Atheists being persecuted in the USA.

a reply to: Annee

oi I pmed you

a reply to: boymonkey74
Here is the back ground on the monument.

Mount Soledad is in La Jolla California, a part of San Diego County.

In 1913, the cross was built, and then stolen and burned later on. A second cross was erected in 1934, and after it falling down several more times a permanent cross was finally put up in 1954. All of this was done through private donations.
It was initially called the Mount Soledad Easter Cross"; the word "Easter" was dropped in the 1980s. In 1989, it was redesigned as a war memorial to all of the vets who fought and died in foreign wars. Though this was done after the first case was brought before the courts.

There has been numerous court cases, and controversies were given in the cases. When I first noticed this case, being in San Diego at the time, was around 2002/2003. At first I thought it was a violation of church and state, however, what was not mentioned by anyone until later, that it was a war memorial. The attack ads against the cross were done by Atheists, to try to gather public support, but by not revealing the entire truth, it was not such a good thing.

What the courts have to determine in cases like this is part of what is referred to as the Lemon Test, to see if such violates the constitution of the United States.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
. . . what was not mentioned by anyone until later, that it was a war memorial.

So, only Christians fought in the war?

A war memorial on public or government land needs to represent ALL soldiers.

If Christians want to honor Christians soldiers with a giant cross, then it needs to be on Christian exclusive property.

Military atheists: militaryatheists.org...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Children, when it is the holidays, are not thinking of religion, they are thinking of presents and of the lights, trees, and the festive nature of the holidays. And personally, most get a kick out of singing a lot of the Christmas carols, including the secular music that is there. Do we destroy the wonder in a child;s mind cause some would find some of the music so offensive, cause it mentions one religion or another? Do you want to continue to divide a society in ways that it should not be, or use such to bring a community together?

I'm only talking about schools (no one is taking Christmas away from the children), and even then, only the religious aspects of it. I don't have any problem with schools celebrating secular Christmas, as long as they are willing to celebrate other holidays that spring from other religions.

The idea of other faiths being shown in institutions is new, and it needs to take time to be accepted. But by forcing changes is wrong, and ultimately it divides the community, where one group or another feels that they are oppressed.

That's what people told black people in the 50s. And women in the 60s. And gay people today. The ONLY way it's going to change is force, I'm afraid.

a reply to: Annee
That entire mess, and it is, has become an embarasment to the city and state. Every time a Christian group does try to purchase such and maintain it, it is an atheist that objects. it has been going on for years, and years.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
That entire mess, and it is, has become an embarasment to the city and state. Every time a Christian group does try to purchase such and maintain it, it is an atheist that objects. it has been going on for years, and years.

And why should it be going on for years? It shouldn't.

Have the Christians let it go? No they haven't.

Apparently the atheists are suppose to back down and let it go? Why? Because they're atheists?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Change is inevitable, but to quote a movie, the only cure for such an institution is to outnumber it.


But change in forced, causes problems on its own, and takes years to settle out. Point in case is say the break up of the Soviet bloc, there are countries that are still trying to sort out who they are and how they will be. And when you mentioned the African American people, things are still not good for them and they are still dealing with issues that go to that area. Memories of the people who lived in that time frame still dictate their actions, and others like say Al Sharpton have started to become the oppressor and bigots, turning the table on those that they would find an affront to. Even taking objections when Dr. King is used, and is not of their particular group or ideology.

Women are still finding their place in society, but unlike the African Americans of the day, are moving faster and further in the country, not using the past to hold them back, or as an excuse to fail, but to succeed.

And gay people, well they have a good pr campaign going on, but fail to take steps for equality. They fight amongst themselves, divide and seek to have an easy pace, rather than work hard and show that they have the right to be equal. Many of the gay issues and law suits, what is most shocking is that they turned the tables to show that they can be the ones doing the persecuting, making others victims, even refusing to accept. If the gay people were more organized and worked together, including politically, then they would be more of a social force to be contended with. If they thought about instead of fighting against say a private business, but in turn start their own business and let the market decide, that would have a greater impact and go much further.

Mind you that when the cause and message is true, the people to rise up for such, of that there can be no doubt, but when it looks like it is just targeting time and time again, it gets old and people are not so willing to back such a position.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

..but for example on ATS people threatening others to hell.

I've seen someone do that one time since I've been a member here, and it was pretty recent. My immediate reaction was "this must be monkey boy's other account so that he has something to reference next time I call him out on his false claim."

So here we are, I'm calling you out again.

a reply to: Bone75

Last time you did a mod came on and told you the reason you don't find them is that they delete them.

So anyone else been threatened with hell on ATS? speak up and show this guy the truth.

In fact If it was allowed to call out other members I would post a few of the names whom have done so...but I will not.

Oh and other account? If you think so let the mods do an IP check to show I only use one.

a reply to: Annee
Politics is very much like warfare, you have to choose your battles. And in this case, as it is now a war monument, do we destroy that war monuments or other items of history cause it offends someone?

What about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Should we change it, to remove the inscription on the front as it mentions God in the inscription?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
Politics is very much like warfare, you have to choose your battles. And in this case, as it is now a war monument, do we destroy that war monuments or other items of history cause it offends someone?

What about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Should we change it, to remove the inscription on the front as it mentions God in the inscription?

It is not a war monument.

It is a Christian monument. On public/government land.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
Politics is very much like warfare, you have to choose your battles. And in this case, as it is now a war monument, do we destroy that war monuments or other items of history cause it offends someone?

What about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Should we change it, to remove the inscription on the front as it mentions God in the inscription?

It is not a war monument.

It is a Christian monument. On public/government land.

It's a war monument. It's a tomb for an unknown soldier, not an altar.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
Politics is very much like warfare, you have to choose your battles. And in this case, as it is now a war monument, do we destroy that war monuments or other items of history cause it offends someone?

What about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Should we change it, to remove the inscription on the front as it mentions God in the inscription?

It is not a war monument.

It is a Christian monument. On public/government land.

It's a war monument. It's a tomb for an unknown soldier, not an altar.

So, this particular soldier was a Christian? Did he die on this particular spot? Or could his memorial cross be placed anywhere?

Which comes first? Christian or soldier?

If soldier comes first, then it is not honoring ALL soldiers.

a reply to: Annee
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a monument in dedication to the services of an Unknown Soldier, sailor, marine, airman, any who fought in a war, who is not known and usually died in combat. It is to their memories, which such tombs exist, and they do all around. The one in the USA is the one that I am referencing to. It is a stark tomb, all in white, and one service person is laid to rest in there, starting after World War I, to honor the fallen, whose identity will never be known.

On this tomb is inscribed: Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.

Or how about the first tomb of the Unknown Soldier, those who died in the Civil war, where the top of the tomb was designed to be molded after the Ark of the Covenant, as described in the bible.

Or would it be more convenient to change history and the speeches that were given in the past to appease those who now live, while those who died in the past were firm believers? In the past, when there was a war, where a country declared and was behind said efforts, the speeches give had connotations of religion in them, and usually it was that of the victor.

When I see such happening, it reflects badly on the USA. Even though the USA is not well liked in the world, its actions, that of its people are often mocked and mimicked around the world. Would you destroy all reference to religion in the state, yet could you stand by and watch centuries old monuments also be destroyed as they offend?


While I do agree there needs to be a separation between church and state, however, when it starts to remove the various traditions or monuments of the past or where it removes a bit of history from the view of the public, we are diminished as a culture and society.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

While I do agree there needs to be a separation between church and state, however, when it starts to remove the various traditions or monuments of the past or where it removes a bit of history from the view of the public, we are diminished as a culture and society.

Remove the cross, correct the monument to reflect the believe/non belief of ALL soldiers.

I was Christian for most of my life before I chose atheist. I've been on both sides of this issue.

Reminds me of the food kitchens that chose to close their doors if they weren't allowed to proselytize or had to serve gays.

I'm not fooled by the rhetoric.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I know the truth and there is nothing you can do to change the truth. Your op comes from a point of not knowing the truth so you accept that the truth must be that no one knows the truth. This is why you will never know the truth because you have made up your mind that no one knows and if and when you find the truth you will not be able to recognize. How would you feel if you did know the truth but it did not end well for many because they could not keep an open mind? Imagine coming from the future where most are perished and trying to warn but get rejected because everyone clings to falsehoods.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You are getting mixed up swap Faith for truth.
Hold on are you from the future?

a reply to: Annee
So tell me where does it end?

I remember a time, while young, where people did not worry too much about this issue, where it was not considered to be pressing or firm. But it seems like any mention of anything religious and someone gets offended. While I do not believe in some of the messages that comes out of the mouths of those who are highly religious, but I will not stop them, even if it offends me, and there are some that are highly offensive.

I have seen the best and the worst of the religious world, and of the other side of the coin. In many regards, the atheist tend to get over offended at the mention of something divine, taking offense, to the point of the extreme. And there are times that such offense kind of resembles what is going on in the world, in countries that do not like the USA.

So tell me, as I am curious, where does it end, and what it would take to settle the dispute of such, removing the cross from one monument, or would that stop such, or would it go much further, to where there are no more unique traditions in the country, or would you remove all reference to such from the public eye, where mentioning such would result in court and fines? Where does it end?

a reply to: boymonkey74

Dear boymonkey74,

Ummm, welllll, uhhh, I'm not entirely sure you caught my point. I'm not sure what "Cheers" meant just before you acknowledged you posted the wrong link, but i'm probably at fault for not making myself clearer.

You posted a link to an article written by an Atheist who said the position you are maintaining here is seriously flawed, should be abandoned, and that Atheists have been responsible for much of the grief they've been getting.

The author points out, with criticism, the types of statements being made by Atheists and their supporters in this thread.

Oh, I can understand why you went "Oooops! Wrong article." But I'd have more respect for you if you addressed the article instead of ignoring it.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I don't have the answer to this, but I do have a point to make.

I've been around a long time, too, and I never heard of this being a problem before recently. That's because for so long, it was acceptable to be prejudiced against atheists, but recently, they have started to come forth and claim their rights as equal citizens in this country. The "Christians" (and I put quotes because as others have said, real Christians would not judge the "sinner", but pray for him) have been fighting tooth and nail to continue to deny equal rights to atheist expression (and gay people, etc). The more the atheist fights for equal expression, the more the "Christians" fight back and it becomes a battle... atheists fighting for equality and Christians fighting for superiority.

What would be so wrong about taking religious expression out of government? Remove "under God" from the pledge, make new coins without "in God we Trust", remove or replace Christian symbols at federal monuments. Why do "Christians" fight so hard to keep this stranglehold on the government? The answer is: Control. Power.

It was the same with black people. Everything was cool until they decided they wanted to be treated equally. And people fought back. And you had the civil rights era. Same with gay people. For so long, they "hid" who they were, passing for straight, even marrying someone of the opposite sex to conceal their sexual identity. But they got tired of that, as did blacks and as have atheists.

As citizens of this country, we ALL have the right to equal treatment under the law. Just because it hasn't been that way in the past, with Christianity getting preferential treatment, is no reason to keep it that way. Equal means equal.