It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
It is clear to me that some anti-discussion people dislike discussion so much WITHIN the religious forums because well.....
Pretty pathetic, at least even some non-religious people have even seen the absurdity of it and have posted so in this thread.
originally posted by: inbound
What I am aware of is that english cannot be your first language. I AM NOT THE OP. Im not sure how you got to that conclusion, maybe god told you. You get it now?
this thread, and my comments are related to injecting these things in conversations where they are not relevant to the topic at hand.
I guess my point is if you accuse people of coming here and proselytizing because they are insecure, I'd say it's the opposite. People who are insecure tend to seek ways to surround themselves only with others who think like they do.
Ok I will just be blunt then. What part of TAXPAYER DOLLARS supporting disgusting and ugly art forms don't you understand? And how is that ultimately different from displaying it openly in public, especially when it's all over the news in numerous countries?
Anyway, since you chose to ridicule me on the use of Hindu cosmology, I will now just point you to another ATS thread discussing CARL SAGAN'S views on Hindu cosmology as related to scientific theory. So now I rest my case and good night to you.
Wow I ask you about if you wish to make the country into a theocracy and you change the subject.
BTW it had been displayed where there were other art displays it has also been bought for around 300K (crazy) so you don't get to dictate to the owner either
#4. Well, if this is what contemporary art has sunk to, this level, this outrage, this indignity - some may want to sanction that, and that is fine. But not with the use of taxpayers' money. This is not a question of free speech. This is a question of abuse of taxpayers' money. If we allow this group of so-called art experts to get away with this, to defame us and to use our money, well, then we do not deserve to be in office.
originally posted by: inbound
I guess whats not clear to you is that this is not about posting in the religion forum. Even I would defend that. Try to keep up.
Darn good thing we don't live in Iran or some place like that where the dear leader's face is up everywhere. I'll take the Ten Commandments thank you very much.
As for Theocracy no thank you to that either. I kind of like the REPUBLIC our Founders set up. And that means freedom of speech and freedom to worship whom we like. Atheists do like to interpret it as freedom FROM religion, but even the Supreme Court declared SECULAR HUMANISM a religion of sorts,
Secular Humanism and the Supreme Court
Did the Supreme Court recognize "Secular Humanism" as a religion?
by Susan Batte
In Torcaso v. Watkins, a Maryland Notary Public was reinstated despite his refusal to declare belief in God. The Supreme Court noted that many religions, including Secular Humanism, deny the existence of God.
TORCASO V. WATKINS, October 1961, US Supreme Court:
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
The above information appears in a footnote. Whether or not secular humanism was or was not a religion was not the issue in Torcaso. However, the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals in Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of Alabama (1987) held:
"The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the "delicate question" of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbook at issue in this case."
In other Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); Justice Clark stated:
"[T]he State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' "
Of course, the quote would make more sense in context:
It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." We DO NOT AGREE, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect." (emphasis added)
The religion of no God. And that is what's in our face in our public schools now! Theocracy?
The purpose our Founding Fathers had was not to establish a State religion.
But I do wonder about all the people who seem to think that it's ok to implement some Sharia Law. By it's very nature it imposes religious demands directly into our Law structure.
That is in my opinion what you should be worried about, not a piece of granite with the Ten Commandments etched into it.
And what does that have to do with things being in your face? I don't care what it was bought for, it's still in people's faces if it's in a gallery somewhere.
That is not the only instance of course.
Did you not understand the point I was making about public monies being used to display ugly art? That is not the only instance of course. Did you not understand that the National Endowment for the Arts is a government entity using public money?
Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do.
On what conceivable basis does anybody who would engage in such blasphemy and insensitivity toward the religious community deserve to be honored?
They are insulting the very fundamental basis of this country. I say again I resent it
originally posted by: ConvincedMan
Only having been a member a couple months, I think most of the religion threads I see on ATS are not posted by religious people trying to convert others but by folks questioning organized religion or the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
One of the things nonbelievers don't get about Christianity is that Christians sincerely believe that it's so great that they want everybody to experience it. Sort of like discovering a terrific chocolate dessert at a restaurant and telling everyone about it--to use a poor analogy.
As to why such threads appear on a conspiracy site, another poster noted that ATS is ultimately about seeking the truth. Jesus Christ claimed he, himself, is "the truth." (John 14:6). Can you think of any other person in history who has made that claim? Sure, some lunatics, but through the centuries, billions of people believe Christ is right.
Another thing nonbelievers don't get is that God, an extra-universal being, cannot be proven or disproven with science or reason. By definition, he must be "outside" this universe, so he is not necessarily bound by its laws.
I sincerely doubt any Christians will convert any nonbelievers on ATS. If they need scientific or reasonable evidence to change their minds, it simply isn't going to happen.