AA sues over proposed cross at 9/11 memorial

[IceHogsFan]

Christian people might not use blasphemy, but they do let their faith influence politics and lawmaking to a degree that fully deserves the attention of the non-believers.

Non-Christian people use blasphemy, they do let their non-belief influence politics and lawmaking to a degree that fully deserves the attention of the believers.





See what I did there?



Just sayin'

 

[TSD]

Non-Christian people use blasphemy, they do let their non-belief influence politics and lawmaking to a degree that fully deserves the attention of the believers.





See what I did there?



Just sayin'

And I would be right there with you if the government took any steps to infringe on the rights of an individual to practice their religion within the law. i.e. if your religion involves child sacrifice or something, I mean, freedom of religion only goes so far in that case.

 

[supraman]

Remember it is freedom of religion not freedom from religion

 

[TSD]

Remember it is freedom of religion not freedom from religion

Semantics. It means the same thing. It is freedom from religion in the sense, I cant be burned at the stake for heresy. Seriously, Dont think for a minute if any religious fundie no matter the religion, was given the option of imposing religious law they wouldnt do it.



What is the push against *** marriage if not religious directive? Although by the *** marriage thing, shimp and lobster should be banned as well, as three lines before the *** thing it says eating shrimp is an abomination before God.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Semantics. It means the same thing. It is freedom from religion in the sense, I cant be burned at the stake for heresy. Seriously, Dont think for a minute if any religious fundie no matter the religion, was given the option of imposing religious law they wouldnt do it.



What is the push against *** marriage if not religious directive? Although by the *** marriage thing, shimp and lobster should be banned as well, as three lines before the *** thing it says eating shrimp is an abomination before God.

So t has to be religious belief/directive for a person to be against *** marriage? They can't just find it physically repugnant, it has to be because of religion? Just a question......very few things are that straight forward.



Like I said before, they should just set up a place for reflection with no religiouos imagery. But this is getting out of hand, where one religious group is suing another.

 

[TSD]

So t has to be religious belief/directive for a person to be against *** marriage? They can't just find it physically repugnant, it has to be because of religion? Just a question......very few things are that straight forward.

No, but its blatantly clear "the majority" lobbying against it fall into that category.



But you are correct, someone may be against it on non-religious grounds.

 

[supraman]

Semantics. It means the same thing. It is freedom from religion in the sense, I cant be burned at the stake for heresy. Seriously, Dont think for a minute if any religious fundie no matter the religion, was given the option of imposing religious law they wouldnt do it.



What is the push against *** marriage if not religious directive? Although by the *** marriage thing, shimp and lobster should be banned as well, as three lines before the *** thing it says eating shrimp is an abomination before God.

Not Semantics. Very big difference. Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion under the sun. Freedom from religion means you will not be subjected to any religion.



Also as for the forefather being deists, they still believed in a god. So in the widely varying practices of deism it could be argued that the country was possible founded on various deist principles that still equate to be a good human being. Deism per Wikipedia



I'm going to derail the thread a bit here (sorry) but it is a damn shame that very few actually practice what the religions peace and good faith towards other man, even Islam preachs it. Love and the Golden Rule

 

[TSD]

Not Semantics. Very big difference. Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion under the sun. Freedom from religion means you will not be subjected to any religion.



Also as for the forefather being deists, they still believed in a god. So in the widely varying practices of deism it could be argued that the country was possible founded on various deist principles that still equate to be a good human being. Deism per Wikipedia



I'm going to derail the thread a bit here (sorry) but it is a damn shame that very few actually practice what the religions peace and good faith towards other man, even Islam preachs it. Love and the Golden Rule

Correct. And Religion not being able to legislate, means I am not subjected to any religion. Therefore I do have freedom from religion.



You need to define subjected. Subjected isnt even close to the same as exposed to.



definition of subjected: Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others



I, in this country, am hardly under the power or authority of any religious corps. Therefore I do, in fact, have freedom from religion.



and I am aware deists still believe in a God. The argument afterall was "christianity" and deism does not equate. I wanted a definition of "christian values and or principles" which I have yet to receive. Im pretty sure that this point when christians spew that out they have no idea what it means. and your golden rule link is evidence toward there being no such thing.

 

[supraman]

your interpretation is complete wrong you are free to practice whatever but also means that you sometimes will be exposed to other religions. Because freedom of religion does not mean suppression of religion.

 

[cids_revenge]

Love it. Don;t put a mosque anywhere near the building, but go ahead and put a giant fucking cross on it. The problem with the whole freedom argument is someone's freedom to do something always infringes on someones freedom to not be bothered with the other person's bullshit.

 

[TSD]

your interpretation is complete wrong you are free to practice whatever but also means that you sometimes will be exposed to other religions. Because freedom of religion does not mean suppression of religion.

Yours is wrong. You specifically said "subjected to" in your prior comment. Exposed to and subjected to are completely different things.

Not Semantics. Very big difference. Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion under the sun. Freedom from religion means you will not be subjected to any religion.

and I am not subjected to any religion. Therefore, I have freedom from religion.

 

[supraman]

Yours is wrong. You specifically said "subjected to" in your prior comment. Exposed to and subjected to are completely different things.







and I am not subjected to any religion. Therefore, I have freedom from religion.

Subjected to = exposed to. You know to view something even if you don't like it. Like I'm subjected to the exists of the Vancouver Canucks. The 2nd post I specifically changed the word to exposed to better explain what I mean, both times I meant the same thing.



Also as for freedom from religion? Ever drive by a church? That's exposure to a religion. Ever participate in Xmas, Easter, St.Patrick's Day, etc. You are being exposed to religion. You want freedom from religion try the USSR if they were still around. Other than that you can have freedom of religion but not freedom from it.

 

[TSD]

Subjected to = exposed to. You know to view something even if you don't like it. Like I'm subjected to the exists of the Vancouver Canucks. The 2nd post I specifically changed the word to exposed to better explain what I mean, both times I meant the same thing.



Also as for freedom from religion? Ever drive by a church? That's exposure to a religion. Ever participate in Xmas, Easter, St.Patrick's Day, etc. You are being exposed to religion. You want freedom from religion try the USSR if they were still around. Other than that you can have freedom of religion but not freedom from it.

At this point we are just arguing over the definition of phrases. I don't think subjected to and exposed to mean the same thing, whereas you do and I don't think that's going to change.

 

[supraman]

At this point we are just arguing over the definition of phrases. I don't think subjected to and exposed to mean the same thing, whereas you do and I don't think that's going to change.

I said it in common speech you took it as the literal definition, no worries.

 

[BigPete]

Interesting litterary debate...



back to our regularly scheduled program:

Have any of you seen a picture of the cross in question? While it is cool that they pulled this piece(s) of metal out of the reckage, mounting it on a tall concrete pedastel and placing it right in the middle of a the memorial section at ground zero is an affront to all those that don't agree with that faith.



The lawsuit is not against Christians. It is against the State and Federal governments for providing funding for this symbol while not allowing for others to be included.



The request to the court is that either the cross not be included at the site or government money be provided to post other religious symbols. This is not just one athiest filing suit against some christian church. There are several other claimants on the lawsuit which is more of an injunction suit than one seeking damages.

 

[BigPete]

And I would be right there with you if the government took any steps to infringe on the rights of an individual to practice their religion within the law. i.e. if your religion involves child sacrifice or something, I mean, freedom of religion only goes so far in that case.

You mean like this:

Historically, blasphemy against God had been a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world.



In Britain's last blasphemy execution, 20-year-old Thomas Aikenhead was executed for the crime in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles. In recent years, George Rosie wrote in the newspaper The Scotsman that "The killing of Thomas Aikenhead, like the hounding of Salman Rushdie for the same 'offence,' was a disgrace…a prime example of a God-fixated state killing a man in an attempt to stop the spread of an idea."

This is one of many reasons that the founding fathers of America set out to provide freedom of religion. Included in that freedom is the right to NOT practice a faith (amongst other things of course). A good place to learn some of these lessons about the founding fathers was in Williamsburg, VA with the historically accurate plays they put on about the colonial court system in that region.



In my opinion you can only call someone a blasphemer if they denegrate the god and religion that BOTH parties believe in. Otherwise, you can't hold someone to the same expectation of reverance for YOUR god because they don't afford it that same reverance that YOU do.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

You mean like this:





This is one of many reasons that the founding fathers of America set out to provide freedom of religion. Included in that freedom is the right to NOT practice a faith (amongst other things of course). A good place to learn some of these lessons about the founding fathers was in Williamsburg, VA with the historically accurate plays they put on about the colonial court system in that region.



In my opinion you can only call someone a blasphemer if they denegrate the god and religion that BOTH parties believe in. Otherwise, you can't hold someone to the same expectation of reverance for YOUR god because they don't afford it that same reverance that YOU do.

Actually just as a common courtesy I think a believer should expect respect to be given to his beliefs just as he should respect others beliefs. and therein is the problem...."your god is wrong and mine is right"

 

[BigPete]

Actually just as a common courtesy I think a believer should expect respect to be given to his beliefs just as he should respect others beliefs. and therein is the problem...."your god is wrong and mine is right"

The golden rule is not based in any religion. But you would be right, imo, to say that it is great when BOTH parties practice it.



Placing a giant cross at a memorial like the one for 9/11 victims does not fit that logic.



Paraphrasing what IHF said, "there's more of us, so we should get our way." So what!?! No one else gets to have their opinion heard and respected? That is highly hypocritical.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]

Actually just as a common courtesy I think a believer should expect respect to be given to his beliefs just as he should respect others beliefs. and therein is the problem...."your god is wrong and mine is right"

My simple uttering of "I am an atheist" can offend. Immediately that respect goes out the window (perhaps by both parties depending on the reaction). By that statement alone I am shaking people's belief systems to the core. There's really no nice way of stating that there's one true god-- and it's the christian god, please respect my beliefs. Some one some where is upset by that. [/font]

 

[LordKOTL]

Interjecting:



"Freedom from" religion only really stands from government action. The government cannot sponsor, nor can it curttail, and religious belief or concept. That's what makes this instance and the "Under god" instance so touchy--it's government sponsoring religion.



"Freedom of" applies to the individual citizen and he onl way freedom of religion can be currtailed is if it infringes on the right of another. I cannot stop a church from sending memebers to try and convert people unless it becomes harassment.



It's why i say nix the cros and put up an american flag. I may not shit red, piss white, and vomit blue like some poeple, but I think most Americans can get behind that.