven't read anything since my last post in here. But I did want to add this.

What about scientology? Scientology is pretty much universally made fun of and disrespected. I remember people posting they are tired of people not respecting their christian beliefs. Do you christians respect the beliefs of scientologists, as outrageous as they are? And what is so outrageous and laughable about what scientologists believe and not what christians believe? They are both equally absurd and unlikely, imo.

I see them equitably.

[iwannabelikesam]

Scientology isnt a religion

Way to go in disrespecting other peoples beliefs.

And isn't that a bit of a cop-out answer? I should have expected. Is it not a belief system? It is just as much a religion as christianity is.

[PDXsooner]

Scientology isnt a religion

whoa. that would be offensive if i were a scientologist. and mormons are christians as well.

[Collier11]

It was created like 50 years ago, give me a break. Its no more of a religion than David Koresh's fruit loops group

[iwannabelikesam]

It was created like 50 years ago, give me a break. Its no more of a religion than David Koresh's fruit loops group

Ah, so the age of a belief system is what determines its religious status.

[PDXsooner]

It was created like 50 years ago, give me a break. Its no more of a religion than David Koresh's fruit loops group

wow, what were people saying 50 years after the death of christ? what does timeline have to do with it? is this what the jews were saying when christianity first branched off?

[Collier11]

The legitimacy of it determines its religious status. Sure, I will concede that it is a form of organized religion but it screams of whacko more than almost any other. Just like on Family Guy, if I wanted to worship the Fonz that would be my religion of choice, doesnt mean it is legitimate

[Collier11]

wow, what were people saying 50 years after the death of christ? what does timeline have to do with it? is this what the jews were saying when christianity first branched off?

Jews and Christians dont claim to be immortal

[PDXsooner]

The legitimacy of it determines its religious status. Sure, I will concede that it is a form of organized religion but it screams of whacko more than almost any other. Just like on Family Guy, if I wanted to worship the Fonz that would be my religion of choice, doesnt mean it is legitimate

i respect your beliefs, but trust me -- to a non-christian the stories of the bible sound just as whacko when you apply logic and look at it pragmatically.

and what is "legitimate" should be decided by the worshipper and not someone else, don't you agree?

[iwannabelikesam]

The legitimacy of it determines its religious status. Sure, I will concede that it is a form of organized religion but it screams of whacko more than almost any other. Just like on Family Guy, if I wanted to worship the Fonz that would be my religion of choice, doesnt mean it is legitimate

I agree.

But what makes what scientologists believe "wacko?" And if you believe what they believe is "wacko" how can you not logically believe what christianity believes is also "wacko"

[PDXsooner]

Jews and Christians dont claim to be immortal

what is your point? you can't disprove them. isn't living with god in eternity a version of immortality?

[JohnnyMack]

The legitimacy of it determines its religious status. Sure, I will concede that it is a form of organized religion but it screams of whacko more than almost any other. Just like on Family Guy, if I wanted to worship the Fonz that would be my religion of choice, doesnt mean it is legitimate

Why?

As far as I can tell the only thing that separates Christianity from Scientology is the amount of time one of them has been around is longer than the other.

[Collier11]

then you obviously havent researched Scientology or its creator, one Ron Hubbard.

[iwannabelikesam]

Jews and Christians dont claim to be immortal

Jews and christians claim an awful lot of ridiculousness things as well. But they aren't ridiculous to you because you believe in them. Same with scientologists.

[Collier11]

I will say this cus I was pretty hasty in my criticism, I agree that Scientology is a form of organized religion, I also realize that they are supposed Christians.

My main criticism is their supposed motivations in capitilizing financially instead of morally, their secrecy as if it were some cult, and the things that I view as odd in their behaviors are what cause me to be leary of it. I didnt mean to disrespect the religion as a whole, just the parts of it that seem extremely suspicious to me

[Collier11]

Not to mention that Ron Hubbard was extremely self serving and often placed himself above the religion as someone of importance

[OKLA21FAN]

Not to mention that Ron Hubbard was extremely self serving and often placed himself above the religion as someone of importance

sounds a lot like Oral Roberts ;)

[Collier11]

heh