Cross about crosses
- Thread starter SouthernN'Proud
- Start date
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
update...
Family members of fallen highway patrol officers and their supporters are rallying in Utah to fend off a lawsuit from atheists claiming that crosses erected on public highways in honor of those officers are unconstitutional, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
The state chapter of American Atheists Inc. says the officers should be memorialized, but not with Christian symbols. "For so long, religious symbols and symbology have received special preferences and treatment. When we ask for a level playing field, they scream intolerance," says the group's Michael Rivers.
Doug Wright of KSL radio, who has championed the cause of family members who want the crosses to remain, called the suit egregious and insensitive. "This time they've crossed the line," he said.
**end**
so it isn't the distraction factor. it's the jesus factor.
Family members of fallen highway patrol officers and their supporters are rallying in Utah to fend off a lawsuit from atheists claiming that crosses erected on public highways in honor of those officers are unconstitutional, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
The state chapter of American Atheists Inc. says the officers should be memorialized, but not with Christian symbols. "For so long, religious symbols and symbology have received special preferences and treatment. When we ask for a level playing field, they scream intolerance," says the group's Michael Rivers.
Doug Wright of KSL radio, who has championed the cause of family members who want the crosses to remain, called the suit egregious and insensitive. "This time they've crossed the line," he said.
**end**
so it isn't the distraction factor. it's the jesus factor.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
So when a graveyard is desecrated, where are the atheists calling for prosecution of the offenders. Please don't tell me that they do, because that's page-one news.
Where are the atheists when someones freedom of religion when a group is ridiculed in the streets for their beliefs? Please don't tell me they protest against that because that would be page-one news as well.
What we see is the above. A private group puts crosses along the side of the road to honor the fallen, and they get their panties in a bunch because it espouses a religion that they claim they don't even believe in. So now I ask you...are they atheists, or anti-Christian?
chcr
Too cute for words
Gato_Solo said:
Apples and oranges, Gato, apples and oranges. Why should I care if someone desecrates a graveyard? OTOH, if I have freedom of religion, everone else needs to have it too. Otherwise it means nothing. Where are the atheists? Where are the christians, the muslims, the jews. Likely one or another group of them is doing the ridiculing. Frankly, if it weren't your group being ridiculed or put upon in this case, I wonder how much you'd really care.
What we really see above is a group of whining, self-righteous jerks doing there very best to piss someone off in a childish bid for attention and, like more children, the press gives it to them. Their religious beliefs or lack thereof have no real bearing on the situation.
Too many people think freedom means that you're free to be like me.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
That's where you are wrong. An assault on any religion is an assault on all religion. Just as an assault on a non-believer is an assault on all religions. They are the exact same thing...intolerance. If you don't like [fill in the blank] that's a personal choice. If you actively go against [fill in the blank] that's a violation of somebodies right to existence.
chcr said:
Which is exactly why it's not apples and oranges. I've been saying this rather consistently my whole time here, and it never seems to sink in. An assault on one is an assault on all. Logically speaking, an atheist shouldn't be bothered by anything religious at all, unless someone is trying to force them into said religion. For that, see above. If you don't believe, you don't believe. It's rather simple, really. Why should other people believing in something that has no value for you be bothersome?
catocom
Well-Known Member
See I knew this PC shit was going to be trouble from the start.
Some see the glass as half empty, some half full.
This is where I differ from some atheist on the subject.
Just like the Christmas thing, and other religious stuff in general.....
The way I understand it, and the way this country was founded, things
should alway be "inclusive" not "exclusive".
Edited: for spelling
Some see the glass as half empty, some half full.
This is where I differ from some atheist on the subject.
Just like the Christmas thing, and other religious stuff in general.....
The way I understand it, and the way this country was founded, things
should alway be "inclusive" not "exclusive".
Edited: for spelling
chcr
Too cute for words
All correct except that we're all human and sometimes fail to react in a logical manner. Sink in? It doesn't need to sink in, it's been in there all along. Tell you the truth though, The ones that actively try to foist their religion on me don't piss me off as much as the ones that simply dismiss atheism as, "Oh, your just mad at god" or "nobody is really an atheist." I can be as creatively rude as I want to, but the second group are just being deliberately obtuse and I have no patience for that at all. Not much patience under any circumstances, I guess.Gato_Solo said:
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:All correct except that we're all human and sometimes fail to react in a logical manner. Sink in? It doesn't need to sink in, it's been in there all along. Tell you the truth though, The ones that actively try to foist their religion on me don't piss me off as much as the ones that simply dismiss atheism as, "Oh, your just mad at god" or "nobody is really an atheist." I can be as creatively rude as I want to, but the second group are just being deliberately obtuse and I have no patience for that at all. Not much patience under any circumstances, I guess.
I save such vitriol for the ones who do what we're discussing now. If someone claims to be an atheist, and then proceeds to protest religion, then they aren't truly an atheist.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Gotholic said:It is perfectly constitutional for them to display those crosses. Christianity iis the fabric of our nation.
I'm sure they would love to remove these...
Christianity is the majority of the nation. Not the fabric. If it was the fabric, then the ACLU wouldn't exist...Each religion is equally protected...as is the right not to have a belief system. That means that the government cannot create a religion, and show favoritism to that which it created. The government may, however, allow private observances of religion upon public ground unless such observances are against any existing law. It also permits people who are duly elected to do the same thing, as long as they are not speaking for the state when they do so.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Gotholic said:
The original startup for the ACLU was the American Socialist Party. The reason I used them is because they have a penchant for suing to remove any religious symboloism from any public venue...even if such venue was created by/for religious purposes.