all veterans stand up - this is NOT about religion, its about respect for others

[mauve66]

this is what the government is coming to...............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA

[John_Kunkel]

Nothing new, the ACLU (not the government) has been at this for years. The cross IS a religious symbol, ask Saul Goldstein.

[mauve66]

based on the ACLU lawsuit and by your description then every cross (or Star of David for that matter) in ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY should be taken down 'cause their on Government property also, yes the cross CAN be a religious symbol but it isn't ALWAYS a religious symbol when taken in context

[Khyron]

how about a middle finger.... can I display that to them :-P

[2Gunz]

All I can stay is stupid.


Visit the website....


http://www.donttearmedown.com/

[John_Kunkel]

based on the ACLU lawsuit and by your description then every cross (or Star of David for that matter) in ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY should be taken down 'cause their on Government property

Yep, I'd have no problem with that.

yes the cross CAN be a religious symbol but it isn't ALWAYS a religious symbol when taken in context

Context? So why do you think the vets chose the cross to memorialize their fallen comrades? 'Cause it's pretty? They chose it because it's a Christian religious symbol. How long do you think that symbol would have stood if it were a Star of David or a Muslim crescent moon with a star?

[Charger_Fan]

Really!





You know...if more friggin' people would keep their eyes on their own plates, instead of worrying about what's happening on someone else's, this planet would be a lot better place to live!
Who gives a low flying rat's ass if someone wants to mark the place of a fallen friend/family member/brother in arms with a cross? LET THEM!

I'm so sick of the religious/non-religious bickering constantly being perpetuated by the likes of the friggin' ACLU & others, that I could just puke. They're only serving fuel the fires of hatred for our fellow man...why the hell can't we just get along, all these centuries later? I could care less who's religious symbol is stuck in a spot that's sacred to them, and as long as they don't try to push their agenda on me (or you), then why should I (or you) even care?
BTW, there's plenty of other religious symbols in Arlington, along with crosses. It's not as if the cross is the only symbol that has the market cornered.

[2Gunz]

 

[BB1]

In San Diego ACLU wants the crossed off Mount Helix and Mount Soledad 20 years ago.
There still there. 

[Troy]

So, something someone did (out of respect) 80 years ago offends someone now so the solution is to wipe out landmarks (and history)? No matter what the symbol, isn't the intent the important part? Even nonreligious people understand what the cross was meant for even if they'd have used a different symbol. What other symbol would you use?

Troy

[teamroth]

I do think it's a religious symbol. But so what? I lean towards atheist/agnostic and I don't see how seeing that cross there makes me any more or less of a believer.  

[PocketThunder]

I do think it's a religious symbol. But so what? I'm lean towards atheist/agnostic and I don't see how seeing that cross there makes me any more or less of a believer. 

A cactus is somewhat shaped like a cross... Are these people going to go cut down every cactus on gov't property? 

ACLU   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aclu

[73-charger-383]

i dunno...but i'd be creeped out if i saw a pantagram in the graveyard, but some people or satanic... ----i think the crosses should stay, but there's always a flip side to the coin....

[John_Kunkel]

Even nonreligious people understand what the cross was meant for even if they'd have used a different symbol. What other symbol would you use?

Why the need for symbology at all? Those who are secure in their beliefs shouldn't need symbology to reinforce those beliefs.

Does a Mopar pentastar plastered on every available structure make any of us more secure in our Mopar beliefs?

Religious symbols are akin to gang-banger tagging.

[John_Kunkel]

Even nonreligious people understand what the cross was meant for even if they'd have used a different symbol. What other symbol would you use?

Why the need for symbology at all? Those who are secure in their beliefs shouldn't need symbology to reinforce those beliefs. Does a Mopar pentastar plastered on every available structure make any of us more secure in our Mopar beliefs?

Religious symbols are akin to gang-banger tagging.

[c00nhunterjoe]

that shit pisses me off. its a dam memorial for the people that died   to give those asses the right to live here and moan and complain. they have alot of nerve to want to remove any memorial for soldiers.

[2Gunz]

Even nonreligious people understand what the cross was meant for even if they'd have used a different symbol. What other symbol would you use?

Why the need for symbology at all? Those who are secure in their beliefs shouldn't need symbology to reinforce those beliefs.

Does a Mopar pentastar plastered on every available structure make any of us more secure in our Mopar beliefs?

Religious symbols are akin to gang-banger tagging.

I dont think its Religious at all.

Somebody was trying honor and remember somebody.

[bull]

It's funny how antitheists use the same backward methodology as religious fanatics to make their point. It used to be that Christians got blamed for everything from the removal of The Diary Anne Frank from libraries to forcing Dodge to stop using the Demon name and now those who push the green movement and political correction are utilizing the same screwy mentality.

[Ghoste]

Why the need for symbology at all?  Hmmm, excellent question, perhaps an equal question might be, who is the symbology for?  Is it for the ACLU, the delicate psyche's the ACLU seek to protect, perhaps its for non believers in whatever ideology/theology the symbol portrays (you know a secret subversive attempt at forced conversion   )(?
My personal guess is that it is either for the deceased or their survivors.  1/2 of that scenario doesn't care so it really only means something to the survivors.  How interesting that the ACLU would seek to dismantle a "religious" symbol in the name of equality to ensure it doesn't offend anyone who is a non adherant to that religion.  Afterall, in the great liberal world of political correctness only the minority are entitled to be proud of their poor downtrodden religion.  And yet, the deceased apparently no longer have any rights to a religion, nor their survivors if that symbol is a cross.  I wonder if the ACLU would be so quick to condemn the symbols if they were shaped like a Minorrah or a Star of David?  What if the memorial contained a sacred meaning to someone of Hindu belief.  Would the ACLU be so quick to force them to remove the "symbols".
The symbol is there for the comfort of the family and friends of the deceased no one else.  If the symbol offends somebody then I think the somebody is more likely to be the one with the problem.
Symbols mean a variety of things to a variety of people but they have been a constant throughout the history of man.  Denying them to someone who needs it to comfort their own mind or soul or whatever isn't a form equality for somebody else, it's a form of oppression to the person who needed the comfort of that  symbol in this instance.  That sort of shortsightedness is what make the ACLU out to be little more than hypocrites.

[bull]

Even nonreligious people understand what the cross was meant for even if they'd have used a different symbol. What other symbol would you use?

Why the need for symbology at all? Those who are secure in their beliefs shouldn't need symbology to reinforce those beliefs.

Does a Mopar pentastar plastered on every available structure make any of us more secure in our Mopar beliefs?

Symbols only mean what you want them to mean, or, they only hold the meaning you pour into them. If I see someone wearing a cross necklace I don't automatically assume they are a Christian any more than seeing the Bad Religion tattoo on my coworker's arm makes me assume he's a Satan worshipper. Until I ask and they answer I just don't know so I don't assume. Are these men trying to push Christianity on people or honor their dead? The cross was once a pretty common symbol to mark graves, even for those who aren't Christian, so I doubt very much that a cross being utilized to mark the deaths of fallen soldiers is going to make most people feel obliged to follow Christ. If this cross is meant to endorse Christianity and it's on government property the ACLU might have a point, albeit a very weak one. Still, even if that were the case I seriously doubt the Supreme Court would cause it to be permanently removed but the PC stormtroopers might be able to stage a sit-in or demonstration long enough to annoy these people into submission. Most PC minions don't have jobs so they have that kind of free time on their hands. I'd say the symbolism of the cross has been diluted enough in this country to mean very little unless it's attached to the front of a church building. You might lose your head if you wear a cross in Syria but here in the US most normal people don't care.

On the other hand, there are some symbols (although very few) that are very taboo such as the swastika. That symbol had little meaning until it came to represent Hitler's agenda but as for most symbols they only mean something to the people who display them.

Religious symbols are akin to gang-banger tagging.

This statement makes no sense. The term "tagging" is specifically defined as illegally placing graffiti on private and public property. Unless someone spray-paints a cross on the side of a building, fence or water tower without the owner's permission your comparison is idiotic.

[General_01]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

"akin to tagging"? WTF? Please stop eating the brownies the hippies are selling at the flea market.

Also, if you are secure in your beliefs, why would seeing a cross on a hill to memorialize fallen soldiers shake your belief. The road goes both ways on that argument.

[2Gunz]

Direct from the ACLU's website.


"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

    * Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion."



So for a moment lets assume it is a religious symbol and intended as such.....

Wouldnt taking it down directly go against what they believe in?

Maybe it should be taken down and replaced with a HUGE sign like this....

[Shakey]

I'm getting kinda bummed out at the flowers I see at the side of the road marking where someone was obviously killed in a car wreck!  They remind me of my own mortality as I cruise down the highway.  Perhaps I should contact the ACLU and see if we can get them removed and get a class action lawsuit filed against all of the families and friends of the victims to compensate me for my potential mental anguish and suffering.   

[Magnumcharger]

I'm getting kinda bummed out at the flowers I see at the side of the road marking where someone was obviously killed in a car wreck!  They remind me of my own mortality as I cruise down the highway.  Perhaps I should contact the ACLU and see if we can get them removed and get a class action lawsuit filed against all of the families and friends of the victims to compensate me for my potential mental anguish and suffering.   

I agree...and was going to mention the "roadside memorials" too. But that is another discussion for another thread.

[PocketThunder]

I'm getting kinda bummed out at the flowers I see at the side of the road marking where someone was obviously killed in a car wreck!  They remind me of my own mortality as I cruise down the highway.  Perhaps I should contact the ACLU and see if we can get them removed and get a class action lawsuit filed against all of the families and friends of the victims to compensate me for my potential mental anguish and suffering.   

I agree...and was going to mention the "roadside memorials" too. But that is another discussion for another thread.

Well the road side is govt property, so the ACLU (idiotic) thinking would apply the same...   

[0X01B8]

Doesn't anybody see the irony here?

Why is the thread supposedly NOT about religion, even though it clearly is?

Because the mods will lock it otherwise.  So, in our very own little community here, we seem to accept this form of secular police action, but the same principle is lost everywhere else.

The mods are operating in league with the hated ACLU!  Why do the mods dis-respect us so?

Remember that separation of church and state concept?  Same thing goes on here, and it works pretty well.  Separation of Church and Charger.   

-john

[John_Kunkel]

This statement makes no sense. The term "tagging" is specifically defined as illegally placing graffiti on private and public property. Unless someone spray-paints a cross on the side of a building, fence or water tower without the owner's permission your comparison is idiotic.

Thank you for ignoring the colloquialism in favor of a pure definition.

My reference to tagging was about the mentality that drives taggers, not the act itself. The mentality that wants one's affiliation to be seen by all.

[John_Kunkel]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

So, I guess that means anybody who is against them doesn't accept that, along with freedom OF religion, there should be freedom FROM religion. Sashay around it all you want, the cross was ploaced there as a religious symbol, honoring the dead is secondary.

"akin to tagging"? WTF? Please stop eating the brownies the hippies are selling at the flea market.

What's the difference between pasting a cross on every available surface and tagging? Both are done so that believers can see the symbol of their affiliation and be comforted by it.

Also, if you are secure in your beliefs, why would seeing a cross on a hill to memorialize fallen soldiers shake your belief. The road goes both ways on that argument.

Suppose I don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols? And go back to my original reply, what is the symbol in question had been a Star of David....do you think it would still be standing? Or allowed in the first place?

[Ghoste]

Religious symbol or not, if I place a cross in memory of a deceased loved one it most certainly IS to honor that person.  Part and parcel to that would be for my own peace of mind.  I care not what someone thinks about my "affiliation", it is placed as a personal thing.  If someone is reading it as a religious proclamation then they have completely and in all ways missed the point.  If it were a Star of David the ACLU wanted to remove (and I sincerely doubt they would ever do such a thing) I would make the exact same argument for the exact same reason.  I don't look at gravemarkers looking for religious symbols and deciding which ones offend me because they are different from me.  Nor do I look at them and behold them in aghast horror that some dirty religious freak is trying to convert me by displaying his filthy symbol.  I also cannot seem to equate them with grafitti.

[2Gunz]

I personally offended by the Letters ACLU.  Somebody might think they stand for "Anti-Christian Liberties United".

Hum....

So that myself and others are not offended and to avoid confusion I think they should just be know as a symbol.

I believe they should use the fylfot.  Used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.



Wait somebody might mistake that with this.




So maybe they should just be a color so people cant possibly be offended.
Lets pick white as the new ACLU color. Wait.... that might be racist.
Lets pick yellow. Oh wait hum..... again somebody might be offended.

Ok maybe we should just lock ourselves in rooms and never come out .
That way we couldnt possibly see anything offensive.
Sounds like a solid game plan.

Anyway.... My post is stupid and utterly ridiculous.
But thats the point.
You can skew and distort ANYTHING if thats what you mind is set on.


Im not religious. And Im not sure if I believe in god.
Am I offended? No
Should I be?  Maybe

But if I was, I would have the good sense to respect the nations past.
And also have the sense to realize that taking down a small cross in the middle of no place will have little effect on my life.
But on the flip side wide be a huge blow to the people that are fighting to keep it.

I think we should spend more time and resources on positive efforts.
Instead of ripping apart foundations.

[teamroth]

Religious symbol or not, if I place a cross in memory of a deceased loved one it most certainly IS to honor that person.  Part and parcel to that would be for my own peace of mind.  I care not what someone thinks about my "affiliation", it is placed as a personal thing.  If someone is reading it as a religious proclamation then they have completely and in all ways missed the point.  If it were a Star of David the ACLU wanted to remove (and I sincerely doubt they would ever do such a thing) I would make the exact same argument for the exact same reason.  I don't look at gravemarkers looking for religious symbols and deciding which ones offend me because they are different from me.  Nor do I look at them and behold them in aghast horror that some dirty religious freak is trying to convert me by displaying his filthy symbol.  I also cannot seem to equate them with grafitti.

Based on what you said here Ghost, the memorial is placed purely for personal reasons, not truly in honor of the fallen. It doesn't offend me, but the way you stated it says that people place markers for their own faith, not that of the dead. I'm sure the dead don't mind either way.

[0X01B8]

Tagging is quite a good analogy.  So I'll add to it:  without symbols and colors, the gang bangers would have a much harder time figuring out who to kill.  They might have to talk to the other guy for a while before they remember to shoot him.

this thread is about gang bangers, btw.   

[John_Kunkel]

If someone is reading it as a religious proclamation then they have completely and in all ways missed the point. 

Oh? And what is the point? If they wanted to memorialize their fallen comrades an arrow on the hillside pointing to a memorial would serve the same purpose.

If it were a Star of David the ACLU wanted to remove (and I sincerely doubt they would ever do such a thing) I would make the exact same argument for the exact same reason. 

I think they would object, and kudos for you for being being a defender of religious symbology.

I also cannot seem to equate them with grafitti.

Opinion noted, I can.

[Brock Samson]

 Across time and across all cultures, ancestor worship is a contant,.. lawsuits however are only a couple hundred years old.

[2Gunz]

The difference between tagging and placing a cross is this......

Placing a cross (especially in the 1930's) would commonly be accepted as a good practice and invited.

Tagging on the other hand has never been invited nor has been commonly looked upon as a good thing.

Keywords here being commonly.

[0X01B8]

The difference between tagging and placing a cross is this......

Placing a cross (especially in the 1930's) would commonly be accepted as a good practice and invited.

Tagging on the other hand has never been invited nor has been commonly looked upon as a good thing.

Keywords here being commonly.

Historical context is good.  But they didn't have spray paint in the 30s so we'll never know.   

[Ghoste]

I don't know, this is obviously one of those very polarizing debates.  My position is this, if I want to use a religious symbol as a memorial that should be my right.  An argument was made that someone with no religious leaning should have an equal right to no symbols.  By this logic and since we are both entitled to an equal portion of "right", we are now at a standoff of a certain ethnic group which I dare not name for fear of offending anyone.  How do we resolve it?  Well by my logic however flawed it may be, it is the appearance of the symbol which is causing the non-affiliate to be troubled.  The presence of the symbol doesn't cause him/her any physical distress, just an unbearable mental torture.  The religious symbol does give the affiliated a personal comfort and it does this in two ways.  One, is the physical acknowledgement of the deceased (honor) the other is that most religions teach of life after death and a symbol of that faith frequently helps the surviving to deal with their grief (religious).  As heinous as seeing a religious symbol must be to anyone who dislikes their appearance, surely any group as steeped in equality as the ACLU can see that two reasons take precedence over one.
Okay, some tongue in cheek there.  All the same, if we are to accept that the more equal choice is to eliminate the thing that one group finds visually offensive, then where do we stop?  What if the sight of puppies, cement block buildings, the color green, airports, and stop signs all leave me feeling suicidial?  Would I not be entitled under this logic to have them legally removed from my field of vision?


This is why I very rarely come to the off topic area.  I like the technical areas better where we all get along so much better. 

[General_01]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

So, I guess that means anybody who is against them doesn't accept that, along with freedom OF religion, there should be freedom FROM religion. Sashay around it all you want, the cross was ploaced there as a religious symbol, honoring the dead is secondary.

"akin to tagging"? WTF? Please stop eating the brownies the hippies are selling at the flea market.

What's the difference between pasting a cross on every available surface and tagging? Both are done so that believers can see the symbol of their affiliation and be comforted by it.

Also, if you are secure in your beliefs, why would seeing a cross on a hill to memorialize fallen soldiers shake your belief. The road goes both ways on that argument.

Suppose I don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols? And go back to my original reply, what is the symbol in question had been a Star of David....do you think it would still be standing? Or allowed in the first place?

1: How can there be both "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion"? Having both is totally impossible. You can choose to be an atheist, but that does not mean all the churches and religious symbols need to be taken down so you are not offended. Also, a lot of our laws are based on Christianity. Should we have no laws because of this? I also think that separation of church and state is a myth. How can you have separation of church and state when this country was started by people who wanted the freedom to practice their religion?

2: The difference between tagging and pasting a cross is that tagging is done to mark a particular groups "territory". A cross is placed to signify someones beliefs.

3: If you don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols, then why be upset. If you are upset, then your "symbol" is that you don't need a symbol.

4: I agree, back in the day a Star of David would probably not have been allowed, but if it had been I would guarantee that it would not be challenged by the ACLU and would probably still be standing if it had not been ruined by zealots yet.

[0X01B8]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

So, I guess that means anybody who is against them doesn't accept that, along with freedom OF religion, there should be freedom FROM religion. Sashay around it all you want, the cross was ploaced there as a religious symbol, honoring the dead is secondary.

"akin to tagging"? WTF? Please stop eating the brownies the hippies are selling at the flea market.

What's the difference between pasting a cross on every available surface and tagging? Both are done so that believers can see the symbol of their affiliation and be comforted by it.

Also, if you are secure in your beliefs, why would seeing a cross on a hill to memorialize fallen soldiers shake your belief. The road goes both ways on that argument.

Suppose I don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols? And go back to my original reply, what is the symbol in question had been a Star of David....do you think it would still be standing? Or allowed in the first place?

1: How can there be both "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion"? Having both is totally impossible. You can choose to be an atheist, but that does not mean all the churches and religious symbols need to be taken down so you are not offended. Also, a lot of our laws are based on Christianity. Should we have no laws because of this? I also think that separation of church and state is a myth. How can you have separation of church and state when this country was started by people who wanted the freedom to practice their religion?

2: The difference between tagging and pasting a cross is that tagging is done to mark a particular groups "territory". A cross is placed to signify someones beliefs.

3: If you don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols, then why be upset. If you are upset, then your "symbol" is that you don't need a symbol.

4: I agree, back in the day a Star of David would probably not have been allowed, but if it had been I would guarantee that it would not be challenged by the ACLU and would probably still be standing if it had not been ruined by zealots yet.

1) check out HBO's John Adams miniseries to see what the founder's had in mind.  They were mostly pissed off in general, and some (Jefferson) were downright hostile to the church.  Franklin was a Deist, and he made all the way onto the $100 bill - so that's pretty good for a belief system that I had to go look up on Wikipedia because it's so obscure.  Laws based on Christianity - yeah, the dumb ones, like not selling booze on X-mas when you're with family and need it the most.  If you mean the 3 laws from the 10 commandments that are actual laws - they're not very original.  Steal from a caveman and I'll bet he beats the shit out of you with his club.
2) if I was a Muslim and saw a giant cross I'd think it's pretty territorial.
3) i've got a Mopar "m" keychain - it's looks kinda demonic.
4) i don't know much about David's star except that it's prolly harder to construct and thus more expensive, maybe that's why they didn't put one up?

People confuse me, so I apologize in advance.

[John_Kunkel]

1: How can there be both "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion"? Having both is totally impossible.

Nonsense, there can be freedom OF religion i.e. to practice one's religion and freedom FROM religion i. e. freedom to practice "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without the restrictions placed by religion and without those restrictions being enforced by government.

The concept of separation of church/state was first coined by Jefferson in 1802 when he wrote "thus building a wall of separation between church and State.".....the idea being to prevent such things as The Inquisition wherein the government takes its lead from religion. Freedom to practice one's religion isn't the same as a theocracy. (Look no further than Iran, the Taliban etc. to see what government is like when run by religion)

2: The difference between tagging and pasting a cross is that tagging is done to mark a particular groups "territory".

Then why do they tag railroad cars and semi trucks which move out of their "territory"? They tag to have their affiliation SEEN. Same reason people wear the cross on a necklace or hang crucifixes on walls, to have them seen.

3: If you don't have beliefs that need to be reinforced with symbols, then why be upset. If you are upset, then your "symbol" is that you don't need a symbol.

Who said anybody was upset, I'm merely arguing the fact that a cross is a religious symbol to counter the OP that claims the issue isn't religion....it is.

4: I agree, back in the day a Star of David would probably not have been allowed, but if it had been I would guarantee that it would not be challenged by the ACLU and would probably still be standing if it had not been ruined by zealots yet.

I respectfully disagree.

[mauve66]

this country did just fine for over 200 years, cause people didn't worry about themselves first , they worried about the country first, now its "what can i get out of this??", the needs/rights of the country must always come before the needs/rights of the people , otherwise their won't be a country to live in.  yes the country should have the same needs/rights as the people for it to be "for the people /by the people" but sometimes you just don't get what ya want cause your "feelings" are hurt or might get hurt.

when i said it wasn't about religion it isn't, i'm not a religious person by any means, when i was a child i went to practically every kind of church there is, they all say "they" are the best/right/only one.  I'm either athiest or agnostic, depends on the day and whether a child molester gets away again, but i was raised to have respect for my fellow human being and not trample on their rights just to impose mine, that symbol has been on that hill for over 50 years and NOW it MIGHT offend someone.  for the past 50 yrs a precedent has been set by NOT ONE person complaining about  it and now that 1 individual wants their way.

[bull]

Like I said before, it's funny how the PC Nazis and green movement goons have taken characteristics from the worst examples of religious zealotry and utilized them to further their own agendas under the guise of liberty. You're "free" to think and act as you wish until you don't think and act as they do. At that point they'll litigate, coerce, guilt and legislate you into submission. Only after you're driving a Prius, living in a mud hut, rejecting your faith and eating nothing but organic nuts and berries are you able to be as "free" as they are. It's the same mentality that prompted the Salem witch trials, only it's on a larger scale with more lasting results.

[Mike DC]

   

When America was founded, the FFs looked around at the religious situation in the colonies and basically decided that some basic belief in God was pretty non-offensive point that almost everyone could roll with.  They basically just wanted a morally-minded govt with the specifics of the various religions off the table. 


The problem is that 200 years later, that basic monotheistic belief in God is no longer the rallying point that it once was.  It's no longer an inoffensive point of commonality for most of the population.  The words have not changed since the 1700s but the situation has changed around them.  Now "freedom of religion" is dealing with some new God-free religions as part of the bargain.  Evolution/Atheism needs to be covered under religious freedoms but without unduly limiting/suppressing the other existing religions' right to be seen in public. 

     
-----------------------------------------------------

IMHO I personally don't see why the crosses and "in God we Trust" and prayer time in school is such a big deal.  But I understand that theoretically they could be called into question by some people who feel strongly about it. 

[bull]

IMHO I personally don't see why the crosses and "in God we Trust" and prayer time in school is such a big deal.  But I understand that theoretically they could be called into question by some people who feel strongly about it. 

Where it gets dangerous, as it has in the case of this cross in the desert, is when the anti-this and anti-that goons start knee-jerking to the point that the scales tip beyond center. It's not about protecting said "freedom from religion" to these folks, it's about stomping out the ideas they disagree with. Everyone arguing this point on both sides knows that a cross sitting on top of a rock does nothing to harm anyone either mentally, spiritually or physically so it just becomes a tug-o-war of pride. The ACLU is not interested in liberty or human rights here it is interested in winning and proving a moot point at the expense of a number of veterans who fought for their country. I'd venture to guess that very few of us knew this cross existed until July 7th (I'd never heard of it) but now all of a sudden some idiot from Oregon (who's never been there) contacted the ALCU about it and now thousands more people (ie. those who "feel strongly about it") can utilize their demented need to be offended in a whole new way. What a service! Now the ACLU can toot its own horn, puff out its chest and say, "hey, everyone, look at us!" There's nothing more to it than that. It's another exercise in futility that does nothing but waste time and money.

[Mike DC]

If everyone knows that a cross on a rock doesn't hurt anyone, then surely a burning cross wouldn't hurt either?  Or a swastika?  

Of course those are some extremely unbalanced comparisons, but I'm saying that a symbol can be hurtful just doing what it does.  It represents an idea.  It's only has harmless (or helpful) as the idea itself is.  



I know a few people (not many, but a few) who honestly do feel very hurt over Chrisianity-type symbols.  If you grow up being basically oppressed by an extremely fundamental branch of any religion, then you might eventually feel like any scrap of that religion's beliefs are an affront to your self-esteem and sanity.  

-----------------------------



I agree that most of the time a christianity symbol is in the news, it's because an athiestic lobbying group is just trying to rub their noses in it a little more and take a little more ground on principle.  But there are still some people out there who are genuinely offended over these things.  I don't like the way some of these things get started, but occasionally I think they're making valid points with their invalid motivations.  


 

[mauve66]

I agree that most of the time a christianity symbol is in the news, it's because an athiestic lobbying group is just trying to rub their noses in it a little more and take a little more ground on principle.  But there are still some people out there who are genuinely offended over these things.  I don't like the way some of these things get started, but occasionally I think they're making valid points with their invalid motivations. 

then they don't have to go look at the damn thing.  are they so offended when they walk by a church on the sidewalk that the church should board up the front so no one is offended??

as a veteran who has walked through the night in a hostile country it I AM GENUINELY OFFENDED when someone doesn't shut up during the national anthem or pledge of allegiance, or decide its their RIGHT to burn the very symbol of the country i have decided to protect.  the problem is ITS THEIR RIGHT NOT TO DO THOSE THINGS but i'm not going to hire a bunch of goon lawyers because what they want/or don't want to do offends me in any way

the same principle applies for all kinds of things in this country from both sides, the people and the government, if there is a difference of opinion, get the lawyers out

1. smoking inside a particular building that is private property, if you don't like it don't go to that building
2. if you don't want to wear a seatbelt, then its YOUR life, its YOUR right to decide that (personally i believe in them but its YOUR right not mine to tell you to wear it)
3. talking on a cell phone while driving, its no different than reading a book, typing on a laptop, opening mail, eating lunch, applying makeup etc, while driving, some people can do many things at once, some people can't drive a car by themselves with no distractions
4. having to rent your house to someone you don't like cause the law says so, its YOUR house to do with what you see fit
5.  if someone says something, usually racist that you don't like, then don't listen to them, their entitled to their OPINION just like you are, they shouldn't be allowed to force you to agree with them

this was not to be a posting about right and wrong but a notice to veterans who might or might not be interested in this situation enough to take action.

[bull]

If everyone knows that a cross on a rock doesn't hurt anyone, then surely a burning cross wouldn't hurt either?  Or a swastika?  

Of course those are some extremely unbalanced comparisons, but I'm saying that a symbol can be hurtful just doing what it does.  It represents an idea.  It's only has harmless (or helpful) as the idea itself is.  

It doesn't hurt anyone until it becomes harassment. The KKK can burn all the crosses they want as long as they do it legally. Swastikas are not illegal either until it's related to measurable harassment or crime. My point is that a cross in the middle of the desert hurts no one. Why would anyone in their right mind drive all they way out to the middle of nowhere just to exercise their warped need to be offended?

I know a few people (not many, but a few) who honestly do feel very hurt over Chrisianity-type symbols.  If you grow up being basically oppressed by an extremely fundamental branch of any religion, then you might eventually feel like any scrap of that religion's beliefs are an affront to your self-esteem and sanity.

Then they have personal issues they need to deal with. How does it make sense to try to bend the world to accommodate past emotional pain? Seems like it'd be less work for people to fix their own problems before they point the finger at everyone else. There's no way you can not offend some people no matter how hard you try so how in the world would removing a cross that most people have never seen, will never see, and didn't know about until recently, hurt them? Like I said, this is just an opportunity for the ACLU to waste time, money, legal resources under the guise of doing what's right. No one was hurt until they stuck their nose in it, and now the vets are the ones getting stabbed in the back.

Oh well, arguing about it is only slightly less absurd than the lawsuit itself.

[John_Kunkel]

Like I said before, it's funny how the PC Nazis and green movement goons have taken characteristics from the worst examples of religious zealotry and utilized them to further their own agendas under the guise of liberty.

As opposed to those who would love to sweep the many abuses in the name of religion under the carpet and play like they never existed?

Where it gets dangerous, as it has in the case of this cross in the desert, is when the anti-this and anti-that goons start knee-jerking to the point that the scales tip beyond center.

You mean like the ones who want to control what a woman can and can't do with her own body? Or want to control what I see and read?

No matter how much the right-wingers want to lambast the ACLU they might remember that the work of the ACLU is one of the main reasons they're free to express their distain.

[bull]

Like I said before, it's funny how the PC Nazis and green movement goons have taken characteristics from the worst examples of religious zealotry and utilized them to further their own agendas under the guise of liberty.

As opposed to those who would love to sweep the many abuses in the name of religion under the carpet and play like they never existed?

Where it gets dangerous, as it has in the case of this cross in the desert, is when the anti-this and anti-that goons start knee-jerking to the point that the scales tip beyond center.

You mean like the ones who want to control what a woman can and can't do with her own body? Or want to control what I see and read?

No matter how much the right-wingers want to lambast the ACLU they might remember that the work of the ACLU is one of the main reasons they're free to express their disdain.

No one can sweep anything under the carpet with people like you pointing the finger. So how is politically correct zealotry any better than religious zealotry? Sounds like revenge to me, and/or discrimination.

Who's controlling what women can do with their bodies? If you're referring to the abortion issue I don't think a fetus is part of a woman's body or she'd have been born with it and it wouldn't be able to eventually sustain independent life. Regardless, I don't know of any Christians in my circle of friends who tries to control women in any way be it abortion or any other issue. We are taught right from wrong but I am not accountable to any human if I don't want to be, only to God. Likewise I discipline and correct my daughters (at the ages of 7 and 9) but after they turn 18 the decisions they make are between they and God. Now if you want to talk about those who forcibly control people let's talk about Mr. Anti-Religion himself, Joseph Stalin.

And if the ACLU is so concerned about right-wingers being "free to express their disdain" why are they so hellbent on quashing conservative ideas and various forms of religious expression? I don't see them going after those who express their disdain on the left.

[mauve66]

Or want to control what I see and read?

No matter how much the right-wingers want to lambast the ACLU they might remember that the work of the ACLU is one of the main reasons they're free to express their distain.

you mean like controlling what you see in the desert?

the reason they are able to express their disdain is because of VETERANS that prevented this country from becoming N. Korea, Cuba, Russia, ANY country on the Continent of Africa, CHina, Nazi Germany, or IRAQ, IRAN, etc.

the reason that the ACLU is allowed to EXPRESS THEIR OPINION, is because of the same veterans.  Just because the ACLU says something doesn't mean they are right, yes they have done some good in SOME situations but its the same with the Unions, back in the 40-50's they were needed to protect workers, now they have priced them selves out of any market they are in and then they whine to the authorities that they should have a RIGHT to protest and interfere with other people performing their jobs as well as threaten those employees lives and the lives of their families.

the problem with the courts today, is everybody has a right to sue over their feelings getting hurt
if you drive and drink you will spill it, if its hot, it will burn you, what are they supposed to do, give you a sippy cup??
if you run from the cops or fight the cops they will put you down by whatever force is needed, what are they supposed to do? bring in a shrink to talk you into surrendering?

when you see a cross on the side of an american road, due you think "those damn Christians are at it again" or do you think "crap someone was killed here, hope i'm not next"
the road side is also government property, i guess i'll go get my 15 mins of fame by suing every state to go out and spend a fortune constantly removing those crosses

here in Las Vegas they got state funding to renovate a down town area partly by completely removing a 200 foot section of street under a highway (this section also contributed to crime and homeless shelters), mailed notices to all residences, held town hall meetings, environmental studies, then started construction, then finished construction and now they just had to put 70 MILLION dollars into the next years budget to REPLACE that street cause those 20 people in that neighbor hood have to drive around 4 city blocks to get to the other side of the highway and they got the courts to let them file this horrendous lawsuit in this economy

[bull]

Or want to control what I see and read?

Interesting choice of words considering the topic. Sounds to me like an argument against what the ACLU has done to the cross in the desert by controlling what we can see through litigation. That or good example of hypocrisy.

Face it, John. The PC zealotry from the left is no better than the religious zealotry from the right.

[Mike DC]

  
Just to clarify my view -

I don't think the cross that's being questioned in this specific thread needs to be taken down.  They oughtta tell the ACLU to take a hike and leave the cross up unless a lot of actual veterans are complaining.  (Which is not bloody likely.)



I agree that the ACLU is usually just being vindictive towards all things conservative in most of these cases.  I was just pointing out that it's a little dangerous to argue that a Christian symbol is not capable of offending anyone just by definition.  
 

[John_Kunkel]

No one can sweep anything under the carpet with people like you pointing the finger.

And you can bloody well count on me and my ilk to keep those reminders coming.

So how is politically correct zealotry any better than religious zealotry? Sounds like revenge to me, and/or descrimination.

You keep using the terms PC and politically correct in your rants, this has nothing to do with PC it's about the law regarding the use of Federal land. Like most political offerings on YouTube, this one is stylized to fit the agenda of those who composed it; stylized to appeal to those with pseudo-patriotic/religious leanings.

Read the details of the lawsuit:

Facts of the Case:
In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars built a wooden cross on top of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) as a memorial to those who died in World War I. The original cross no longer exists, but has been rebuilt several times. Frank Buono, a former Preserve employee, filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to prevent the permanent display of the cross. The genesis of his suit occurred in 1999 when a request to build a Buddhist shrine in the Preserve, near the cross, was denied. He argued that the cross' display on federal property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed and the cross was covered.

While the case was pending, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling with the use of federal funds. One year later, by land swap, Congress made Sunrise Rock private property in exchange for another parcel of land. Mr. Buono moved to not only enforce the previous court order preventing the display of the cross, but also to prohibit the land swap. The district court granted both motions. The Secretary of the Interior appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the government failed to show that the district court's fact findings or legal standards were clearly erroneous, nor did it show that the district court made an error in judgment.

Who's controlling what women can do with their bodies? If you're referring to the abortion issue I don't think a fetus is part of a woman's body

That's my point, you want to enforce your opinion on others.

[teamroth]

I thought about it over the weekend and even discussed it with my wife. Even though it doesn't mean anything to me, the main reason why symbols should not placed, it because one symbol is not all encompassing. I.E. what about the jews who served in the war? Hindu, or Buddhists? Really what it boils down to is someone making the bold statement of MY religion is better than YOURS.
Just some food for thought.



This part really sums up the whole thing.

(taken from Kunkel's post)
Read the details of the lawsuit:

Facts of the Case:
In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars built a wooden cross on top of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) as a memorial to those who died in World War I. The original cross no longer exists, but has been rebuilt several times. Frank Buono, a former Preserve employee, filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to prevent the permanent display of the cross. The genesis of his suit occurred in 1999 when a request to build a Buddhist shrine in the Preserve, near the cross, was denied. He argued that the cross' display on federal property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed and the cross was covered.

While the case was pending, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a national memorial and barred its dismantling with the use of federal funds. One year later, by land swap, Congress made Sunrise Rock private property in exchange for another parcel of land. Mr. Buono moved to not only enforce the previous court order preventing the display of the cross, but also to prohibit the land swap. The district court granted both motions. The Secretary of the Interior appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the government failed to show that the district court's fact findings or legal standards were clearly erroneous, nor did it show that the district court made an error in judgment.

[bull]

You keep using the terms PC and politically correct in your rants, this has nothing to do with PC it's about the law regarding the use of Federal land. Like most political offerings on YouTube, this one is stylized to fit the agenda of those who composed it; stylized to appeal to those with pseudo-patriotic/religious leanings.

It is PC. If it weren't for that self-righteous movement we wouldn't be having this discussion. And the fact is the PC movement have adopted the same zealous techniques they so despise from the far right. So is your brand of zealotry better? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Who's controlling what women can do with their bodies? If you're referring to the abortion issue I don't think a fetus is part of a woman's body.

That's my point, you want to enforce your opinion on others.

What opinion? Is it part of their body or isn't it? If my opinion matches fact then it's not just an opinion is it?
Here's another opinion of mine: the Earth is round.

Nice sidestep on the Stalin comment BTW. Between he and those two other intellectually superior atheists, Hitler and Mao, there has been more "enforcement of opinion" than the worst religious zealot could ever dream of. Atheist attempts to control the will of people has generated more killings than all religious conflicts combined. One source attributes 70 million deaths to Mao alone. Add to that the 30 million deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler, and God only knows how many at the hands of Lenin, Khrushchev, Pol Pot, Castro, Jong-il, etc., and you've got a number that's probably higher than the all-time number of ACLU lawsuits.

[mauve66]

http://libertylegal.org/Img/2-23-09%20Mojave%20Desert%20Cross%20LLI.pdf

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090522/veterans-appeal-to-americans-to-protect-mojave-desert-cross/index.html

after reading the background we now find out that the person raising this issue is a FORMER parks employee who never had a bad thing to say about the cross until after he was no longer employed by the parks service, and when the VFW who put the cross on the property when they owned it, (before they donated it to the government), tried to fix any semblence of church and state colusion, the court said no you can't fix it.  the government originally accepted the land with the memorial on it, they should of just let them give it back.  and the VFW was willing to give 5 acres in exchange for this 1 acre, but no, thats not good enough.  makes you wonder if this guy was fired for something and now he's just vindictive.  it didn't bother him when he worked there.

[0X01B8]

The ACLU takes on a lot of "conservative" cases.  Below is a link to some of them - there's a lot on the page.  They were on the same side as Jerry Fallwell in one of them.

ACLU Cases Defending Religious Freedom  -->  http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

[nh_mopar_fan]

9th circuit.

This is the court that has had more decisions overturned than any other in the country. They're leftwist whackjobs.

Add another one to the list.

[nh_mopar_fan]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

So, I guess that means anybody who is against them doesn't accept that, along with freedom OF religion, there should be freedom FROM religion. Sashay around it all you want, the cross was ploaced there as a religious symbol, honoring the dead is secondary.

That's because it's fiction. You have no right to freedom FROM religion. It's not in the constitution. It's an invention.

[John_Kunkel]

It is PC.

Since the majority of the population claims to be spiritual, the "politically correct" thing to do would be to defend the cross.

If it weren't for that self-righteous movement we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Self-righteous? The self-righteousness comes from those who want to plaster every available surface with the symbol of their religion in a desperate attempt to build a stairway to heaven, not from those who oppose it.

What opinion? Is it part of their body or isn't it? If my opinion matches fact then it's not just an opinion is it?

The zygote, embryo, fetus is connected to the womb from the instant of impregnation and remains attached until snipped after birth. Therefore the woman has the choice to leave it there or not, just like a tumor.

Here's another opinion of mine: the Earth is round.

You're wrong about that, too, the Earth is an "oblate spheroid". And never forget, those who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat...they were wrong too so you're in good company.

Nice sidestep on the Stalin comment BTW. Between he and those two other intellectually superior athiests, Hitler and Mao, there has been more "enforcement of opinion" than the worst religious zealot could ever dream of.

Not a sidestep, simply ignored. Your thinking seems to be that you can excuse the atrocities commited in the name of Christianity by comparing to those commited by secular despots. It doesn't work, and shows your desperation....nobody is trying to preserve a secular symbol on a mountain.

[0X01B8]

Athiest attempts to control the will of people has generated more killings than all religious conflicts combined.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Donate to the ACLU!  Donate to the ACLU!   Donate to the ACLU!

[mauve66]

The ACLU is just totally whacked anymore. Anybody who sides with them on this particular topic is,IMHO, totally nuts.

Sashay around it all you want, the cross was ploaced there as a religious symbol, honoring the dead is secondary.

where do you get the idea that it was placed there as a religious symbol, and not one honoring the dead???

[bull]

Atheist attempts to control the will of people has generated more killings than all religious conflicts combined.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Books -- you should try reading some. But if you don't have any without cartoon pictures you can always Google the information. Here's some figures you can peruse:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler

So what exactly is your problem with my information? The point of my previous post was to address JK's apparent claim that at least one of the main goals of religion is to enforce certain opinions on others. My rebuttal points out that if we assume that is true, religions have done a much less efficient job of it compared to atheists. I'm just providing stats for the "big three" but there are many more "lessor" regimes that have racked up some pretty substantial numbers. Add this information to the current "enforcement of opinion" by the PC and Green minions through coercion, litigation, legislation, etc., and the pious liberal love-fest baloney just doesn't fly.

BTW, if you want more base-level examples of the left enforcing its opinions on people you need to look no further than the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the numerous left-leaning lawsuits that have been heard there over the decades. This court has the highest percentage of judges appointed by liberal presidents in the land. There are many examples of opinions being enforced from this court but one specific example is the injunctions in the 80s over logging (which cost thousands of people their jobs) due to the questionable status of the spotted owl.

[John_Kunkel]

where do you get the idea that it was placed there as a religious symbol, and not one honoring the dead??

The cross is a religious symbol placed there to honor the dead. You can have it both ways.

What do you think the purpose of the cross was in this instance? Couldn't you honor the dead just as well with a plaque?

[John_Kunkel]

Books -- you should try reading some. But if you don't have any without cartoon pictures you can always Google the information. Here's some figures you can peruse:
So what exactly is your problem with my information?

The problem with your information is that you're trying to excuse the atrocities of the church by comparing them to the atrocities commited by secular despots, like I said before it doesn't work.

The point of my previous post was to address JK's apparent claim that at least one of the main goals of religion is to enforce certain opinions on others

It's not a baseless claim, ask the Indians of South America that were killed, tortured, enslaved and forced to accept Catholicism by Conquistadors that did their work while being escorted by Catholic priests carrying crosses as a symbol of their religion. And don't ever forget the Inquisition and the Crusades...the list is endless. The fact that others have got bigger numbers is a moot point.

[bull]

Books -- you should try reading some. But if you don't have any without cartoon pictures you can always Google the information. Here's some figures you can peruse:
So what exactly is your problem with my information?

The problem with your information is that you're trying to excuse the atrocities of the church by comparing them to the atrocities commited by secular despots, like I said before it doesn't work.

The point of my previous post was to address JK's apparent claim that at least one of the main goals of religion is to enforce certain opinions on others

It's not a baseless claim, ask the Indians of South America that were killed, tortured, enslaved and forced to accept Catholicism by Conquistadors that did their work while being escorted by Catholic priests carrying crosses as a symbol of their religion. And don't ever forget the Inquisition and the Crusades...the list is endless. The fact that others have got bigger numbers is a moot point.

It's not a moot point if someone is going to be sitting on a high horse pointing fingers. My point from the beginning has been that those whose atrocities are as bad (and much worse) have no business squawking about the atrocities of others in regards to enforcing opinions on people. I've never said one word about excusing anyone, in fact I've made numerous comparisons between religious zealots and nonreligious zealots. There is no denial in my camp. However, it seems odd to me that you call it a moot point and then try to add-in the Inquisitions and the Crusades, which together account for less than half of the deaths caused by the #3 atheist killer, Hitler alone, and took place over hundreds of years. Both camps are guilty; the religious zealots are just far less efficient (or dare I say, more merciful?).

[0X01B8]

Atheist attempts to control the will of people has generated more killings than all religious conflicts combined.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Books -- you should try reading some. But if you don't have any without cartoon pictures you can always Google the information. Here's some figures you can peruse:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler

So what exactly is your problem with my information? The point of my previous post was to address JK's apparent claim that at least one of the main goals of religion is to enforce certain opinions on others. My rebuttal points out that if we assume that is true, religions have done a much less efficient job of it compared to atheists. I'm just providing stats for the "big three" but there are many more "lessor" regimes that have racked up some pretty substantial numbers. Add this information to the current "enforcement of opinion" by the PC and Green minions through coercion, litigation, legislation, etc., and the pious liberal love-fest baloney just doesn't fly.

BTW, if you want more base-level examples of the left enforcing its opinions on people you need to look no further than the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the numerous left-leaning lawsuits that have been heard there over the decades. This court has the highest percentage of judges appointed by liberal presidents in the land. There are many examples of opinions being enforced from this court but one specific example is the injunctions in the 80s over logging (which cost thousands of people their jobs) due to the questionable status of the spotted owl.

I see that you edited your original post, presumably, in an effort to address my question that you failed to answer in your first attempt.  The second attempt was better, but I'm presently on a rip, roaring meth bender in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of your claims, so my judgement may not be at its best.  Sorry, that wasn't nice.  I looked through your links, and they were pretty interesting, so thanks, but I could find neither a reference to Atheism, or any entertaining cartoon pictures, so I hit the "back" button on my Firefox.

My problem?  My problem is that you suggest that it's an Atheist conspiracy, and back it up with dubious examples.  Why is it so scary to people?  It's basically just like answering "none of the above" on a questionnaire.  Where do you come up with all this?  And no, I don't want links.  I mean that it sounds like you're just running through all the outrages of the paranoid, extreme right wingers, and only the right wingers get so angry about circuit courts, Atheists, and the ACLU.  Why the anger?  It's all very odd to me because Christians have about an 80-90% share of the belief system market, so I'd think they could be pretty happy with that, and they're going to Heaven anyway, so Earth is just like a rental car.  Is it too much to ask to just keep the religious stuff off the public property?

I'm not even going to touch the Hitler stuff, except to give you a nice link -->  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Back N Black]

 

[mauve66]

this is getting out of hand so maybe the mods should just lock it, again i put this here to notify all veterans, not create an argument on wether religion was good, right or indifferent, i could care less, that's YOUR personal choice,

the cross was put there by some veterans when it was VFW property, according to them they put it there to honor their fallen comrades, nobody said they were all Christians and its REALLY doubtful they were, they just chose this simple universal symbol of tragedy (remember, I'm not religious but i still know what a cross is) to honor EVERYONE they lost.

then later on the VFW donated the land to the US government who had no problem with the memorial for the last 54 years

later when this yahoo complained, after he was unemployed of course, the VFW offered to give the government 5 acres in exchange for the 1 acre the memorial is on and then this guy and his ACLU goons said no you can't do that.  How do they tell the government what property it can and cannot trade? again this is only in California of course

the VFW and the government tried to rectify the situation so BOTH sides would be happy but of course that isn't good enough, they want it their way and only their way

[bull]

.

Atheist attempts to control the will of people has generated more killings than all religious conflicts combined.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit?

Books -- you should try reading some. But if you don't have any without cartoon pictures you can always Google the information. Here's some figures you can peruse:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler

So what exactly is your problem with my information? The point of my previous post was to address JK's apparent claim that at least one of the main goals of religion is to enforce certain opinions on others. My rebuttal points out that if we assume that is true, religions have done a much less efficient job of it compared to atheists. I'm just providing stats for the "big three" but there are many more "lessor" regimes that have racked up some pretty substantial numbers. Add this information to the current "enforcement of opinion" by the PC and Green minions through coercion, litigation, legislation, etc., and the pious liberal love-fest baloney just doesn't fly.

BTW, if you want more base-level examples of the left enforcing its opinions on people you need to look no further than the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the numerous left-leaning lawsuits that have been heard there over the decades. This court has the highest percentage of judges appointed by liberal presidents in the land. There are many examples of opinions being enforced from this court but one specific example is the injunctions in the 80s over logging (which cost thousands of people their jobs) due to the questionable status of the spotted owl.

I see that you edited your original post, presumably, in an effort to address my question that you failed to answer in your first attempt.  The second attempt was better, but I'm presently on a rip, roaring meth bender in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of your claims, so my judgement may not be at its best.  Sorry, that wasn't nice.  I looked through your links, and they were pretty interesting, so thanks, but I could find neither a reference to Atheism, or any entertaining cartoon pictures, so I hit the "back" button on my Firefox.

My problem?  My problem is that you suggest that it's an Atheist conspiracy, and back it up with dubious examples.  Why is it so scary to people?  It's basically just like answering "none of the above" on a questionnaire.  Where do you come up with all this?  And no, I don't want links.  I mean that it sounds like you're just running through all the outrages of the paranoid, extreme right wingers, and only the right wingers get so angry about circuit courts, Atheists, and the ACLU.  Why the anger?  It's all very odd to me because Christians have about an 80-90% share of the belief system market, so I'd think they could be pretty happy with that, and they're going to Heaven anyway, so Earth is just like a rental car.  Is it too much to ask to just keep the religious stuff off the public property?

I'm not even going to touch the Hitler stuff, except to give you a nice link -->  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Interesting link. But I included Stalin and Mao and there's no rule regarding them. So if you want me to drop Hitler from the list I will since he got third place anyway.

As far as the rest of it, I don't suggest or think there's any conspiracy at all other than the fact there's a loose group of people with similar ideology and goals. I doubt that more than 15 people can effectively conspire to do anything for more than a few months. Again, the two things I'm trying to argue against are the misnomers that 1. religion is the main cause of most violence and death in the world and 2. that religion is an ideology that seeks to enforce opinions on people when it's quite obvious that so many atheist and/or communist regimes have done that very thing with more shocking results. I'm just stating facts, I'm not angry (not sure how you can read any emotion based on text anyway).

So, are you going to deny that A. Communism does not have atheism at it's core (because there's ample proof that it does) and B. that communism is not widely responsible for overt attempts to control the will of the people under it's reach, and willing to kill people en masse to accomplish that goal, and C. that the modern PC/Green movement in the US, Canada and Britian uses litigation, coercion and legislation to enforce its ideology on the population? If you can deny any of this you are not dealing in reality.

If religious people have to apologize for the Inquisitions, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, etc., then atheists have to apologize for Stalin and Mao among dozens of others. Why do some people go on and on and on about religion-based killings and ignore the staggering atrocities carried out by atheists? Does being atheist mean never having to say you're sorry? I can see them wanting to shirk responsibility but to point the finger and any other group regarding what John calls "the enforcement of opinion" is pure insanity.

By the way, I edit a lot of things because I often think of better ways of saying it. Please don't make the mistake of thinking it's some sort of conspiracy. That and I used to be a newspaper reporter so I believe if you're not editing you're not doing your job as a communicator.

[1FastCharger]

Let me start by saying I am NOT a religious person, but I believe two major mistakes were made  by removing prayer and corpral punishment from schools.

[0X01B8]

Interesting link. But I included Stalin and Mao and there's no rule regarding them. So if you want me to drop Hitler from the list I will since he got third place anyway.

As far as the rest of it, I don't suggest or think there's any conspiracy at all other than the fact there's a loose group of people with similar ideology and goals. I doubt that more than 15 people can effectively conspire to do anything for more than a few months. Again, the two things I'm trying to argue against are the misnomers that 1. religion is the main cause of most violence and death in the world and 2. that religion is an ideology that seeks to enforce opinions on people when it's quite obvious that so many atheist and/or communist regimes have done that very thing with more shocking results. I'm just stating facts, I'm not angry (not sure how you can read any emotion based on text anyway).

So, are you going to deny that A. Communism does not have atheism at it's core (because there's ample proof that it does) and B. that communism is not widely responsible for overt attempts to control the will of the people under it's reach, and willing to kill people en masse to accomplish that goal, and C. that the modern PC/Green movement in the US, Canada and Britian uses litigation, coercion and legislation to enforce its ideology on the population? If you can deny any of this you are not dealing in reality.

If religious people have to apologize for the Inquisitions, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, etc., then atheists have to apologize for Stalin and Mao among dozens of others. Why do some people go on and on and on about religion-based killings and ignore the staggering atrocities carried out by atheists? Does being atheist mean never having to say you're sorry? I can see them wanting to shirk responsibility but to point the finger and any other group regarding what John calls "the enforcement of opinion" is pure insanity.

By the way, I edit a lot of things because I often think of better ways of saying it. Please don't make the mistake of thinking it's some sort of conspiracy. That and I used to be a newspaper reporter so I believe if you're not editing you're not doing your job as a communicator.

mauve66- Lock the thread?  Why?  Refer to my ignored post about irony – page 2.

I guess we're onto Communism now.  Sigh.

A - my copy of the Communist Manifesto is in a box somewhere so I have to go find it!  (I really have one, it's from some college class.)
B – It's all about protecting the franchise, whether it's labeled as Communism, or Fascism, or even Capitalism.  Religion happens to be a great vehicle for that, given its built in biases towards the competition, and its passionate beliefs.
C – they all do it.

You talk about Atheism like it's a competing religion.  Like we all go to meetings or have membership cards in our wallets.  Like it's a belief system.  How can we enforce this ideology when we don't even have a Church system, or even a military?  We're not that clever.  I don't think Stalin or Mao, or even Hitler (yes, Hitler) gave a damn about Atheism.  Good, German Christians carried out all of his plans and did all his work just the same.  Stalin was more of a hard ass gangster and was hostile to the Church instead of using it to his advantage.  Think of what he could have accomplished if he was as good at marketing as the Nazis.  I don't know much about Mao, so no comment.  I'll give you Mao, so where does that put us on the scoreboard?   

People are okay for the most part, but when they gather in large groups is when I get weirded out, because that's when they start looking to eliminate those unlike themselves.  In any case, I don't think Atheism was a motivating principle behind the big 3's actions.  Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein all had mustaches so maybe that's worth looking into as well.

[Troy]

And this is right about the point where it degenerates to the "you're a poopy head" level...

Troy