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

[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