Christians Desecrate Wiccan Religious Site at Air Force Academy, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:36 PM by Spirit Warrior 11:11

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

I see a similar situation. While I don't see it as a threat per say, it could be the beginning of one. For now I see it as a stake of territory. A statement of "You are not welcome here" and "See, we can do what we want." It is a form of persecution.

And for those who feel this is silly because these are merely symbols...
Imagine the feelings you have for the American flag. Imagine the emotions felt when you are a part of the crowd during the national anthem. Those are just symbols as well. Now imagine the feelings that would emerge if you saw a group of knuckle heads burning the flag in front of you and laughing about it. It's still just a symbol....but it does mean something when you desecrate.

I am neither Wikkan or Christian and I am offended and embarrassed for both. I would be ashamed to be Christian that day.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:37 PM by Aeons

No the first amendment of the US Constitution does not state that.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.

US Constitution

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TheTruthShallFreeYou
My final point?
Did you ever think that having a Wiccan area for practice might actually be against the core of other's beliefs, and THEIR view should not be dismissed, either?

The first amendment states that there is freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:37 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by TheTruthShallFreeYou
reply to post by Nutter

I'm sorry, your quippy answer aside, wiki is the stupidest source ever.

How is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary? Is this source not "stupid"?

1 : to violate the sanctity of

www.merriam-webster.com...

You should feel like a blithering idiot for even using it as a reference.

And you have now become a troll which we hate here. Welcome to the ignore and the alert button.

My view, as it is, is that desecration is a word similar to "lingerie" used in the Cyrus thread yesterday. It is being used to drum up anger, like comparing it to Hitler's SS attacking synagogues.

So, what would you call it when someone violates the santity of something? "Bullying"?

Well, sorry that this blithering idiot finds that the word desecrate fits better since it IS violating the santity of the pagan's space.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Nutter]

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:39 PM by ZombieOctopus

But.. but.. but.. Christians are a persecuted minority! How ever could this have happened?!

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:40 PM by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheTruthShallFreeYou
So here I am, a practicing (insert belief system here), which believes that (insert random "sin" here) is bad. However you, a practicing (insert belief system here), believes that (insert same "sin" here) is more than okay, and should be a part of your daily life.
Do you see the conflict? There is a request for tolerance from both sides, and these very sides contradict each other at the core!
Want a simple example? Voodoo animal sacrifices are in conflict with Kosher beliefs.
So should we allow public voodoo ceremonies, knowing it contradicts to the core what the jewish people believe?
Are they not allowed to guide their families through life without knowing that animals are suffering in slaughter? In their own towns? They can't, can they?
I can't answer that, however it does need to be addressed.
I mean, doesn't the Muslim attitude towards women make it in conflict with our equal rights in this country? With the women's liberation movement?
In order to be tolerant, we have to accept them, yet the division itself creates the same bonds that the lib movement has worked so hard to remove.
I mean, aren't catholics attacked for attempting to prevent a woman's reproductive rights? Whether it's contraceptives, or abortion, asking communities with large catholic base to contribute to the rest of that communities contraceptives and abortion rights is against there very beliefs.
Is this not intolerance?
I am merely trying to comment on this thread's assertions. Not just the OP, mind you.

It's okay to be intolerant towards people who are trying to strip the rights of others.

If you believe that ritual preparation of your food, showing the skin of your ankle, and taking birth control are sinful... then don't do that. That's your right.

It is not your right to tell another that they must live by the ethics of your religion, however.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:40 PM by Nutter

reply to post by Aeons

Alright. I'm sneaking into the church park down the street tonight and placing a huge pentagram in the middle (with sticks of course).

We'll see how many are screeming "desecration" then.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:43 PM by TheTruthShallFreeYou

reply to post by Nutter

Troll?
You don't read my post, and then get mad because I point out you failed to read that I attributed the definition to my PERSONAL VIEW?
Now, if I had called you a blithering idiot for that, I would understand.
Heck, if I called you one at all, I would understand.

I just said you should feel like one.

On topic; I was commenting on understanding the contradiction of accepting peoples beliefs, when it it completely opposes your moral ideals. (in YOUR view)
It is similar to me allowing NAMBLA to operate.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:45 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by Aeons
No the first amendment of the US Constitution does not state that.

Really? Care to break it down?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Meaning freedom from religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Meaning freedom of religion.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:46 PM by TheTruthShallFreeYou

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I totally agree with you. And yet, whenever some group tries to separate themselves from society in order to avoid this conflict, we label them freaks, or intolerant.
I don't think we should tell anyone how to act.
However, avoiding this conversation as a society has led to, and will lead to an even bigger, mess.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:47 PM by Aeons

It is very disrespectful, and I would suggest that you do not.

In that the people you are targetting imbue special status upon their buidlings of worship, and you are violating that you are commiting an at against sanctity. And commiting an illegal act.

However, the reverse isn't so in that paganism is an animist belief. Sacred Space can be made anywhere, and the Universe itself is sacred. You cannot desecrate the Universe with an icon of the divine.

And the intent in your heart cannot be measured by a word of man.

The closest one might say they come to desecration is that in creating an unsafe place to worship, they disrupt the ability of the people to practice in clear mind.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Aeons

Alright. I'm sneaking into the church park down the street tonight and placing a huge pentagram in the middle (with sticks of course).

We'll see how many are screeming "desecration" then.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:48 PM by Aeons

But it does NOT say you have freedom from religion. Which you contended, and is certainly not said nor implied.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Aeons
No the first amendment of the US Constitution does not state that.

Really? Care to break it down?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Meaning freedom from religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Meaning freedom of religion.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:49 PM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by TheTruthShallFreeYou

Well, often they are freaks, and often they are intolerant.

But we don't force them to come back. It's their right to run off and live in caves if they want, and it's our right to have opinions of them for doing so.

If they try to make us live in caves, or if we try to make them come back to the land of prefab housing, then I have an issue, and rights are being violated.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:51 PM by TheTruthShallFreeYou

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I respectfully disagree.

FLDS, Waco, Mormons, etc.

You will (smartly) point out that there were major issues with these peoples actions.

I will rebut, not in their view.

See where I am going with this?

ADD; Is it intolerance to disagree to the core with someone else's views? To believe them a "sin"? Isn't that intolerance of their views?

[edit on 4-2-2010 by TheTruthShallFreeYou]

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:52 PM by Bombeni

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

No, it wasn't that, I know what rock collectors are.

It was more of a rock worship thing.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:53 PM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by Aeons

My freedom to exercise my faith - or lack of it - as I wish does in fact mean I am free to not support, endorse, pay for, be subject to, or in any other way shape or form be forced to endure - and you have the same freedoms.

TO put it simply... worship what you like and how you like. Don't expect my tax dollars to pay for it, and don't come knocking on my door at 6 AM to tell me about it.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:54 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by Aeons
It is very disrespectful, and I would suggest that you do not.

In that the people you are targetting imbue special status upon their buidlings of worship, and you are violating that you are commiting an at against sanctity. And commiting an illegal act.

The church park is open to all. So, there is NO illegality at all. That is why I said the park and not the church itself.

However, the reverse isn't so in that paganism is an animist belief. Sacred Space can be made anywhere, and the Universe itself is sacred. You cannot desecrate the Universe with an icon of the divine.

A pentagram is an icon of the divine to me. So, how exactly would this be desecration....going by your own logic?

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:56 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by Aeons
But it does NOT say you have freedom from religion. Which you contended, and is certainly not said nor implied.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

It means that Congress can not favor one religion over another. Meaning freedom FROM religion.

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:57 PM by Echtelion

reply to post by brainwrek

Burn their churches! Burn them to the ground!

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:57 PM by Schleprock

I'm not religious in any way, shape or form, but to those of you who say erecting a cross in a pagan place of worship is not a terrible thing, I disagree.

Urinating is not a bad thing, but if you were to urinate on a Christian cross, we all know the intent.

A cross isn't a bad thing either, but erecting it at a pagan place of worship is sending the same message if you were to piss on a Christian cross.

People need to be more respectful of each other.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Schleprock]

reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 02:58 PM by Aeons

But it isn't to them. As a matter of fact, they often imbue it with ill intent. Which you KNOW.

Your knowledge of that makes your act unkind. Making it not sacred.

Further, the underlying view of the nature of the divine is very different. You have to commit an act of intentionally disregarding that.

The two acts are not equal.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Aeons
It is very disrespectful, and I would suggest that you do not.

In that the people you are targetting imbue special status upon their buidlings of worship, and you are violating that you are commiting an at against sanctity. And commiting an illegal act.

The church park is open to all. So, there is NO illegality at all. That is why I said the park and not the church itself.

However, the reverse isn't so in that paganism is an animist belief. Sacred Space can be made anywhere, and the Universe itself is sacred. You cannot desecrate the Universe with an icon of the divine.

A pentagram is an icon of the divine to me. So, how exactly would this be desecration....going by your own logic?