It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No clemency for cross! War Memorial Cross must go!

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThere's no real evidence for Creation, you just don't think evolution is true, so ID is the only possible explanation.


There is not? Why not teach ID as a theory then? Well because it assumes there is a Creator.


Evolution is a religion in my opinion and that is called humanism.......if you can teach one as theory then teach all theories until you have the laws, then theories will not be necessary now will they?

It is the God thing that so turns the secular crowd off and it is why they do not support ID.



A Religion

For atheists and humanists evolution is a religion, i.e., a system of faith in the doctrine of materialism. It is a dark web of untruth and doubt spun by the master of deceit and his cohorts. It is designed to spread the seeds of doubt and to trip unsuspecting, gullible victims by its mystery and intrigue. It should not be surprising that Satan always puts a twist on a lie to make it appear as the truth. And, the deceived become adherents to a philosophy from which spring all manner of evil ideas including: denial of God and His Word, cheapness of life, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, murder, unseemly lifestyles, etc., all of which are manifestations of the heathen mentality. Cloaked in the intellectual garb of respectability by so-called scientists who are either ignorant of the facts or choose to believe the fantasy, it is probably one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the minds of men in the name of science.

atheists and humanists evolution is a religion

[edit on 18-8-2005 by edsinger]




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
There is not? Why not teach ID as a theory then? Well because it assumes there is a Creator.


No, it has nothing to do with a creator. They don't teach creation as a theory because there is no scientific evidence or indications whatsoever that support a 'theory' of Creation.



Evolution is a religion in my opinion and that is called humanism.......if you can teach one as theory then teach all theories until you have the laws, then theories will not be necessary now will they?


From Wikipedia:
a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.



A Religion

For atheists and humanists evolution is a religion, i.e., a system of faith in the doctrine of materialism.


That's Christian propaganda, Ed. Show me an Atheist pamphlet that says they're a religion and I'll believe it. Show me an unbiased source that has these claims. Of course the Christians want to make evolution a religion so creation and evolution can be taught as equal theories, but according to scientific theory, creation is just a hypothesis.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
OK let me not try to prove Creation because you do not believe in a Creator, fiar enough.


But lets look at evolution a minute shall we as this is not the subject of this thread.....I will link to it and we can continue.




Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
No memorial should be marked with a cross unless 100% of those it honours are Christian.

That is common sense otherwise you are giving a false impression of those it is remembering and in a way dishonouring their memory.

I am not Christians so why would I want my grave to be be marked by a Christian cross??

Now It's wrong to tear down every memorial cross because they are historical monuments that serve to demonstrate both the beauty and the arrogance of humanity but shuch things should never be allowed to happen again.

The Church should have no bearing or influence on the state whatesover and that includes the population of that state who don't beleive in the Christian God.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Well as it turns out it appears that a "Kennedy" steps in??? I must be crazy! I have finally lost it....hehe not quite..


Supreme Court justice
saves cross – for now
Kennedy steps in as 'national treasure'
weeks from removal by judge's order

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy intervened in a 17-year battle over a large cross on city property in San Diego, allowing the 29-foot structure to remain until its supporters complete a legal challenge.

As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the city to remove the structure by Aug. 1 or face a fine of $5,000 a day. Thompson ruled the cross unconstitutional in 1991, but the case has remained in courts and become an issue of public policy.

The dispute was started by an atheist charging the cross – the centerpiece of a national war-veterans memorial – violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

Kennedy issued a stay, without comment, that stops any legal proceedings while supporters of the cross battle in court.





A Kennedy to the rescue?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   
that cross has never been a war memorial

it was dedicated on easter sunday

it has been used as a background for christian ceremonies

there was never a plaque, sign, or even a friggin pamphlet regarding it as a war memorial

it is a latin cross, a purely religious symbol
on public grounds

it breaks the very first ammendment



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

it breaks the very first ammendment


Then we must immediately tear down the Supreme Court building shouldn't we? I has a picture of Moses, heaven forbid that of course because that would offend the Buddist in this nation.

When will the non-Christians leave us alone? Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, if one doesn't like it fine but don't hold the majority of your fellow Americans back just because you don't like looking at a Cross. I guess what Madonna will be doing is just fine then?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

it breaks the very first ammendment


Then we must immediately tear down the Supreme Court building shouldn't we? I has a picture of Moses, heaven forbid that of course because that would offend the Buddist in this nation.

When will the non-Christians leave us alone? Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, if one doesn't like it fine but don't hold the majority of your fellow Americans back just because you don't like looking at a Cross. I guess what Madonna will be doing is just fine then?


there's the difference, the buddhists, we're laid back

we didn't care when muslim extremists tore down the giant statues of the buddha in afghanistan

follow our example, we don't really care about our religous symbols, because that's all they are, symbols



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well lets look at that a minute, SF, LA, SD all of these are some of the most liberal cities in the nation.
50% 60% who knows but it is a hell of a lot less than say Indiana or Kansas.


Ed, now I KNOW you've slipped a cog. San Diego is a bastion of Republican, conservative, God-fearing citizens. I thought everybody knew that. My brother just ran for public office, that's when I found out just how conservative San Diego was. And most Republicans are Christian, wouldn't you say? Jusst because a city may be liberal doesn't mean they don't have any Christians, anyway.

California is still predominantly Christian, as Nygdan says, maybe 80%, at least. Now these Christians may not go to Church every Sunday, but they still consider themselves to be Christian and that is their religion.

I like the idea of adding other religious symbols. I'm not Christian and wouldn't want to be buried under a cross, but I would be fine if all religions were represented.

And you would be surprised how many devout Christians live right in San Franciso city, many of them gay. I've lived in LA, SF and SD and they all are predominantly Christian.

I think you're grasping at straws, Ed.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Looking for an update and haven't found one,


Who won?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Looking for an update and haven't found one,


Who won?


hopefully it was the first ammendment and the establishment clause instead of those that would override it with impositions of their religion.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
so did the Cross get torn down? Are them nasty Christians taken care of? Did it please the tuplipwalkers?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
so did the Cross get torn down?


i hope so



Are them nasty Christians taken care of?


no, bad christian. you don't get to have a persecution complex when they are simply upholding the rule of law established at the beginning of this nation.

not yours



Did it please the tuplipwalkers?


ad hom attack



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


no, bad christian. you don't get to have a persecution complex when they are simply upholding the rule of law established at the beginning of this nation.



Is that so? Hmm - it would seem that freedom of religion did not mean that anything to do with Judo-Christianity was not allowed in public.




Interesting that this is ON THE SUPREME COURT building itself.

You would want that torn down also right? Maybe a picture of Darwin instead?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Is that so? Hmm - it would seem that freedom of religion did not mean that anything to do with Judo-Christianity was not allowed in public.


freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. that's how it has been ruled.



Interesting that this is ON THE SUPREME COURT building itself.


yeah, it's a sad that they had the idiocy to put that up there. but that doesn't lend any credence to your points.



You would want that torn down also right? Maybe a picture of Darwin instead?


that's just stupid. seriously, you just came up with the dumbest argument i've heard on this subject.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Why don't they privatize the land then? Make it illegal to do anything harmful to the land, and give it to a church.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Why don't they privatize the land then? Make it illegal to do anything harmful to the land, and give it to a church.


how is taking down something that violates the establishment clause harmful? seriously, for a symbol that has almost no roots to the founding of your religion, you sure do hold the cross up to be fairly important.

you're skirting the issues, the cross shouldn't have been placed there in the first place.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Maybe the way I said it was a little confusing to you.

If you privatize land, then the government won't own it anymore.

Though I see several reasons why NOT to do this.

Oh, and good job assuming I'm a Christian. You know what happens when you do that. (Hint: It involves making someone look like an ass)

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Maybe the way I said it was a little confusing to you.

If you privatize land, then the government won't own it anymore.

Though I see several reasons why NOT to do this.


the cross was still payed for by government funds. that won't change if you make the land private.... and in many ways that would be illegal considering the pending lawsuit.



Oh, and good job assuming I'm a Christian. You know what happens when you do that. (Hint: It involves making someone look like an ass)


i was directing that towards the general PTS christian community, not you



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Were these government funds federal or more local? If they're not federal, then what part of the California state constitution, or any other law that this area follows makes this illegal?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join