Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Road crosses ruled unconstitutional. Chicken inconsolable   (cnn.com) divider line 641
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19685 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



641 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-08-19 07:27:31 AM  
Is Christmas unconstitutional?
 
2010-08-19 07:48:53 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

You want a "big government takeover" of Christmas?
 
2010-08-19 07:58:05 AM  
Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...
 
2010-08-19 08:09:43 AM  
I'm not sure I get this. If no state money is used, and they aren't a dangerous obstacle in the ROW, then. . .

Of course, the first golden calf you put up out there might cause an equal and opposite spaz attack.

.
 
2010-08-19 08:15:34 AM  
I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).
 
2010-08-19 08:17:13 AM  
Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...


It's also a secular holiday, as we're often reminded around December when the Right floods the media with accusations of "taking Christ out of Christmas".

If you want secularize the cross as well, you're going to get even more backlash from Christians.

Separation of church and state is a two way street -- because when you bring it into the public domain, the public can and will change the meaning -- much to your clear resentment.
 
2010-08-19 08:17:55 AM  
Next stop: Road Pentagrams!
 
2010-08-19 08:18:38 AM  
Holidays and festivals are only real if they're recognized by the federal government.
 
2010-08-19 08:20:08 AM  
Why don't we just put up large tombstones that are not cross shaped? how about a small billboard? There bickering over shape....
 
2010-08-19 08:20:17 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

At the risk of sounding like a jackass, Christmas was stolen from the Pagans anyway, so...ya know...there's something there, I just don't know what it is yet. Unhelpful. I suck.
 
2010-08-19 08:21:03 AM  
So if the memorials weren't cross shaped, this would all be fine? I'm pretty big on separation of church and state, but this is just nitpicky. Call me when they start erecting crosses in front of courthouses or schools.
 
2010-08-19 08:21:33 AM  
To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.
 
2010-08-19 08:22:06 AM  
spin359: Why don't we just put up large tombstones that are not cross shaped? how about a small billboard? There bickering over shape....

beat me to it, but yeah... seriously
 
2010-08-19 08:22:10 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

hikinghq.net
 
2010-08-19 08:23:14 AM  
I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?
 
2010-08-19 08:23:26 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: To be fair, the roads are public property. I'd rather just not put anything on the side of the road as opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system. That's what cemeteries and memorial gardens are for.

That being said, if you are so offended by something as simple as a little white marker on the side of the road that you feel the need to sue, you should have a buckshot lunch.



Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.
 
2010-08-19 08:23:41 AM  
I wish death upon all religions but this is not particuclarly a battle worth fighting.
 
2010-08-19 08:24:26 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

No, but I would want my cross made of Fritos.
 
2010-08-19 08:24:46 AM  
Osama is still free, how about you?
 
2010-08-19 08:25:27 AM  
LegalHeaven: how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

I don't know about Utah, but in Indiana, although it's not really enforced, such memorials are legally the equivalent of littering.
 
2010-08-19 08:25:42 AM  
Oldiron_79: Osama is still free, how about you?

If by free you mean "dead."

.
 
2010-08-19 08:26:33 AM  
FTFA: A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.
 
2010-08-19 08:26:49 AM  
How come cops get State endorsment, but some trucker doesn't get a memorial "for his service and a reminder of fallen comrades"?
 
2010-08-19 08:26:55 AM  
How come there's no Star of David markers?
 
2010-08-19 08:27:13 AM  
If someone in my family died on the roadside I would not need some stupid half assed memorial to mark the spot. My eyes will find it and my heart will break every time I go by regardless.

Oh, and HOTY candidate you got there, subby. +eleventy
 
2010-08-19 08:27:53 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

Jews drive better?
 
2010-08-19 08:28:09 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers
 
2010-08-19 08:28:56 AM  
I'm always leery of governmental erections.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:29 AM  
LegalHeaven: I was always told that those crosses were there not only in memory of people, but also to serve as a warning to other drivers that due to carelessness or a bad area in the road, someone lost their lives at this place.....Memorials aren't there for the dead, they are there for the living.

I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?


No one gives a shiat when a private citizen does it. However IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I read road side memorials are a distraction to drivers. Distractions=bad results.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:37 AM  
We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.
 
2010-08-19 08:29:39 AM  
This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.
 
2010-08-19 08:30:24 AM  
AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

It's Utah. They have no Jews.
 
2010-08-19 08:30:51 AM  
habitual_masticator: AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers


actually a number of asians in the US are actually christians.

wait did i just go there?
 
2010-08-19 08:31:26 AM  
Why the hell does this have a "sad" tag?

There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:40 AM  
DarnoKonrad: Who said it's about being offended? It's about the principal of the thing, which you seem to share.

I agree with the principle. I just don't understand what goes through the mind of somebody who is driving down the road and sees one of those and feels the need to take it to court. Pick your battles, people.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:53 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.


Actually, the markers at Arlington are your standard tombstone shape with an engraved indicator of the deceased's religion. You're thinking of the graves at Flanders. Don't worry, Cheney made the exact same mistake, so you're in good company.
 
2010-08-19 08:31:56 AM  
I don't get the lettering people have done on their cars/trucks memorializing a loved one. It would suck to think my final legacy is lovingly inscribed on the rear window of a 1998 Hyundai hatchback.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:02 AM  
tricksiecat: ...Call me when they start erecting crosses in front of courthouses or schools.

That could happen if someone dies in front of one.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:06 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I dunno. Some think it is the place where the soul was released into the ether.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:14 AM  
This is a use of the word "sad" with which I am not familiar.
 
2010-08-19 08:32:30 AM  
They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.
 
2010-08-19 08:33:03 AM  
I thought the "Chicken" crossed "The Road" by turning state's evidence.
 
2010-08-19 08:33:46 AM  
WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?
 
2010-08-19 08:34:31 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: I just don't understand what goes through the mind of somebody who is driving down the road and sees one of those and feels the need to take it to court.

Probably something like:

ShillinTheVillain: opposed to having to deal with every group petitioning to put their own insignias up all over the highway system.

Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.
 
2010-08-19 08:34:33 AM  
username101: There's nothing wrong with putting up markers for a state trooper's death (though it is a big waste of money), but there is a big problem when you're using obnoxious and completely religious symbols like that cross. Like the article says, Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.

Well, some people can look at a cross and think "grave marker" without thinking "obnoxious and completely religious". Apparently the Mormons are more open-minded than you.
 
2010-08-19 08:34:38 AM  
Yeah_Right: This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

/the bat-shait insane-ness is getting out of control - on both sides of the political spectrum.


The article clearly states that it was the "Utah Highway Patrol Association" that put those crosses.

And besides, it isn't roadside crosses that are unconstitutional, it's obnoxiously large and very obvious ones that are, because, being on the side of a highway and clearly visible, having Utah allow them is essentially Utah supporting Christianity, as highways are public, not private, land.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:28 AM  
Oh give me a farking break. Crosses are generally recognized as a memorial symbol without having to have a religious undertone. While they might be right in asking for them to be taken down is this really worth the damn effort? Being Utah and all I'm sure they could have found better things to aim for rather than pissing on dead troopers.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:32 AM  
B-b-b-but Pocket Ninja:, If people don't have their voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites, then you're denying them the sanctity of voodoomumbojumbo made up fake B.S. pseudo religeous rites. Which are constitutionally neglected.
 
2010-08-19 08:35:33 AM  
i171.photobucket.com

RIP Charing Cross Road


/sorry, couldn't resist
//are the kids still doing this?
 
2010-08-19 08:36:31 AM  
Yeah_Right: This is an example of political correctness run amuck. I don't care for religion ... but putting a marker on the side of the road to mark a location of a loved one's passing, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's more then likely that these monuments were placed there by family and friends - and not by a church or a religious organization.

The policy is that private citizens are not allowed to put permanent displays along the roadside of any sort. That is a good policy. The government isn't supposed to erect religious displays, this is also a good policy. Together they mean no roadside crosses. Put up one of those historical markers like you see for all the civil war battle sites if you want to mark the spot.
 
2010-08-19 08:36:38 AM  
Around here the American Legion puts little ones at the site of fatalities (and sometimes eerily fast--I've seen new crosses in places you can still see the skidmarks). I don't mind them, they help remind people that they're doing something that can kill them at any second. I don't know if other states started copying this program, or if people just started it spontaneously, but they've been doing it since 1953.

it will be too bad if they have to be taken down. There's a lot of them, and I don't think the American Legion had Jesus in mind when they started the program.

White Cross Information (new window)

www.montanahighwaycrosses.com
 
2010-08-19 08:38:26 AM  
1nsanilicious: I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

I dunno, they seem to pull some of the most retarded, asshole sh*t I've seen, though. Easily on the level of christer fundies.
 
2010-08-19 08:39:12 AM  
SuperDuper28: Oh give me a farking break. Crosses are generally recognized as a memorial symbol without having to have a religious undertone. While they might be right in asking for them to be taken down is this really worth the damn effort? Being Utah and all I'm sure they could have found better things to aim for rather than pissing on dead troopers.


I just assume we not have a national debate about "taking the Christ off the cross"

Just let Christians have that symbol. Let the government use something else. Is that really such a hard concept for people to understand?
 
2010-08-19 08:39:37 AM  
cryinoutloud: Around here the American Legion puts little ones at the site of fatalities (and sometimes eerily fast--I've seen new crosses in places you can still see the skidmarks). I don't mind them, they help remind people that they're doing something that can kill them at any second. I don't know if other states started copying this program, or if people just started it spontaneously, but they've been doing it since 1953.

it will be too bad if they have to be taken down. There's a lot of them, and I don't think the American Legion had Jesus in mind when they started the program.

White Cross Information (new window)


Where I live, crosses are taken down by weather all of the time, or just gone one day. I think they look tacky, personally, but I'm not complaining.

I would complain if they were left alone but advertisements and other litter/junk was removed from the side of the road, but since all of it is left there, I'm fine with it.
 
2010-08-19 08:40:19 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


Fortunately there atheists are a loose collation of people who don't have much in common. If you get two atheists in a room all you can guarantee is that they both think there isn't enough evidence to presuppose a god.
 
2010-08-19 08:40:35 AM  
DarnoKonrad: Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.

I agree. I just think there are real church and state issues worth fighting, and a roadside memorial isn't one of them. The American Atheists in this situation come off as meddling busybodies more than anything. It's completely appropriate for the court to rule the way they did, I just don't see the real offense in this case. It's not a church that put it up, it's a highway patrol association.

I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.
 
2010-08-19 08:40:55 AM  
Boobiesontheside: We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.

But driving is a privilege, not a right!
 
2010-08-19 08:41:39 AM  
LegalHeaven: I know this ruling is probably limited to only those crosses put up by the Highway Patrol (haven't read the opinion, but I would venture a guess the ruling is based on separation of church and state), but how will it affect private parties who do it when they lose a child, etc?

It won't. The issue was the fact that a) these were huge and b) they had the state seal on them.

If they hadn't put the seal on them, I'm not sure they would have lost.
 
2010-08-19 08:41:41 AM  
I RTFA- Let's be clear what we're talking about here. This is not a court opinion that suggests that these crosses are unconstitutional. This is a court opinion that these crosses are not constitutional when they are put up by the state to honor slaughtered pigs.

Crosses for humans == ok.
Crosses for filthy rotting dead swine != ok.
 
2010-08-19 08:41:50 AM  
JacksBlack: AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

Jews drive better?


No, we don't go pushing our religious beliefs on other people and showing off in a public square (accept those guys with the hats and beards in the NYC subways - but hey, even they don't go reading from the bible outloud).
 
2010-08-19 08:42:25 AM  
Good. I for one am tired of plowing in to groups of people standing on the side of the road my tax money paid for.

"What they hell are you doing here? I was gravelling(*) my tires, you idiot."

(Weakly) "We were just praying over a lost comrade and you ran over us."

"Yeah. That's, uh, because jebus heard your prays and sent me to collect you."

(*) Gravelling Running your tires on the side of the road to clear the treads and rough up the traction surfaces. Increases gasoline mileage by 75% (ASIJMU)!!
 
2010-08-19 08:42:33 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

THIS. I always feel bad when its in someone's yard. You know the person doesn't really want that in their yard, but they probably feel bad taking it down. Some are outright shrines. There is one near my parents' home where at one point, the parents of the kid actually nailed to the tree the elaborate contraption he had to wear when he'd broken his collarbone (years earlier, not connected to his death). Now there are like 3 signs, flags, and lots of pinwheels.

If I die in a car crash because I hit a tree, please don't put ribbons and bows on the tree that killed me. Also don't get a fancy decal made for your car with my name, a lame saying, and my birth and death dates on it.

Thanks.
 
2010-08-19 08:44:27 AM  
EvilEgg: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

Fortunately there atheists are a loose collation of people who don't have much in common. If you get two atheists in a room all you can guarantee is that they both think there isn't enough evidence to presuppose a god.


I always get a kick out of people that think atheism is a religion. That's like saying that a group of people that are not astronomers are a religion of non-astronomers. Or maybe people that never collected baseball cards are a cult against baseball cards. My brain hurts thinking about that concenpt.
 
2010-08-19 08:44:49 AM  
Fark Me To Tears:
Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.


The grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery are not crosses. They are standard rectangular headstones with a small cross or star of David, or crescent indicating the religion of person buried there.
 
2010-08-19 08:44:52 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: DarnoKonrad: Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.

I agree. I just think there are real church and state issues worth fighting, and a roadside memorial isn't one of them. The American Atheists in this situation come off as meddling busybodies more than anything. It's completely appropriate for the court to rule the way they did, I just don't see the real offense in this case. It's not a church that put it up, it's a highway patrol association.

I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.



If government employees like cops are allowed to do this type of thing, than government employees like teachers could too. It doesn't really matter if they use their own money and organization, for whatever purpose, they're still dragging it on public property and making their public office or duty a functionary of their faith. 'Offense' is really besides the point.
 
2010-08-19 08:46:06 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


This
 
2010-08-19 08:47:09 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

The only reason I can think of to put crosses or other markers along a highway (to commemorate deaths) is to remind drivers just how dangerous the highways are.
 
2010-08-19 08:47:25 AM  
20 years ago you rarely saw these things. Now, they're all over the place. What's the deal?
 
2010-08-19 08:47:26 AM  
There was a time when these seemed to only exist at blind turns or other dangerous bits of road, and served as a bit of a warning.


Now they're anywhere little drunken timmy or suzy farks up, and serve no ancillary purpose (in the daytime when you can see them).
 
2010-08-19 08:47:35 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I always look at those crosses and go "Wow, someone managed to wipe on this THIS curve? They must have been drunk as fark or stupid as hell."

/the article just says the government can't put up the cross, which seems about right
 
2010-08-19 08:47:36 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

Keep reading, you're almost there..
 
2010-08-19 08:47:47 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.

Yeah, that picture in the article is not an accurate representation. I read the decision. The cross is 12 feet high and 6 feet across with a plaque of the state "beehive" logo placed in the middle of the cross. That plaque measures 1 inches by 18 inches.

Here's a picture. You cannot tell the size of it due to the lack of anything to compare it to, but I'll take what the court said.

i163.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-19 08:47:50 AM  
editorial_distractions:
THIS. I always feel bad when its in someone's yard. You know the person doesn't really want that in their yard, but they probably feel bad taking it down. Some are outright shrines. There is one near my parents' home where at one point, the parents of the kid actually nailed to the tree the elaborate contraption he had to wear when he'd broken his collarbone (years earlier, not connected to his death). Now there are like 3 signs, flags, and lots of pinwheels.

If I die in a car crash because I hit a tree, please don't put ribbons and bows on the tree that killed me. Also don't get a fancy decal made for your car with my name, a lame saying, and my birth and death dates on it.

Thanks.


That happened around here recently, a car crash went into someones front yard off the highway (His yard was in a valley) So there were people in his front yard grieving in the middle of his lawn every morning. Now he has a bunch of stuff right on the corner of his driveway to decorate his mailbox with. There was also a car crash that hit a giant farking oak tree on the same road, so they tacked a cross and such onto this 100+ year old tree. While a nice warning, the skidmarks pointing into the tree were probably a bit better at conveying the point of not driving into trees.
 
2010-08-19 08:48:00 AM  
If I'm killed in a car accident I want my family to mount me on a giant spring connected to police radar so I can be launched out at speeders with a recording of me screaming SLOW DOWWWWWWWWN!

I mean, if they're going to do it anyway, I may as well make a difference, right?
 
2010-08-19 08:49:11 AM  
ha-ha-guy: Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I always look at those crosses and go "Wow, someone managed to wipe on this THIS curve? They must have been drunk as fark or stupid as hell."

/the article just says the government can't put up the cross, which seems about right


The highway dept. says you're not suppose to put up anything, which includes crosses.
 
2010-08-19 08:49:31 AM  
danvon: That plaque measures 1 inches by 18 inches.

That's 12 inches by 18 inches.
 
2010-08-19 08:51:27 AM  
DarnoKonrad: If government employees like cops are allowed to do this type of thing, than government employees like teachers could too. It doesn't really matter if they use their own money and organization, for whatever purpose, they're still dragging it on public property and making their public office or duty a functionary of their faith. 'Offense' is really besides the point.

You're right. Despite my feelings that this issue is a trivial one, the principle of the matter requires that we follow the same standard. And I would rather we just say "no roadside memorials" as opposed to filling the dockets with cases of every different group that wants their own unique markers to be allowed.

When I see a cross on the side of the road, it usually has a first name, and "Dad" or "Mom" or something on it. It doesn't mean anything to anybody but people who knew the person, so it's just as well served to be in a memorial garden or cemetery.
 
2010-08-19 08:52:32 AM  
I think that *EVERY* roadside death should be marked with a 10 foot long steel post (no crosses, thank you) with 4 feet buried and 6 feet sticking out painted flat black.

Imagine approaching a dangerous curve/intersection and the area surrounding it is littered with black posts. I imagine it would make most people slow the fark down and be more careful.

/Not really, but it's a nice thought experiment.
//slashies!
 
2010-08-19 08:52:32 AM  
charley572: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

This


They see me trolling...
 
2010-08-19 08:52:54 AM  
danvon: ShillinTheVillain: I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.

Yeah, that picture in the article is not an accurate representation. I read the decision. The cross is 12 feet high and 6 feet across with a plaque of the state "beehive" logo placed in the middle of the cross. That plaque measures 1 inches by 18 inches.

Here's a picture. You cannot tell the size of it due to the lack of anything to compare it to, but I'll take what the court said.


Holy cow. Thanks for that. 12 feet is ridiculous. The picture made it look 1.5-2 feet tops.
 
2010-08-19 08:53:43 AM  
JackCroww: I think that *EVERY* roadside death should be marked with a 10 foot long steel post (no crosses, thank you) with 4 feet buried and 6 feet sticking out painted flat black.

Imagine approaching a dangerous curve/intersection and the area surrounding it is littered with black posts. I imagine it would make most people slow the fark down and be more careful.

/Not really, but it's a nice thought experiment.
//slashies!


When you get enough, bolt a guardrail to them.
 
2010-08-19 08:54:02 AM  
JackCroww: I think that *EVERY* roadside death should be marked with a 10 foot long steel post (no crosses, thank you) with 4 feet buried and 6 feet sticking out painted flat black.

Imagine approaching a dangerous curve/intersection and the area surrounding it is littered with black posts. I imagine it would make most people slow the fark down and be more careful.

/Not really, but it's a nice thought experiment.
//slashies!


I like that idea. Honestly. I really really do.
 
2010-08-19 08:54:35 AM  
There are atheists in Texas?
 
2010-08-19 08:54:47 AM  
personally find the sight of large crosses distasteful, since i know what they were used for. might as well have an iron maiden device, or a noose hanging from a tree, maybe a large iron cage with a man in it screaming "Peck! Peck! Peeeeeeeck!"

why couldn't they just put up a tasteful billboard somewhere that wouldn't distract drivers too much with pictures of the beloved departed on them. or a little park along the side of the road?

nope gotta be huge crosses everywhere.

you know who else put large crucifix-like things everywhere?

here's a hint:
dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2010-08-19 08:55:22 AM  
ttintagel: There are atheists in Texas?

Yes. And if the lore is to be believed, they're probably bigger than the average atheist.
 
2010-08-19 08:55:58 AM  
Take a drive along Hwy 105 from Conroe to Beaumont. There are crosses all over that road. I don't mean a couple either...They are everywhere. If not anything else, I was reminded to keep my shiat straight while I was on that road.

Lighten up Church of Atheism.
 
2010-08-19 08:56:06 AM  
EvilEgg: ha-ha-guy: Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I always look at those crosses and go "Wow, someone managed to wipe on this THIS curve? They must have been drunk as fark or stupid as hell."

/the article just says the government can't put up the cross, which seems about right

The highway dept. says you're not suppose to put up anything, which includes crosses.


And yet the same highway department puts up crosses when their own die?
 
2010-08-19 08:56:36 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: danvon: ShillinTheVillain: I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.

Yeah, that picture in the article is not an accurate representation. I read the decision. The cross is 12 feet high and 6 feet across with a plaque of the state "beehive" logo placed in the middle of the cross. That plaque measures 1 inches by 18 inches.

Here's a picture. You cannot tell the size of it due to the lack of anything to compare it to, but I'll take what the court said.

Holy cow. Thanks for that. 12 feet is ridiculous. The picture made it look 1.5-2 feet tops.


Yeah, that is one misleading photo in the article, it looks like they are barely above the grass. The photog had to work to get that shot.
 
2010-08-19 08:56:37 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I agree so much. There is this one that I drive by daily to work, that is obviously tended, as there are always fresh flower crosses at it. It has been that way for the last 2 years. It is the same with the damn memorial stickers people put on their rear windshields. Nothing like turing a loved one's death into a chance to be an attention whore. Learn to let go and move on. Your dead loved one would rather it be that way, because frankly, they don't care anymore.
 
2010-08-19 08:57:38 AM  
habitual_masticator: AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers


Yeah, they're always letting that Jesus guy take the wheel.
 
2010-08-19 08:58:08 AM  
And now for TheMysteriousStranger's simple solutions to simple constitutional problems:

Allow families to put up simple memorials to those who have been lost. The only vote the government gets on the nature of the memorials would be non-religious in nature and would include things like allowable sizes, safety issues, a few minor tact issues (no profanity or political messages), etc. If they choose a cross then that would be their choice. Of course they can choose a Star of David if they want. If they have some other religion great. If they want to put up something completely secular, then that is great as well.

Remember it is not crosses that are unconstitutional. It the government endorsement of them that is.
 
2010-08-19 08:58:38 AM  
rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: ha-ha-guy: Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I always look at those crosses and go "Wow, someone managed to wipe on this THIS curve? They must have been drunk as fark or stupid as hell."

/the article just says the government can't put up the cross, which seems about right

The highway dept. says you're not suppose to put up anything, which includes crosses.

And yet the same highway department puts up crosses when their own die?


Heh, that's the thing. It's their job to put up things along the highway, no one else is allowed to.
 
2010-08-19 08:59:19 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on.

This might be the stupidest thing I've read all year.
 
2010-08-19 09:00:35 AM  
But hey, the WBC can protest funerals and incite hate speech all the want under the guise of "free speech". Free speech should be trumped when it's 100% obvious to everyone on the planet your rhetoric has no intended purpose but to flamebait people.
 
2010-08-19 09:00:41 AM  
What about instead of Road Crosses they put up Road Houses, then Patrick Swayze can roundhouse kick unsafe drivers off the highway?
 
2010-08-19 09:00:46 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

The Grave markers at Arlington aren't Crosses.

Did you ever think that maybe there's a reason for that?
 
2010-08-19 09:02:56 AM  
Unconstitutional or not, I'll pull those things up whenever I can. Aside from them just looking stupid, I don't want your dead relative or friend pushed in my face every morning on my way to work. So suck it, cross planters. :P
 
hej
2010-08-19 09:02:58 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

Imagine the kind of monument they'd have to erect if your loved one keeled over from a heart attack in a porn store.
 
2010-08-19 09:03:11 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Take a drive along Hwy 105 from Conroe to Beaumont. There are crosses all over that road. I don't mean a couple either...They are everywhere. If not anything else, I was reminded to keep my shiat straight while I was on that road.

Lighten up Church of Atheism.


I have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY so I don't need the NANNY STATE to remind me to drive properly.
 
2010-08-19 09:04:13 AM  
rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: ha-ha-guy: Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

I always look at those crosses and go "Wow, someone managed to wipe on this THIS curve? They must have been drunk as fark or stupid as hell."

/the article just says the government can't put up the cross, which seems about right

The highway dept. says you're not suppose to put up anything, which includes crosses.

And yet the same highway department puts up crosses when their own die?


Exactly why this was ruled unconstitutional xP
 
2010-08-19 09:04:48 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on.

And here I thought it either symbolized Christianity or a hideous Roman torture device. Silly me. :-/
 
2010-08-19 09:05:08 AM  
I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.
 
2010-08-19 09:05:50 AM  
ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Just as long as you've found a way to feel superior to both.

/Thanks XKCD.
 
2010-08-19 09:05:54 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

Christmas is a pagan holiday to celebrate Winter Solstice.

Jesus was not born on December 25th.

John the Baptist was conceived 6 months prior to Jesus.

John's father was a priest in the Temple, and was completing a portion of his required service in June, when John was born.

If John was born in June and was conceived 6 months prior to Jesus, simply add three months and you get Setptember for the most likely month of Jesus' birth.

This would likely mean that Jesus was conceived at Christmas time. He was born on September 29th.

Why does Jesus have a Mexican name?

xristocharis.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-08-19 09:06:03 AM  
Once again, The Ninja hits the target like a laser-guided bomb. (One of the newer ones, mind you...not the unpredictable ones from Gulf War I that occasionally obliterated a day-care center full of screaming Kuwati children.)
 
2010-08-19 09:06:20 AM  
ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.
 
2010-08-19 09:06:23 AM  
ace in your face: I am sick of evangelical atheists not littering the highway with signage

okay.
 
2010-08-19 09:06:40 AM  
I always took roadside crosses to be a reflection of the religion of the person killed there, not of the person (or State) putting the cross there.

I've seen roadside memorials in Germany, too, and some are blatantly Catholic in appearance. I'm sure that would cause an uproar in the Church of Atheissm here.
 
2010-08-19 09:07:04 AM  
A Texas-based group, American Atheists

i1007.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-19 09:07:37 AM  
TigerStar: This would likely mean that Jesus was conceived at Christmas time. He was born on September 29th.

So they are celebrate the time God got laid, which is okay.
 
2010-08-19 09:08:06 AM  
I would just like to show a little bit of appreciation for subster's headline. Made me chuckle.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:07 AM  
Marla Singer's Laundry: Once again, The Ninja hits the target like a laser-guided bomb. (One of the newer ones, mind you...not the unpredictable ones from Gulf War I that occasionally obliterated a day-care center full of screaming Kuwati children.)

Those children were Iraqi sympathizers. You can tell because they weren't thrown on the ground by invading Iraqi troops loyal to Saddam HUSSSEIN.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:10 AM  
www.humansexmap.com

Find out where I've journeyed
on the Map of Human Sexuality!
Or get your own here!





I'm pretty experienced but there was some stuff on there I haven't heard of before.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:21 AM  
The Homer Tax: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

The Grave markers at Arlington aren't Crosses.

Did you ever think that maybe there's a reason for that?


I think maybe people get this idea because they have seen pictures of the memorial in Normandy.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:33 AM  
Now if they'd just outlaw normal roadside crosses, those things piss me off so much.

Look, I'm sorry about your loss, and I understand this is a way of dealing with your grief. I can accept that. Put up your cross for a week or two, then TAKE IT DOWN.

There are roadside crosses I drive past every day that have been there for YEARS. You're not remembering the loved one that you lost, you are immortalizing their death. You should be remembering their life, the good times they brought you, and how they helped make you the person you are today. You shouldn't be slavishly reliving their death every single day you go to work.

Please, by all means, mourn. But realize two things:

1) The world does not mourn with you. Random strangers, and this is a cold hard truth, don't care. If they meet you, they'll say they're sorry about your loss, but until then you are a faceless statistic in the masses. All you're doing is making life hard on the highway crews that have to mow around your memorial.

2) Healthy mourning ENDS. You move on with your life. The only mourning that doesn't end is the sick, obsessive kind that you really should seek therapy for. If you're still in a state of mourning years after the fact, you haven't had closure, its not good for you, seek help and take down those damned memorials.
 
2010-08-19 09:09:47 AM  
Woops, wrong thread. I shouldn't read two threads at once anymore
 
2010-08-19 09:09:59 AM  
Good. I told everyone I know that should I be hit by a bus, I will freaking haunt them forever if they stick up some stupid sign or cross.

/and I would, too.
 
2010-08-19 09:11:31 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.


You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.
 
2010-08-19 09:11:55 AM  
tricksiecat: I'm pretty big on separation of church and state, but this is just nitpicky.
Fark Me To Tears: I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture.

So, what's your objective test that can be applied by a judge to determine whether something violates the establishment clause? Not a "we'll know it when we see it," but a real test. We know how well the former works with obscenity.
 
2010-08-19 09:12:54 AM  
chatikh: Woops, wrong thread. I shouldn't read two threads at once anymore

Wow... Even with a map, you get lost.
 
2010-08-19 09:13:47 AM  
ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.


The superiority complex athiests develop isn't because we feel that we are all that- it's because we can't fathom how farking stupid you folks are for believing in magic.

STOP BELIEVING IN MAGIC and we'll stop calling you a dipshiate.
 
2010-08-19 09:13:49 AM  
ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.


You have no more ability to prove that Santa doesn't exist than children can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

/FTFY
 
2010-08-19 09:13:55 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

www.alldcinfo.com
 
2010-08-19 09:14:19 AM  
EvilEgg: TigerStar: This would likely mean that Jesus was conceived at Christmas time. He was born on September 29th.

So they are celebrate the time God got laid, which is okay.


Except that the woman was already betrothed to another, making God an adulterer and/or fornicator.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Mary of Nazareth".
 
2010-08-19 09:14:36 AM  
ace in your face: You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing.

Sure, as soon as christians stop trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments taking away the civil rights of minorities based on what their holy book or religious leaders say.
 
2010-08-19 09:15:52 AM  
Rapmaster2000: I have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY so I don't need the NANNY STATE to remind me to drive properly.

Funny thing is that all of those crosses are put up by private individuals. Ain't that a kick in the head?
 
2010-08-19 09:15:58 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

The superiority complex athiests develop isn't because we feel that we are all that- it's because we can't fathom how farking stupid you folks are for believing in magic.

STOP BELIEVING IN MAGIC and we'll stop calling you a dipshiate.


Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...
 
2010-08-19 09:16:03 AM  
dittybopper: EvilEgg: TigerStar: This would likely mean that Jesus was conceived at Christmas time. He was born on September 29th.

So they are celebrate the time God got laid, which is okay.

Except that the woman was already betrothed to another, making God an adulterer and/or fornicator.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Mary of Nazareth".




To say nothing of impregnating your own mother to conceive yourself.
 
2010-08-19 09:16:42 AM  
Theaetetus: ace in your face: You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing.

Sure, as soon as christians stop trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments taking away the civil rights of minorities based on what their holy book or religious leaders say.


Cause I endorsed that right? I didn't say they were both equally annoying right?
 
2010-08-19 09:16:49 AM  
ace in your face: Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

Says the militant agnostic.
 
2010-08-19 09:17:18 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?



I think you are a troll, but I will bite anyway.

It is public school's job to be athiest. They are not allowed to to be theist by definition. If you want your brand of religion in schools, make your own private school and teach the kids whatever stories you want to.

I personally think public schools should have a religion class that teaches all relgions, past, present and "fictional (from literature, etc)", and treat it like one would treat a history or literature class with critical thought. Have reports that compare and contrast Zeus with Paladine or Shiva with Jehova. Make kids think outside the box a little.

Athiests probably wouldn't be so litigous if they were not constantly attacked by idiots like yourself. I would like to point you to the little pie chart showing oppressed christians.
 
2010-08-19 09:17:35 AM  
ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.


THIS
 
2010-08-19 09:17:36 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Rapmaster2000: I have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY so I don't need the NANNY STATE to remind me to drive properly.

Funny thing is that all of those crosses are put up by private individuals. Ain't that a kick in the head?


Farking libs. No personal responsibility.
 
2010-08-19 09:17:49 AM  
Waah waah waah. If you allow crosses, then you should allow other signs - religious, advertisements, whatever. For free.
 
2010-08-19 09:18:42 AM  
ace in your face: Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

You know how I can tell you haven't taken any classes in logic?
 
2010-08-19 09:18:57 AM  
ace in your face: attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

Belief in Magic vs belief that magic is a bunch of unscientific bullshiate that isn't real.

You seriously want to derp that these two opposing viewpoints are on equal footing? Wake up arsehole- they are not.
 
2010-08-19 09:19:15 AM  
Oldiron_79: ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

THIS


Exactly, none of you can prove that I'm not controlling your lives. I made you do that thing you just did. So worship me.
 
2010-08-19 09:20:02 AM  
Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.
 
2010-08-19 09:20:33 AM  
ace in your face: Theaetetus: ace in your face: You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing.

Sure, as soon as christians stop trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments taking away the civil rights of minorities based on what their holy book or religious leaders say.

Cause I endorsed that right? I didn't say they were both equally annoying right?


Yes, atheists are annoying because they want to be treated equally under the law. Yes, they're annoying for standing up to Christian nutties that want to stick their religion into damn-near everywhere, which is fine, except when it is done with public funds or supported by the government (like in this case).

Your logic is impeccable. Durr...
 
2010-08-19 09:20:35 AM  
ace in your face: I think maybe people get this idea because they have seen pictures of the memorial in Normandy.

Oh I Know why people think that's the case. Its just never ceases to amaze me how readily people are willing to repeat easily Googleable incorrect statements.

Especially when the reality and the reason behind that reality completely invalidates the point they are trying to make in the first place.

Arlington National found a way to memorialize dead soldiers, and they found a way to do it without promoting/endorsing religion. Weird, huh?
 
2010-08-19 09:21:17 AM  
Rapmaster2000: 20 years ago you rarely saw these things. Now, they're all over the place. What's the deal?


Maybe it's because society needs them now more than ever... (new window)
 
2010-08-19 09:21:32 AM  
Rapmaster2000: Oldiron_79: ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

THIS

Exactly, none of you can prove that I'm not controlling your lives. I made you do that thing you just did. So worship me.


Why don't you make me? Plague of locusts, river of blood, flaming hail from the sky, Come on, just look at the olde testament if you need ideas.
 
2010-08-19 09:22:22 AM  
danvon: ShillinTheVillain: I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.

Yeah, that picture in the article is not an accurate representation. I read the decision. The cross is 12 feet high and 6 feet across with a plaque of the state "beehive" logo placed in the middle of the cross. That plaque measures 1 inches by 18 inches.

Here's a picture. You cannot tell the size of it due to the lack of anything to compare it to, but I'll take what the court said.


Um... I hate to make assumptions based on names (and I'm probably wrong), but does anyone else see something strange in putting up a cross for William Antoniewicz?
 
2010-08-19 09:22:54 AM  
spin359: Why don't we just put up large tombstones that are not cross shaped? how about a small billboard? There bickering over shape....

Shape has meaning. How would you feel if they used giant dicks instead of crosses?
 
2010-08-19 09:22:57 AM  
frenchcheesemuseum: Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.

If that's the goal, wouldn't a more Constitutional Solution involve erecting a sign that says something to the effect of "In the memory of Sgt. Phil McCracken, slow down and be careful while driving?"
 
2010-08-19 09:23:01 AM  
Oldiron_79: Rapmaster2000: Oldiron_79: ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

THIS

Exactly, none of you can prove that I'm not controlling your lives. I made you do that thing you just did. So worship me.

Why don't you make me? Plague of locusts, river of blood, flaming hail from the sky, Come on, just look at the olde testament if you need ideas.


Because I don't feel like it. I'm omnipotent. I'm the only thing protecting you right now. You're lucky you have me.
 
2010-08-19 09:23:29 AM  
ace in your face: Theaetetus: ace in your face: You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing.

Sure, as soon as christians stop trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments taking away the civil rights of minorities based on what their holy book or religious leaders say.

Cause I endorsed that right? I didn't say they were both equally annoying right?


Right, you didn't endorse it. I'm merely explaining why, in spite of your fervent prayers, atheists aren't going to STFU until religious people stop trying to pass bigoted laws. You want atheists to STFU and keep their lack of religion to themselves? Then fight religious bigotry.
 
2010-08-19 09:24:02 AM  
As an agnostic my opinion shifts back and forth on this depending on the nature of how the signs got there and other caveats.

If the state puts them out there, but will put any religious symbol out there upon request, I don't see anything wrong with it.

If the state puts them there, but is unwilling to put any other religious symbol out there upon request, now there's something wrong with it.

As long as they're not putting any preference on religion, for instance if they refuse to put up a small scale model of a roof with a Frisbee stuck on it their actions have now violated my rights, I don't see the non-exclusive practice being a bad thing, people need their emotional crutches from cross to festivus poles, that's all they really are.
 
2010-08-19 09:24:09 AM  
"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion,"

It's friggin' Utah! Of course the state prefers a certain religion! But the crosses in question are not there to represent it.
 
2010-08-19 09:25:20 AM  
Gato Negro: Rapmaster2000: 20 years ago you rarely saw these things. Now, they're all over the place. What's the deal?


Maybe it's because society needs them now more than ever... (new window)


We need crosses on the road because children are in gangs and doing drugs?

I think you suffer from the delusion that religion is an answer to that kind of thing.
 
2010-08-19 09:28:05 AM  
miscreant: ace in your face: Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

You know how I can tell you haven't taken any classes in logic?



Know how I know you don't know anything about logical fallacies? Both ideologies require a logical fallacy for belief. Can you name them? They actually fall into several logical fallacies so that should help you get started.
 
2010-08-19 09:28:10 AM  
Rapmaster2000: Oldiron_79: Rapmaster2000: Oldiron_79: ace in your face: Leeds: ace in your face: I am just as sick of evangelical atheists proselytizing as I am of evangelical christians doing it.

Then wake up and stop believing in magic.

You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing. You are all annoying.

THIS

Exactly, none of you can prove that I'm not controlling your lives. I made you do that thing you just did. So worship me.

Why don't you make me? Plague of locusts, river of blood, flaming hail from the sky, Come on, just look at the olde testament if you need ideas.

Because I don't feel like it. I'm omnipotent. I'm the only thing protecting you right now. You're lucky you have me.


Do you happen to sell medallions/amulets that will allow some of your invisible angels to circle me, give me peace and guidance and make me choose correct lottery ticket numbers? Do you accept paypal? :-)
 
2010-08-19 09:28:11 AM  
habitual_masticator: If someone in my family died on the roadside I would not need some stupid half assed memorial to mark the spot. My eyes will find it and my heart will break every time I go by regardless.

Oh, and HOTY candidate you got there, subby. +eleventy


My cousin exits the highway to detour 6 miles around the marker his parents put up at his sister's crash site. She died there 12 years ago and he still can't bring himself to drive by there and be reminded of that spot by thier marker.
 
2010-08-19 09:29:09 AM  
I'm amazed by how many bad christian drivers there are. DAMN. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen a roadside memorial sign for a jew, or muslim, or atheist, or buddhist, or sikh.



/maybe churches should start giving driving lessons?
 
2010-08-19 09:30:07 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


How has athy been crammed down your throat at school?
 
2010-08-19 09:30:17 AM  
Theaetetus: ace in your face: Theaetetus: ace in your face: You have no more ability to prove that god doesn't exist than christians can prove that he does. STFU and believe what you want but stop proselytizing.

Sure, as soon as christians stop trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments taking away the civil rights of minorities based on what their holy book or religious leaders say.

Cause I endorsed that right? I didn't say they were both equally annoying right?

Right, you didn't endorse it. I'm merely explaining why, in spite of your fervent prayers, atheists aren't going to STFU until religious people stop trying to pass bigoted laws. You want atheists to STFU and keep their lack of religion to themselves? Then fight religious bigotry.


Find me in a thread about religious bigotry- I have never endorsed it either. If the state is paying for crosses then its inappropriate, but if they are privately owned and maintained it shouldn't be an issue.
 
2010-08-19 09:31:05 AM  
I agree with this ruling but not the reasoning:
It's public land and they are a distraction.

A private entity could purchase the land but then it would still fall under regulations of a roadside sign and its very nature is distracting enough to increase the chance of roadway accidents.

If they purchased the land a modest roadside plaque, perhaps facing away from the road, would be an appropriate solution.
 
2010-08-19 09:31:41 AM  
ace in your face: Find me in a thread about religious bigotry- I have never endorsed it either.

You're publicly calling for people opposing religious bigotry to "STFU". While not a direct endorsement, you're certainly in the camp.
 
2010-08-19 09:33:28 AM  
Shakin_Haitian: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

How has athy been crammed down your throat at school?


I'd assume more things would be crammed down a young man's throat at Catholic school than public.
 
2010-08-19 09:34:18 AM  
Leeds:

Do you happen to sell medallions/amulets that will allow some of your invisible angels to circle me, give me peace and guidance and make me choose correct lottery ticket numbers? Do you accept paypal? :-)


Yes. No one gets into the afterlife without a medallion. And you want that afterlife because unlike lame Christian heaven, we have free cable.

We accept AMEX, Visa, and MasterCard. There's a 3% discount for cash. No self-respecting god accepts Discover.
 
2010-08-19 09:34:31 AM  
Theaetetus: ace in your face: Find me in a thread about religious bigotry- I have never endorsed it either.

You're publicly calling for people opposing religious bigotry to "STFU". While not a direct endorsement, you're certainly in the camp.


I don't think a privately owned cross by the side of the road is religious bigotry. The fact that Atheists want to fight roadside memorials seems petty to me. Like someone said upthread, call me when they put one in front of a courthouse.
 
2010-08-19 09:34:45 AM  
MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?


My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

brianakira.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-08-19 09:36:33 AM  
Nobody notices them 90 percent of the time anyway. What they really ought to do is leave the cars that the people died in, sitting at those spots. Complete with the glass etc. That'll catch the eyes.
 
2010-08-19 09:37:55 AM  
skinny-lil-b: I'm amazed by how many bad christian drivers there are. DAMN. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen a roadside memorial sign for a jew, or muslim, or atheist, or buddhist, or sikh.



/maybe churches should start giving driving lessons?


I think that most jews, muslims, athiests, buddhist and sikh(s?) are not by nature attention whores like many evangeical christians are. Their belief system is advertized on billboards and t-shirts, would you expect any less from a cult of the golden calf?
 
2010-08-19 09:37:57 AM  
jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

I didn't know Normandy was part of the US.
 
2010-08-19 09:38:12 AM  
jayg22: MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.


My condolences.
 
2010-08-19 09:40:01 AM  
jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

France follows the US Constitution now?
 
2010-08-19 09:41:00 AM  
jayg22: MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.


Can you please point to Arlington National Cemetary on a map? Also, can you please find Normandy on a map? Are they in the same place? Are they in the same country? Are the on the same Continent?
 
2010-08-19 09:41:17 AM  
Rapmaster2000: Farking libs. No personal responsibility.

Man you suck at Fark.
 
2010-08-19 09:41:59 AM  
jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?
 
2010-08-19 09:43:28 AM  
ace in your face: miscreant: ace in your face: Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

You know how I can tell you haven't taken any classes in logic?


Know how I know you don't know anything about logical fallacies? Both ideologies require a logical fallacy for belief. Can you name them? They actually fall into several logical fallacies so that should help you get started.


I'm really interested in what logical fallacies being an atheist entails.
 
2010-08-19 09:44:52 AM  
ace in your face: Know how I know you don't know anything about logical fallacies? Both ideologies require a logical fallacy for belief. Can you name them? They actually fall into several logical fallacies so that should help you get started.

Only if you're assuming atheists are making a POSITIVE claim that there is no god. Which most atheists are not. If you want to narrow your criticism to atheists who make that positive claim, then you're right, they are making a positive claim that is illogical, though I would argue it's not even close to "equally illogical"... by narrowing it to those atheists, you're also ruling out 99% of the people who call themselves atheist though.

If somebody claims there is a god, then they are the ones making a positive claim, and the burden of proof is on them. It is not "equally illogical" for a person to disbelieve the claim until proof is presented. Use any other imaginary creature, Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage for example, is it "equally illogical" to believe in it as it is to disbelieve in it?

Acting as if belief or disbelief in a god are on equal footing only even slightly makes sense if the atheist is making a positive claim, which most are not.
 
2010-08-19 09:46:25 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: ttintagel: There are atheists in Texas?

Yes. And if the lore is to be believed, they're probably bigger than the average atheist.


this is a very strong play.
 
2010-08-19 09:47:01 AM  
username101: ace in your face: miscreant: ace in your face: Just like a militant atheist to attack anyone who points out their view is equally illogical...

You know how I can tell you haven't taken any classes in logic?


Know how I know you don't know anything about logical fallacies? Both ideologies require a logical fallacy for belief. Can you name them? They actually fall into several logical fallacies so that should help you get started.

I'm really interested in what logical fallacies being an atheist entails.


im not sure, but i think its got something to do with kirk cameron and bananas.
 
2010-08-19 09:47:08 AM  
username101: Mormons don't even USE crosses, making it even more baffling.

According to a report produced by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life the self-identified religious affiliations of Utahns over the age of 18 as of 2008 are:[7]

Latter Day Saint movement 58% (labeled as Mormon on survey - only 41.6% are active members)
Unaffiliated 16%
Catholic 10%
Evangelicals 7%
Mainline Protestants 6%
Black Protestant Churches 1%
No Answer 1%
Other Faiths 1%
Buddhism Eastern Orthodox .5%
Hinduism .5%
Islam .5%
Jehovah's Witnesses .5%
Judaism .5%
Non denominational .5%
Other World Religions .5%
Margin of error +/- 6%
(new window)

There are lots of Mormons in Utah. Mormonism is central to Utah's history. But to say that Utah is a "Mormon state" is a stereotype. And the percentage of Utahns who are Mormon has been dropping steadily in recent years.

The same people who say or imply that Utah is a "Mormon state" would never say that Massachussetts a "Puritan state." Utah has a constitution and is one of the United States, and so falls under the United States Constitution. You can live there and not be Mormon, and you won't be discriminated against. Most Utah Mormons are ordinary people. Hard working, polite, clean, courteous, helpful, and friendly. Actually, come to think of it, they may be abnormal for Americans in these regards. They are largely conservative (in the contemporary meaning of the word), but that's their business. I wonder if you could say that Massachusettsians are generally hard working, polite, clean, courteous, helpful, and friendly?
 
2010-08-19 09:47:22 AM  
Here's some so you can see the relative size.

i37.tinypic.com

i33.tinypic.com
 
2010-08-19 09:47:37 AM  
I think we should all take a brief pause from our beloved religious flamewar to consider the topic of the article, the inevitable direction its conversation would take, and what subby managed to do with the headline. I know I enjoyed it.

/as you were, religion- and atheist-haters
 
2010-08-19 09:48:42 AM  
ace in your face: I don't think a privately owned cross by the side of the road is religious bigotry. The fact that Atheists want to fight roadside memorials seems petty to me. Like someone said upthread, call me when they put one in front of a courthouse.

I'd like to see a little experiment done. Make a bunch of fake memorial signs that all include messages like "there is no god" and post them around at random spots on the local highways, and see what happens.
 
2010-08-19 09:49:50 AM  
i.imgur.com
Why would Christians want to put a cross to mark the spot where God killed the Utah State Trooper? Why would God kill the trooper for doing his job? Why do people worship a person who would do this? It is crazy.
 
2010-08-19 09:50:04 AM  
miscreant: ace in your face: Know how I know you don't know anything about logical fallacies? Both ideologies require a logical fallacy for belief. Can you name them? They actually fall into several logical fallacies so that should help you get started.

Only if you're assuming atheists are making a POSITIVE claim that there is no god. Which most atheists are not. If you want to narrow your criticism to atheists who make that positive claim, then you're right, they are making a positive claim that is illogical, though I would argue it's not even close to "equally illogical"... by narrowing it to those atheists, you're also ruling out 99% of the people who call themselves atheist though.

If somebody claims there is a god, then they are the ones making a positive claim, and the burden of proof is on them. It is not "equally illogical" for a person to disbelieve the claim until proof is presented. Use any other imaginary creature, Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage for example, is it "equally illogical" to believe in it as it is to disbelieve in it?

Acting as if belief or disbelief in a god are on equal footing only even slightly makes sense if the atheist is making a positive claim, which most are not.


Evangelical Atheists are the ones I am talking about, who actively claim "there is no god" which would be a positive claim. I have no issue with people not believing in god, I just don't like people who absolutely say "there is" or "there isn't" with no sort of proof other than their appeal to popularity/tradition/belief etc.
 
2010-08-19 09:50:36 AM  
Theaetetus: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.
I didn't know Normandy was part of the US.


That part will be to me. Thankyou to your Grandfather.
 
2010-08-19 09:51:01 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Rapmaster2000: Farking libs. No personal responsibility.

Man you suck at Fark.


Please. You just don't like your tired talking points turned against you. Perhaps if you thought with your head and not your heart you would be able to come up with some better material.

But all you have is insults. And I think that's just sad.
 
2010-08-19 09:51:23 AM  
Epicedion: Make a bunch of fake memorial signs that all include messages like "there is no god" and post them around at random spots on the local highways, and see what happens.


Liberals should do just that, in the muslim countries that they defend so vigorously.
 
2010-08-19 09:51:31 AM  
I'm really glad we're working on the important things that are wrong with our country instead of being whiny little douchebags about little things that really don't bother anyone.

So many people have died because of these little crosses. It's about time that someone did something about it.
 
2010-08-19 09:52:53 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: I don't think a privately owned cross by the side of the road is religious bigotry. The fact that Atheists want to fight roadside memorials seems petty to me. Like someone said upthread, call me when they put one in front of a courthouse.

I'd like to see a little experiment done. Make a bunch of fake memorial signs that all include messages like "there is no god" and post them around at random spots on the local highways, and see what happens.


see that to me is just attention whoring. Now if you put up a roadside memorial with an A for an atheist that died then you might have some sort of argument.
 
2010-08-19 09:53:20 AM  
Gato Negro: Liberals should do just that, in the muslim countries that they defend so vigorously.

Did you just have a stroke or something?
 
2010-08-19 09:54:32 AM  
frenchcheesemuseum: Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.

If only there was a sign that told drivers to slow the f*ck down, one that was white, like the crosses, but nondenominational, rectangular would be the proper shape, I think. Preferably, they'd just say "speed limit" and a number of miles per hour that was considered safe. Maybe we ought to get the DoT to put those up instead of crosses, would that work for you?
 
2010-08-19 09:55:38 AM  
news.lavenderliberal.com
 
2010-08-19 09:55:44 AM  
g4lt: frenchcheesemuseum: Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.

If only there was a sign that told drivers to slow the f*ck down, one that was white, like the crosses, but nondenominational, rectangular would be the proper shape, I think. Preferably, they'd just say "speed limit" and a number of miles per hour that was considered safe. Maybe we ought to get the DoT to put those up instead of crosses, would that work for you?


Yeah but everyone knows thy lie about speed limits.
 
2010-08-19 09:56:00 AM  
In our area, private parties put up these roadside memorials whenever someone dies in a car wreck. So, anytime somebody falls off their roof and dies do you put one of these in the yard? If Grandma dies in the living room, do you erect a cross to mark the spot? I understand these people are grieving, but when Joe public does this, it is just an attempt at getting attention. They have a great place for memorials- GRAVEYARDS.
 
2010-08-19 09:56:21 AM  
cybrwzrd: Can you please point to Arlington National Cemetary on a map? Also, can you please find Normandy on a map? Are they in the same place? Are they in the same country? Are the on the same Continent?

The graves at Normandy are on American soil.
 
2010-08-19 09:57:53 AM  
mamoru: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

France follows the US Constitution now?


Isn't Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial US territory? IIRC France conceded the land to the US. Not saying that those crosses are unconstitutional or even that the constitution applies there.
 
2010-08-19 09:58:19 AM  
ace in your face: see that to me is just attention whoring. Now if you put up a roadside memorial with an A for an atheist that died then you might have some sort of argument.

I don't have an argument, though I see how you could be confused. The word is "experiment."

Unfortunately for that to work, atheism would have to have its own symbol, which it doesn't. I think the American Atheists have the A with the atom-y stuff around it, but you could hardly say they're representative (and it's not like most people would recognize the symbol anyway). Since virtually everyone who sees a religious cross see it as a symbol for Jesus, you'd have to be a little more explicit for the experiment to really work. A message like "There is no god for you to be with, but you live on in our memories" would get the point across without being too hammy.
 
2010-08-19 09:58:43 AM  
ttintagel: habitual_masticator: AaronK: How come there's no Star of David markers?

because christians are the worst drivers

Yeah, they're always letting that Jesus guy take the wheel.


Being born in Israel does technically make him asian. And old.
 
2010-08-19 09:59:09 AM  
Nattering Nabob: In our area, private parties put up these roadside memorials whenever someone dies in a car wreck. So, anytime somebody falls off their roof and dies do you put one of these in the yard? If Grandma dies in the living room, do you erect a cross to mark the spot? I understand these people are grieving, but when Joe public does this, it is just an attempt at getting attention. They have a great place for memorials- GRAVEYARDS.

Most of the ones I have seen are from drunk driving accidents so they are there not so much as a memorial for the dead, but as an example to the living. There are official highway markers in WA with the same thing (no cross on the highway marker) that have the persons picture, name, and when they were killed by the drunk driver.
 
2010-08-19 09:59:39 AM  
g4lt: frenchcheesemuseum: Oh for f*cks sake there are so many other humanitarian issues that people can put their energy into. I've always thought highway crosses serve a valuable purpose. THEY REMIND PEOPLE TO SLOW THE F*CK DOWN AND PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING.

If only there was a sign that told drivers to slow the f*ck down, one that was white, like the crosses, but nondenominational, rectangular would be the proper shape, I think. Preferably, they'd just say "speed limit" and a number of miles per hour that was considered safe. Maybe we ought to get the DoT to put those up instead of crosses, would that work for you?


I was thinking a yellow triangle with black lettering would be better. You could perhaps write the name of the hazard on them. Maybe we could use both to really illustrate the point.
 
2010-08-19 10:00:23 AM  
Next thing you know the Mormoms will be building a mosque next to the highway patrol building.
 
2010-08-19 10:02:26 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: see that to me is just attention whoring. Now if you put up a roadside memorial with an A for an atheist that died then you might have some sort of argument.

I don't have an argument, though I see how you could be confused. The word is "experiment."

Unfortunately for that to work, atheism would have to have its own symbol, which it doesn't. I think the American Atheists have the A with the atom-y stuff around it, but you could hardly say they're representative (and it's not like most people would recognize the symbol anyway). Since virtually everyone who sees a religious cross see it as a symbol for Jesus, you'd have to be a little more explicit for the experiment to really work. A message like "There is no god for you to be with, but you live on in our memories" would get the point across without being too hammy.


I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.
 
2010-08-19 10:02:44 AM  
EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).
 
2010-08-19 10:03:22 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died.

Obviously it's to warn people of the 替死鬼, "death-replacing ghost". When someone dies in an accident their angry soul hangs around and can't get to heaven unless they kill someone else to take their place.
 
2010-08-19 10:05:42 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: DarnoKonrad: Taking something to court isn't always an exercise in malice. There's good reasons, for all faiths and lack thereof, to keep the law on the side of secularism.

I agree. I just think there are real church and state issues worth fighting, and a roadside memorial isn't one of them. The American Atheists in this situation come off as meddling busybodies more than anything. It's completely appropriate for the court to rule the way they did, I just don't see the real offense in this case. It's not a church that put it up, it's a highway patrol association.

I would like a better picture of the crosses in question, though. The pic makes them look small but the article refers to them as being large.


The problem is precedent. When you permit little things like this it's then used as evidence that bigger intrusions should be permitted.

Besides, seeing the pictures it's obvious the court was right to stomp on these.
 
2010-08-19 10:06:03 AM  
jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).


There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.
 
2010-08-19 10:07:55 AM  
Simple solution:
imagecache6.allposters.com
 
2010-08-19 10:08:01 AM  
ace in your face: Evangelical Atheists

Jumbo shrimp
Military intelligence
 
2010-08-19 10:08:07 AM  
ace in your face: I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

How is that possible when one group's statement is a defacto condemnation of another? You're basically saying "Atheists, believe what you want, but don't say it out loud because your mere statement could be considered a condemnation of Christians" while also saying "Christians, beleive what you want and say it, just don't explicitly condemn Atheists."

Stating that there is no god is not a condemnation of those who beleive in a god, it's simply a disagreement. By your logic the mere act of stating that there is a god is a condemnation of those who don't think there is.
 
2010-08-19 10:08:35 AM  
ace in your face: I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

Again, the cross symbol is an explicit indicator. The symbol itself is a Christian message, and a very obvious one. To get on the same level you'd need some message that explicitly conveyed atheism, though since atheism lacks a symbol it would really be impossible to reach the level of recognition of a cross.

If you're suggesting that not mentioning religion on such a memorial would be more tasteful I agree, but it really does nothing for the experiment.
 
2010-08-19 10:08:36 AM  
jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?


Twelve foot high is a small cross?

I've seen a road backed up for miles because someone was changing a tire. Now that is not the least bit interesting, but people were looking at that instead of the road. So a brand new cross replete with teddy bears and other miscellaneous crap is going to get looked at. Now if you happen to put that in an already dangerous location a couple seconds of distraction is all it takes.
 
2010-08-19 10:10:33 AM  
Father_Jack: ShillinTheVillain: ttintagel: There are atheists in Texas?

Yes. And if the lore is to be believed, they're probably bigger than the average atheist.

this is a very strong play.


I'm an atheist in Texas...

Although I'm only 5'6", so, likely not bigger than most.

/just moved here a year ago
//only called big by the ladies
 
2010-08-19 10:11:56 AM  
BitwiseShift: Next thing you know the Mormoms will be building a mosque next to the highway patrol building.

ITYM "stakehouse", and it's already there
 
2010-08-19 10:12:35 AM  
Did I miss this info: were these memorials erected on the site where the trooper died?
Also, good headline, subby!
One more thing.....a couple of years ago, traffic was being routed around a really bad wreck on a straight stretch of two-lane. As I passed the scene, you could see where the car had skidded off the road, wrapped side-ways around a phone pole, and the pole broke off and landed on the roof of the car. One the front of the car was a novelty plate that said "Jesus is My Co-Pilot". All I could think of was, "Then maybe you should have been in a plane instead of flying in a car!"
 
2010-08-19 10:13:21 AM  
ace in your face: jayg22: MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

My condolences.


i am truly sorry for your lots.
 
2010-08-19 10:13:41 AM  
Pocket Ninja: Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display?

winner!
 
2010-08-19 10:15:45 AM  
Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...


Get 100 Christians in a room and I'd bet a pretty large number of them couldn't pass a test on what Christmas is really about. Christmas is a Mall holiday now, about appeasing corporate overlords and spending money, not the birth of the central figure of a religion.

Since the government loves collecting tax revenue, it endorses this.
 
2010-08-19 10:16:00 AM  
The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

How is that possible when one group's statement is a defacto condemnation of another? You're basically saying "Atheists, believe what you want, but don't say it out loud because your mere statement could be considered a condemnation of Christians" while also saying "Christians, beleive what you want and say it, just don't explicitly condemn Atheists."

Stating that there is no god is not a condemnation of those who beleive in a god, it's simply a disagreement. By your logic the mere act of stating that there is a god is a condemnation of those who don't think there is.


I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".
 
2010-08-19 10:17:00 AM  
EvilEgg:
I've seen a road backed up for miles because someone was changing a tire. Now that is not the least bit interesting, but people were looking at that instead of the road. So a brand new cross replete with teddy bears and other miscellaneous crap is going to get looked at.


I've seen dozens of youtube videos of people driving into stopped highway patrol cars because they were gawking at what the police were doing instead of driving.
 
2010-08-19 10:17:12 AM  
How can they claim the crosses are not religious? Why does it have to be crosses? If an officer was killed who was a Pagan, would they put a pentacle up? Or would they get a "non-religious" cross as well? What about Jews and atheists?

No, clearly this is making a statement that the only religion worthy of honoring fallen officers is Christianity, and I guess if you're not a Christian and get killed, well, that's just too bad for you. I know people will throw a tantrum over this, but if they HAVE to honor slain people by the side of the road (why? why not do it in a safer, less filthy place?) they need to pick something that doesn't endorse only one religion.
 
2010-08-19 10:17:18 AM  
I'm gonna get drunk and run over a high school kid. A really popular one. Then when his or her friends show up to where I dumped the body so they can put teddy bears and crosses up, I'm gonna kill them. Then I'm gonna wait for their friends to show up....
 
2010-08-19 10:17:25 AM  
zarberg: Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...

Get 100 Christians in a room and I'd bet a pretty large number of them couldn't pass a test on what Christmas is really about. Christmas is a Mall holiday now, about appeasing corporate overlords and spending money, not the birth of the central figure of a religion.

Since the government loves collecting tax revenue, it endorses this.


More than that, most Christians don't recognize that Easter is the most important holiday in their religion. But most Christians don't know much about Christ anyway.
 
2010-08-19 10:19:45 AM  
I don't see how this got a "Sad" tag.
Please explain how pressing the government to halt the endorsement of religion is sad?


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas farking Jefferson
 
2010-08-19 10:20:14 AM  
I'm offended by wood on the side of the road that could impale something or someone should I accidentally run off of said road. I don't really care what shape it is.
 
2010-08-19 10:20:16 AM  
zarberg: Get 100 Christians in a room and I'd bet a pretty large number of them couldn't pass a test on what Christmas is really about.


If B. Hussein Obama was in the room, then 99 of them would agree that it's the day upon which America traditionally celebrates the birth of Christ.
 
2010-08-19 10:20:21 AM  
ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

How is that possible when one group's statement is a defacto condemnation of another? You're basically saying "Atheists, believe what you want, but don't say it out loud because your mere statement could be considered a condemnation of Christians" while also saying "Christians, beleive what you want and say it, just don't explicitly condemn Atheists."

Stating that there is no god is not a condemnation of those who beleive in a god, it's simply a disagreement. By your logic the mere act of stating that there is a god is a condemnation of those who don't think there is.

I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".


Tell me again how belief in magic and the belief that magic is bullshiate are arguments on equal footing. I love how you explain your point there.
 
2010-08-19 10:20:43 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Rapmaster2000: I have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY so I don't need the NANNY STATE to remind me to drive properly.

Funny thing is that all of those crosses are put up by private individuals. Ain't that a kick in the head?


On public land. So, if I decide to use private money to build a McDonald's on public land, you'll back me. B'cause that'd be sweet! Make sure you have someone come by to maintain and mow around my McDonald's, too. Don't want it to start looking shabby.
 
2010-08-19 10:21:14 AM  
Gato Negro: Rapmaster2000: 20 years ago you rarely saw these things. Now, they're all over the place. What's the deal?


Maybe it's because society needs them now more than ever... (new window)


You're pretty naive, the Houston high-school I went to was a ghetto, it was over-run with drugs, gangs, shootings, and religion. The religion part gave some kids a temporary escape from harsh reality that eventually consumed them, but other than the obsessed kids (and even that falls apart in most cases) they still participated in the madness. Thing is, and this will be hard for you to swallow, religion without real-world grounded reasoning and more important than anything good parents won't help the kids you want to reach. The biggest difference in my high-school by and by far wasn't in whether someone came from a religious background or where even highly religious themselves at all, it was three other factors emotional aptitude, how scholastically engaged they were, work ethic and attitude instilled by the parents.

The same girls that held the daily flag prayers at our school also did coke after school before they went to Wednesday service to teach junior-high kids about their own culture of abstinence, what a joke, the vast majority of the guys and girls in these programs had the same exact weird behavioral 'backlash' effect later on, if they weren't already like those prayer girls and did it simply because it's what they'd always had done, in reality it obviously didn't mean much to them.

The backlash effect is probably the most interesting thing about the claim that religion will solve adolescent problems. Basically the same very disturbing pattern could be said of all my religious friends, at one point they had totally abstinence take on everything, from beer, sex, weed, even to the menial like cursing.

Thing is, they'd all step out of their religious boundaries and find out that most of what they had been told was bullshiat they'd then go way overboard to the other end of the spectrum, totally out of control. Out of the females most make up the majority of the pregnant while in high school group. It was so trite that me and my friends would take bets on just how crazy someone would go when they would 'walk for the first time.' The only thing I could come-up with to explain this was that they hadn't actually developed their own boundaries and reasoning, instead it had been stunted and the colloquial re-naming of this was nativity, or innocence, two words that are simply substitutes for ignorance and stunted EQ forged through censorship.

For the kids who grew up with either stronger parents, or wealthier parents, but still used religion to shelter their child from reality, typically you could count on them making it out of high school and crashing in college. Basically like clock work all my Dallas friends that where rich and or just highly religious went out of control. Forced innocence and especially the intellectually forced innocence is like tying someone to a broken grenade, there's a good chance it'll blow up in their face.
 
2010-08-19 10:21:43 AM  
I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.
 
2010-08-19 10:23:29 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

How is that possible when one group's statement is a defacto condemnation of another? You're basically saying "Atheists, believe what you want, but don't say it out loud because your mere statement could be considered a condemnation of Christians" while also saying "Christians, beleive what you want and say it, just don't explicitly condemn Atheists."

Stating that there is no god is not a condemnation of those who beleive in a god, it's simply a disagreement. By your logic the mere act of stating that there is a god is a condemnation of those who don't think there is.

I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

Tell me again how belief in magic and the belief that magic is bullshiate are arguments on equal footing. I love how you explain your point there.


I'm ignoring you because you sound like you are a 14 year old.
 
2010-08-19 10:23:36 AM  
ace in your face: most Christians don't know much about Christ


Who knows the most?
 
2010-08-19 10:24:48 AM  
zamboni: On public land. So, if I decide to use private money to build a McDonald's on public land, you'll back me. B'cause that'd be sweet!

There are McDonald's on public land already.
 
2010-08-19 10:25:11 AM  
Attila the Bun: cybrwzrd: Can you please point to Arlington National Cemetary on a map? Also, can you please find Normandy on a map? Are they in the same place? Are they in the same country? Are the on the same Continent?

The graves at Normandy are on American soil.


All of the graves there are not crosses too.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2010-08-19 10:25:17 AM  
ace in your face:
I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.


I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

Put another way: I don't like certain genres of music but I'm happy for you to listen to them when I'm not around. Christianity needs to be made as harmlessness as taste in music before I'll drop my anti-Christian stance.
 
2010-08-19 10:25:23 AM  
Gato Negro: ace in your face: most Christians don't know much about Christ


Who knows the most?


The people that made him up.
 
2010-08-19 10:25:35 AM  
ace in your face: I'm ignoring you because you sound like you are a 14 year old.

This from someone who professes to believe in magic.

Now do you see why you religious types need to be constantly reminded how insane you are? Your derpyness needs to be constantly countered with intelligent discourse.
 
2010-08-19 10:26:50 AM  
My level of outrage on this depends on if the cross is just arbitrary or in accordance with the fallen troopers beliefs.

I myself am an atheist, but I don't recoil in anger like some sort of vampire at the very sight of a religious symbol, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, which is why I hate Richard Dawkins every bit as much as I hate Jerry Falwell. Too often my fellow atheists use their views as an excuse to look down on people, to give themselves a sense of self-righteous superiority, ironically the same thing the claim to hate so much about religious fundamentalists.

Anyway tl;dr version: People need to get the fark over themselves
 
2010-08-19 10:27:11 AM  
EvilEgg: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

Fortunately there atheists are a loose collation of people who don't have much in common. If you get two atheists in a room all you can guarantee is that they both think there isn't enough evidence to presuppose a god.


Don't forget, too, that everyone is an atheist in some ways. Even the most obsessed Jesus freak doesn't believe in anybody elses' gods. It's so funny to me that the Christians can look at another religion ("Zeus? A man who lives in Olympus and had sex with women? That's SO STUPID!") and laugh over how idiotic it is, and yet believes that a ghost knocked up a woman so she could pop out a magic baby who's bloody death and resurrected corpse "saved" people from same hell it's daddy made to punish them, can criticize people. They just can't seem to understand that the way they feel when they look at Islam or something is just the way us non-Christians feel when we look at them.
 
2010-08-19 10:27:18 AM  
Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...



If you expended any effort in cracking a book of ay kind you could quickly learn what the Supreme court has to say about federal holidays, and christmas displays and what the "Two Reindeer Rule" was.

But I see you'd much rather be offended at phantoms
 
2010-08-19 10:28:05 AM  
ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.
 
2010-08-19 10:28:30 AM  
there their theyre: Isn't Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial US territory? IIRC France conceded the land to the US. Not saying that those crosses are unconstitutional or even that the constitution applies there.

i believe normady has star-of-david markers for the jewish soldiers, etc.. the shape of the marker is based on the faith of the soldier, which makes it constitutional.

proper graveyards are accounted more leeway on this issue - and it's really easy to deal with in graveyards: make the marker associated with the faith of the individual soldier. Then it is not the government endorsing any religion, it is merely the government respecting that soldier.

/angry atheist
//court made the right decision in this case
 
2010-08-19 10:28:56 AM  
The Homer Tax: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?


Actually, the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

farm4.static.flickr.com

There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone:

www.arlingtoncemetery.net

In other words, you might want to back off the smarmy know-it-all attitude before someone makes you look like a tool...
 
2010-08-19 10:28:58 AM  
Joce678: ace in your face:
I don't really understand why you would put "there is no god" rather than just, "you will live on in our memories". I mean, Christians don't put "you believed in god so you will go to heaven unlike the atheists" on their signs... This is what I am talking about, believe what you believe, but don't condemn others. Its not that hard.

I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

Put another way: I don't like certain genres of music but I'm happy for you to listen to them when I'm not around. Christianity needs to be made as harmlessness as taste in music before I'll drop my anti-Christian stance.


So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.


Leeds: ace in your face: I'm ignoring you because you sound like you are a 14 year old.

This from someone who professes to believe in magic.

Now do you see why you religious types need to be constantly reminded how insane you are? Your derpyness needs to be constantly countered with intelligent discourse.


I haven't said anything about my personal beliefs on religion other than I don't think people should proselytize their personal beliefs about religion. You are the Wharrrgarble in this conversation. Now stop pretending you are sick and head back to school.
 
2010-08-19 10:29:11 AM  
ITT: ace in your face gets straight embarrassed by reason over.. and over... and over.. and over again.
 
2010-08-19 10:29:24 AM  
R.A.Danny: zamboni: On public land. So, if I decide to use private money to build a McDonald's on public land, you'll back me. B'cause that'd be sweet!

There are McDonald's on public land already.


Cool, and they don't have to pay anything to put them there? Leases, fees, etc?
 
2010-08-19 10:30:00 AM  
jagec: You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

"A small cross"? And you have the stones to ask if he's kidding?

www.ccstsp.org

seattletimes.nwsource.com

urngarden.com

www.ctpost.com

farm4.static.flickr.com

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive.

They don't distract me, because I ignore them. But they sure as shiat are distractions, and they need to be removed.
 
2010-08-19 10:31:05 AM  
zarberg: Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...

Get 100 Christians in a room and I'd bet a pretty large number of them couldn't pass a test on what Christmas is really about. Christmas is a Mall holiday now, about appeasing corporate overlords and spending money, not the birth of the central figure of a religion.

Since the government loves collecting tax revenue, it endorses this.


And half of them probably couldn't pass a test on what the holiday was like before the Christians came along and shoehorned their story into it, either.
 
2010-08-19 10:32:02 AM  
Gato Negro: zarberg: Get 100 Christians in a room and I'd bet a pretty large number of them couldn't pass a test on what Christmas is really about.


If B. Hussein Obama was in the room, then 99 of them would agree that it's the day upon which America traditionally celebrates the birth of Christ.


See, this is why I have you painted in wingbat red ... I make a perfectly good point about the sad state of the Christian religion and you have to go and turn it into a Glenn Beckian statement on our president.

Thanks for the entertainment!
 
2010-08-19 10:32:48 AM  
ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.


If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.
 
2010-08-19 10:32:57 AM  
DarnoKonrad: Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...

It's also a secular holiday, as we're often reminded around December when the Right floods the media with accusations of "taking Christ out of Christmas".

If you want secularize the cross as well, you're going to get even more backlash from Christians.

Separation of church and state is a two way street -- because when you bring it into the public domain, the public can and will change the meaning -- much to your clear resentment.


My first Amendment Professor made that same argument: That first amendment exists as much to protect the State from religion as it does to protect religion from the state.

He also often asked a question and I think Christians really ought to ponder: When you argue that Creche scenes or crosses are not religious but purely "secular" displays, aren't you cheapening your most potent iconography?

In the rush to try to sneak around the law, and have religious displays on public property, aren't these would be evanglists actually desacrilizing their most potent religious symbols?
 
2010-08-19 10:34:26 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


points deducted for 'crammed'
2/10
 
2010-08-19 10:34:39 AM  
Ctrl-Alt-Del: jagec: You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

"A small cross"? And you have the stones to ask if he's kidding?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive.

They don't distract me, because I ignore them. But they sure as shiat are distractions, and they need to be removed.


Well, to be honest, I am pretty easily distracted and still I don't see those causing me to wreck anytime soon. On the other hand they are put their by people who wish to draw attention to something, they're distractions by their own very nature.
 
2010-08-19 10:34:42 AM  
Ctrl-Alt-Del: jagec: You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

"A small cross"? And you have the stones to ask if he's kidding?


Bah, I suck for not reading the article first.

The roadside crap discussed in this particular article have nothing to do with the idiotic, garish roadside memorials I was talking about. I will now slink away in shame and embarrassment.
 
2010-08-19 10:35:29 AM  
Rapmaster2000: Please. You just don't like your tired talking points turned against you.

What talking points? That private individuals should be able to put up memorials for people lost in traffic accidents? The same 'talking point that you somehow try to link to the Rapmaster2000: NANNY STATE

I'll stick with my contention that you really suck at Fark.
 
2010-08-19 10:35:34 AM  
The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.


Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?
 
2010-08-19 10:36:03 AM  
FilmBELOH20: Actually, the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

I never said there weren't crosses engraved on the markers. The point is that the markers themselves are areligious, and the inscription reflects the religion of the soldier who died (this means all relgions, inclusing non-religions, there's a weird atom symbol or something for athiests).

FilmBELOH20: There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone:

Again, I never said that there were no crosses in Arlington, I said that the markers weren't crosses.

FilmBELOH20: In other words, you might want to back off the smarmy know-it-all attitude before someone makes you look like a tool...

Physician, heal thyself. On the other hand, congratulations for completely smacking down a point I never made.
 
2010-08-19 10:36:37 AM  
Gato Negro: ace in your face: most Christians don't know much about Christ

Who knows the most?


On average? Definitely the Atheists. From my own experience I doubt most Christians have read the Bible beyond the warm and fuzzy verses.

Most Christians believe a whole load of lies as well. I remember sitting in church while the guy in the pulpit told us that we still have Jesus' arrest warrant as proof that he existed. I was about 12 years old so I believed it - I might even have repeated to other people.

Then you get a bit older and you start to think, "So... where is it, exactly?" Surely if we have Jesus' arrest warrant then it's on VERY prominent display somewhere, right? There's no way it'll be hidden in some basement somewhere. But nobody knows. They're all 100% sure it exists but nobody knows quite where. The best the guy in the pulpit can do is "ask somebody" for me.

/Still waiting for the reply
 
2010-08-19 10:37:20 AM  
zamboni: R.A.Danny: zamboni: On public land. So, if I decide to use private money to build a McDonald's on public land, you'll back me. B'cause that'd be sweet!

There are McDonald's on public land already.

Cool, and they don't have to pay anything to put them there? Leases, fees, etc?


That would be the private money part. Just answering exactly what you were asking.
 
2010-08-19 10:37:58 AM  
Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.


Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.
 
2010-08-19 10:38:27 AM  
I am an atheist and this is retarded. The government is not putting these up, grieving families are.

These atheists who sued to have these removed are no different than Westboro Baptist Church.
 
2010-08-19 10:38:32 AM  
FilmBELOH20: the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone



Remember that you are talking to smug, sneering liberals who are disgusted by the very sight of a cross. I think it makes them physically ill - much like the sight of an American flag.

It reminds them of their failngs... and they don't like that.


Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that (new window)
 
2010-08-19 10:38:57 AM  
Bombsauce: ITT: ace in your face gets straight embarrassed by reason over.. and over... and over.. and over again.

I'm arguing for religious tolerance. I'm sorry you disagree with that.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:03 AM  
I have no problem seeing a cross on the side of the road. Christians are entitled to their religion.

I have a lot of problem knowing it was government funds that put it there, especially considering they can't ask the dead guy it's supposedly honoring if he/she is ok with it.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:07 AM  
zace in your face: But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Fundamentally, atheism is defined by the lack of belief in a god. I assert that stating that lack of belief is a condemnation of no one. Certainly no more of a condemnation than stating the possession of a belief in a god.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:36 AM  
The Homer Tax: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?


Nobody read the farking article, apparently.

In rejecting the crosses, the appeals court made several arguments, such as the large size and location of the crosses -- on busy public highways where motorists cannot help but notice. Other similar memorial crosses have been erected on public land such as Arlington National Cemetery to honor fallen war dead. But the judges noted those markers are generally accessible or visible only to those who expressly choose to visit them, unlike roads where citizens cannot help but see them.
 
2010-08-19 10:40:10 AM  
Silly rabbits, those aren't crosses; they're plus signs...as in another one bites the dust or +1 for street spread.
 
2010-08-19 10:40:26 AM  
FilmBELOH20: the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone



Remember that you are talking to smug, sneering liberals who are disgusted by the very sight of a cross. I think it makes them physically ill - much like the sight of an American flag.

It reminds them of their failngs... and they don't like that.


Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that people CAN change... (new window)
 
2010-08-19 10:40:27 AM  
Weezer808: everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, which is why I hate Richard Dawkins every bit as much as I hate Jerry Falwell.

You think ancient superstitious practices have a place in government decision making?

What would it take to make you angry? If the USA had invaded Iraq based on a reading of chicken entrails would that be OK with you? Why is the Bible better than chicken entrails?
 
2010-08-19 10:40:42 AM  
ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.

Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?


Deists and atheists can debate the existence of a/the god(s). Theists are full of derp.

You really, really, really need to understand this point before you can even pretend to keep up with the rest of us.
 
2010-08-19 10:43:08 AM  
sip111: Well, to be honest, I am pretty easily distracted and still I don't see those causing me to wreck anytime soon. On the other hand they are put their by people who wish to draw attention to something, they're distractions by their own very nature.

A distraction doesn't mean something that will automatically, or even most likely, cause a wreck. It's something that will cause people to pay attention to it rather than the road. And the more lavish it is, with handwritten signs, toys, flowers, drawings, crosses, blah blah blah, the more distracting it will be.

Even in the case of the relatively simple crosses in this article, the things are twelve feet tall and covered with writing. how can that not be a distraction?
 
2010-08-19 10:43:22 AM  
Kanaric: I am an atheist and this is retarded. The government is not putting these up, grieving families are.

I'm sure if the Atheists started putting up "God doesn't exist" signs on public land the Christians would be happy.

Oh, wait...no they wouldn't.

These atheists who sued to have these removed are no different than Westboro Baptist Church.

Um, yes they are.
 
2010-08-19 10:44:25 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.

Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Deists and atheists can debate the existence of a/the god(s). Theists are full of derp.

You really, really, really need to understand this point before you can even pretend to keep up with the rest of us.


Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:04 AM  
ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:28 AM  
1nsanilicious:
I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


Come back when you've got something...OK?
 
2010-08-19 10:45:36 AM  
ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

The cross itself says "there is a god" and furthermore says "god is Jesus." The symbol is explicit.

As for the "people live on in our memories" part, that's taking some liberties with the phrase "live on," though you'd be wrong to suggest that atheists can't wax poetic about the memory of their loved ones.

However, saying "LITTLE TIMMY IS WITH THE ANGELS NOW" on a cross isn't all that poetic, and it's fair to say that the people who make those sorts of statements believe that to be literal reality.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:38 AM  
Geotpf: Nobody read the farking article, apparently.

I go to Arlington at least once every year. It's right up the street from me. My point was that the actual markers to the individuals at Arlington aren't crosses. As was stated earlier, there are crosses in Arlington.

My point was that I don't understand the need for a giant cross to memorialize the dead state troopers that *doesn't* involve some sort of promotion of religion. They manage to do it just fine in Arlington.
 
2010-08-19 10:47:19 AM  
ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly

no, there is a third option.

the first one can be LAZY.

the lazy often say "there is no god" because "it is illogical to believe in a god without evidence".

they would be better off saying "there is probably no god" but that overestimates the probability of there being a god. given the utter absence of evidence as well as various complexity issues, etc that the existence of one would great the probability of their being a god is asymptotically close to zero.


ace in your face: You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work.

asserting that atheists standing up for the constitution and refusing to tolerate christians forcing their way into government is proselytizing is utterly BS.

Joce678: Most Christians believe a whole load of lies as well. I remember sitting in church while the guy in the pulpit told us that we still have Jesus' arrest warrant as proof that he existed. I was about 12 years old so I believed it - I might even have repeated to other people.

Then you get a bit older and you start to think, "So... where is it, exactly?" Surely if we have Jesus' arrest warrant then it's on VERY prominent display somewhere, right? There's no way it'll be hidden in some basement somewhere. But nobody knows. They're all 100% sure it exists but nobody knows quite where. The best the guy in the pulpit can do is "ask somebody" for me.


one of our interns (18 year old!) believes that people regularly revive from the dead after being prepared for burial in america, but the medical establishment hides it.

because his pastor told him so

i was like "where's the evidence?!"
"my pastor told me so"
"that's not evidence!"
 
2010-08-19 10:47:51 AM  
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?



In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.
 
2010-08-19 10:49:50 AM  
Kazan: i was like "where's the evidence?!"
"my pastor told me so"
"that's not evidence!"


Hearsay is a kind of evidence.

t2.gstatic.com

/hot
/Works on contingency? No, Money Down.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:15 AM  
Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.


Nope. And here's why. ARLINGTON DOESN'T HAVE CROSSES! See:
www.destination360.com

what they DO have is flat tombstones upon which, if the family wishes one of the 40 symbols of nearly any religion you've ever heard of may be insribed on the stone (new window)

and therin lies the crucial difference as far as the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is concerned.: A religious display on public landss using public money is not prohibited so long as all faiths are welcome to participate and given equal treatment. What the state may NOT do is erect, pay for, provide space for, relgious displays of one faith or sect EXCLUSIVELY.

Putting up crosses and not crescents or stars of David or pentagrams etc etc IS a sign of state favoritism for Christianity which is, under the Constitution, strictly forbidden.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:15 AM  
ace in your face: Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.

Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.


It sounds like you have a medical condition that makes driving unsafe for you and everybody else on the road near you. My point is that anything could have triggered your migrane, it sounds like. My step brother is an epileptic and for many years could not drive due to the chance of him having a seizure while driving.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:47 AM  
The Homer Tax: zace in your face: But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Fundamentally, atheism is defined by the lack of belief in a god. I assert that stating that lack of belief is a condemnation of no one. Certainly no more of a condemnation than stating the possession of a belief in a god.


I don't feel like we are discussing the same thing. I realize that atheism is the lack of belief in god, but my point is that putting "he isn't with god since he doesn't exist he is in our memories" is akin to saying "unlike the atheist he is with god". You don't need to put your negative thought there... you just need to put what you believe aka "he is in our memories" (therefore not with "god" by default) or he is "with god" because thats what you believe in. The use of the word, or thought, "isn't" is what is stupid to me on a grave marker. What does it matter where they aren't?
 
2010-08-19 10:51:42 AM  
Joce678: Weezer808: everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, which is why I hate Richard Dawkins every bit as much as I hate Jerry Falwell.

You think ancient superstitious practices have a place in government decision making?

What would it take to make you angry? If the USA had invaded Iraq based on a reading of chicken entrails would that be OK with you? Why is the Bible better than chicken entrails?


No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

The rest, is just warghbl.
 
2010-08-19 10:52:06 AM  
schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.


You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.
 
2010-08-19 10:53:52 AM  
ace in your face:
I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.


You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.
 
2010-08-19 10:54:12 AM  
Geotpf: ace in your face: Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.

Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

It sounds like you have a medical condition that makes driving unsafe for you and everybody else on the road near you. My point is that anything could have triggered your migrane, it sounds like. My step brother is an epileptic and for many years could not drive due to the chance of him having a seizure while driving.


No, I get migraines from weather. I was getting one (t hadn't developed much yet, just some neck cracking) and the sign blinded me for a second because of the night contrast- just like how if you look at the sun you can't see for a second. It isn't like epilepsy at all.
 
2010-08-19 10:54:51 AM  
cptrios: Um... I hate to make assumptions based on names (and I'm probably wrong), but does anyone else see something strange in putting up a cross for William Antoniewicz?

No, not really. Why do you ask?
 
2010-08-19 10:55:46 AM  
Joce678: ace in your face:
I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.

You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.


Yeah, it's been a long time since the last atheist president. The fact that he was a founding father allowed him to still be elected at the time but nowadays the mouth breathers like pregnant-chick here would never let that happen.
 
2010-08-19 10:57:04 AM  
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


The rules are excessively squishy since the Supreme Court can't make up it's farking mind what's allowed or not. Clearly, the point of the constitution was to limit involvement of the church in the state. Exactly how far those limits are pretty unclear.
 
2010-08-19 10:57:10 AM  
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:02 AM  
The Homer Tax: FilmBELOH20: Actually, the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

I never said there weren't crosses engraved on the markers. The point is that the markers themselves are areligious, and the inscription reflects the religion of the soldier who died (this means all relgions, inclusing non-religions, there's a weird atom symbol or something for athiests).

FilmBELOH20: There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone:

Again, I never said that there were no crosses in Arlington, I said that the markers weren't crosses.

FilmBELOH20: In other words, you might want to back off the smarmy know-it-all attitude before someone makes you look like a tool...

Physician, heal thyself. On the other hand, congratulations for completely smacking down a point I never made.


Actually, you wrote:

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.


To which I responded that you were incorrect, as the US Cemetery is a US Territory, where the constitution applies.

And then you asked:

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?

To which I responded that in addition to the several thousand crosses on individual tombstones, there are several very large crosses placed throughout the cemetery that are not tied to any individual's grave.

Yes, I know fully well that there are other religious symbols, including the Athiest symbol, but the vast, vast majority of symbols on those grounds represent Christianity.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:06 AM  
Hey, if we're forcing a mosque to relocate because it hurts some people's feelings, why not road crosses then? It's just a matter of taste and sensitivity for non-christian motorists.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:51 AM  
All highway crosses are is a good place for someone else to be hit and killed by a car while tending to said cross.

They are one of the dumbest things ever in recent years.

"I know! Lets mark the spot my loved one died in horrible pain from internal injuries resulting from him speeding while drunk!"
 
2010-08-19 10:59:51 AM  
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


Google the term "Ceremonial Deism" , take some time to learn what it means and then you will understand why your argument is nonsense.
 
2010-08-19 11:01:03 AM  
ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

doesn't work that way.

the default logical position for any assertion is "non belief". that is the position of strength in the absence of evidence, it is the only rational position in the absence of evidence. this is the "negative assertion", and it does not have any burden of proof.

the other position, the "positive assertion" is "i assert X", in this case "i assert $DIETY exists". This carries the burden of proof and is only a logically defensible position in the presence of evidence.

the job of the "negative assertion" position is to call the evidence for the "positive assertion" into question. In a formal debate the "negative" is considered to have won the debate if they can cast reasonable doubt upon the evidence presented by the "positive".

in this situation, as there is no evidence what so ever to support the position of the positive assertion then the negative assertion position "wins by default".

furthermore it is impossible to "prove a negative". the bold part of your quote above is a request to prove a negative. This is impossible and you know it, it is also utterly unnecessary.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of deities (or any other part of the supernatural) the only logically defensible position is lack of belief.



What you have done here is commuted arngumentum ad ignorantiam. The logical atheist does not preclude the possibility of a god, even if we find it extremely improbable. However not excluding the possibility does not change the above fact that without evidence belief is irrational.
 
2010-08-19 11:01:13 AM  
FARK IT!!!

I have to work on the holidays (Christmas, Easter and so on) I want to see the atheists work as well on the Holidays that the government has instituted.

NO MORE FREE RIDES, MOTHERfarkERS!!!

You are not being persecuted, you're taking advantage of the system!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Not very Christian of me.

GFY!!!
 
2010-08-19 11:01:57 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.


When you can show where I have said that I am a christian who believes in home schooling or not vaccinating I will have a word with you. Till then you just as judgmental as anyone who thinks that every atheist will raise their kid to steal and kill.

Epicedion: ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

The cross itself says "there is a god" and furthermore says "god is Jesus." The symbol is explicit.

As for the "people live on in our memories" part, that's taking some liberties with the phrase "live on," though you'd be wrong to suggest that atheists can't wax poetic about the memory of their loved ones.

However, saying "LITTLE TIMMY IS WITH THE ANGELS NOW" on a cross isn't all that poetic, and it's fair to say that the people who make those sorts of statements believe that to be literal reality.


I feel like you are missing my point that you should state what you believe and not bother with what you don't believe.

Kazan: ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly

no, there is a third option.

the first one can be LAZY.

the lazy often say "there is no god" because "it is illogical to believe in a god without evidence".

they would be better off saying "there is probably no god" but that overestimates the probability of there being a god. given the utter absence of evidence as well as various complexity issues, etc that the existence of one would great the probability of their being a god is asymptotically close to zero.


ace in your face: You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work.

asserting that atheists standing up for the constitution and refusing to tolerate christians forcing their way into government is proselytizing is utterly BS.



I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.
 
2010-08-19 11:02:00 AM  
Magorn: ARLINGTON DOESN'T HAVE CROSSES! See:

What are these, then?

www.moonbattery.com

www.tgstopeka.org

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
 
2010-08-19 11:02:12 AM  
ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.
 
2010-08-19 11:03:28 AM  
The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: I don't get the lettering people have done on their cars/trucks memorializing a loved one. It would suck to think my final legacy is lovingly inscribed on the rear window of a 1998 Hyundai hatchback.

stuff like this is supposed to remind people to drive more carefully

nothing like a reminder of death to sober some people up

unfortunately i don't think it works

but i don't think it's an endorsement of any religion
 
2010-08-19 11:05:09 AM  
This is farking absurd.
 
2010-08-19 11:05:22 AM  
Kazan: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

doesn't work that way.

the default logical position for any assertion is "non belief". that is the position of strength in the absence of evidence, it is the only rational position in the absence of evidence. this is the "negative assertion", and it does not have any burden of proof.

the other position, the "positive assertion" is "i assert X", in this case "i assert $DIETY exists". This carries the burden of proof and is only a logically defensible position in the presence of evidence.

the job of the "negative assertion" position is to call the evidence for the "positive assertion" into question. In a formal debate the "negative" is considered to have won the debate if they can cast reasonable doubt upon the evidence presented by the "positive".

in this situation, as there is no evidence what so ever to support the position of the positive assertion then the negative assertion position "wins by default".

furthermore it is impossible to "prove a negative". the bold part of your quote above is a request to prove a negative. This is impossible and you know it, it is also utterly unnecessary.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of deities (or any other part of the supernatural) the only logically defensible position is lack of belief.



What you have done here is commuted arngumentum ad ignorantiam. The logical atheist does not preclude the possibility of a god, even if we find it extremely improbable. However not excluding the possibility does not change the above fact that without evidence belief is irrational.


As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.
 
2010-08-19 11:07:49 AM  
chuckufarlie: You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


Quick, without looking it up tell me which founding fathers specifically helped in the formation of what we now know as "separation of church and state" and tell me the venue that term was first conceived. Bonus points if you can also tell me the organization involved.

None of you people who know answer, I wanna see if Mr. Iknowwhattheymeantsonyahnyah actually can back up his words.
 
2010-08-19 11:08:02 AM  
ace in your face: I feel like you are missing my point that you should state what you believe and not bother with what you don't believe.

I think you completely missed the point a few miles back when you started arguing against putting a statement of nonbelief on a fake memorial as part of an experiment to gauge the reactions of other people to a statement of nonbelief on a memorial.
 
2010-08-19 11:08:34 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.


Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.
 
2010-08-19 11:08:38 AM  
FTA: The service group said their main message was not religious in nature, but among other things, to serve as "a lasting reminder to UHPA members and Utah highway patrol troopers that a fellow trooper gave his life in service to this state" and to "encourage safe conduct on the highways."

A memorial does not have to contain a traditional religious symbol in order to remember someone or to encourage safe conduct on the roadway:

i734.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-19 11:08:52 AM  
fruitloop: RIP Charing Cross Road

/sorry, couldn't resist
//are the kids still doing this?


We've got a "Burns Crossing Rd" near my house. Maybe it's my dyslexia, or maybe it's cause I'm white, but I can't say it right to save my life.
 
2010-08-19 11:09:17 AM  
nukeim: Boobiesontheside: We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.

But driving is a privilege, not a right!


You can bet you ass The Framers®™ would have included cars as part of 'freedom to travel'. Oh well.
 
2010-08-19 11:10:20 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.


now you're being an ass.

Weezer808: No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)

Joce678: You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.

yeah.. when there is a member of congress who is openly atheist... that would be the day.

a Pew research poll found that about 7-10 americans would vote against an otherwise qualified candidate simple for being an atheist. that's more than the 6-10 who would vote against an otherwise qualified muslim.

so yeah ace in your face why don't stop trying to falsely portray atheists as intolerant and go talk to the religious bigots who won't vote for someone simply because they're atheist.

Shakin_Haitian: I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.

i think the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought... was the founding fathers.


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

US Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796

the Senate unanimously ratified the treaty. it was published in major newspapers for people to read. no objection to article 11 was recorded.
 
2010-08-19 11:10:27 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: I feel like you are missing my point that you should state what you believe and not bother with what you don't believe.

I think you completely missed the point a few miles back when you started arguing against putting a statement of nonbelief on a fake memorial as part of an experiment to gauge the reactions of other people to a statement of nonbelief on a memorial.


I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:20 AM  
Kazan: Leeds: ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.

now you're being an ass.

Weezer808: No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)

Joce678: You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.

yeah.. when there is a member of congress who is openly atheist... that would be the day.

a Pew research poll found that about 7-10 americans would vote against an otherwise qualified candidate simple for being an atheist. that's more than the 6-10 who would vote against an otherwise qualified muslim.

so yeah ace in your face why don't stop trying to falsely portray atheists as intolerant and go talk to the religious bigots who won't vote for someone simply because they're atheist.

Shakin_Haitian: I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.

i think the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought... was the founding fathers.


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

US Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796

the Senate unanimously ratified the treaty. it was published in major newspapers for people to read. no objection to article 11 was recorded.


Thats not what this thread deals with. Like I said to the last person accusing me of such a thing, meet me in a thread about an article on that poll and you will see what I have to say about it.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:26 AM  
ace in your face: Bombsauce: ITT: ace in your face gets straight embarrassed by reason over.. and over... and over.. and over again.

I'm arguing for religious tolerance. I'm sorry you disagree with that.


You are not argueing for religious toerlance... You are bashing atheism based on your perceptions of how Atheists behave, saying that it's identical to the problems with Christian belief. I actually agree with you on a lot of points as a Jewish Agnostic, but that doesn't mean that I go around bashing atheism because I actually recognize how logically they tend to think. The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:53 AM  
ChrisSuperstar: I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.

We got off topic? Horrors! Here they have road signs that say "Trooper Fortson memorial highway" for an officer that was shot during a traffic stop. Oh no! Where's the justice?!!!!!!
Am I doing it right now? Oh it was a cross? Yeah, because all the people buried under a cross are Christians? Yeah, RIGHT! At Arlington, don't they put a Star of David on the cross if you are Jewish?
 
2010-08-19 11:13:19 AM  
jayg22: MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.


So is my uncle.
 
2010-08-19 11:14:53 AM  
Bombsauce: ace in your face: Bombsauce: ITT: ace in your face gets straight embarrassed by reason over.. and over... and over.. and over again.

I'm arguing for religious tolerance. I'm sorry you disagree with that.

You are not argueing for religious toerlance... You are bashing atheism based on your perceptions of how Atheists behave, saying that it's identical to the problems with Christian belief. I actually agree with you on a lot of points as a Jewish Agnostic, but that doesn't mean that I go around bashing atheism because I actually recognize how logically they tend to think. The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.


No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.
 
2010-08-19 11:15:21 AM  
ace in your face: Epicedion: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.

Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.



For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.
 
2010-08-19 11:17:22 AM  
Nattering Nabob: ChrisSuperstar: I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.

We got off topic? Horrors! Here they have road signs that say "Trooper Fortson memorial highway" for an officer that was shot during a traffic stop. Oh no! Where's the justice?!!!!!!
Am I doing it right now? Oh it was a cross? Yeah, because all the people buried under a cross are Christians? Yeah, RIGHT! At Arlington, don't they put a Star of David on the cross if you are Jewish?


Arlington doesn't mark its graves with crosses, as has already been pointed out numerous times. They do mark your grave with a star of david, or a crescent, if you are of that particular religion. I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.
 
2010-08-19 11:17:56 AM  
lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?
 
2010-08-19 11:17:58 AM  
That's just the violence inherent in the system
 
2010-08-19 11:18:08 AM  
ace in your face: As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.

But this is the whole point in a nutshell- you are not intelligent enough to even understand the problem with your painful misunderstanding of logic.

Requesting "proof" from both sides is a good standby when it applies to the situation. In arguments like this one it does not.

Theist- There are gods.
Appropriate question for Theist- Please show some proof that "there are gods."

Atheist- There is no proof that there are gods.
Inappropriate question for Atheist- Please show me proof that there is no proof that there are gods.

Are you really that stupid that you can't even follow this simple discussion?

I know you're in your second trimester but I probably speak for 99% of farkers when I implore you to have a late term abortion.
 
2010-08-19 11:18:23 AM  
fracto73: ace in your face: Epicedion: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.

Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.


For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.


Lies. There are pictures of big foot.
 
2010-08-19 11:19:09 AM  
So, lemme get this straight.

A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.

But a cross marking the deaths of fallen officers serving an unappreciative public is wrong?

Mother fark America. Take back the US before it's to late. Of course reading posts here, Americans don't seem to care who rules them, as long as they are ruled.

ppffsstt. Try that shiat on the Highway of Heroes in Canada, and watch that judge get fired.

Oh yeah, Americans can't fire judges and such. LOL!! Sorry about that. In for 'life' eh?
 
2010-08-19 11:19:14 AM  
DesertDemonWY: lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?

no
 
2010-08-19 11:19:38 AM  
FilmBELOH20: Yes, I know fully well that there are other religious symbols, including the Athiest symbol, but the vast, vast majority of symbols on those grounds represent Christianity.

but since it is clear other religions are represented, and that the symbol engraved on/the symbol the marker is shaped after is based on the beliefs of the individual soldier it is not a government endorsement of religion. as the reasonable observer would understand that it is merely reflective of the beliefs of the individual soldier.

that's why a few years back the army got flack when it wanted to refuse to approve a pagan symbol for use on a grave at Arlington

ace in your face: I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.

then stop attacking atheists for getting angry when the religious openly violate the constitution. this situation isn't even a case where they tried to make an end-run around it, this is a straight out violation.

ace in your face: As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.

you are committing a logical fallacy in this thread though. you're committing a straw man by constantly arguing against the "positive assertion atheists" when none of them are present in this thread.

ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

a "negative atheist" (negative assertion atheist) like me or many others in this thread still very much has grounds to attempt to argue people out of their fairy tale beliefs. it does not require a "positive atheist" for that.

it's called: the people are believing in illogical things. furthermore they're believing in illogical things that cause them to become a threat to the freedom, mental and physical health of others.

(now i just made a positive assertion, and i will defend it)

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

you're changing the subject. he's not talking about attention whoring, putting up crosses is attention whoring too.

he's talking about how Christians would flip their shiat if someone put up a patently atheist roadside memorial. however since there is no universally recognized symbol for atheism (like there are for Christianity, islam, judaism, etc) that would have to be done with words.

stop ignoring his point with "well.. that's attention whoring!"
 
2010-08-19 11:20:07 AM  
ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

First of all, you've flip-flopped between "actively believe in the nonexistence of god" and "try to convince people of their position."

Yes, people who believe "there is no god" have a problem with actually providing evidence.

However, your other position, that people shouldn't try to convince anyone else of their position, is ridiculous, because you're creating a special exception for religion.

I could say something like, "Abortion is wrong and should be illegal!" and if you try and explain to me why my position should be revised, by your methodology I could tell you that you're wrong and silly for trying to convince me to change my beliefs, and that we should never talk about it ever.

We have to have these sorts of conversations, it's how people learn.

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

You're ignoring that "experiment" part, again.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:19 AM  
FilmBELOH20: Yes, I know fully well that there are other religious symbols, including the Athiest symbol, but the vast, vast majority of symbols on those grounds represent Christianity.

My point was that Arlington found a way to both memorialize our war dead and not promote religion. It seems to work great for everyone.

I don't understand the need to use the state to promote your religion when honoring the dead (war, LEO, other), when there are perfectly cromulent ways of doing so without. It seems AW-ie to me.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:27 AM  
DesertDemonWY: lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?

If it's ok for you to associate the 9/11 terrorists with all Muslims, is it ok if I associate all Christians with Fred Phelps?

Also ... it's not right next to ground 0. It's over 2 minutes walking at a brisk pace from the very edge of ground zero.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:32 AM  
Remember the fallen at their graves, not beside the road. Roadside memorials are a distraction that will cause accidents when people gawk at them.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:41 AM  
3000+ murders on 9-11. Sorry, was to slow on the 0.

BTW, only 10% of muslims want you dead. That is only 150 million is all.
 
2010-08-19 11:21:11 AM  
Leeds: ace in your face: As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.

But this is the whole point in a nutshell- you are not intelligent enough to even understand the problem with your painful misunderstanding of logic.

Requesting "proof" from both sides is a good standby when it applies to the situation. In arguments like this one it does not.

Theist- There are gods.
Appropriate question for Theist- Please show some proof that "there are gods."

Atheist- There is no proof that there are gods.
Inappropriate question for Atheist- Please show me proof that there is no proof that there are gods.

Are you really that stupid that you can't even follow this simple discussion?

I know you're in your second trimester but I probably speak for 99% of farkers when I implore you to have a late term abortion.


I have already said I am addressing the POSITIVE statement of "there is no god". I'm sorry your reading comprehension has failed you so badly. Telling me you hope my baby dies is really a great way to further the thought that you can be an atheist and a humane person. I am sure you will win lots of hearts and minds to your ideas with your 14 year old attitude.
 
2010-08-19 11:21:40 AM  
Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....
spschultz.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-08-19 11:21:58 AM  
TedNigma: A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.

On Public Land? Where is this?
 
2010-08-19 11:22:19 AM  
ace in your face: Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.


To be fair, religious people all over the world have had 10,000 years to prove their deity exists and none have.

That's right: Not ONE religion has offered acceptable proof.


So, I think that puts the atheists on pretty solid ground if they choose to "know" there is no god...
 
2010-08-19 11:22:46 AM  
ace in your face: For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.

Lies. There are pictures of big foot.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Seriously though, this is the same position. Belief in Big foot, alien abduction, the loch ness monster, etc. should all be given the same deference if you actually believe that both sides are equally valid.
 
2010-08-19 11:23:01 AM  
Bombsauce: The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.

atheist: i do not belief
agnostic: we cannot know

you can be both at the same time, but "we cannot know" is actually a positive assertion that must be defended, so you're actually in a weaker logical position than the "negative atheist"


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

Attn All
from this point out I'm going to stop being specific about what type of atheist I'm referring to, since the vast vast majority are "negative atheists" assume I'm speaking about them
 
2010-08-19 11:23:46 AM  
ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.

no, actually your initial argument had the significant effect of appearing to paint any atheist who takes exception to Utah doing this as an "extreme atheist".
 
2010-08-19 11:27:10 AM  
ace in your face: I have already said I am addressing the POSITIVE statement of "there is no god".

Ok, miss idiot, I'll bite. Who made that POSITIVE argument that you are arguing against? Because it seems to me that up until just now, you've been arguing against people in this thread (the one right here, now, on this page) and we are not making any such claims.

So in short- the way to weasel out of the pile of derp you have encased yourself in is to say that you are not arguing with any of us, your arguments on this thread are arguments against people who aren't even here?

I could have sworn you were trying to engage farkers with your drivel, I had no idea that you were conducting a thought experiment about an argument with non-existent people in this thread.

You have just crossed to an even lover level of stupid that you were in before.
 
2010-08-19 11:28:57 AM  
mark12A: Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....

Guess how I know you didn't read the article all the way through.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:15 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

First of all, you've flip-flopped between "actively believe in the nonexistence of god" and "try to convince people of their position."

Yes, people who believe "there is no god" have a problem with actually providing evidence.

However, your other position, that people shouldn't try to convince anyone else of their position, is ridiculous, because you're creating a special exception for religion.

I could say something like, "Abortion is wrong and should be illegal!" and if you try and explain to me why my position should be revised, by your methodology I could tell you that you're wrong and silly for trying to convince me to change my beliefs, and that we should never talk about it ever.

We have to have these sorts of conversations, it's how people learn.

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

You're ignoring that "experiment" part, again.


How does that create a special exception for religion when I have already said its equally annoying when they do it?


Kazan: FilmBELOH20: Yes, I know fully well that there are other religious symbols, including the Athiest symbol, but the vast, vast majority of symbols on those grounds represent Christianity.

but since it is clear other religions are represented, and that the symbol engraved on/the symbol the marker is shaped after is based on the beliefs of the individual soldier it is not a government endorsement of religion. as the reasonable observer would understand that it is merely reflective of the beliefs of the individual soldier.

that's why a few years back the army got flack when it wanted to refuse to approve a pagan symbol for use on a grave at Arlington

ace in your face: I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.

then stop attacking atheists for getting angry when the religious openly violate the constitution. this situation isn't even a case where they tried to make an end-run around it, this is a straight out violation.

ace in your face: As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.

you are committing a logical fallacy in this thread though. you're committing a straw man by constantly arguing against the "positive assertion atheists" when none of them are present in this thread.

ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

a "negative atheist" (negative assertion atheist) like me or many others in this thread still very much has grounds to attempt to argue people out of their fairy tale beliefs. it does not require a "positive atheist" for that.

it's called: the people are believing in illogical things. furthermore they're believing in illogical things that cause them to become a threat to the freedom, mental and physical health of others.

(now i just made a positive assertion, and i will defend it)

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

you're changing the subject. he's not talking about attention whoring, putting up crosses is attention whoring too.

he's talking about how Christians would flip their shiat if someone put up a patently atheist roadside memorial. however since there is no universally recognized symbol for atheism (like there are for Christianity, islam, judaism, etc) that would have to be done with words.

stop ignoring his point with "well.. that's attention whoring!"


There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with. I have REPEATEDLY stated that. I do not think that the government should be erecting crosses with their money, but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money. I absolutely disagree that being christian by definition impairs anyones freedom, or physical or mental health, the same way I would disagree that being atheist by definition would impair the same things.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:27 AM  
ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.

You've lumped two groups together that don't necessarily need to be:

Group 1: There is definitely no god.
Group 2: Anyone who believes in god is an idiot.

They're not actually saying the same thing. I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an idiot, but I'm unable to tell you that there definitely isn't one.

I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in Wicca is an idiot, but I can't definitely tell you that none of it is true.

Of course, I won't catch any flak for saying that people who believe in the FSM are idiots (and only a little for saying things about people who actually believe in Wicca). But if I say "people who believe in the Christian God are idiots" I can expect quite a bit of backlash.

The worst part is, if I say "I don't believe in any gods and I find them highly improbable" I can expect similar backlash, especially when people start confusing that position with the "definitely no / idiots for believing" position.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:28 AM  
ace in your face: I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.

upload.wikimedia.org

Full list of approved symbols (new window)

ace in your face: Lies. There are pictures of big foot.

i hope that is a joke

TedNigma: .....

you're a moron. try not misrepresenting an interfaith center several blocks away from ground zero, in a city that you usually shiat on for being liberal. related to an attack your politicians shiat on the emergency workers who responded to it.

you know what?

fark you.

(to the tune of: my body lies over the ocean)
If i had the wings of a sparrow
and the dirty ass of a crow
i'd fly over your dumb ass
and shiat on the bastard below

shiat on,
shiat on,
shiat on the bastard below, below

shiat on,
shiat on,
shiat on the bastard below, below

TedNigma: 3000+ murders on 9-11. Sorry, was to slow on the 0.

BTW, only 10% of muslims want you dead. That is only 150 million is all.


and only 1/3rd of US Christians want to turn this country into a theocracy.

what's your point you bigoted hypocrite.
 
2010-08-19 11:31:19 AM  
Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?

Where I grew up there were always big lights on the Town Hall for Christmas. MERRY CHRISTMAS in lights, it was a time of celebration, and thankfulness. Nothing more. I mean; IMHO, Christianity for the most part is just being grateful for what you have, treat others kindly, and help when you can. Period. Some skew that, however I stand by it.

Then some farking muslims moved in, and -blah blah- Short hairs of the issue is the lights say "Happy Holidays", however during Ramadan the lights spell Ramadan.

Why? "Because there is no greeting for this holiday season, as like 'merry or happy' so it must be spelled out."

uummm, ok...

That was in 1995. It says "Merry Christmas" now, and it will always say Merry Christmas.

Let's just say the complainers had a choice. Deal with our traditions, or leave town with help. They still live there. Hell my nieces/nephews play with their kids. I don't care. Just don't force yours without a taste of mine.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

And Mohammad was a child raping retard. THAT is for the record. The Quarn states it as fact.

However, Jesus was a car jacking pimp daddy. Read the bible a tad, Jesus was not always a 'kind dude'. However, he only retaliated, never picked a fight. That's the muslims job it seems.
 
2010-08-19 11:32:07 AM  
ace in your face: but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money.


Me too. As long as it is on private property and not on public property or property that my tax dollars are used to buy and maintain. Like a road for example.

People would have a fit I started putting little Buddhas all over the streets of Tucson or if I started putting those little Darwin fish by roadside accidents...
 
2010-08-19 11:32:48 AM  
ace in your face:
So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.


Nah, you're right. I don't believe in religious freedom. I don't believe I should freely allow White Power movements, Nazism, etc.

I'll "tolerate" only those things which don't harm other people (or animals/environment). Anything else would be stupid of me.

How about you
 
2010-08-19 11:33:08 AM  
ace in your face: I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.

It's a helium atom with an A in the middle
 
2010-08-19 11:33:17 AM  
fracto73: ace in your face: For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.

Lies. There are pictures of big foot.



Seriously though, this is the same position. Belief in Big foot, alien abduction, the loch ness monster, etc. should all be given the same deference if you actually believe that both sides are equally valid.


Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know? It seems silly to me to say "there is no such thing" if you can't prove it any more than someone else can prove it exists. Now if someone told be there were no such thing as dinosaurs (I have been told that BTW) I write them off as retarded.
 
2010-08-19 11:34:20 AM  
ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with.

Why though? This was the point I was trying to make to you? Why do you take issue with someone saying "there is no god?" But you don't take issue with people who say "There is a God."

It's literally the exact same type statement, the only thing that's different is to position of the speaker.
 
2010-08-19 11:36:12 AM  
FilmBELOH20: To which I responded that you were incorrect, as the US Cemetery is a US Territory, where the constitution applies.

Say a couple of frenchies get in a fight in the cemetery and one kills the other. Who's going to be doing the prosecuting and under what laws? Also, since the US owns it, could we do away with the cemetery and build a nuclear waste dump there?
 
2010-08-19 11:36:21 AM  
ace in your face: Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know?


And if some kid's parents were teaching him/her that leprechauns are real and then filed a complaint against the teacher who told the class they were not real, you would support the parents?

I mean, you can't walk all over people's beliefs without any proof. So what you've now set up is that in schools all across the country no teacher can tell the class that something doesn't exist: Fairies, elves, leprechauns, monsters under the bed...

You can only talk about what has been proven.
 
2010-08-19 11:36:29 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Rapmaster2000: Please. You just don't like your tired talking points turned against you.

What talking points? That private individuals should be able to put up memorials for people lost in traffic accidents? The same 'talking point that you somehow try to link to the Rapmaster2000: NANNY STATE

I'll stick with my contention that you really suck at Fark.


I didn't read this.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:27 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.


That's actually tremendously false; particularly where you try to define the atheist stance as being "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that."

Allow me to clarify:

Think of me as a detective. I sit down and listen to the Christian's stance on belief and the foundation of his belief. In this case, it is the bible. So I sit down and read the bible (or the many versions of it). When I finish reading it, I go back and fact check some information, particularly the parts that make very specific and concrete scientific or historical claims. Take the entire Exodus thing. The bible says that Moses took his people into the desert for 40 some-odd years. So I go speak to an archeologist who tells me that there is absolutely zero evidence of a culture living in the desert at that time period in that part of the world. So I discount it and move on. Maybe the Christian just goofed, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I move on to the creation story and I have some real troubles outside of the very obvious. The creation story says that everything was created in 6 days by a supernatural intelligence. I find this strange, but I do a little digging into the details. The story says that plant life was created before the sun. This causes a dilemma because all science, hardened by concrete facts, says that the sun came before all life. Plus, we've learned that this creation story was roughly 6K years ago. If this supernatural being created the sun and other stars 6K years ago, when we look up into the night sky, we would not see any stars because their emitted light would not be here yet due to their being millions of light years away. This defies the natural order of things and I just take my sharpie out and scratch out the entire creation story. Obviously, the fact of evolution also pokes holes in the creation story.

Then I move on to the funnier stories such as Noah's Ark. Well, aside from the preposterous like being able to put all animals on one boat without their eating each other, what about the wood worms? Wouldn't they eat the boat? What happened when salt water mixed with fresh water? All of the marine life on the planet would have died. Furthermore, the fossil record has no evidence of any mass extinction dating back this near to the present, so I cancel this plausibility too. The Christian's argument is getting weaker and weaker by the minute!

Then I go on and on, and I am able to nix a tremendous about of claims from within the pages of the bible, leaving only some nice passages about morality, but soon learn that they actually originated in Jainism and Buddhism, meaning that the Christian is merely mimicking East Asian culture with a few added nuggets that causes a divide among cultures in present day. This makes me sad.

In the end, this detective is left with not much of a foundation to work with. That is, if I can discount a large portion of the claims made within the pages of the Christian's book, what makes me think the rest is reliable? A lawyer who argues an amazing case for a month, but gets caught lying in his closing statements will lose the case. The same goes for the Christian when arguing his case - I am able, very concretely and without a shred of doubt, discount too much of his argument to accept the grander statement.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:30 AM  
TedNigma: So, lemme get this straight.

A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.


What are you talking about?

But a cross marking the deaths of fallen officers serving an unappreciative public is wrong?

The problem wasn't the cross, it was the government putting up crosses which was the problem. I know there are people who would object to the officers' brothers in the force putting up crosses with their own money, but I doubt it'd be more than a minority...and a judge barring them from putting them up on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.

Mother fark America. Take back the US before it's to late. Of course reading posts here, Americans don't seem to care who rules them, as long as they are ruled.

I agree we need to take back America. I may be a church-going midwesterner, but it worries me that theocrats are determined to "take back" America. Have you ever read up on what my Puritan ancestors did? Cripes, people biatch about "happy holidays" but don't even realize that at one point in American history we had theocrats who made Christmas illegal.

ppffsstt. Try that shiat on the Highway of Heroes in Canada, and watch that judge get fired.

Oh yeah, Americans can't fire judges and such. LOL!! Sorry about that. In for 'life' eh?


Depends on the judge, and whether it's a federal judge or not.

On the bright side, we've avoided being subjects for the past 234 years.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:56 AM  
ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with. I have REPEATEDLY stated that. I do not think that the government should be erecting crosses with their money, but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money.

first) no atheist in this thread has made that argument

second) as I stated previously: they might have just been being lazy as it is simply to say than the actual qualified statement

third) why to you persist in arguing against people WHO AREN'T IN THIS THREAD? that has the primary effect of making your argument appear to paint the atheists in this thread as the type you're arguing against. that constitutes a straw man

ace in your face: I absolutely disagree that being christian by definition impairs anyones freedom, or physical or mental health, the same way I would disagree that being atheist by definition would impair the same things.

see, here's where i have you. because i DO have evidence to support that assertion i made.


they infringe upon my freedom when they pass patently religious laws - laws against "obscenity", laws against "gay marriage" (note: i'm straight and married, i'm speaking hypothetically), laws supporting their position. they infringe upon my freedom when they attack school curriculum based on their beliefs.

they harm my physical health when they bomb doctor's offices, and murder doctors. when they ban medical research because their religion doesn't agree with it. when they attack science because it disagrees with them. they harm people's physical health when they refuse to teach them proper sex education. they harm my physical health when the insist unneeded, irreversible, unjustifiable medical procedures be performed on infant males altering their anatomy.

they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that various natural healthy things (masturbation, non-martial sex, non-traditional relationships [between consenting adults]) are "bad"/"evil"/"sinful". they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that mental illness is "demons" that must be "exorcised" (Yes this still happens in the US).


I have a book to recommend to you (new window)
 
2010-08-19 11:38:05 AM  
As an atheist, I find this stupid and a waste of time. I am outraged by the buttfarks who sued over this petty crap. They are just memorials FFS, leave them alone. Eventually the people maintaining them will get over it and let them decay. Have some farking heart and let them grieve.

Unless tax money is being spent on their construction and maintenance, just leave 'em alone. Any Muslims or Jews want to put crescents or stars on the road in the same manner, feel free. Buddhists can put up those newfangled squigglies and Hindus should feel free to plop golden cows. Us atheists can feel content to simply remember our lost friends and family without ridiculous memorial displays. In the mean time, stop being such epic douchebags.
 
2010-08-19 11:38:37 AM  
"A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

So what if that's what some would view it as, that's not what it's meant to be. Atheists don't like it when Christians force their views on them. Why do atheists insist on using the court system to force their views on those who believe there is a God?

Also, why is this only happening in Utah and not other states?


"A Texas-based group, American Atheists, successfully sued five years ago to have the nonprofit memorial project scrapped, and the crosses removed from public property"

Apparently, some people have yet to learn that one of the quickest ways to piss of locals is for an outsider to come in and try to use any means necessary to force them to change their ways.
 
2010-08-19 11:38:58 AM  
ShillinTheVillain: ace in your face: I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.

It's a helium atom with an A in the middle



I like this one:


i37.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-19 11:39:21 AM  
Rapmaster2000: I didn't read this.

There's nothing to be afraid of.
 
2010-08-19 11:41:03 AM  
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: So what if that's what some would view it as, that's not what it's meant to be. Atheists don't like it when Christians force their views on them. Why do atheists insist on using the court system to force their views on those who believe there is a God?


Wait, are they replacing the crosses with signs that say "There is no God"?
 
2010-08-19 11:41:40 AM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.

You've lumped two groups together that don't necessarily need to be:

Group 1: There is definitely no god.
Group 2: Anyone who believes in god is an idiot.

They're not actually saying the same thing. I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an idiot, but I'm unable to tell you that there definitely isn't one.

I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in Wicca is an idiot, but I can't definitely tell you that none of it is true.

Of course, I won't catch any flak for saying that people who believe in the FSM are idiots (and only a little for saying things about people who actually believe in Wicca). But if I say "people who believe in the Christian God are idiots" I can expect quite a bit of backlash.

The worst part is, if I say "I don't believe in any gods and I find them highly improbable" I can expect similar backlash, especially when people start confusing that position with the "definitely no / idiots for believing" position.


My sister in law and a few friends I know through her are militant atheists. Their facebook statuses often deride people for being stupid enough to believe in christians and they do say things like "there is no god". That shiat annoys me every bit as much as people who have up "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell" or "atheists are sinners". That is my annoyance. The proselytizing Atheist and the proselytizing Christian and if I had any Jewish or muslim friends that did it I would include them too (none of my friends who are Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or Zoroastrian, or Buddhist do that though). Anyway, this all started with a very bland comment and I think it has been blown way out of proportion, mostly by people who are accusing me of having an outlook I simply do not have.

/And yes I was joking about big foot.
 
2010-08-19 11:41:58 AM  
ace in your face: Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know? It seems silly to me to say "there is no such thing" if you can't prove it any more than someone else can prove it exists. Now if someone told be there were no such thing as dinosaurs (I have been told that BTW) I write them off as retarded.

Based on that logic you can never deny the existence of anything, because nothing that doesn't exist can be shown not to exist, which is absurd. I'm going to guess that you don't believe in leprechauns, you consider them a nonfactor in all decision-making, and that you probably think there's something a wrong with people who profess an active belief in leprechauns.
 
2010-08-19 11:42:36 AM  
ace in your face: It seems silly to me to say "there is no such thing" if you can't prove it any more than someone else can prove it exists.

you would be wrong. it is silly to assert something exists without evidence, it is not silly to question (even lazily) the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Duyogurt: ...

A++++ Excellent post, would read again.
 
2010-08-19 11:42:53 AM  
"But the judges noted those markers are generally accessible or visible only to those who expressly choose to visit them, unlike roads where citizens cannot help but see them"

If that's their argument, then what's next? Banning churches from displaying crosses that are visible from public roadways?


Can someone please tell me exactly what the argument of that atheist group is in bringing the lawsuit to start with and why they expect Christians to respect their desire to believe their is no God and yet at the same time, they refuse to respect the desire of Christians to believe there is a God and to honor their dead in their own way?
 
2010-08-19 11:42:59 AM  
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Why do atheists insist on using the court system to force their views on those who believe there is a God?

How, exactly, is that the case here?
 
2010-08-19 11:43:04 AM  
Kazan: they infringe upon my freedom when they pass patently religious laws - laws against "obscenity", laws against "gay marriage" (note: i'm straight and married, i'm speaking hypothetically), laws supporting their position. they infringe upon my freedom when they attack school curriculum based on their beliefs.

they harm my physical health when they bomb doctor's offices, and murder doctors. when they ban medical research because their religion doesn't agree with it. when they attack science because it disagrees with them. they harm people's physical health when they refuse to teach them proper sex education. they harm my physical health when the insist unneeded, irreversible, unjustifiable medical procedures be performed on infant males altering their anatomy.

they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that various natural healthy things (masturbation, non-martial sex, non-traditional relationships [between consenting adults]) are "bad"/"evil"/"sinful". they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that mental illness is "demons" that must be "exorcised" (Yes this still happens in the US).


THIS!

Thank you for adding this to the thread. So few magic-believers actually get the reason why we normal folks get upset at their derpyness.

// Seriously. :-)
 
2010-08-19 11:43:51 AM  
ace in your face: fracto73: ace in your face: For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.

Lies. There are pictures of big foot.



Seriously though, this is the same position. Belief in Big foot, alien abduction, the loch ness monster, etc. should all be given the same deference if you actually believe that both sides are equally valid.

Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know? It seems silly to me to say "there is no such thing" if you can't prove it any more than someone else can prove it exists. Now if someone told be there were no such thing as dinosaurs (I have been told that BTW) I write them off as retarded.


It is perfectly logical to say "I believe that [leprechauns, unicorns, gods, etc] don't exist, based on the fact that there is zero evidence supporting their existence." It is illogical to say "I KNOW that [x] doesn't exist." You seem to be implying that many atheists are claiming the latter about gods, which isn't the case. Or, you really think that it is a "logical fallacy" to believe that something probably doesn't exist when it has no evidence to support it, in which case, no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.
 
2010-08-19 11:44:30 AM  
Weezer808:
No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?


The article was about putting up twelve foot crosses on public land. Me? I'd say no (and the courts did too).

I'm sure if I requested a satanic symbol put on the site of my death the Christians would be up in arms over it. Do unto others, etc.

If somebody wants to put up a cross on private land then it's a completely different argument (though it seems to be what you're saying...?)
 
2010-08-19 11:45:08 AM  
The Homer Tax: ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with.

Why though? This was the point I was trying to make to you? Why do you take issue with someone saying "there is no god?" But you don't take issue with people who say "There is a God."

It's literally the exact same type statement, the only thing that's different is to position of the speaker.


I never said that. If someone tried to prove to me that god existed through "facts" I would consider them just as silly. I don't think there needs to be a memorial that explicitly states "there is a god" because that isn't what a memorial is about.
 
2010-08-19 11:45:56 AM  
Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Can someone please tell me exactly what the argument of that atheist group is in bringing the lawsuit to start with


You could have just read TFA:

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Utah Highway Patrol Association in 1998 began erecting the monuments, which contain the fallen trooper's name, rank, and badge number. A picture of the officer and some biographical information is included on a separate plaque placed where the two bars of the cross meet. The state insignia is also included, which the judges in particular raised with constitutional concerns.
 
2010-08-19 11:46:54 AM  
ace in your face: Their facebook statuses often deride people for being stupid enough to believe in christians and they do say things like "there is no god".

"I know some assholes who say assholish things and also say things like 'there is no god,' therefore the statement 'there is no good' is assholish." Is that really your argument?

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: If that's their argument, then what's next? Banning churches from displaying crosses that are visible from public roadways?

On private land? No. Preventing a church from putting their religious symbol on their own private land would be just as Unconstitutional as allowing religious symbols on public land.

The First Amendment's Protection of the Separation of Church and state has always meant to be a protection of both Government from Religion and Religion from government.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Can someone please tell me exactly what the argument of that atheist group is in bringing the lawsuit to start with and why they expect Christians to respect their desire to believe their is no God and yet at the same time, they refuse to respect the desire of Christians to believe there is a God and to honor their dead in their own way?

It's public land. There is a difference between public and private land.
 
2010-08-19 11:48:13 AM  
ace in your face: Nattering Nabob: ChrisSuperstar: I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.

We got off topic? Horrors! Here they have road signs that say "Trooper Fortson memorial highway" for an officer that was shot during a traffic stop. Oh no! Where's the justice?!!!!!!
Am I doing it right now? Oh it was a cross? Yeah, because all the people buried under a cross are Christians? Yeah, RIGHT! At Arlington, don't they put a Star of David on the cross if you are Jewish?

Arlington doesn't mark its graves with crosses, as has already been pointed out numerous times. They do mark your grave with a star of david, or a crescent, if you are of that particular religion. I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.


You have a point about Arlington. I know I have seen the other. Maybe another National Cemetery? Also, the "cross" symbol predates Christianity in a few forms. (see ankh)
 
2010-08-19 11:48:52 AM  
Kuroshin: ....

government showing a preference for one religion is government showing preference for one religion. ignoring any case of it happening simply emboldens those who have no respect for the constitution.

failing to stand up to a bully (in this case theocrats) merely encourages him.


ace in your face: That shiat annoys me every bit as much as people who have up "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell" or "atheists are sinners".

if people don't want to be derided for holding moronic opinions, perhaps they shouldn't hold them?

I ran into some dumbfark racist douchebag who was going on about FEMA camps, and making racist comments about asians (in an asian restaurant!) last night.

was it wrong for me to call out his BS?

ace in your face: The proselytizing Atheist

BS. attempting to argue someone what of believing in that which is unsupportable is not proselytizing.

ace in your face: Anyway, this all started with a very bland comment and I think it has been blown way out of proportion, mostly by people who are accusing me of having an outlook I simply do not have.

i've repeatedly went out of my way to make my statements say that you're coming off that way, no necessarily that you are that way.

your persistent beating of that straw man argument and ignoring those openings in my statements is making me start to wonder.

plus your constant attempts to claim that atheists CAN proselytize. you cannot proselytize a lack of belief.
 
2010-08-19 11:49:08 AM  
Kazan: Weezer808: No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)



No actually what you're saying is exactly what I meant. The symbol on the marker should be in accordance with the beliefs of to person it was meant to memorialize, christian, jew, hindu, etc.
"My level of outrage on this depends on if the cross is just arbitrary or in accordance with the fallen troopers beliefs"

If the cross is just thrown up there because America is Christian, yeah I have a problem with that, but if it's just random people who have a problem with crosses, they really need to grow up.

sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
 
2010-08-19 11:49:26 AM  
ace in your face: I never said that. If someone tried to prove to me that god existed through "facts" I would consider them just as silly. I don't think there needs to be a memorial that explicitly states "there is a god" because that isn't what a memorial is about.

You'd literally said this over and over again. You said it in what I quoted from you. How could you possibly be claiming that you didn't say it when I quoted you saying it? Do you even read what you type?
 
2010-08-19 11:50:13 AM  
Duyogurt: That's actually tremendously false; particularly where you try to define the atheist stance as being "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that."

Allow me to clarify:


I'm a let you finish, but before you do I just want you to know that there can be very good reasons to believe that the Bible is actually in many places false, which only shows that it's not a good reason to believe in the god presented therein. Rejection of the Bible as a description of an existent deity is necessary, but not sufficient.
 
2010-08-19 11:51:18 AM  
If we used facts to prove that the bible is either not the literal word of God or that God is fallible, do you think most Christians would accept that in the same way that most atheists would accept that God existed if He could be proved with facts?
 
2010-08-19 11:52:32 AM  
ace in your face: Epicedion: ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.

You've lumped two groups together that don't necessarily need to be:

Group 1: There is definitely no god.
Group 2: Anyone who believes in god is an idiot.

They're not actually saying the same thing. I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an idiot, but I'm unable to tell you that there definitely isn't one.

I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in Wicca is an idiot, but I can't definitely tell you that none of it is true.

Of course, I won't catch any flak for saying that people who believe in the FSM are idiots (and only a little for saying things about people who actually believe in Wicca). But if I say "people who believe in the Christian God are idiots" I can expect quite a bit of backlash.

The worst part is, if I say "I don't believe in any gods and I find them highly improbable" I can expect similar backlash, especially when people start confusing that position with the "definitely no / idiots for believing" position.

My sister in law and a few friends I know through her are militant atheists. Their facebook statuses often deride people for being stupid enough to believe in christians and they do say things like "there is no god". That shiat annoys me every bit as much as people who have up "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell" or "atheists are sinners". That is my annoyance. The proselytizing Atheist and the proselytizing Christian and if I had any Jewish or muslim friends that did it I would include them too (none of my friends who are Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or Zoroastrian, or Buddhist do that though). Anyway, this all started with a very bland comment and I think it has been blown way out of proportion, mostly by people who are accusing me of having an outlook I simply do not have.

/And yes I was joking about big foot.


Your sister in law might say "There is no god," but what she (well, 99.999% of atheists) really means when she says that is "There [probably] is no god." It's just shorthand, and no different from 99% of Christians that say something about Jesus being their savior or whatever.

And, while it isn't exactly mature to make fun of people with silly beliefs, I'm sure most people, atheist, Christian, or otherwise, would make fun of a grown adult that still believed in Santa, much like they make fun of the schizo that claims he was abducted by aliens.
 
2010-08-19 11:53:28 AM  
The Homer Tax: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?


Actually you are wrong. The Cemetery in Normandy is considered American Land.
 
2010-08-19 11:53:44 AM  
good news everyone, I have solved the problem to the satisfaction of all involved.

simply take off the horizontal board, and keep the vertical board.
write all your stuff on the one piece, non cross memorial, and TA-DA.

you're welcome, and good day.
 
2010-08-19 11:55:30 AM  
Pocket Ninja: I do not understand, at all, the impulse to mark the exact spot where a loved one died. It seems so empty and ultimately meaningless. You already have a marker--the grave. Unless the person was cremated and their ashes scattered right there at the spot where the accident happened, it just seems completely pointless to mark that spot in any way. What if they died on the way to the hospital? Would you erect a cross in the ambulance? What if your loved one was killed during a convenience store hold up? Would you expect to be able to erect a monument in front of the Fritos display? It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

who the fark are you to say how others handle the death of a loved one. your opinion is a silly gesture completely lacking any coherent meaning (even a douchebag one).
 
2010-08-19 11:55:59 AM  
Weezer808: Kazan: Weezer808: No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)



No actually what you're saying is exactly what I meant. The symbol on the marker should be in accordance with the beliefs of to person it was meant to memorialize, christian, jew, hindu, etc.
"My level of outrage on this depends on if the cross is just arbitrary or in accordance with the fallen troopers beliefs"

If the cross is just thrown up there because America is Christian, yeah I have a problem with that, but if it's just random people who have a problem with crosses, they really need to grow up.

sorry if I wasn't clear about that.



If the family of the fallen got some sort of permit and the display was for a limited time then I would have no trouble with a family memorializing their dead in a way that he would have liked. I think there should be a permit so that there is a record of who put the display there, and who is responsible for any costs related to clean up, for instance if there were little crosses on the road side, maybe 2-3 feet tall, and they were left in place, they could damage snowplows once they were buried.
 
2010-08-19 11:56:09 AM  
jayg22: The Homer Tax: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?

Actually you are wrong. The Cemetery in Normandy is considered American Land.


Then they did something unconstitutional there. It's kinda late to fix that, though. But, it still isn't too late to fix "Under God" and "In God We Trust" from being in our pledge and in new currency, both of which are also unconstitutional.
 
2010-08-19 11:57:04 AM  
That's just sad. Who's it hurting?
 
2010-08-19 11:57:16 AM  
Weezer808: "My level of outrage on this depends on if the cross is just arbitrary or in accordance with the fallen troopers beliefs"

on top of the state symbol being on them there is a problem with these crosses being individually located cannot be conveyed to be part of a larger display to the reasonable observer. even if they were based on each individual trouper's belief.

in one place you'd have what appears to be a government endorsement of religion A.
in another place you'd have what appears to be a government endorsement of religion B.

you cannot assume that the observer knows about the one when seeing the other if they cannot see both at the same time.
 
2010-08-19 11:57:36 AM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know?


And if some kid's parents were teaching him/her that leprechauns are real and then filed a complaint against the teacher who told the class they were not real, you would support the parents?

I mean, you can't walk all over people's beliefs without any proof. So what you've now set up is that in schools all across the country no teacher can tell the class that something doesn't exist: Fairies, elves, leprechauns, monsters under the bed...

You can only talk about what has been proven.


You can look under your bed and see that there are no monsters. I don't know why a teacher would ever bother to address such things, but I do think if the parents base their religion on fairies then they have the right to not have their religion trampled upon at school. Conversely, again using dinosaurs, teachers should be able to teach about dinosaurs and how old rocks are etc, since that has an actual scientific basis.


Kazan: ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with. I have REPEATEDLY stated that. I do not think that the government should be erecting crosses with their money, but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money.

first) no atheist in this thread has made that argument

second) as I stated previously: they might have just been being lazy as it is simply to say than the actual qualified statement

third) why to you persist in arguing against people WHO AREN'T IN THIS THREAD? that has the primary effect of making your argument appear to paint the atheists in this thread as the type you're arguing against. that constitutes a straw man

ace in your face: I absolutely disagree that being christian by definition impairs anyones freedom, or physical or mental health, the same way I would disagree that being atheist by definition would impair the same things.

see, here's where i have you. because i DO have evidence to support that assertion i made.


they infringe upon my freedom when they pass patently religious laws - laws against "obscenity", laws against "gay marriage" (note: i'm straight and married, i'm speaking hypothetically), laws supporting their position. they infringe upon my freedom when they attack school curriculum based on their beliefs.

they harm my physical health when they bomb doctor's offices, and murder doctors. when they ban medical research because their religion doesn't agree with it. when they attack science because it disagrees with them. they harm people's physical health when they refuse to teach them proper sex education. they harm my physical health when the insist unneeded, irreversible, unjustifiable medical procedures be performed on infant males altering their anatomy.

they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that various natural healthy things (masturbation, non-martial sex, non-traditional relationships [between consenting adults]) are "bad"/"evil"/"sinful". they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that mental illness is "demons" that must be "exorcised" (Yes this still happens in the US).


I have a book to recommend to you (new window)



Mostly I have just been repeatedly defending my statement, and not addressing any atheists in here since their views have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I have repeatedly said I am not speaking about all atheists so if anyone feels that way its due to their lack of reading comprehension. Nothing you have listed as a negative for being a christian is implicit by just being a christian. In fact, most of it has to do with the crazy evangelical proselytizing Christians who don't know anything about what Jesus does or represents and as I have said I don't like those people either. But I am not stupid enough to think that all Christians, by definition, feel that way.
 
2010-08-19 11:58:06 AM  
godxam: who the fark are you to say how others handle the death of a loved one.

He's a citizen of the US. And some people want to mark the passing of their loved ones on public (owned by we the people) land. That's who "the fark" he is.
 
2010-08-19 11:58:39 AM  
Joce678: Weezer808:
No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?

The article was about putting up twelve foot crosses on public land. Me? I'd say no (and the courts did too).

I'm sure if I requested a satanic symbol put on the site of my death the Christians would be up in arms over it. Do unto others, etc.

If somebody wants to put up a cross on private land then it's a completely different argument (though it seems to be what you're saying...?)


I'm not seeing the part where it say's they're 12 foot crosses, just that the crosses are distracting. clearly Utah doesn't have led billboards.

As for putting up your satanic symbol, if you were a state trooped who died in the line of duty sure, I'd think you'd have the right to do that too.
 
2010-08-19 11:58:42 AM  
As much as I find the things annoying and farking tacky, I think it's really dumb to rule them unconstitutional.

I'd like to see some road stars of David and some road star and crescents and some road pentagrams and some road atoms and other road symbols. Just to balance things out.
 
2010-08-19 11:58:47 AM  
ace in your face:
Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.


It's impossible to prove a negative (as you well know) but it's easy to prove the Bible's a load of bollocks.

The Old Testament is obviously foolish - Noah picking up two of all the billions of species of animal? Puh-lease.

The New Testament seems more real - it names actual places, Kings, Roman Governors, etc. which we know exist. Also many concrete events.

OK, so where's the great Roman census which drove Mark and Joseph to Jerusalem? Rome was incredibly bureaucratic. We've still got most of the receipts for the Roman legion's underpants so where's the massive empire-wide census? Where's the paperwork? Why did no Roman historian of the time bother to mention it? Simple: It never happened.

The Bible says King Herod was so angry about a messiah being born that he ordered the murder of every boy under the age of two in the entire kingdom. Herod is quite a well documented king, at least three contemporary historians wrote about him and his works. Why did such a barbarous act go undocumented by *anybody*, even after Herod's death?

etc.

How can a first century writer get such big events so utterly wrong? Answer: He can't, he made them up, even though they have no bearing whatsoever on the religious message.

My question to the Christians is: If those events didn't happen, why would you believe any of the other stuff in the Bible did?
 
2010-08-19 11:59:27 AM  
godxam: who the fark are you to say how others handle the death of a loved one. your opinion is a silly gesture completely lacking any coherent meaning (even a douchebag one).

take nothing Pocket Ninja says seriously, everything he posts is a joke.

welcome to fark, here's your tissue.

username101: Then they did something unconstitutional there. It's kinda late to fix that, though. But, it still isn't too late to fix "Under God" and "In God We Trust" from being in our pledge and in new currency, both of which are also unconstitutional.

"under god" in the pledge was actually considered inappropriate by the pledge's author: a minister!

why he felt it was inappropriate? America isn't a religious nation (our government that is).
 
2010-08-19 12:00:09 PM  
ace in your face:

Abort your baby. It's not too late.
 
2010-08-19 12:00:31 PM  
jayg22: Actually you are wrong. The Cemetery in Normandy is considered American Land.

I did not know that. I also didn't know that there are grave markers in the Normandy Cemetery for other religions as well, e.g. Star of David markers for fallen Jewish soldiers. This would mean that the markers are reflective of the religion of the fallen soldier, not reflective of a government endorsement of religion - therefore passing Constitutional Muster.
 
2010-08-19 12:02:07 PM  
Leeds: ace in your face:

Abort your baby. It's not too late.


Ace is a girl? Well shiat.
 
2010-08-19 12:02:13 PM  
ace in your face: I have repeatedly said I am not speaking about all atheists so if anyone feels that way its due to their lack of reading comprehension. Nothing you have listed as a negative for being a christian is implicit by just being a christian. In fact, most of it has to do with the crazy evangelical proselytizing Christians who don't know anything about what Jesus does or represents and as I have said I don't like those people either. But I am not stupid enough to think that all Christians, by definition, feel that way.

those all had one thing in common: religious justification without any secular justification.

whether or not they're specific to any one religion, or group of religions, or whether or not any single individual of a religion does everyone of those is irrelevant.

they're concrete real world evidence that back up my assertion that religious people harm my freedom, physical health and mental health.

it gives me a solid rational, evidence-based, reason to find deprogramming them to be a desirable and admirable goal.
 
2010-08-19 12:03:06 PM  
Leeds: ace in your face:

Abort your baby. It's not too late.


that was utterly and completely uncalled for.

stop being a douchebag, now.

/pro-choice
//hell.. i'm pro-abortion in some sitautions
 
2010-08-19 12:03:22 PM  
godxam: who the fark are you to say how others handle the death of a loved one. your opinion is a silly gesture completely lacking any coherent meaning (even a douchebag one).

If I die in a road accident I want my family to erect a 20' high sculpture of a hand giving the finger to passing motorists with a large engraving clearly visible from the road saying "FARK YOU".

This is basically in accordance with my beliefs.
 
2010-08-19 12:05:15 PM  
Kazan: Kuroshin: ....

government showing a preference for one religion is government showing preference for one religion. ignoring any case of it happening simply emboldens those who have no respect for the constitution.

failing to stand up to a bully (in this case theocrats) merely encourages him.


ace in your face: That shiat annoys me every bit as much as people who have up "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell" or "atheists are sinners".

if people don't want to be derided for holding moronic opinions, perhaps they shouldn't hold them?

I ran into some dumbfark racist douchebag who was going on about FEMA camps, and making racist comments about asians (in an asian restaurant!) last night.

was it wrong for me to call out his BS?

ace in your face: The proselytizing Atheist

BS. attempting to argue someone what of believing in that which is unsupportable is not proselytizing.

ace in your face: Anyway, this all started with a very bland comment and I think it has been blown way out of proportion, mostly by people who are accusing me of having an outlook I simply do not have.

i've repeatedly went out of my way to make my statements say that you're coming off that way, no necessarily that you are that way.

your persistent beating of that straw man argument and ignoring those openings in my statements is making me start to wonder.

plus your constant attempts to claim that atheists CAN proselytize. you cannot proselytize a lack of belief.


I. don't know what your statement about Fema camps has to do with anything.

2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

3. which X am I turning into Y? I think that quite the opposite has happened and that you have the straw man since you keep attacking me for things I haven't stated and don't believe.
 
2010-08-19 12:07:17 PM  
ace in your face: I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

Did they knock on his door to convince him to convert? If so, it was just a religious debate.
 
2010-08-19 12:07:58 PM  
chuckufarlie: you have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


I'm the ignorant one? Let's put it to a test. Correct me if I'm wrong...
This is how I understand it:
-Religion is a matter that lies solely between a man and his God, and he is not accountable to anyone else (eg: the government) for his faith or worship (or lack thereof).
-The government is only permitted to legislate against actions, not faith, opinions, feelings, thoughts, or words
-As representatives of ALL American people (regardless of faith), the government is not permitted to make any laws regarding an establishment of ANY religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion
-This wall of separation between Church and State must be distinct; we are not a Christian Nation, or Jewish nation, or Muslim Nation, regardless of the religious preference of our lawmakers and/or the authors of out government documents.
-If the government does so much as sponsor one faith, even passively, this alienates citizens who do not share that faith. That is a violation of their civil rights. (Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion)

Let me know where's I've misunderstood my education on my rights as a citizen of the USA. I'm interested in knowing where it's said that I am obliged live under a government which has chosen which religion I am required to pay respect to.
 
2010-08-19 12:08:00 PM  
jayg22:
Actually you are wrong. The Cemetery in Normandy is considered American Land.


Considered by who? The average redneck might think so but I'm pretty sure it's just the French being kind/respectful (which is as it should be...those people gave their lives in defense of freedom and deserve everybody's respect, regardless of nationality)

OTOH if somebody broke a law there I'm sure the French Police would be the ones to deal with it.
 
2010-08-19 12:08:12 PM  
ace in your face: 2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.


Were the mormon kids there for a discussion on God? If so, then I don't see an issue. That is the only reason mormon kids come to my house.
 
2010-08-19 12:09:21 PM  
ace in your face: I don't know why a teacher would ever bother to address such things, but I do think if the parents base their religion on fairies then they have the right to not have their religion trampled upon at school.


Well then you're part of why this country is so farked up...
 
2010-08-19 12:09:47 PM  
Kazan: Weezer808: "My level of outrage on this depends on if the cross is just arbitrary or in accordance with the fallen troopers beliefs"

on top of the state symbol being on them there is a problem with these crosses being individually located cannot be conveyed to be part of a larger display to the reasonable observer. even if they were based on each individual trouper's belief.

in one place you'd have what appears to be a government endorsement of religion A.
in another place you'd have what appears to be a government endorsement of religion B.

you cannot assume that the observer knows about the one when seeing the other if they cannot see both at the same time.


I highly doubt the average person would see a star of david marker and assume the whole world had gone jew, but then as Einstein (allegedly) said "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." So I'll give you that.

Sometimes my hopes get in the way of reality.
 
2010-08-19 12:11:36 PM  
The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I never said that. If someone tried to prove to me that god existed through "facts" I would consider them just as silly. I don't think there needs to be a memorial that explicitly states "there is a god" because that isn't what a memorial is about.

You'd literally said this over and over again. You said it in what I quoted from you. How could you possibly be claiming that you didn't say it when I quoted you saying it? Do you even read what you type?


I really don't know how you could have come to this conclusion. I can only assume you are not understanding what I mean. That could be either of our faults, but if you want me to try to clarify something again, let me know.

Kazan: ace in your face: I have repeatedly said I am not speaking about all atheists so if anyone feels that way its due to their lack of reading comprehension. Nothing you have listed as a negative for being a christian is implicit by just being a christian. In fact, most of it has to do with the crazy evangelical proselytizing Christians who don't know anything about what Jesus does or represents and as I have said I don't like those people either. But I am not stupid enough to think that all Christians, by definition, feel that way.

those all had one thing in common: religious justification without any secular justification.

whether or not they're specific to any one religion, or group of religions, or whether or not any single individual of a religion does everyone of those is irrelevant.

they're concrete real world evidence that back up my assertion that religious people harm my freedom, physical health and mental health.

it gives me a solid rational, evidence-based, reason to find deprogramming them to be a desirable and admirable goal.


Right, but I don't like people like that either so its irrelevant. Not every christian feels that way. Most of the ones I know don't believe in any of that stuff. And thank you for defending me, but leeds is on my ignore list since I don't want to get riled up by people I think are children, or who at least have the mental capacity of one.
 
2010-08-19 12:11:48 PM  
ace in your face: Kazan: Kuroshin: ....

government showing a preference for one religion is government showing preference for one religion. ignoring any case of it happening simply emboldens those who have no respect for the constitution.

failing to stand up to a bully (in this case theocrats) merely encourages him.


ace in your face: That shiat annoys me every bit as much as people who have up "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell" or "atheists are sinners".

if people don't want to be derided for holding moronic opinions, perhaps they shouldn't hold them?

I ran into some dumbfark racist douchebag who was going on about FEMA camps, and making racist comments about asians (in an asian restaurant!) last night.

was it wrong for me to call out his BS?

ace in your face: The proselytizing Atheist

BS. attempting to argue someone what of believing in that which is unsupportable is not proselytizing.

ace in your face: Anyway, this all started with a very bland comment and I think it has been blown way out of proportion, mostly by people who are accusing me of having an outlook I simply do not have.

i've repeatedly went out of my way to make my statements say that you're coming off that way, no necessarily that you are that way.

your persistent beating of that straw man argument and ignoring those openings in my statements is making me start to wonder.

plus your constant attempts to claim that atheists CAN proselytize. you cannot proselytize a lack of belief.

I. don't know what your statement about Fema camps has to do with anything.

2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

3. which X am I turning into Y? I think that quite the opposite has happened and that you have the straw man since you keep attacking me for things I haven't stated and don't believe.


Regarding number 2, I think you are confusing proselytizing with helping.
 
2010-08-19 12:12:17 PM  
Bootysama: correct me if I'm wrong, I thought I read road side memorials are a distraction to drivers. Distractions=bad results

Then all billboards should be removed as well - especially those electronic ones that change and look obscenely bright at night. They are distracting to be sure.

Would a compromise be to erect the religious symbol of the fallen trooper's belief? If so, a Flying Spaghetti Monster memorial would be cool.
 
2010-08-19 12:12:35 PM  
chuckufarlie: You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.

Luckily for use, some of them are being removed.

You can thank the Atheists for that outbreak of common sense.
 
2010-08-19 12:13:15 PM  
mark12A: Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....

If you look at file name of the picture you've just posted you'd know that i's a pciture of Muesse-argonne cemetary in FRANCE. Now I understand some farkers can be slightly slow, or shall we say, "tardy"; but can you explain to me what the fark the US Constitution has to do with the rule for a FRENCH cemetary?

So the only question is, are you really dumb enough not to understand this or were you deliberately obfuscating the issue with an appeal to emotion?
 
2010-08-19 12:14:51 PM  
EvilEgg: ace in your face: I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

Did they knock on his door to convince him to convert? If so, it was just a religious debate.


No he found them at a corner store and convinced them to his house.

pwhp_67: ace in your face: I don't know why a teacher would ever bother to address such things, but I do think if the parents base their religion on fairies then they have the right to not have their religion trampled upon at school.


Well then you're part of why this country is so farked up...


If you get to pick and choose which religions to tolerate then you have already failed. As long school is based on facts and not opinions I am sure it will be fine.
 
2010-08-19 12:15:28 PM  
chuckufarlie: You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.

So current violations can be used to justify future ones? Then you wonder why small meaningless violations are a problem?
 
2010-08-19 12:16:25 PM  
ace in your face: EvilEgg: ace in your face: I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

Did they knock on his door to convince him to convert? If so, it was just a religious debate.

No he found them at a corner store and convinced them to his house.


Funny, the police never approve when I pick up kids at the corner store.
 
2010-08-19 12:16:50 PM  
ace in your face:
2. Atheists proselytize all the time.


Of course, just to keep a balance...

OTOH I never heard of Atheists going from door to door. We obviously need to try harder!
 
2010-08-19 12:16:52 PM  
EvilEgg: Did they knock on his door to convince him to convert? If so, it was just a religious debate.

im sure they did.

my high school climbing buddies were mormons.

ace in your face: Not every christian feels that way.

find me a self-identifying christian who doesn't hold at least one of those beliefs that i cited. those were not exhaustive lists by any means either, and you still still fail in that challenge.

ace in your face: T And thank you for defending me, but leeds is on my ignore list since I don't want to get riled up by people I think are children, or who at least have the mental capacity of one.

well despite his agreement with my position in this thread i do have him farkied in my "conservative idiot" color with the comment "laissez-faire idiot, counterprotested petland protesters"

he loves puppy mills.

Duyogurt: Regarding number 2, I think you are confusing proselytizing with helping.

more precisely: proselytizing (in this context) is trying to convert someone to your faith. atheists lack faith, so by definition cannot do it.
 
2010-08-19 12:18:39 PM  
ace in your face: If you get to pick and choose which religions to tolerate then you have already failed. As long school is based on facts and not opinions I am sure it will be fine.


It's not an opinion that leprechauns don't exist.

You saying that it is makes you part of the problem...
 
2010-08-19 12:18:44 PM  
Overfiend: Would a compromise be to erect the religious symbol of the fallen trooper's belief?

no, in this situation the arrangements at National Cemetaries cannot work as each marker is individual and separate from the rest - not part of a grouping. so the casual reasonable observer cannot see that other faiths are included.
 
2010-08-19 12:20:15 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: If you get to pick and choose which religions to tolerate then you have already failed. As long school is based on facts and not opinions I am sure it will be fine.


It's not an opinion that leprechauns don't exist.

You saying that it is makes you part of the problem...


indeed any "x doesn't exist" assertion should be viewed as "there is no evidence of X, therefore practically we can consider X to not exist".
 
2010-08-19 12:20:29 PM  
Pocket Ninja: It's a silly gesture completely lacking in any coherent meaning (even a religious one).

"On this spot, on this nice, long, smooth utterly straight bit of road, our offspring strangely managed to wrap his saaaaaaaafe SUV or truck around the only tree from here to the horizon. Take heed, travelers, for even God can't help you if you're stupid."
 
2010-08-19 12:20:55 PM  
Roadside memorials are generally farking stupid.

That said, I've been waiting for the End of the World which would be caused by the critical combination of religion-haters and cop-haters in this thread.

/it would be like dividing by zero
 
2010-08-19 12:21:36 PM  
ace in your face: 2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy who brought 2 morman kids into his house so he could try to convince them that there was no god.

What a fantastic personal anecdote. I can do it too:

Christians are violent all the time. I once knew this Christian girl who while ice skating deliberately knocked down a woman and kicked her a few times, and was laughing about it while she told me the story.
 
2010-08-19 12:22:47 PM  
1:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, all of you Fark lawyers please tell me. Are not these two amendments really easy to understand?

It seems to me that these crosses were an action taken by a State (or in this case The People) and now the federal Government has usurped the authority granted to the states and the people by the constitution. And really, how offensive can a white memorial cross be when you zip past at 70 MPH?
 
2010-08-19 12:24:48 PM  
ace in your face: 2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy



Well, that's all the proof we needed...
 
2010-08-19 12:26:55 PM  
FilmBELOH20: Magorn: ARLINGTON DOESN'T HAVE CROSSES! See:

What are these, then?


Well the top one is the "cross of sacrifice" erected by the CANADIAN government to honor US citizens who were killed while serving in their armed forces

The Second I believe is a memorial to those lost aboard the Titanic that may actually be outside the bounds of the offical national cemetery. I don't recognize the third.

/grew up close enough to Arlingotn that it was a frequent field trip destination.
 
2010-08-19 12:27:11 PM  
MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?


I didn't know that.

I just looked on Google Earth and you're right, no crosses anywhere in sight. That actually makes me happy...

(Though I'm not sure how much of that is doing the right thing and how much is just some military obsession with neatness and avoiding a random mixture of different-shape headstones)
 
2010-08-19 12:27:30 PM  
Devil's Playground: And really, how offensive can a white memorial cross be when you zip past at 70 MPH?

It ain't always about who is or isn't offended.
 
2010-08-19 12:27:40 PM  
I'm agnostic and I actively dislike most if not all organized religions.

However, I think Christmas is a nice tradition and I think that erecting memorial crosses like the ones in TFA is fine.

DIAF, atheist dbags.
 
2010-08-19 12:27:50 PM  
Devil's Playground: 1:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, all of you Fark lawyers please tell me. Are not these two amendments really easy to understand?

It seems to me that these crosses were an action taken by a State (or in this case The People) and now the federal Government has usurped the authority granted to the states and the people by the constitution. And really, how offensive can a white memorial cross be when you zip past at 70 MPH?


Wanna know how I know you've either never read or don't understand Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli or Thomas Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists?
 
2010-08-19 12:28:50 PM  
MyNameIsRobertPaulson:
If I die in a road accident I want my family to erect a 20' high sculpture of a hand giving the finger to passing motorists with a large engraving clearly visible from the road saying "FARK YOU".

This is basically in accordance with my beliefs.


I'll support you 100% in that. I'll even make a donation so it can be done in solid marble.
 
2010-08-19 12:29:24 PM  
Devil's Playground: It seems to me that these crosses were an action taken by a State (or in this case The People) and now the federal Government has usurped the authority granted to the states and the people by the constitution. And really, how offensive can a white memorial cross be when you zip past at 70 MPH?

*sigh*

any action prohibited to the federal congress is in turn prohibited to the states.


I hereby propose a new logical fallacy: argumentum ad tentherism. Argument from Tentherism. it's a breed of "argument from false premises".

Hint: the tenth amendment doesn't mean anything Tenthers claim it means. it's a tautology, it's redundant.
 
2010-08-19 12:31:01 PM  
Jument: I'm agnostic and I actively dislike most if not all organized religions.

However, I think Christmas is a nice tradition and I think that erecting memorial crosses like the ones in TFA is fine.

DIAF, atheist dbags.


The government of Utah was violating the constitution by endorsing religion.

DIAF anti-american dbag.

zarberg: Wanna know how I know you've either never read or don't understand Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli or Thomas Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists?

hell i farking posted Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli earlier in this thread!
 
2010-08-19 12:32:38 PM  
Devil's Playground: 1:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, all of you Fark lawyers please tell me. Are not these two amendments really easy to understand?

It seems to me that these crosses were an action taken by a State (or in this case The People) and now the federal Government has usurped the authority granted to the states and the people by the constitution. And really, how offensive can a white memorial cross be when you zip past at 70 MPH?



from the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
2010-08-19 12:33:36 PM  
Kazan: hell i farking posted Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli earlier in this thread!

I know! I'm so proud of you, too. You made it onto my favorites list - a nice shade of "I generally like what you say" green.
 
2010-08-19 12:36:46 PM  
Jument: However, I think Christmas is a nice tradition and I think that erecting memorial crosses like the ones in TFA is fine.


Then you pay for them and tell them to quit putting the state seal on them...
 
2010-08-19 12:39:29 PM  
zarberg: Kazan: hell i farking posted Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli earlier in this thread!

I know! I'm so proud of you, too. You made it onto my favorites list - a nice shade of "I generally like what you say" green.


why thank you.
 
2010-08-19 12:41:59 PM  
CBFLATLINE: FARK IT!!!

I have to work on the holidays (Christmas, Easter and so on) I want to see the atheists work as well on the Holidays that the government has instituted.

NO MORE FREE RIDES, MOTHERfarkERS!!!

You are not being persecuted, you're taking advantage of the system!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Not very Christian of me.

GFY!!!


Another persecuted Christian; truly, he will be remembered as a martyr.zarberg: Also ... it's not right next to ground 0. It's over 2 minutes walking at a brisk pace from the very edge of ground zero.

Also, the community-center-with-a-mosque-in-it Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: So what if that's what some would view it as, that's not what it's meant to be. Atheists don't like it when Christians force their views on them. Why do atheists insist on using the court system to force their views on those who believe there is a God?

Are atheists saying they should put monuments to atheism instead? Are atheists saying that no religious displays should be allowed anywhere? Are you using your brain right now?
 
2010-08-19 12:42:47 PM  
Man, my post got double-farked there. Hahaha god damnit. Ballsack.
 
2010-08-19 12:43:12 PM  
Jument: I'm agnostic and I actively dislike most if not all organized religions.

However, I think Christmas is a nice tradition and I think that erecting memorial crosses like the ones in TFA is fine.

DIAF, atheist dbags.


LOL, guess /who/ called Christmas "a popish festival with no biblical justification" then?
 
2010-08-19 12:44:16 PM  
Good. that's what cemeteries are for. how many trashy memorials to the dead are really needed? If someone (a policeman, in this case) got killed on my front lawn, I wouldn't let anyone erect a friggin "memorial" of any kind on it.

Real-life example: a kid died down the street from my house 4 years ago; he was speeding and wrapped his car around a tree at a turn. So the kids friends and presumably family made the tree their shrine by leaving toys, flowers, books, and T-shirts stapled to this tree. Four years of NH weather later, the crap looks like someone dumped their garbage on the side of the road.

Celebrate their lives, not their deaths, you inconsiderate littering douchebags.
 
2010-08-19 12:47:51 PM  
img24.imageshack.us

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the Trinity. It is the mere 'Abracadabra' of the mountebanks calling themselves the 'priests of Jesus.'"

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
 
2010-08-19 12:48:53 PM  
Lurking Fear: Celebrate their lives, not their deaths, you inconsiderate littering douchebags.


Why can't Americans do this? Everything in this farked up country is centered squarely on the negative. Funerals are depressing as hell, cemeteries are just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and every person who doesn't die in their sleep in their 90's needs a farking memorial.

Get over yourselves people...
 
2010-08-19 12:49:01 PM  
Attila the Bun: The only reason I can think of to put crosses or other markers along a highway (to commemorate deaths) is to remind drivers just how dangerous the highways other drivers are.

Fixed that - the one closet to me "honors" a teenager whose brother killed him because he failed to yield at a left turn and got creamed by oncoming traffic.

I'm not even sure if there's a cross - I just know it looks trashy and at one time included a hockey stick.

The fact that it's now a left turn on arrow only serves as a reminder of that kid's stupidity too.
 
2010-08-19 12:50:09 PM  
So, do Hindus and Buddhists get Road Swastikas?
 
2010-08-19 12:54:25 PM  
Kazan: EvilEgg: Did they knock on his door to convince him to convert? If so, it was just a religious debate.

im sure they did.

my high school climbing buddies were mormons.

ace in your face: Not every christian feels that way.

find me a self-identifying christian who doesn't hold at least one of those beliefs that i cited. those were not exhaustive lists by any means either, and you still still fail in that challenge.

ace in your face: T And thank you for defending me, but leeds is on my ignore list since I don't want to get riled up by people I think are children, or who at least have the mental capacity of one.

well despite his agreement with my position in this thread i do have him farkied in my "conservative idiot" color with the comment "laissez-faire idiot, counterprotested petland protesters"

he loves puppy mills.

Duyogurt: Regarding number 2, I think you are confusing proselytizing with helping.

more precisely: proselytizing (in this context) is trying to convert someone to your faith. atheists lack faith, so by definition cannot do it.


I can't magic my friends or family through the internet for you. Sorry. There are plenty of Christians who are liberals, and who believe in the separation of church and state. I am sure you can find some liberal christians with a quick google. I see from your profile you live in a "flyover state" so that probably explains why you don't come across as many liberal Christians as I do in Seattle. Every gay pride parade, pro choice rally, or anti war event I have gone to has included christians, and any christian I know in Seattle is fairly liberal. Simply believing in god, and jesus, doesn't make you a hate monger. Proselytizing by the definition I am running on means to convert to ones beliefs or opinions religious or not.

/puppy mills suck
 
2010-08-19 12:55:12 PM  
wait a second...
farm4.static.flickr.com
...those sneaky wafer-munchers!
 
2010-08-19 12:58:17 PM  
mud_shark: The fact that it's now a left turn on arrow only serves as a reminder of that kid's stupidity too.


And really, that's the only memorial that intersection needed...
 
2010-08-19 12:59:55 PM  
I just stopped by to say I like the headline. I'm sorry, I'm interrupting a religion flame war you say? My mistake. Carry on.
 
2010-08-19 01:00:03 PM  
Gato Negro: Christmas is a federal holiday. Does that make it unconstitutional?

Sounds like 'endorsing a religion' to me...


The vast majority of people want Christmas off from work and school. And since the government isn't forcing people to worship or pray on Christmas, then it's not an endorcement, IMO.

There's being flexible and accomodating, and there's prostilyzing.


I may have misspelled that last word...
 
2010-08-19 01:02:09 PM  
To all of you who answered my inquiry with such snideness, I want to assure you I am not trolling.

I am not a constitutional scholar, therefore the question was simply that, a question. No, I have never read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli or Thomas Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists, but thanks to your replies, I now will.
 
2010-08-19 01:02:25 PM  
Kazan: any action prohibited to the federal congress is in turn prohibited to the states.

That isn't necessarily true. Some powers are also expressly prohibited to the states, including sponsoring or endorsing a religion, but states do retain powers that the federal government does not.
 
2010-08-19 01:07:06 PM  
Kazan: hell i farking posted Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli earlier in this thread!

You're my new Fark hero.

The whole "In God We Trust" thing came much later, as a result of the insidious Christians worming their way into Government. Harmless, indeed.
 
2010-08-19 01:07:10 PM  
DarnoKonrad:
If you want secularize the cross as well, you're going to get even more backlash from Christians.


I came in here to suggest we do just that. We atheists need to unite and gather around the symbol of the cross. Much like the Christians co-opted this symbol from the Egyptians and pagans or whatever, we must take the cross away from the Christians. I'm thinking we could have rainbow crosses for the queer atheists. We could make cross bongs for the pothead atheists. Hell, we could even have crossbows for the hunting atheists. The options truly are endless. Take up your cross today!
 
2010-08-19 01:08:07 PM  
Gato Negro: Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that people CAN change... (new window)

Were you as much of a judgmental, uppity, belittling jerk when you were a liberal?
 
2010-08-19 01:08:14 PM  
jxb465: I just stopped by to say I like the headline. I'm sorry, I'm interrupting a religion flame war you say? My mistake. Carry on.

Nah, it's not a full flame war. There's basically only one troll here- a knocked up magic-believer who tries very hard to pretend that the rules of logic can be bent to allow for her small-minded view of the world.

Yes, "ace in your face" I am talking about you.
 
2010-08-19 01:09:33 PM  
ace in your face: There are plenty of Christians who are liberals, and who believe in the separation of church and state

that doesn't mean they don't commit any of those above. any of them even liberal Christians commit the transgressions against mental/relationship health.

ace in your face: I see from your profile you live in a "flyover state" so that probably explains why you don't come across as many liberal Christians as I do in Seattle.

Seattle is demographically 1/3rd atheist. it's also where i want to get a job and move to.

ace in your face: Every gay pride parade, pro choice rally, or anti war event I have gone to has included christians, and any christian I know in Seattle is fairly liberal.

yeah.. you're missing the point. where i said that they might not share all those cited things, and there are things that i didn't cite i could add. but they will all have at least one of them.

ace in your face: Simply believing in god, and jesus, doesn't make you a hate monger.

and i didn't say that, don't misrepresent my statements.

it does, necessarily, make you irrational. irrational individuals are a danger to any democracy.

ShillinTheVillain: That isn't necessarily true. Some powers are also expressly prohibited to the states, including sponsoring or endorsing a religion, but states do retain powers that the federal government does not.

you know what i meant, nitpick :D
 
2010-08-19 01:11:30 PM  
ttintagel: There are atheists in Texas?

Are you serious?

You never heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair?

She founded this group - in Texas. It's been around for decades.

You know, all this bigotry between states - even if it's all meant in fun - is quite tiring.

It's okay to make fun of Florida or New Jersey, etc.....but say one word about a country (well, if that country is Mexico anyway) and you're a ZOMGRACIST!!!!!!

Get a clue.
 
2010-08-19 01:12:09 PM  
100 Watt Walrus: Gato Negro: Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that people CAN change... (new window)

Were you as much of a judgmental, uppity, belittling jerk when you were a liberal?


he was never a liberal, no matter what he claims. he never hand the mindset of one if he became what he is now.
 
2010-08-19 01:13:57 PM  
Kazan: Overfiend: Would a compromise be to erect the religious symbol of the fallen trooper's belief?

no, in this situation the arrangements at National Cemetaries cannot work as each marker is individual and separate from the rest - not part of a grouping. so the casual reasonable observer cannot see that other faiths are included.


Too bad - it would be cool to see a metal FSM memorial - "All hail his noodly holiness!"
 
2010-08-19 01:15:41 PM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum:
I'm not sure I get this. If no state money is used, and they aren't a dangerous obstacle in the ROW, then. . .

Since I RTFA I know that the only thing that was barred were the state using state money to put up the crosses in a project they did for state troopers who had died. It has no bearing on crosses put up by non state entities using none state money.
 
2010-08-19 01:16:31 PM  
i.imgur.com

Can the Muslims build a mosque next to the State Patrol building?
 
2010-08-19 01:19:28 PM  
ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other.

That depends on what sense of the word "proof" you have in mind.

a.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-19 01:20:10 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: 2. Atheists proselytize all the time. I know a guy



Well, that's all the proof we needed...


If that isn't your experience then good for you. It isn't my experience that Christians are all bigoted but some people in here disagree. Amazingly, we live in different parts of the country and are surrounded by people with different ideologies and personalities. That may seem hard for you to grasp, but peoples experiences are different, and they aren't invalidated just because you don't share it. If you have an experience then please, share it, but don't tell me mine is wrong just because it isn't yours.


Kazan: pwhp_67: ace in your face: If you get to pick and choose which religions to tolerate then you have already failed. As long school is based on facts and not opinions I am sure it will be fine.


It's not an opinion that leprechauns don't exist.

You saying that it is makes you part of the problem...

indeed any "x doesn't exist" assertion should be viewed as "there is no evidence of X, therefore practically we can consider X to not exist".


But it isn't. Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist" (which is usually followed by the insinuation "and if you don't believe me you are stupid and wrong"). Some people (yourself I suspect from what you have written) do believe a more expansive statement behind it but the truth is those two statements are not the same.
 
2010-08-19 01:20:52 PM  
good headline
 
2010-08-19 01:23:15 PM  
DesertDemonWY: lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?
_______________________________________

lh3.ggpht.com
"blah, blah, blah, blah, blahhhh...9-11"
 
2010-08-19 01:24:47 PM  
ace in your face: If that isn't your experience then good for you. It isn't my experience that Christians are all bigoted but some people in here disagree. Amazingly, we live in different parts of the country and are surrounded by people with different ideologies and personalities. That may seem hard for you to grasp, but peoples experiences are different, and they aren't invalidated just because you don't share it. If you have an experience then please, share it, but don't tell me mine is wrong just because it isn't yours.

Even if you were just posting your little anecdote as just that, an anecdote, it came across to me as if you were posting a fact, and we should shut up and respect it. I would guess others saw that as well, based on the reactions to it.
 
2010-08-19 01:24:59 PM  
ace in your face: But it isn't. Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist" (which is usually followed by the insinuation "and if you don't believe me you are stupid and wrong"). Some people (yourself I suspect from what you have written) do believe a more expansive statement behind it but the truth is those two statements are not the same.

practically the difference is nill.

believing in something for which there is no evidence IS retarded.

and despite your attempts to weasel out of it, it is also harmful to society.

especially when the crazies have a political party (the GOP), and the moderates don't oppose them. very few Christians actively oppose the fundamentalists, the rest are enablers.

and they ALL have at least one of the traits that is harmful to themselves and others (without even getting into the philosophical argument that believing in the unsupportable is in itself harmful).
 
2010-08-19 01:25:41 PM  
Joce678: jayg22:
Actually you are wrong. The Cemetery in Normandy is considered American Land.

Considered by who? The average redneck might think so but I'm pretty sure it's just the French being kind/respectful (which is as it should be...those people gave their lives in defense of freedom and deserve everybody's respect, regardless of nationality)

OTOH if somebody broke a law there I'm sure the French Police would be the ones to deal with it.


Or people who actaully know about History...

On June 8, 1944, the U.S. First Army established the temporary cemetery, the first American cemetery on European soil in World War II.[1] After the war, the present-day cemetery was established a short distance to the East of the original site.

Like all other overseas American cemeteries in France for World War I and II, France has granted the United States a special, perpetual concession to the land occupied by the cemetery, free of any charge or any tax. This cemetery is managed by the American government, under Congressional acts that provide yearly financial support for maintaining them, with most military and civil personnel employed abroad. The U.S. flag flies over these granted soils.[1]
 
2010-08-19 01:26:43 PM  
ace in your face: .....

again: find me a christian who doesn't do AT LEAST ONE of these

Kazan: they infringe upon my freedom when they pass patently religious laws - laws against "obscenity", laws against "gay marriage" (note: i'm straight and married, i'm speaking hypothetically), laws supporting their position. they infringe upon my freedom when they attack school curriculum based on their beliefs.

they harm my physical health when they bomb doctor's offices, and murder doctors. when they ban medical research because their religion doesn't agree with it. when they attack science because it disagrees with them. they harm people's physical health when they refuse to teach them proper sex education. they harm my physical health when the insist unneeded, irreversible, unjustifiable medical procedures be performed on infant males altering their anatomy.

they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that various natural healthy things (masturbation, non-martial sex, non-traditional relationships [between consenting adults]) are "bad"/"evil"/"sinful". they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that mental illness is "demons" that must be "exorcised" (Yes this still happens in the US).



/this is by no means an exhaustive list
 
2010-08-19 01:28:31 PM  
jayg22: Or people who actaully know about History...

and i've already explained at least twice why it's not a constitutional issue and how it's different from this case...

keep beating that dead horse.
 
2010-08-19 01:28:37 PM  
Kazan: ace in your face: There are plenty of Christians who are liberals, and who believe in the separation of church and state

that doesn't mean they don't commit any of those above. any of them even liberal Christians commit the transgressions against mental/relationship health.

ace in your face: I see from your profile you live in a "flyover state" so that probably explains why you don't come across as many liberal Christians as I do in Seattle.

Seattle is demographically 1/3rd atheist. it's also where i want to get a job and move to.

ace in your face: Every gay pride parade, pro choice rally, or anti war event I have gone to has included christians, and any christian I know in Seattle is fairly liberal.

yeah.. you're missing the point. where i said that they might not share all those cited things, and there are things that i didn't cite i could add. but they will all have at least one of them.

ace in your face: Simply believing in god, and jesus, doesn't make you a hate monger.

and i didn't say that, don't misrepresent my statements.

it does, necessarily, make you irrational. irrational individuals are a danger to any democracy.

ShillinTheVillain: That isn't necessarily true. Some powers are also expressly prohibited to the states, including sponsoring or endorsing a religion, but states do retain powers that the federal government does not.

you know what i meant, nitpick :D


Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed, so if you want to make another list so I can refute then feel free- but you can't just win on "there are totally more I could bring up but I am not gonna". I don't think it is irrational to believe in god by definition, so I don't agree with you about that. I think its as silly as when people say "OMG he doesn't believe in god thats so dumb I can't vote for him". Poppycock. I vote based on the beliefs and values a candidate carries, and if they believe/don't believe in god in their down time thats no biggie to me. However if in their downtime they engage in other activity I feel is morally wrong then I do judge them for it.
 
2010-08-19 01:31:23 PM  
ace in your face: That may seem hard for you to grasp, but peoples experiences are different, and they aren't invalidated just because you don't share it.

The problem is not the validity of the experience, but the validity of the interpretation ascribed to that experience.
 
2010-08-19 01:36:09 PM  
abb3w: ace in your face: That may seem hard for you to grasp, but peoples experiences are different, and they aren't invalidated just because you don't share it.

The problem is not the validity of the experience, but the validity of the interpretation ascribed to that experience.


Would it help if I revise to "A lot of Atheists I know proselytize all the time". I figured that by definition of me typing it it would indicate that this is MY experience. I know tons of super liberal christians. Apparently thats not everyones experience either.
 
2010-08-19 01:36:25 PM  
My only problem with the crosses is they are attempting to "honor" those who deserve none.


/ The only good.......
 
2010-08-19 01:40:27 PM  
ace in your face: Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed,

bullshiat, even the most liberal Christians i know at minimum subscribe to the virgin/whore dichotomy w/ the accompany male vs female double standard.
 
2010-08-19 01:40:47 PM  
ace in your face: But it isn't. Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist" (which is usually followed by the insinuation "and if you don't believe me you are stupid and wrong"). Some people (yourself I suspect from what you have written) do believe a more expansive statement behind it but the truth is those two statements are not the same.

I still think you're giving religion some special privileges here, just for being religion. There's no teapot, and no invisible fire-breathing dragon. There's no Flying Spaghetti Monster, no Thor, no Zeus, no Leprechauns, no Loch Ness Monster, no Invisible Pink Unicorn, no perpetual motion machine. None of these things actually exist within the boundaries of what we mean when we use the word "exist."

But, oh, when it comes to modern religion, we have to break it down to very fine distinctions to avoid annoying people who don't think orbital teapots, invisible fire-breathing dragons, flying spaghetti monsters, Thor, Zeus, leprechauns, Loch Ness monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or perpetual motion machines exist either.

It's pedantic and it's tiresome.
 
2010-08-19 01:41:42 PM  
ace in your face: but don't tell me mine is wrong just because it isn't yours.


I wasn't telling you that you were wrong because I have a different experience. I was pointing out how asinine a statement like: 2) Group X does Y because I know one guy who did this...


That's farking stupid. You're getting upset with people for saying Christians do ___________ , which they're basing on the actions of millions of people, because you know some that don't but then you write:

ace in your face: 2. Atheists proselytize all the time.

And back it up with one guy doing something one time...
 
2010-08-19 01:42:52 PM  
ace in your face: but you can't just win on "there are totally more I could bring up but I am not gonna".

i didn't say i wasn't going to, i just made a point of saying that it wasn't an exhaustive list. the ones that aren't on it are the ones that i don't readily recall and require me sitting and thinking about for a while to remember.

ace in your face: Apparently thats not everyones experience either.

you're seeing america through the filter of the city with the highest percentage of self-identifying atheists (at 1/3rd of the population).
 
2010-08-19 01:43:13 PM  
ace in your face: Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist"


Yeah, because it doesn't. Writers came up with leprechauns in fairy tales they told in the Middle Ages. They're not real. Neither are the monsters in your closet or under the bed. It's not that hard to comprehend...
 
2010-08-19 01:48:21 PM  
Kazan: ace in your face: Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed,

bullshiat, even the most liberal Christians i know at minimum subscribe to the virgin/whore dichotomy w/ the accompany male vs female double standard.


Most people I know, atheists and Christians alike, don't think you should be a whore because its stupid and gross (and we call man whores out too). Most people I know don't base that idea on anything religious though, and I don't have any friends in Seattle that have (or even thought to) save their virginity for marriage or any other nonsense. That isn't something all christians believe in.

/I do know some crazy christians now, but thats just because my husband is in the Army. I can see how if those were the only ones you had ever known your ideas on it would be skewed.
 
2010-08-19 01:48:53 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist"


Yeah, because it doesn't. Writers came up with leprechauns in fairy tales they told in the Middle Ages. They're not real. Neither are the monsters in your closet or under the bed. It's not that hard to comprehend...


Once one truly believes in magic they lose the ability to follow logic.

Just let this one go- she'll never understand your arguments and she seems unwilling to abort her unborn child even though we asked her politely.

In short- take the cool hand luke appropch with this dingbat. There are some [wo]men you just can't reach...
 
2010-08-19 01:50:21 PM  
ace in your face:
Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed


Most of them are holy commandments from the Bible and are therefore a requirement for a place in Heaven. I hope you point this out to your Christian friends next time you see them.

Think: It's their immortal soul that's in danger, you wouldn't want them to go to hell on a technicality, would you?
 
2010-08-19 01:53:44 PM  
ace in your face: Would it help if I revise to "A lot of Atheists I know proselytize all the time". I figured that by definition of me typing it it would indicate that this is MY experience. I know tons of super liberal christians. Apparently thats not everyones experience either.

I have a problem with the "proselytize" part of this, using it as an exclusively negative discriptor. If someone says something that you truly think is wrong and quite possibly harmful to themselves and society, is it wrong to try to convince them otherwise?

If someone says "the Government is evil and we should all live on ranches with automatic weapons and keep the Government out" is it wrong to try and convince him that things aren't as bad as he thinks, and that living on a ranch with machine guns is probably harmful?

If someone says "these horrible books should be banned" is it wrong to try and convince them of the benefits of free speech and how banning books is wrong?

Why is it wrong to try and convince someone that religion might be wrong and bad? What makes religion different from any other opinion? Why is it that if you take an informed and passionate view against religion that it makes you equivalent to someone who roams around door to door trying to sell their god?
 
2010-08-19 01:53:53 PM  
ace in your face: Would it help if I revise to "A lot of Atheists I know proselytize all the time".

Some, as it helps suggest that you may be able to distinguish between your personal circle of acquaintance and a statistically representative sample of the national population. Even then, however, I'd statistically expect that's still horribly inaccurate; most Atheists don't talk in their sleep, for example.

There's also the question of what behaviors that you would consider to constitute proselytizing (independent of creed preached), and whether you are more likely to notice and recall such behavior when the viewpoint is more unlike your own.
 
2010-08-19 01:55:38 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: Some people do truly mean "that doesn't exist"


Yeah, because it doesn't. Writers came up with leprechauns in fairy tales they told in the Middle Ages. They're not real. Neither are the monsters in your closet or under the bed. It's not that hard to comprehend...


I don't believe that bigfoot is real either but if someone says they saw it I am not going to sit there and try to convince them they are stupid. Its a waste of my time. If they have seen something, or felt something then they have their "proof". Its useless to tell them otherwise and it would just make me look like an asshole.

Kazan: ace in your face: but you can't just win on "there are totally more I could bring up but I am not gonna".

i didn't say i wasn't going to, i just made a point of saying that it wasn't an exhaustive list. the ones that aren't on it are the ones that i don't readily recall and require me sitting and thinking about for a while to remember.

ace in your face: Apparently thats not everyones experience either.

you're seeing america through the filter of the city with the highest percentage of self-identifying atheists (at 1/3rd of the population).


I'm not only seeing that side, I have seen other sides. You are telling me a compassionate christian doesn't exist and I know tons. I also know a lot of people (being that I am around a higher percentage of atheists probably) that do absolutely proselytize atheism. I realize it isn't the experience of the country or the world but you are denying that my experience exists, when it does. Now, here in northern NY where I live now (or as they call it "gods country", I get to be a lot more annoyed with crazy christian dingbats and I usually get to spend time telling them why they are incorrect too.
 
2010-08-19 01:55:59 PM  
ace in your face: Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed,


That's fine, but what percentage of practicing Christians don't believe in those things? A small percentage?

Just because you know what amounts to a handful of Christians doesn't mean your experiences represent the majority of Christians. And I'm just referring to the Christians in this country.

As far as practicing Christians not believing the things that Kazan listed: Why do they still attend mass and hand over their money if they no longer hold the same beliefs as their church?

Seems kind of silly...
 
2010-08-19 02:00:29 PM  
ace in your face: Most people I know, atheists and Christians alike, don't think you should be a whore because its stupid and gross (and we call man whores out too).

the virgin/whore dichotomy is litterally that. there is a difference between what you and i were call a whore/manwhore (Someone who has unsafe casual sex) than what they would call a whore (a girl who EVER has had extra-martial sex)
 
2010-08-19 02:02:34 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed,


That's fine, but what percentage of practicing Christians don't believe in those things? A small percentage?

Just because you know what amounts to a handful of Christians doesn't mean your experiences represent the majority of Christians. And I'm just referring to the Christians in this country.

As far as practicing Christians not believing the things that Kazan listed: Why do they still attend mass and hand over their money if they no longer hold the same beliefs as their church?

Seems kind of silly...


qft
 
2010-08-19 02:03:12 PM  
ace in your face: I don't believe that bigfoot is real either but if someone says they saw it I am not going to sit there and try to convince them they are stupid. Its a waste of my time. If they have seen something, or felt something then they have their "proof". Its useless to tell them otherwise and it would just make me look like an asshole.


That's really not the point you know. You're taking the position that all members of society have to tolerate anyone's belief in anything, no matter how absurd, unless we can prove beyond all doubt that it doesn't actually exist.

If my kid writes a paper for school about the magical pink unicorn she spent the summer playing with, the teacher can't tell her that she has to write about something that actually happened since it can't be proven that it didn't.

How can you not understand how detrimental to society being such a giant PC pussy is?

I'm sorry I missed a week of work, but you can't fire me because I was abducted by aliens. That's why I wasn't in. PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Sometimes you have to call people out on their bullshiat, that doesn't always make you an asshole...
 
2010-08-19 02:03:14 PM  
ace in your face: I don't believe that bigfoot is real either but if someone says they saw it I am not going to sit there and try to convince them they are stupid. Its a waste of my time. If they have seen something, or felt something then they have their "proof". Its useless to tell them otherwise and it would just make me look like an asshole.

More likely if you try and convince someone that they probably didn't really see bigfoot/aliens/ghosts/god they get mean and defensive. People who construct these sorts of things into their realities seem to have other problems that prevent them from examining their viewpoints rationally. You never see them sit down and say "well I thought I saw what I might call a ghost, but ghosts seem really unlikely so let's look into this further before I start claiming weird stuff in front of other people." The ones I've encountered all say something more like "IT WAS A GHOST THE LIGHTS WERE FLICKERING AND I FELT COLD AND THERE WAS A SHADOW AND GHOSTS ARE REAL YOU JUST DON'T BELIEVE ME STOP CALLING ME A LIAR!"
 
2010-08-19 02:03:48 PM  
Joce678: ace in your face:
Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed

Most of them are holy commandments from the Bible and are therefore a requirement for a place in Heaven. I hope you point this out to your Christian friends next time you see them.

Think: It's their immortal soul that's in danger, you wouldn't want them to go to hell on a technicality, would you?


The ten commandments aren't very hard to follow.

Epicedion: ace in your face: Would it help if I revise to "A lot of Atheists I know proselytize all the time". I figured that by definition of me typing it it would indicate that this is MY experience. I know tons of super liberal christians. Apparently thats not everyones experience either.

I have a problem with the "proselytize" part of this, using it as an exclusively negative discriptor. If someone says something that you truly think is wrong and quite possibly harmful to themselves and society, is it wrong to try to convince them otherwise?

If someone says "the Government is evil and we should all live on ranches with automatic weapons and keep the Government out" is it wrong to try and convince him that things aren't as bad as he thinks, and that living on a ranch with machine guns is probably harmful?

If someone says "these horrible books should be banned" is it wrong to try and convince them of the benefits of free speech and how banning books is wrong?

Why is it wrong to try and convince someone that religion might be wrong and bad? What makes religion different from any other opinion? Why is it that if you take an informed and passionate view against religion that it makes you equivalent to someone who roams around door to door trying to sell their god?


Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.
 
2010-08-19 02:05:50 PM  
ace in your face: Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.

Why does belief in god get to be that special?
 
2010-08-19 02:09:14 PM  
Joce678: Weezer808:
No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?

The article was about putting up twelve foot crosses on public land. Me? I'd say no (and the courts did too).

I'm sure if I requested a satanic symbol put on the site of my death the Christians would be up in arms over it. Do unto others, etc.

If somebody wants to put up a cross on private land then it's a completely different argument (though it seems to be what you're saying...?)


You can put up your satanic symbol and I won't care. And since Christians wish each other "Godspeed" or "I'll see you in God's Kingdom", I guess instead I will say to you, "have fun in Hell"?
 
2010-08-19 02:09:39 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: Most of the christians I know don't believe in ANY of the things you listed,


That's fine, but what percentage of practicing Christians don't believe in those things? A small percentage?

Just because you know what amounts to a handful of Christians doesn't mean your experiences represent the majority of Christians. And I'm just referring to the Christians in this country.

As far as practicing Christians not believing the things that Kazan listed: Why do they still attend mass and hand over their money if they no longer hold the same beliefs as their church?

Seems kind of silly...


A lot of churches themselves are liberal, not just the parishioners who attend them.
Kazan: ace in your face: Most people I know, atheists and Christians alike, don't think you should be a whore because its stupid and gross (and we call man whores out too).

the virgin/whore dichotomy is litterally that. there is a difference between what you and i were call a whore/manwhore (Someone who has unsafe casual sex) than what they would call a whore (a girl who EVER has had extra-martial sex)


Yes and most people who believe in god that I know engage or have engaged in premarital sex. Yet they still believe in god. Not just Christians, but Jews, and Muslims too.
 
Ral
2010-08-19 02:11:11 PM  
Molavian: 1nsanilicious: I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?

I dunno, they seem to pull some of the most retarded, asshole sh*t I've seen, though. Easily on the level of christer fundies.


Yeah it's people like this who make my husband look bad. He's an atheist, but he's not in your face about it, and certainly doesn't get involved in any of that retarded "activism".

This thing with the roadside crosses is just mean-spirited.

As my husband has commented, "There are more important issues atheists could be involved with than whether the word 'God' is on our money."
 
2010-08-19 02:11:26 PM  
ace in your face: Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.

But this is the very core of why you are illogical- you believe that there is one.

Why exactly is it that we can't point out your fundamental flaw? We are allowed to point out "aspects" of your logical shortcomings but not the underlying miscalculation on your part that has allowed you to think such gibberish?

What if our pointing out your misunderstandings is done in the hopes that you actually begin to understand at some point and become a better person (or at lease one less dangerous to society)? Then can we tackle your core deficiency?
 
2010-08-19 02:13:04 PM  
Epicedion: ace in your face: Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.

Why does belief in god get to be that special?


To put this another way, if I, for example, believe that Earth is a big lie and that we really live on the planet Wasdfkhjf in the Ioijfl sector of the Great Intergalactic Empire and it's all a big coverup by a government we have no access to or evidence of, then trying to convince me otherwise would be trying to fundamentally altering part of my basic views of reality and shouldn't ever be done? This view is silly and unprovable, but should give you some insight into how this idea that there's an all-powerful super-being just might be viewed by someone who doesn't hold that belief.

Of course, if 80% of the world believed it, I'm sure the people who said "you know, this seems ridiculous and maybe we should stop" would probably get yelled at a lot, too.
 
2010-08-19 02:13:41 PM  
holy fark sticks this is retarded... It is not their job to judge based on what hypothetical people might think. also, road crosses are not an endorsement of a religion, they are merely a recognition that someone dead was of a certain religion... god I hope this gets overturned...
 
2010-08-19 02:13:56 PM  
Kazan: again: find me a christian who doesn't do AT LEAST ONE of these

There are more than a few; it's not uncommon (in my acquaintance) for liberal Catholics being fine with sex education in public schools, evolution, stem cell research, and legalizing gay marriage. While it's hard to turn up many "fine" with abortion, finding those who consider re-criminalization a stupidly unacceptable approach to reducing the abortion rate is also not that challenging.

I suspect both my parents would qualify, and probably at least one of my sisters. (I'm not sure about my oldest sib's position on abortion these days.)
 
2010-08-19 02:15:39 PM  
Magorn: mark12A: Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....

If you look at file name of the picture you've just posted you'd know that i's a pciture of Muesse-argonne cemetary in FRANCE. Now I understand some farkers can be slightly slow, or shall we say, "tardy"; but can you explain to me what the fark the US Constitution has to do with the rule for a FRENCH cemetary?

So the only question is, are you really dumb enough not to understand this or were you deliberately obfuscating the issue with an appeal to emotion?


The Christians took over FRANCE? Why was I not notified?
 
2010-08-19 02:17:47 PM  
pwhp_67: ace in your face: I don't believe that bigfoot is real either but if someone says they saw it I am not going to sit there and try to convince them they are stupid. Its a waste of my time. If they have seen something, or felt something then they have their "proof". Its useless to tell them otherwise and it would just make me look like an asshole.


That's really not the point you know. You're taking the position that all members of society have to tolerate anyone's belief in anything, no matter how absurd, unless we can prove beyond all doubt that it doesn't actually exist.

If my kid writes a paper for school about the magical pink unicorn she spent the summer playing with, the teacher can't tell her that she has to write about something that actually happened since it can't be proven that it didn't.

How can you not understand how detrimental to society being such a giant PC pussy is?

I'm sorry I missed a week of work, but you can't fire me because I was abducted by aliens. That's why I wasn't in. PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Sometimes you have to call people out on their bullshiat, that doesn't always make you an asshole...


The teacher should call and talk to the parents. Thats what parents are for- breaking down childrens dreams.

Epicedion: ace in your face: Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.

Why does belief in god get to be that special?


It isn't that its "special". Belief or disbelief in god is based on your experience (or lack there of). I know people who believe in god because thy think the way things work out are too perfect to be designed by nature or happenstance, and I know people who believe that god has in some way preformed a miracle in their life. Conversely I know people who don't feel god exists because of the amount of sad things that happen in the world, or the lack of "proof" of god. Either way, a persons belief or disbelief in god is entirely based on their "proof" of a feeling or a lack of any real proof of the contrary. To argue that they should feel a different way then they do is stupid to me.

Conversely, there are statistics to back up why a political view is important, and there is a constitution to compare laws to if there is any question. There are arguments and counter arguements, and you will definitely have "feelings" about some views, but it isn't the same 100% faith based feeling that a person has with religion.

I don't think its wrong to argue different aspects of religion (with someone who is a willing participant) but the fundamental belief that there is or is not a god is a silly thing to argue.
 
2010-08-19 02:20:07 PM  
Epicedion: Epicedion: ace in your face: Trying to convince someone about an aspect of their religion, or an aspect of their political beliefs isn't the same thing as trying to fundamentally change their beliefs on whether there is/isn't a god.

Why does belief in god get to be that special?

To put this another way, if I, for example, believe that Earth is a big lie and that we really live on the planet Wasdfkhjf in the Ioijfl sector of the Great Intergalactic Empire and it's all a big coverup by a government we have no access to or evidence of, then trying to convince me otherwise would be trying to fundamentally altering part of my basic views of reality and shouldn't ever be done? This view is silly and unprovable, but should give you some insight into how this idea that there's an all-powerful super-being just might be viewed by someone who doesn't hold that belief.

Of course, if 80% of the world believed it, I'm sure the people who said "you know, this seems ridiculous and maybe we should stop" would probably get yelled at a lot, too.


I am sure you would find followers. The flat earth society still exists and there are pictures of the earth.
 
2010-08-19 02:20:15 PM  
ace in your face: I don't think its wrong to argue different aspects of religion (with someone who is a willing participant) but the fundamental belief that there is or is not a god is a silly thing to argue.

Which is why you fail.
 
2010-08-19 02:25:31 PM  
Ral: Yeah it's people like this who make my husband look bad. He's an atheist, but he's not in your face about it, and certainly doesn't get involved in any of that retarded "activism".

Please name one atheist that has ever accomplished anything politically for religious freedom, atheism, or atheists, and has not been "in your face about it."

Ral: This thing with the roadside crosses is just mean-spirited.

No, the thing with the roadside cross was that the cross in question was unconstitutional. The government spent money to put a big religious symbol on the side of the road with a big state organization symbol on it. They might as well have hung a sign that said "The Utah State Highway Patrol Loves Jesus." They aren't allowed to do this, so they should never have done it in the first place. If we all said "oh, well, that's okay I guess" then we'd see it happen again and again and again, each time being just as unconstitutional as the first. Stitches hurt, but we've got to repair these damages to religious freedom and religion/government separation somehow, starting somewhere.

Ral: As my husband has commented, "There are more important issues atheists could be involved with than whether the word 'God' is on our money."

There are. However it's still an issue, and atheists aren't an organization. There wasn't a collection of dues and a vote on which religious group to piss off this time.

Besides, what you just said your husband said is the same thing that people always say whenever these issues come up: atheists could apparently always be doing something more important than...

1) Putting that word out that disbelief is okay, on billboards or buses
2) Trying to get Under God taken out of the Pledge
3) Trying to get God taken off the money
4) Trying to get rid of school-sponsored prayers
5) Trying to separate religious iconography from the justice system
6) Trying to keep religious displays off of public property and utilizing public funds
7) Trying to keep religious organizations from receiving special privileges from the government

And so on.

What, then, would you/he consider a worthwhile issue for atheists?
 
2010-08-19 02:26:07 PM  
I'm a stickler to the Establishment Clause but this just seems like a badly reasoned opinion to me. (Of course, it could have something to do with the CNN interpretation of a relatively long opinion.)

The "expressly visiting" comparison to Arlington and other national cemeteries is not apt: EVERYBODY who has a loved one buried at a cemetery must see the crosses whether they like to or not. Opining that someone's wife/mother/husband/father/son/daughter/etc will choose to stay away from a grave because it is surrounded by religious symbols they may not agree with is plain stupid. In that way, it is the EXACT same situation as the crosses on the side of the highway.

However, if ONLY crosses were being planted with no consideration to the dead person's actual religion (or desires), then I would see a problem. The state, in that case, would not be neutral towards religion but would be expressly endorsing Christianity. The article is somewhat vague on this point but this would be a much more relevant comparison to the national cemeteries, where any belief (or non-belief) symbol may be chosen to mark a grave, not just the cross.
 
2010-08-19 02:33:43 PM  
schattenteufel:

Good man. Of course he did have to be in a war against a global superpower to accomplish it.
 
2010-08-19 02:35:20 PM  
ace in your face:
The ten commandments aren't very hard to follow.


Are you making sure they don't cook or wash the dishes on Sunday?

If not, then...

www.apuritansmind.com