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.

 

Public Religious Displays

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


I just5 find it funny...even on a local level, really this is the big thing that needs to be dealt with? I wonder every year when we have threads like this did any of you experience the joy of Christmas as a child and what in your life is soooo bad that this needs to be attacked. It's no different than the "Halloween is Evil" threads that pop up in October each year, seems to be another way to seek attention. I didn't misrepresent your thread....I know it's a local thing for you, however, if this is the most important thing in your community to be dealt with, you must live in a virtual utopia.
edit on 30-11-2010 by adifferentbreed because: spelling




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


I never said it was the most important issue. It just happens to be the only issue that I'm talking about in this thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians, but by those who used the religion as a false justification for asserting control over others. It is really unfair to characterize an entire religion and all of its adherents, based on the actions of people who, clearly, were not acting in accordance with the teachings of its architect.


...per your explanation above, wtfover - then, contrastly, it must also be true that the number of people killed by "atheist states" cannot be blamed on atheism or atheists because atheism was being used by power hungry control freaks and its unfair to characterize an entire group based on the actions of some...

...did i get that right?...



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


I'm sorry, but I'm not following. I think maybe you've confused my posts with someone else's, as I've never mentioned anything about "atheist states".



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. I think maybe you've confused my posts with someone else's, as I've never mentioned anything about "atheist states".


...i didnt confuse your post with someone else's but i'll explain what preceeded my post to you, so that we'll be on the same page (pun intended)...


...on page 5 of this thread, you will find your post and, prior to that, the two posts below which are riddled with anti-atheist propaganda...


Originally posted by sara123123
Hundreds of millions have been impoverished, imprisoned and murdered by atheist states. Atheists have murdered more innocent people for their inccorrect social beliefs than Christian states have done in two thousand years. Should we persecute atheists in this "justice" scheme of guilt by association?


Originally posted by sara123123
In the Black Book of Communism, Stalin murdered 30 million people in his term. Mao murdered 27 million in his term. The Soviets continued to murder incorrect beleivers until the wall fell and it is estimated that another 100 million fell to the atheist empire. China still murders the politically incorrect (and sells their organs on the black market) and unborn children by the hundreds of millions. The wikileaks just revealed the chi-coms are chasing people around the world who promote the rights of Buddists and befriend the Dahli Lama. Then you have Cuba, Viet Nam (whose atheist slaughter is marked by a mountain of skulls) and all the other atheist regimes.
Is that good enough for you? Proud? Still riding around on that high atheist horse of sinlessness?


...still with me, wtfover?... good...


...your post below was a rebuttal to someone who rebutted the anti-atheist propaganda above...


Originally posted by WTFover
You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians, but by those who used the religion as a false justification for asserting control over others. It is really unfair to characterize an entire religion and all of its adherents, based on the actions of people who, clearly, were not acting in accordance with the teachings of its architect.


...i thought it was odd that you didnt direct some words of wisdom to sara, which is why i posted my "in contrast" query to you...

...so, to reiterate my post to you on page 6 of this thread - do your words of wisdom also apply to christians judging all atheists on the actions of some - or - does your concept of fairness only apply to christians that are being judged by non-christians?...

...of course, you dont have to answer... i was just curious...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by Annee
 


You don't mind this argument of not looking at offensive art if it is Christians complaining about porn. It is too bad that what is true for one offended person is true for the other who is easily offended in a free society.


I was born and raised Christian - - so don't pull the Christian stuff on me. Actually - in reality - I was assimilated into a God belief - just like most people. Few people actually step outside the circle and ask themself: "do I really believe in a god? And why?"

What does porn have to do with anything?

I am a firm supporter of Separation of Church and state. Which has nothing to do with anti any god belief.

Laws of the land should be about fairness to all citizens. They should not have anything to do with a belief of some imaginary man in the sky.

There are more then enough churches in this country that can display what ever holiday scene that applies to them. Also private businesses and homes.

There is zero need to make use of public/government land for any religious purpose.

If there weren't numerous places to display these religious scenes - - then maybe we'd have a different discussion. No one is being denied public displays of Christmas.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Did i tell ya the story of the Dog we sent to the Oral Roberts University?
No one else could train him for any amount of money so off to O R U
he went.

When he come back he could do anything he was told to do:
fetch, sit, stay, lay down, sit up, shake hands, guard, etc etc, but the
one thing he was tricky about was when he was told to heel..

HEAL Rover, H E A L !!

Then he threw his paws up over his eyes , flapped his paws over the
front of his head and fell over backwards writhing around on the ground,
yelping: praise the lord, praise the lord!.


Washington player penalized for pointing to heavens after TD
rivals.yahoo.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


Well, I think I understand the correlation you are attempting to draw. However, I believe there are considerable differences between the groups mentioned in the various posts.

Those in the post I addressed, did in fact claim their actions were sanctioned by a religion; Chrisitanity in these cases. What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.

The groups named in the posts you have pointed out, on the other hand, did not claim atheism as the impetus for their actions. They did not invoke atheism as the authority to commit their atrocities. In fact, it would be impossible to do so, as atheism is neither a religion or a movement and has no belief system. There is nothing there to point to as justification, for any action, good or bad.

I'm not sure I've been clear, in explaining my position. But, basically, I think it is apples and oranges.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
YES - ABSOLUTELY - AFFIRMATIVE

It CAN BE and IS offensive - - when your own government shows support of a god or belief you not only do not believe in - - but also think has it wrong.

Government of the people - for the people - - ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just those who believe in Jesus.

Is a display of any religion on government property recognizing that belief? YES - it is. We can do a "tit for tat" the fine line between "recognizing and support".

As I said above - - - there are numerous places a religions scene can be displayed that is not government property.

No one is losing anything if a Nativity Scene does not appear on public/government property.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Those in the post I addressed, did in fact claim their actions were sanctioned by a religion; Chrisitanity in these cases. What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.



All I can say is that is a flat out ridiculous statement.

Point is - - you do not want to accept the reality that atrocities were done in the name of Christianity - - BY CHRISTIANS.

It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It CAN BE and IS offensive - -


And? What makes you believe you have a right to not be offended? While on the topic of being offended... Do you think anyone displays religious symbols for the sole purpose of offending you? How about all of the "art" exhibits, which denigrate religious symbols? Do you think the "artists'" intent is anything but attempts to offend the followers of that religion?


Government of the people - for the people - - ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just those who believe in Jesus.


Read that line again and pay particular attention to your use of the words "Not just". By your own admission, the Government is to represent Christians, equally. So, why are you in favor of having the Government ostracize them?


Is a display of any religion on government property recognizing that belief? YES - it is.


And what is the problem with that? The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall not "recognize" any religion". The word is "Establish". I addressed that word in my first post, to this thread, if you care to go back.


No one is losing anything if a Nativity Scene does not appear on public/government property.


No one is losing anything if a nativity scene does appear on public/government property. After all, you've already acknowledged Christians deserve equal representation by our government.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.



Originally posted by Annee
It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.


...agreed, annee - but - ya know, sometimes its worth the effort to see if a bridge is possible but, usually, its not... never hurts to try tho, huh?...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Point is - - you do not want to accept the reality that atrocities were done in the name of Christianity - - BY CHRISTIANS.

It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.


It's not about what I want. It is about what was in the hearts and minds of the murderers. They claimed religious justification for politically motivated and/or just plain twisted actions. Their bastardized interpretations of Christian texts, were meant to instill fear and submission into the minds of those they wished to control.

What I can't comprehend is your apparent extreme anger with people who possess beliefs, which you do not share.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
sometimes its worth the effort to see if a bridge is possible but, usually, its not...


In bridge building, it usually helps if you try to build it toward the other person, rather than on top of them.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall not "recognize" any religion". The word is "Establish".


...no... the word used is "establishment", not "establish"...

topics.law.cornell.edu...

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.


...emphasis mine... please, take note of the very important part that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... historically xtians have ignored that part, as long as it was them doing the prohibiting or restricting of other religions or sacred / spiritual ways of being...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 



An English word can consist of three parts: the root, a prefix and a suffix. The root is the part of the word that contains the basic meaning (definition) of the word. The root is the base element of the word.

www.southampton.liunet.edu...


please, take note of the very important part that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


And what is it the OP is contemplating?
edit on 1-12-2010 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
...gosh, wtfover, are you the deflection king or what?...


...establish is a verb... establishment is a noun... your argument is lame... you got busted using the wrong word and being arrogant about it... get over it and lets move on...


Originally posted by WTFover
And what is it the OP is contemplating?


...finding out if it is constitutionally correct for a nativity scene to be on city/state property...

...if your next futile attempt at deflection is that PieKeeper is attempting to prohibit the free exercise of christianity, dont bother - because - not allowing a nativity scene on city/state property does not stop any christian from practicing christianity...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by WTFover
What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.



Originally posted by Annee
It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.


...agreed, annee - but - ya know, sometimes its worth the effort to see if a bridge is possible but, usually, its not... never hurts to try tho, huh?...



Ahhhh - - so true. But like I said - - I was raised Christian. I know what being Christian is - - what it really is as a religion. It is belonging to a "group think" - - that believes 100% they are right - - and have the mindset that they must convert everyone to their belief. Let's just site Hawaii as a classic example.

There is very little Jesus in Christianity. There are very very few who truly "walk in His footsteps".



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...gosh, wtfover, are you the deflection king or what?...


What deflection?


...establish is a verb... establishment is a noun... your argument is lame... you got busted using the wrong word and being arrogant about it... get over it and lets move on...


Establishment: the act of forming or establishing something, i.e. "an establishment of religion" (a verb in the context of the First Amendment, not a noun)


Everson v. Board of Education 1947 “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church."
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

So, no, I did not use the "wrong" word. And, no, I will not "get over" a false accusation and "move on".

Here endeth the lesson.

Besides, I believe I have already established, here, that I am fully cognizant of the exact phraseology of the First Amendment.


...if your next futile attempt at deflection is that PieKeeper is attempting to prohibit the free exercise of christianity, dont bother...


Again, with the deflection? What definition of that word are you using?

But, that is exactly what I alleged. The key word is "free". Meaning without impediment, restraint, encroachment or limitation.

If you would like to continue this debate, with just a tad more civility, I'm game. But, I'd prefer to argue facts, rather than emotion.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
There is very little Jesus in Christianity. There are very very few who truly "walk in His footsteps".


This is the only smart thing you have said. Why don't you take that a step further.




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join