Glad I decided not to play my drinking game

[skepticscott]

of taking a sip every time the word "god" was mentioned at Glenn Beck's hatefest today.

Is everyone here happy with the positive effects religion is having on our country and its politics?

[rug]

1. I prefer the real deal.

"And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

And it took place without months of cable tv shilling.

Today's rally represents nothing authentic or lasting.

[cleanhippie]

7. On that, we agree!

Nice post!

[MineralMan]

2. Apparently there's a deity suitable for every purpose.

Even Beck's. Another reason I lost the ability to believe in any of them.

[Axle_techie]

3. I was happy with my understanding of the role it took in

the founding of our country, and a lot of it's guiding principles. Now, however, there are to many fighting for it and against it. I don't believe that the government should make any law regarding religion, but I also do not see the point in removing every cross from public land. I also don't see how or why a cross is so offensive to anyone. There must be a lot of people with a serious lack of tolerance and real thin skins.

[skepticscott]

4. One of the founding principles

of our country was that government should be secular, and neither support nor inhibit religion in general, nor support one religion over another, or religion over no religion. This grew out of the founders knowledge of the harm that inevitably resulted when different religious groups fought for control of a government, knowledge that our current crop of Christo-military faux patriots either lack or ignore.

There is in fact no point in having even one cross on public land proclaiming that the US government supports Christianity over all other religions. The physical presence of crosses (or the Ten Commandments, or manger scenes at Xmas) are symptoms of the attempt to impose (allegedly) Christian principles on all aspects of US law and government, something you claim to be against.

And if you want to see real intolerance and thin skins, try placing a star and crescent beside those crosses and watch the reaction.

[Axle_techie]

5. placing a star a crescent next to it

would make for some good entertainment.

[cleanhippie]

10. Then you DO understand...

so why are you playing dumb?

[Axle_techie]

11. I am not offended by the star and crescent, but I do

know that many would be so. I do not understand why it is so offensive to those people, though.

I should also point out that MANY thousands of people died on crosses, and it became a symbol synonymous with death in that era. So we use it to symbolize death in this... When it is being used as a symbol of memorial and there is no one preaching under it, why can it not be taken as simply a symbol of memorial?

[Silent3]

13. Gunshots are a leading cause of death in modern wars

So why not use grave markers shaped like assault rifles or machine guns? Since crucifixion is a form of execution, and not a common form of combat death, making a connection between the cross and death in military service is quite a stretch.

Maybe Jewish stars of David would make a good generic grave markers too. They kind of look like shuriken. They could symbolism death at the hands of ninjas.

It is, however, certainly convenient for the dominant religion to claim that its trademark symbolism just happens to be a great "neutral" form of symbolism too.

The families of the deceased buried in a public military graveyard should be able to choose the particular styles of grave markers for their family members, or the deceased themselves should be able to choose, should they have expressed a preference prior to death. In absence of such a preference being expressed, the only proper course of action in a truly secular system of government that expresses no favoritism to any religion is a non-religious marker, one that does not take the shape of any symbol of faith.

[Axle_techie]

14. I do agree with this

"The families of the deceased buried in a public military graveyard should be able to choose the particular styles of grave markers for their family members, or the deceased themselves should be able to choose, should they have expressed a preference prior to death. In absence of such a preference being expressed, the only proper course of action in a truly secular system of government that expresses no favoritism to any religion is a non-religious marker, one that does not take the shape of any symbol of faith."

I was more referring to roadside memorials that have been there for 70+ years like the Mojave one, or like a cross on Mt. Helix in San Diego that had such a big stink made about it around a decade ago... Does merely seeing a cross impress religion on someone? If someone sees enough crosses are they suddenly going to convert? Why can it not be taken as a symbol of something else? If Muslims wanted to erect a war memorial with their symbols on it, it would not offend me in the least.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Having a cross

on government property DOES imply a connection to the government and should not be allowed. That's pretty basic first amendment stuff. Just because it has been there for a while doesn't make it right.

Seeing enough crosses on government property makes a lot of people feel like the government is a Christian government and that somehow that religion is blessed above all others or above non-religion.

[cleanhippie]

16. Why? Because its not "simply a symbol", thats why.

How many people would not identify a cross as a symbol of christianity if shown a picture of a cross and asked what it meant? 1 in a thousand? 1 in a hundred thousand? 1 in a million?

Why are you being so obtuse about this?

[Axle_techie]

18. Presenting a different point of view that does not concur

with yours does not make someone obtuse, it makes them have a different point of view. Why can you not join into a conversation civilly and discuss without referring to negatives like "obtuse".

This is simply how I view things from my highly biased view of the world, if you don't like or agree with it, then good for you, it simply makes you different from me.

I should point out that many countries in Europe list catholic cathedrals among their official national monuments, does that make them catholic countries?

[cleanhippie]

19. I am being perfectly civil.

Obtuse is a perfectly good word to describe your position in your (non)argument.


ob·tuse –adjective
1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

Your "point of view" is flawed, and I feel I showed you why, and even asked you to clarify, which you have not done. If you think a cross is not THE symbol for christianity, then how many people do you think that if asked, would not identify it as such?


Is there are symbol for a catholic church in Europe that can be identified as such by the layman? If not, then your analogy is flawed. I now of no such universally recognized symbol for a catholic church, doesnt mean there isnt one, just that I don't know of it, unlike the universally recognized symbol of christianity.

[Axle_techie]

21. And actually, it is simply a symbol to me, as a christian

I believe that the worship of symbols or idols is meaningless. My ideal church would not have a cross in it. Of course, I am me, and as such, do not have the same beliefs, dislikes, or hatreds as others. I work every day to love for the simple pleasure of loving. I don't care what you believe, or that you believe what I do.

[cleanhippie]

22. Hopefully now you understand that yours isnnot the common view.

Maybe YOU do not see it as anything more than a symbol, but nearly everyone else does. Now do you "see how or why a cross is so offensive to anyone?

Do you get it?

[Axle_techie]

23. I could see it being about as offensive as Christmas, which yes,

it did not originate with Christians, but was made to cover a pagan holiday, but the simple fact is that it would not be practiced if not for the Christian influence in our country.

Perhaps instead of trying to take down crosses on public lands, we should work to erect memorials by all faiths who wish to build some, and memorials for those without faith to even it out...

[Mariana]

24. I understand why a star and crescent,

or a pentagram, or most any other non-Christian religious symbol on public property is so offensive to those people. They see it as an official government endorsement and promotion of whichever religion the symbol represents, and they rightly consider this to be discriminatory and extremely offensive.

Of course they realize that having a cross on public property does exactly the same thing, but they don't mind (to say the least) when it's their own religion being promoted by the government.

There are Christians who oppose all religious imagery on public property, and there are those who have no problem with symbols of other religions there, but their voices often seem to be drowned out by the other variety.

[onager]

6. I had fun trying to explain that to Muslims in Egypt.

This conversation happened several times, and I always ended up frustrated. It gave me a new appreciation for the First Amendment. I think...

It usually went something like this, with Muslims who had spent some time in the U.S.:

Muslim: "The United States is a Xian country."

Me: "Not really. According to our Constitution, we're a secular country."

Muslim: "But nearly all your citizens are Xians. Your President is always a Xian, and nearly all your political leaders. And every year you have a national holiday and give thanks to god."

Me: "Well, most of those things are customs. Not part of our laws..."

And it went downhill from there...

Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution states that Islam is the official national religion, and sharia the source of national law. Those are fairly recent changes. Egyptian liberals note that Article 2 appears to conflict directly with Article 1, which states that Egypt is a "democratic socialist state." Many pols want to get rid of the "socialist" part, which is seen as something of a Nasserite embarassment these days.

[cleanhippie]

9. Its offensive for the same reason other symbols are offensive.

Comments like this .... "There must be a lot of people with a serious lack of tolerance and real thin skins" ....

reflect exactly what the real problem is. If you do not see the irony in your statement, then nothing I can say will explain it to you.

[Axle_techie]

12. Oops, sorry

I forgot I am on an intellectually lower level of the human spectrum.

[cleanhippie]

15. Are you?

If you think you are, then maybe you are. I don't think that, so don;t be so hard on yourself.

[Axle_techie]

20. Nope, not really,

I forgot the sarcastic tag.

:sarcasm:

[cleanhippie]

8. It is my opinion that the "positive" effect is exactly what the problem is.

If religion would keep itself in its churches and out of our gov't, our public schools, our science and our lives, much of the problems would go away.