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 642
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19676 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»



642 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 642 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report