---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists Demand Marines Remove Cross Commemorating Fallen U.S. Soldiers
An atheist group is clashing with U.S. marines at Camp Pendleton in California. The group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), is demanding that a cross that was put up on the base to commemorate fallen soldiers be removed.
In recent months, the MAAF has made a splash by taking on Christian themes in the military and championing atheism in the U.S. Armed Forces. Led by Jason Torpy, who was a West Point graduate and who fought in Iraq, the group seems to be following along the same somewhat antagonistic path as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, among other “freethinking” groups.
Recently, Torpy also came out in support of the installment of atheist military chaplains, an interesting proposal considering the notion that it would require non-believers to register as a faith group of sorts.
The latest drama surrounding the Christian symbol unfolded when, on Veterans Day, Marines erected a 13-foot cross to commemorate the lives of their comrades who perished in Iraq. Staff Sgt. Justin Rettenberger, one of the four individuals who is responsible for erecting the cross, explains that the memorial was done to honor Maj. Douglas Zembiec, Maj. Ray Mendoza, Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin and Lance Cpl. Robert Zurheide.
The L.A. Times documented the cross’ placement at the military base:
“We wanted them all to know that they’ll always be in our hearts, that they’ll never be forgotten,” Rettenberger told the Los Angeles Times.
But Torpy, though he understands the urge to remember the lost, says that, because of its placement on federal lands, the cross simply isn’t appropriate. While he claims he typically doesn’t get involved in issues like this, some of his atheist members who serve at Pendleton have asked him to intervene.
“In a lot of ways this is commendable – they’re honoring friends who were probably Christian,” Torpy said. “I think the memorial is appropriate for the individuals who put it up and the friends they’re honoring, but you just can’t walk onto federal land and do it.”
While he says he doesn’t want to be the bad guy, he says that he shouldn’t be the only one standing up in opposition to the cross. It “privileges one religion over another,” he says, going on to claim that ”[Camp Pendleton} should have known better."
Atheists Demand Camp Pendleton Cross Be Removed From Federal Land
In this Nov. 10, 2011 photo, from left to right, Scott Radetski, Karen Mendoza, Jon Gross and Shannon Book carry a 13-foot cross to the top of a mountain at Camp Pendleton to recognize those Marines who have fallen or been wounded in combat. (AP Photo/Los Angeles Times, Rick Loomis)
The L.A. Times has an excellent slideshow that documents the cross’ story.
Pendleton released a statement saying that the four Marines who put the cross up were not acting in “any official position or capacity” and that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Marine Corps were not endorsing the cross. Torpy, though, says that the religious symbol should have been prevented from being placed on federal land.
According to FOX News, there’s been some strong reaction to atheists demands that the cross be removed. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a former marine, is frustrated over what he sees as “radical” attacks on the military.
“It’s really outrageous and it shows the hostile environment that’s been created by this (Obama) administration towards religious freedom,” he says. “At some point, we have to say, enough is enough.”
Currently, officials are reviewing the situation to determine the appropriateness of the cross’ placement on federal lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wan't to constantly play the martyr victim card, at least get the name of your oppressors right once in a while, otherwise we won't know whom to burn at the stake for heresy... Its "atheist" not "athiest".
See, I havent even contributed to a Religion thread for ages, but this is just an attempt at name calling so Ill have to post at least once.
From theblaze.com as well by the way.. with its own "faith" department, good source.
Why do you have to harp on about it so much? Why do you care if Atheism is or is not classified as a Religion?
Do you think that proving that every human in the world has a Religion (they don't) somehow makes your young earth, wacky as feth, not shared by the overwhelming majority of the Christian world belief more sensible?
Even if it was (It isn't) your beliefs are still wrong, wrong in the eyes of the law (lose every court case) wrong in the eyes of the Scientific majority, and most importantly, wrong numerically (most Christians don't agree with you) and wrong with good old fashioned common bloody sense.
Atheism could be a Religion, but your still wrong. And the vast majority of the Western world (America included) is laughing. The jokes not on the militant atheists, its on you and your coconut dinosaur chums.
Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old. I believe in a higher power, with out a doubt. I also know, that its impossible for the Earth to be as young as the fruity ones think it is.
Atheist Chaplains? Huh?To reaffirm their godlessness when they need it most? Okay.
I seriously doubt the Marines are insulted by it, and it's not exactly "public property", so I don't see why they feel the need to nit-pick at something as simple as a memorial.
KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old. I believe in a higher power, with out a doubt. I also know, that its impossible for the Earth to be as young as the fruity ones think it is.
Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
By the way what does young earthers have to do with the article? I would posit..absolutely nothing.
PhantomViper wrote:If you wan't to constantly play the martyr victim card, at least get the name of your oppressors right once in a while, otherwise we won't know whom to burn at the stake for heresy... Its "atheist" not "athiest".
Not playing the martyr,,,just pointing out hypocrisy.
generalgrog wrote:Still believe atheists aren't religious? This same group want's atheist chaplains.(which is fine with me...just quit pretending you aren't a religion)
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
GG
Its the same rule you violate every time you utter your lies saying atheism is a religion.
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
GG
If I said that the capital of France was Rome, its wrong. It's not "may or may not be wrong" its as wrong as anything else we know to be wrong for a fact.
Its about as wrong as young earthers are. In fact, its probably far more right, at least Rome is pretty close to France, the actual age of the earth is over 4 billion, I think the margin of error is far less trivial!
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
Manchu wrote:Young Earthers are wrong. Also, I did not say they were liars. I said people who tell lies are liars.
Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
People on Dakka agree with a relegious group that believes that the world isn't nearly as old as its been scientifically proven to be? ....This thread confuses me.
Manchu wrote:Young Earthers are wrong. Also, I did not say they were liars. I said people who tell lies are liars.
Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
GG
Just lock the thread Manchu, it is clearly a troll thread, the premise is simply to wind agnostic/atheist people up, and now he is playing the victim.
I say in good old fashioned dakka tradition, you blame the victim, and lock the thread.
Wyrmalla wrote:People on Dakka agree with a relegious group that believes that the world isn't nearly as old as its been scientifically proven to be? ....This thread confuses me.
It confuses me as well...since the thread isn't even about young earth creationism and people are allowed to come into this thread take it off topic and violate the first 2 rules of DAKKA DAKKA.
generalgrog wrote:Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
No no -- people who believe wacky counter-reality theories about the age of the Earth are fruitcakes.
you posted this thread with a certain agenda in mind...what are you trying to achieve?
to say that atheists are hypocrites?
okay... doesnt that violate the rules as well?
My agenda was to talk about why certain atheists are threatened by a memorial to fallen soldiers. This reminds me of westboro baptist. Just because it was a cross they erected. I wouldn't care if they erected a shrine to budda, or a shirne to logic..the point is......... so what.
The source article seems unfairly biased towards athiests I'd note. I know nothing of the website that its taken from, but the language it uses really does nothing to aid it in making its point. I mean I have nothing against a bunch of guys raising a memorial, despite not believing in a god, but the way the article's put across its point hints that the writer was a little close minded. Admitedly this is how a lot of mainstream reporters chose to convye their points, but its a tad unpalitable for someone used to papers that take a stance that's a semblance to neutrality. =/
The world's full of people with extreme views. Normal peopel don't tend to make so much of a ruckuss, thus why you don't see headlines like "athiests and christians decide to set acide their differences and get along" every other day. =P
generalgrog wrote:Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
No no -- people who believe wacky counter-reality theories about the age of the Earth are fruitcakes.
Exactly so a mod can call people fruitcakes. Wow how DAKKA has fallen.
SO now that a mod can make insulting comments does that mean that I now can insult your Catholic religious beliefs that I find wacky?
Can I call belief in transubstantiation a fruitcake belief? I mean if mods can insult why not the rest of us?
There is a good faith argument that the government building memorials in the shape of the Christian cross is a violation of the Establishment Clause. I can't believe that this was not apparent to you, generalgrog.
you posted this thread with a certain agenda in mind...what are you trying to achieve?
to say that atheists are hypocrites?
okay... doesnt that violate the rules as well?
My agenda was to talk about why certain atheists are threatened by a memorial to fallen soldiers. This reminds me of westboro baptist. Just because it was a cross they erected. I wouldn't care if they erected a shrine to budda, or a shirne to logic..the point is......... so what.
GG
The point is it violates the separation of church and state. The military accepts all people from all religions, and will even take people who are not US citizens. so advertising just one religion is not being inclusive of all the others. Its the same reason you can't put up your religions displays on public property.
generalgrog wrote:Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
No no -- people who believe wacky counter-reality theories about the age of the Earth are fruitcakes.
Exactly so a mod can call people fruitcakes. Wow how DAKKA has fallen.
SO now that a mod can make insulting comments does that mean that I now can insult your Catholic religious beliefs that I find wacky?
Can I call belief in transubstantiation a fruitcake belief? I mean if mods can insult why not the rest of us?
=/ I guess its permitedable for people to casually putdown outmoted belief systems. The Roman empire really did have a ridiculous agricultural system....
generalgrog wrote:Can I call belief in transubstantiation a fruitcake belief?
Sure you can. And you can call priests who sexually abuse children pedophiles. And you can call bishops who oppose a woman's legal right to abortion narrow-minded. And you can say that the idea that contraception is inherently evil is stupid and bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The distinction is easy: the criticism must be of the argument/belief/practice/etc. The priest who sexually abuses kids is not a pedophile because I don't like him but because he sexually abuses kids.
Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.
Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.
streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.
Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.
wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.
streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.
Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.
wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.
GG
you took the wrong turn again, to be inclusive they should put up NO religious symbols. Its the easier and simpler solution.
streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.
Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.
wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.
GG
[facepalm]
And this is why we can't have nice things...
I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?
Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.
Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.
The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.
Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.
Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?
It's actually pretty murky. There's a good argument to be made that spending federal money on chaplains is establishing a religion. There's also a really good argument that not having military chaplains limits service members ability to practice their religion.
Manchu wrote:Nope. The chaplaincy is an example of religious accommodation.
Well, if the four Marines who this cross is supposed to memorialize were Christians, wouldn't this also be an example of religious accommodation?
How would the chaplaincy be an example of religious accommodation, but a cross to memorialize four Christian Marines wouldn't be?
Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.
If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.
following that logic...the Military should change a LOT of their symbols and practices then...from the ground up
for one thing...they shouldnt be ranking generals by stars
You'll get no disagreement from me. There are a lot of things not just in the military but all over the US government which are throwbacks that could easily be disposed of. The military is no different in this regard.
As to ranking generals by stars, context of the symbol is just as important as the symbol. The stars used to rank generals (and indeed the various symbols used for lower ranks) do not have any religious connotation, even if said symbol is used in religious symbolism elsewhere.
generalgrog wrote:wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.GG
Or they could simply have none of them. The Vietnam Memorial are the Korean War Memorial are beautiful examples of monuments to fallen soldiers that does not show any sort of iconography. A vertical monument showcasing all the tombstone symbols used by the military (which includes an option for atheists) would also be perfectly acceptable.
Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?
Chaplains serve a variety of religions and uses in the military, and are there by their own desire. If the military prohibited a certain group from having a chaplain of that particular belief set, then there would be a problem. The issue presented in the OP is that currently the US military requires someone desiring to be a chaplain to be endorsed by their particular religious group, which some would say excludes atheist solders from having a chaplain of their won; hence Torpy's statement that atheist chaplains should be allowed.
Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
Try it. Just try it.
For the sake of disclosure, Frazzled, I would like to state that I am in no way supporting this idea. I just thought it was something that was worth mentioning in this discussion.
Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
Try it. Just try it.
For the sake of disclosure, Frazzled, I would like to state that I am in no way supporting this idea. I just thought it was something that was worth mentioning in this discussion.
Electro wrote:For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.
It's not really too amazing. The historicity of Christianity is pretty big deal but there are lots of Christians who know nothing about history, either in terms of what it is or its content. And I'd say that the incidence of noticing apparent hypocrisy regarding some quality correlates positively with the apparent centrality of that quality.
Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.
If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.
Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.
Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?
I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.
Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. What are they gonna do?
Soldier walks into office. "Sir, I've been really nervous lately. A body of mine got shot and it got me thinking of how quickly it can all end."
"It's okay Bob. Whatever happens there is no God, so when you die it'll just be over and we'll bury you in the ground, say some nice words, and be done with it."
Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
As Manchu said, those icons reflect only the personal beliefs of the person interred there. The vast majority are crosses, yes, but there are numerous photos (link is a single example) that show the variety of markers used at Arlington.
Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.
The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.
Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.
Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?
Hordini wrote:
Well, if the four Marines who this cross is supposed to memorialize were Christians, wouldn't this also be an example of religious accommodation?
How would the chaplaincy be an example of religious accommodation, but a cross to memorialize four Christian Marines wouldn't be?
Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.
If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.
The chaplaincy is a an attempt to give soldiers access to a religious leader of their particular faith. A memorial to four soldiers placed on federal land is nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you'd compare the two.
If the soldiers who raised said memorial wanted to put it on their property, I would be behind them 100% whatever their beliefs and mine. The fact is that federal land is governed slightly differently than private land (such as that owned by a corporation or family). Would the memorial be any less a memorial if it were in some non-religious shape such as an obelisk? (Apologies to any religious groups I am unaware of that use the obelisk as a religious symbol!)
Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.
Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?
I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.
Okay, we will assume they were all Christians. The problem is that the memorial is not the same thing as a tombstone. It does not only speak to and about the individual Marines specifically memorialized but to all Marines as an example of the dignity of dying in the service of one's country. The issue is conflating service to the country with service to some religion.
streamdragon wrote:
The chaplaincy is a an attempt to give soldiers access to a religious leader of their particular faith. A memorial to four soldiers placed on federal land is nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you'd compare the two.
I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?
It's called religious accommodation. There is a religious need that is obstructed because of government action, i.e., the circumstances of military service. The government is simply redressing the obstruction by accommodating the religious need.
Incidentally, this is also why there cannot be atheist chaplains.
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. What are they gonna do?
Soldier walks into office. "Sir, I've been really nervous lately. A body of mine got shot and it got me thinking of how quickly it can all end."
"It's okay Bob. Whatever happens there is no God, so when you die it'll just be over and we'll bury you in the ground, say some nice words, and be done with it."
Very encouraging
Then, logically, why would an atheist perform any duty that could jeopardize his or her only existence? I think there is an ability to reconcile the possibility of an afterlife without needing a deity.
I would think an 'atheist chaplain' would probably just be a philosopher/therapist of some sort who makes appeals to logic and reason. But then again, I think that there's equal chances of 'reality' being something a giant turtle is dreaming as there is of a bearded guy in a cloud watching over us. Since it's not something I can prove, I just smirk about it and go on with life.
Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.
The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.
Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.
Its hard to live and let live when you have liars like GG constantly labeling atheism as a religion. Its not, so just drop it and live and let live.
See you have these religious nutters who hate on and attack atheists for no other reason than, they don't believe in a god. Then when they start to lose the argument at hand the always fall back with "live and let live"
as an atheist I don't hate on fiction, just lies, I just refuse to believe in some god like creature who's imagined properties disproves him. Or people who point to a book and go here's the proof of my god, a holy book is not proof of the god, No more than harry potter books are proof of hogwarts and dragons. Then when you look at the claims of these books, they are often demonstrably wrong has to the nature of the universe and the history of the earth.
but once again for everyone. My understanding of things, lead me to reject all notions of gods, unless suitable proof for them can be provided. Even if atheism gets labeled as a religion (which is wrong), then I would still not be a theist and not belong to the atheist religion. see I'm not a theist or atheist. but you have to wonder, if theists really just want to live and let live, why are they so eager to proclaim atheism as a religion?
If you really want to live and let live, then stop trying to tell others who they can and can not marry, Quit trying to push your morals into our secular laws, and quit attacking well founded science, that rationally explain what can be proved to be true. Because religions in the US are doing this based solely on how they interpret a book written 1862ish years go, it opens up the bible for criticism.
Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.
Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?
I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.
Okay, we will assume they were all Christians. The problem is that the memorial is not the same thing as a tombstone. It does not only speak to and about the individual Marines specifically memorialized but to all Marines as an example of the dignity of dying in the service of one's country. The issue is conflating service to the country with service to some religion.
In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
streamdragon wrote:
Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?
I'm not. Christians demonstrateing at funerals of gay aids victims, Muslims calling for the death of Americans, Hindus attacking christians in india, Budist monks encouraging the attacking of Tamils etc etc. all groups will use there belife system to justify the human propensity to tribalistic violence.
It also amazes me how many religous people forget the basic tenant of love and peace.
Hordini wrote:I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?
To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause. This is similar to how churches enjoy a tax-free status, as do other non-religious non-profit organizations.
To the bolded: Yes, there is. Often times soldiers are deployed in areas or stationed in areas that can not meet their religious needs. A soldier in the middle of Iraq/Afghanistan (to use a modern example) may not necessarily have access to a christian church, Jewish synagogue, or a Shinto temple while in the field. Having a chaplain present, on the other hand, can meet those needs despite their locality. Chaplains are like any other service member in that they can and will be called to duty stations far from their actual home.
Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
I think I have already answered all of these questions, actually. Could you be more specific about what part of my answers you did not understand.
it's not exactly a legal doctrine, but the courts have always respected a certain "secular religiosity." Meaning that we, as a culture, understand that certain aspects of relgion have meaning in culture beyond the practice of that religion. Crosses are a christian symbol, but when you see a field of white crosses nearly everybody thinks "cemetary." Christmas is a very religious holiday for some people, but it's hard to call it even mostly a religious event.
It's why our coins say "In God We Trust" (because we have faith in the divine, rather than in the soveriegn). It's why we can have miliatry chaplains.
Nobody is ever perfectly happy with where the line is drawn. Lots of folks really, really want school prayer, but that's seen as too religious. Some folks really, really want to get rid of crosses on public land, but that's not seen as too religious.
Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.
The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.
Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.
Its hard to live and let live when you have liars like GG constantly labeling atheism as a religion. Its not, so just drop it and live and let live.
See you have these religious nutters who hate on and attack atheists for no other reason than, they don't believe in a god. Then when they start to lose the argument at hand the always fall back with "live and let live"
as an atheist I don't hate on fiction, just lies, I just refuse to believe in some god like creature who's imagined properties disproves him. Or people who point to a book and go here's the proof of my god, a holy book is not proof of the god, No more than harry potter books are proof of hogwarts and dragons. Then when you look at the claims of these books, they are often demonstrably wrong has to the nature of the universe and the history of the earth.
but once again for everyone. My understanding of things, lead me to reject all notions of gods, unless suitable proof for them can be provided. Even if atheism gets labeled as a religion (which is wrong), then I would still not be a theist and not belong to the atheist religion. see I'm not a theist or atheist. but you have to wonder, if theists really just want to live and let live, why are they so eager to proclaim atheism as a religion?
If you really want to live and let live, then stop trying to tell others who they can and can not marry, Quit trying to push your morals into our secular laws, and quit attacking well founded science, that rationally explain what can be proved to be true. Because religions in the US are doing this based solely on how they interpret a book written 1862ish years go, it opens up the bible for criticism.
The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.
streamdragon wrote:To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause.
Chaplains are provided to meet a religious need. Atheists have no religious needs and thus should not be provided with chaplains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.
No atheist is responsible for the actions of any other. Atheism alone is not the basis for any association. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted?
Chaplains in the Australian army don't just cover Christianity, they do every type of prayer and service for all jewish, muslim, buddhist, etc. members. Also when you fill out paper work you point out your faith or lack therefor of and also as to whether you want a military funeral dedicated to your faith anyway.
The reason they have chaplains in the defence force is because you are not always going to be within reach of civilian priests/churches etc. when deployed overseas. So everyone is being looked after, whats the problem?
Private_Joker wrote:Chaplains in the Australian army don't just cover Christianity, they do every type of prayer and service for all jewish, muslim, buddhist, etc. members.
It seems like you are saying one person does all of this. Do you meant that there are Christian chaplains as well as chaplains of other faiths? If so, that is also what we have in the US military.
streamdragon wrote:To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause.
Chaplains are provided to meet a religious need. Atheists have no religious needs and thus should not be provided with chaplains.
Well, this isn't true. Chaplains aren't there to minister solely to members of their faith. They're counselors as much as anything, and Catholic chaplains can and do give "non-Catholic" advice and aid to Jews, Protestants, Muslims, atheists, and so forth.
An atheist chaplain doesn't make a lot of sense to me, largely because the religious chaplaincy has everything an atheist would need to go to them for covered.
Hordini wrote:I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?
To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause. This is similar to how churches enjoy a tax-free status, as do other non-religious non-profit organizations.
Okay. I agree with you on this, I thought about it after I posted, and yeah, it seems like there wouldn't be an issue.
streamdragon wrote:
To the bolded: Yes, there is. Often times soldiers are deployed in areas or stationed in areas that can not meet their religious needs. A soldier in the middle of Iraq/Afghanistan (to use a modern example) may not necessarily have access to a christian church, Jewish synagogue, or a Shinto temple while in the field. Having a chaplain present, on the other hand, can meet those needs despite their locality. Chaplains are like any other service member in that they can and will be called to duty stations far from their actual home.
I get the logistical issues, but why isn't lack of religious amenities considered one of the other (many) hardships that military personnel have to face when deployed? Why is it the government's role to fund and provide religious services to anyone? Wouldn't this role be better served by non-government volunteer groups or something?
Well most of the army chaplains use to be Christian priests, but you do have people who are of really no particular faith who are trained rather than believe in the services and rituals they perform. You don't have to have faith in order to comfort someone else spiritually. Lets just say if you didn't provide these services moral and decipline would plummet amongst religous soldiers.
Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
I think I have already answered all of these questions, actually. Could you be more specific about what part of my answers you did not understand.
I guess to be more clear, it's not that I didn't understand your answers, it's just that I thought the arguments were poor.
Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
The rule is that the governmetn cannot "establish" a religion. This originally meant that there could not be a Church of the United States, like there was in England. Keep in mind that barring a few exceptions, nearly all early Americans were Christians, but often from sects persecuted somewhere in Europe.
This has been broadened considerably, most notably due to rising numbers of non-christians. The rule is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor one religion, encourage or promote one (or even several) religions, and increasingly, cannot promote even religiosity. That does not mean that the government cannot spend any money on religion, or acknowledge that religion exists.
Having a large christian cross, or the 10 commandments, on the wall of a public building is pretty generally accepted to be too close to promoting that religion. Placing such a symbol on an invidual grave marker, particulalry since grave markers are traditionally marked with such, is very hard to see as an attempt to promote or mandate religion.
Also, constituional restraints on government power are always lessened in military matters.
Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.
Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.
Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
The religious affiliation of the person matters for no more simpler reason than it is their grave. The majority of tombstones having a cross is immaterial to the fact that each grave marker can have its own symbol. It's important to note that there are several non-religious memorials scattered around Arlington Cemetery.
Electro wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?
I'm not. Christians demonstrateing at funerals of gay aids victims, Muslims calling for the death of Americans, Hindus attacking christians in india, Budist monks encouraging the attacking of Tamils etc etc. all groups will use there belife system to justify the human propensity to tribalistic violence.
It also amazes me how many religous people forget the basic tenant of love and peace.
My apologies. Your first post sounded very one sided "Christians vs Atheists (not atheists as you pointed out)", so I misread it as only referring to such.
daedalus wrote:
The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.
Fight hate with hate? Attack all christions for the actions of a few. Sounds like a few groups i can think of.
Hordini the government is going to do everything it can to make its soldiers comfortable in a very hostile and stressful enviroment. Why would you want to take away that little bit of comfort?
Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.
Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.
I think as long as you think that the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things," then the actual law will remain confusing.
Shockingly, the intersection of military need, the right to worship, the establishment clause, and tradition is not neat and tidy.
Because if expect a lot of americans to sign up for the miliiray knowing they cannot practice their faith for their hitch... that's going to be a problem.
daedalus wrote:If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.
No atheist is responsible for the actions of any other. Atheism alone is not the basis for any association. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted?
Ah, my mistake. What I was trying to say is that "If you are religious, and trying to live and let live, more power to you. You believe your way and I'll believe (or not) mine. If you're one of the ones cramming elements of your religion down everyone else's throats, you're the reason why militant atheists exist. If you're not one of the ones doing it (proselyting) on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you should try to get the ones who are doing so under control."
Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay?
The Government doesn't train them for religious purposes. The individual performs whatever certification is requires (seminary etc) and then they join the Army who then assigns them to their duties. I don't believe the Army covers religious training like they do medical or law.
daedalus wrote:Then, logically, why would an atheist perform any duty that could jeopardize his or her only existence? I think there is an ability to reconcile the possibility of an afterlife without needing a deity.
I would think an 'atheist chaplain' would probably just be a philosopher/therapist of some sort who makes appeals to logic and reason. But then again, I think that there's equal chances of 'reality' being something a giant turtle is dreaming as there is of a bearded guy in a cloud watching over us. Since it's not something I can prove, I just smirk about it and go on with life.
My point was that it's obvious what a Chaplain does. They provide religious console which I think is a justifiable expenditure for an armed force. Atheists, having no religion have no need for one. Psychologists and therapists are already available in the military. Why do we need specific ones for atheists? It's a rather dumb statement to make that we should have Atheist chaplains. What do they do that isn't already done? Nothing.
Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.
If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?
The rule is that the governmetn cannot "establish" a religion. This originally meant that there could not be a Church of the United States, like there was in England. Keep in mind that barring a few exceptions, nearly all early Americans were Christians, but often from sects persecuted somewhere in Europe.
This has been broadened considerably, most notably due to rising numbers of non-christians. The rule is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor one religion, encourage or promote one (or even several) religions, and increasingly, cannot promote even religiosity. That does not mean that the government cannot spend any money on religion, or acknowledge that religion exists.
Having a large christian cross, or the 10 commandments, on the wall of a public building is pretty generally accepted to be too close to promoting that religion. Placing such a symbol on an invidual grave marker, particulalry since grave markers are traditionally marked with such, is very hard to see as an attempt to promote or mandate religion.
Also, constituional restraints on government power are always lessened in military matters.
This is a more complete explanation, and I agree with you. I personally tend to favor a more permissive interpretation of the first amendment, that is, one that would allow for both a cross memorial and a crescent memorial (or whatever other example), but would not disallow either. I understand that not every one agrees with this, of course. I also think the Marines should have at least some say over what memorials they allow for their own fallen members, but I realize that being in service to the American people plays a significant role in what is or should be allowed as well.
Chaplains actually do take on a counsellors role in the field as well. I have even had a chat with them when I was nervous and shaking like gak, and I'm an athiest. Why snob someones help just because they hold a different belief. Not once during my talks with him did he mention god or religion.
Polonius wrote:I think as long as you think that the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things," then the actual law will remain confusing.
There's a misunderstanding of law generally and the Establishment Clause particularly in the OT forum??? Cheers, my brother.
daedalus wrote:
The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.
Fight hate with hate? Attack all christions for the actions of a few. Sounds like a few groups i can think of.
First off, I'm not speaking just about Christians, I'm speaking about all religions. Hell, all philosophies. If I care not to believe, GTFO. Don't push it on me.
As far as the groups you might be thinking of, I can only think of one group it sounds like to me: Animals (of which humans are a part of). Poke a dog enough and he'll start to snap back. Same is true for humans. The difference is that not all people have moral and spiritual leader who's teachings implore "turning the other cheek".
Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.
Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.
as a atheist who served in the military I really don't have any issues with chaplains. They do a lot more than just religious stuff. A military base is a small city, while taxpayers will pay for a building that some religious ceremonies will get held in, taxpayers also paid for a bowling alley, movie theater, gyms, a bar or 3, libraries, (which depending on the size of the base the library doubles as a meeting place for religious events) These places are for the moral of the troops and their families. Until churches start disappearing from most cities, I doubt you can start by getting rid of the ones on military bases.
The chaplains have been challenged in court before and they've been ruled that they're ok (for now). Priests can volunteer for the military the same as anyone else.
streamdragon wrote:
To the bolded: Yes, there is. Often times soldiers are deployed in areas or stationed in areas that can not meet their religious needs. A soldier in the middle of Iraq/Afghanistan (to use a modern example) may not necessarily have access to a christian church, Jewish synagogue, or a Shinto temple while in the field. Having a chaplain present, on the other hand, can meet those needs despite their locality. Chaplains are like any other service member in that they can and will be called to duty stations far from their actual home.
I get the logistical issues, but why isn't lack of religious amenities considered one of the other (many) hardships that military personnel have to face when deployed? Why is it the government's role to fund and provide religious services to anyone? Wouldn't this role be better served by non-government volunteer groups or something?
The training that chaplains receive at the hand of taxpayers has nothing to do with their particular religious beliefs. Hence why to be a chaplain in the US military one must be endorsed by the religious group they desire to represent. The training chaplains receive at taxpayer expense is the same training all military personnel, whether combatant or noncombatant, receive. Keep in mind, chaplainry in the United States Military can sometimes be a hot button issue.
In answer to the question in bold though, the simplest answer I can think of is that untrained personnel in a war zone are a liability. The more complex issue would probably be a combination of tradition, not wanting to ostracize groups, and soldier morale.
streamdragon wrote:
My apologies. Your first post sounded very one sided "Christians vs Atheists (not atheists as you pointed out)", so I misread it as only referring to such.
No problem. It kind of was, but only because of the issue at hand. Every group has to much hate imo, Christians included. No group has a monopoly on right.
LordofHats wrote:
My point was that it's obvious what a Chaplain does. They provide religious console which I think is a justifiable expenditure for an armed force. Atheists, having no religion have no need for one. Psychologists and therapists are already available in the military. Why do we need specific ones for atheists? It's a rather dumb statement to make that we should have Atheist chaplains. What do they do that isn't already done? Nothing.
Ah. I assumed that the Chaplain fulfilled more of that role in practice than any sort of actual psychologist, but I'll be the first to admit that I speak from ignorance pertaining to matters of military practice. So long as there is someone else to fulfil those rolls, I need no need for an atheist chaplain either.
A hot girl in my Evidence class was writing about the Establishment clause for her law review note, so I listened to her go on and on about how far from the original intent the Establishment clause has been interpreted.
I dont' fully disagree with much of the rulings, but it's important to realize that the "wall between church and state" is not a constitutional doctrine, but a philosophical one. It's one that I generally agree with, but I also like to apply a 10% rule to must stuff. If 90% of people want something, and nobody is actually hurt (financially, emotionally, etc), than just let it go.
Lets my take on military chaplains. I think that any chaplains that proslytize should be removed, as that's not their job as servicemen. But chaplains perform informal counseling in addition to conducting services. Nobody is hurt by having chaplains, and a lot of people are helped a lot.
Polonius wrote:A hot girl in my Evidence class was writing about the Establishment clause for her law review note, so I listened to her go on and on about how far from the original intent the Establishment clause has been interpreted.
Private_Joker wrote:Hordini the government is going to do everything it can to make its soldiers comfortable in a very hostile and stressful enviroment. Why would you want to take away that little bit of comfort?
I posted earlier in the thread that I was playing a bit of devil's advocate. I want to be clear that I'm not actually for the removal of chaplains or religious symbols at Arlington or anything like that, I have a lot of friends and family who are currently or have in the past been in the military, and I would not want to take away any of their limited comforts during deployments or otherwise. I'm really just trying to explore the limits of the first amendment a bit, and people's interpretations of it.
Polonius wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.
Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.
I think as long as you think that the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things," then the actual law will remain confusing.
Shockingly, the intersection of military need, the right to worship, the establishment clause, and tradition is not neat and tidy.
Because if expect a lot of americans to sign up for the miliiray knowing they cannot practice their faith for their hitch... that's going to be a problem.
Thank you, Polonius. I just want to point out at this time that I don't actually believe the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things." I do hear that argument from other people a lot, and I've noticed that a lot of posters here seem to take that basic position in other religious threads we've had, so I was trying to explore that position a bit to see where it went. Obviously, it didn't go very far.
Manchu, I guess I was just hoping for a bit more detail. I found your brief posts both prefaced with "Nope" to be a bit dismissive, and I thought the questions about what is admittedly a complex subject deserved a bit more of a response than that. That said, I think my attempt to play devil's advocate got away from me a bit and I ended up straying a bit too far, and for that I apologize.
Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.
I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.
Manchu wrote:Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.
I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.
.
The need to drink while in the middle of the ocean well for the only dry navy anyways
Manchu wrote:Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.
I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.
I actually think the US government does a reasonably good job providing for the needs of service members. I was thinking more along the lines of separation from family and things of that nature, which while the government does try to alleviate a bit, isn't really avoidable. Maybe that would count as an obstructed need that the government doesn't provide for, but attempts to lessen the negative impact of by providing things like mail and phone calls and that sort of thing.
Well now I'm home I had a look online and found the story about the wiccans. It appears that you cannot just have any symbol on your grave but you have to have one of about 40 which is approved. Apparently it usually takes a few months to petition and get a new one approved but took the wiccans 10 years.
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that have been shown many times by repeatable experiments and good data are wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
GG
Fixed that for you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
My point was that it's obvious what a Chaplain does. They provide religious console which I think is a justifiable expenditure for an armed force. Atheists, having no religion have no need for one. Psychologists and therapists are already available in the military. Why do we need specific ones for atheists? It's a rather dumb statement to make that we should have Atheist chaplains. What do they do that isn't already done? Nothing.
Ah. I assumed that the Chaplain fulfilled more of that role in practice than any sort of actual psychologist, but I'll be the first to admit that I speak from ignorance pertaining to matters of military practice. So long as there is someone else to fulfil those rolls, I need no need for an atheist chaplain either.
they just want their military unit to reroll hits on the charge
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?
Try it. Just try it.
No, each represents the person and they are inclusive. Some have no marks at all... and seriously.. some are cannons...
Howard A Treesong wrote:Well now I'm home I had a look online and found the story about the wiccans. It appears that you cannot just have any symbol on your grave but you have to have one of about 40 which is approved. Apparently it usually takes a few months to petition and get a new one approved but took the wiccans 10 years.
Chaplains specifically are required to minister to the needs of people who hold different faiths. Even completely different ones.
Wicca, for example, was added to the Army's Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains back in 1978. Here's the excerpt:
http://www.wicca.org/instit/army.html
A whole list of other religions are covered in there, including Satanism. I think the latter is mostly in there due to one or two prominent Satanists in the military, like Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, founder of the Temple of Set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set
Where do you sign up to be an Atheist Chaplain? Is that the easiest job in the world or what?
Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do. Personally I find burial to be a needless waste of space. Of course you have more room in America.
Dayvuni wrote:"Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!
This is an amazingly ignorant statement. If there IS a problem with the Constitution, we should (and we have) change it. Let's ask Thomas Jefferson what he thinks:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.
Our Constitution is wonderful, but has been amended a number of times and mostly much for the better. Unless you think a black person or a woman shouldn't vote?
Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?
Yeah it's from two pages ago...so what?
Chaplains roles are two fold. They provide an outlet for religious expression in and near combat. They also provide non-denominational counselling, moral and ethical guidance, and similar support to both soldiers and in the same roles act as an advisor to leaders in command positions. Chaplains are basically the moral compass of the service, or at least thats my experience in the US. I once told my chaplain of one of my many elaborate master plans that involved getting a legitimate theology degree and commisioning in the Army as a chaplain: a Jedi chaplain. With epic and ambiguous lines like, "Do or do not, there is no try" and "from a certain point of view" no soldier or commander would seriously seek my counsel. Free paycheck forever...sadly Chaplains are subject to OERs so that wouldn't really work out. Oh, that and I don't think the Army recognizes "Jedi" for Chaplaincy but does as a religion.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.
The VA was refusing to make a decision on whether or not the pentagram would be allowed on gravestones. The fact that they were not denying the symbol meant that those who were requesting it (families of fallen Wiccan service members) could not contest the decision. Eventually after a lawsuit by the ACLU, I believe, the VA was forced to make the decision and they decided to allow it.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.
The VA was refusing to make a decision on whether or not the pentagram would be allowed on gravestones. The fact that they were not denying the symbol meant that those who were requesting it (families of fallen Wiccan service members) could not contest the decision. Eventually after a lawsuit by the ACLU, I believe, the VA was forced to make the decision and they decided to allow it.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They focus more specifically on religious issues.
Yeah, that took longer than it should have. Go AU.
George Spiggott wrote:Where do you sign up to be an Atheist Chaplain? Is that the easiest job in the world or what?
Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do. Personally I find burial to be a needless waste of space. Of course you have more room in America.
Of course Christians believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So while it's a nice soundbite to say that dead people don't care whats on their headstones, that's just your opinion.
generalgrog wrote:Still believe atheists aren't religious? This same group want's atheist chaplains.(which is fine with me...just quit pretending you aren't a religion)
Yes, because atheists aren't religious. The only people that believe them to be are the people that desperately want to interpret all things in the world through the lens of religion, it is a case of only having a hammer.
And they aren't asking for atheist chaplains, they're asking for humanist chaplains. Humanism can be considered an atheistic faith, but atheism itself, like theism, cannot. That you have such difficulty understanding this boggles my mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Manchu wrote:Young Earthers are wrong. Also, I did not say they were liars. I said people who tell lies are liars.
Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.
No, that's not what was said. He implied its alright to call people who believe things that are wrong fruitcakes, because people that believe things that are wrong can properly called fruitcakes just as people who lie can properly be called liars.
And yes, Young Earthers are about as wrong as it can get. There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, very little evidence in favor, and the majority of that evidence is based on proving that the dominant position might not be right. And, to throw even more fuel on the fire, most of that proof is grounded in an approach which effectively tries to discredit the only realistic way of ever proving that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Sure, there is an incredibly slim chance that you're not wrong, but in all likelihood you are. Its not absolute, because nothing is really absolute, but its damn close.
But you see the difference between calling people fruitcakes, and doing what you did, was that you at least used common decency and courtesy in disagreeing with the position.
Remember that the original statement was a defense of Christians.
KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old.
LordofHats wrote:
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. What are they gonna do?
Soldier walks into office. "Sir, I've been really nervous lately. A body of mine got shot and it got me thinking of how quickly it can all end."
"It's okay Bob. Whatever happens there is no God, so when you die it'll just be over and we'll bury you in the ground, say some nice words, and be done with it."
Very encouraging
They're not really seeking atheist chaplains, though that is a side effect of sorts, they're seeking humanist chaplains.
Now, humanism can be considered a religion, as I said above, but really its more a philosophical category.
While I don't necessarily see it as necessary, I also don't see how it any way has a negative impact on the military, so if someone wants humanist chaplains, let them.
Mannahnin wrote:Remember that the original statement was a defense of Christians.
KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old.
Yes but it was also a backhanded insult to anyone that believes that the earth is "little more than 10K years old".
I actually think someone with a clean slate, with no bias between any of the religions and is open minded, would make a great spiritual advisor or you know a multirole chaplain. But existing chaplains do an excellent job already. As for the MASH chapters I don't see what the problem would be finacially, I mean if there willing to spend tons of money on christian venues why not spend a tiny amount on an atheist one.
I can see this getting out of control though due to rivalry with each side trying to recruit more and more members. Your going to have a broken organisation with each side hating on the other. However if they keep each of their clubs seperate with minumum advertising, no shoving it in someones face or preaching, then I'm happy with it.
Frazzled wrote:Nuke them from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
Allow me to preface this with saying that I didn't read this thread at all.
This is the purest distillation of my reaction to the story (which I did read). It's just some more of that IRL trolling that pops up from time to time, which grows more tiresome with every episode.
Mannahnin wrote:Remember that the original statement was a defense of Christians.
KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old.
Yes but it was also a backhanded insult to anyone that believes that the earth is "little more than 10K years old".
GG
I suppose, in the same way it's an insult to say "People who believe space aliens actively abduct people from the American Midwest are fruitcakes" or "People who believe that they can solve crimes by talking to ghosts are fruitcakes" or "People who genuinely believe the world going to end this year because the Mayans said so are fruit cakes".
Atheist chaplains sound like a reasonable thing to me - able to advise, console, etc in a secular way, maybe also see that bodies, wills, last requests etc of atheist soldiers are carried out.
As for the rest of the article... I'd have to say that it sounds like they were trying to make a point rather than anything else.
As for the rest of the thread... I think certain people were looking to be insulted, and other people walked right into it, face first.
Mannahnin wrote:Remember that the original statement was a defense of Christians.
KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old.
Yes but it was also a backhanded insult to anyone that believes that the earth is "little more than 10K years old".
GG
and saying the earth is 10k years old is a insult to everyone who knows the earth is 4.54 billion years old.
The tree's can prove the earth is at least 20k years old.
The ice caps date back 160,000 years.
no matter how you look at it, 10k is just demonstrable wrong.
The earth is also not flat, nor the center of the universe.
George Spiggott wrote:Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do.
Of course Christians believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So while it's a nice soundbite to say that dead people don't care whats on their headstones, that's just your opinion..
The location (or existence) of the soul is irrelevant. Headstones fall under the category of worldly possessions. Are there any other worldly possessions Christians care about after they die or is it just headstones? Is just the shape of the headstone important or is the workmanship and the materials vital too?
Why am I asking you? Do you solicit the opinions of the deceased often?
generalgrog wrote:George... is too hard to realize that people may want to leave a testimony behind.
GG
That may be something they want while they're still alive. You're indulging in sentimentalism not Christianity. Feel free toy dig up a biblical quote about how you should care about 'your' bit of stone after you die though. I'm sure I can find plenty in the bible about your possessions when you're alive.
There are far better testimonies that one can leave behind than a bit of stone.
What is the point of your argument George? I'm not trying to be snippy I just can't figure out what, if anything, you have against people wanting their tombstones to reflect something they think is significant about themselves.
Manchu wrote:What is the point of your argument George? I'm not trying to be snippy I just can't figure out what, if anything, you have against people wanting their tombstones to reflect something they think is significant about themselves.
That living people wanting these things? Nothing. Don't pretend that you know what dead people want or that dead people's opinions matter.
Manchu wrote:What is the point of your argument George? I'm not trying to be snippy I just can't figure out what, if anything, you have against people wanting their tombstones to reflect something they think is significant about themselves.
That living people wanting these things? Nothing. Don't pretend that you know what dead people want or that dead people's opinions matter.
Ok so we can just burn all of Thomas Jeffersons writings and wipe all electronic copies then...
generalgrog wrote:Ok so we can just burn all of Thomas Jeffersons writings and wipe all electronic copies then...
I didn't realise we were keeping them jut to keep Thomas Jefferson's corpse happy. I though they had some other purpose that living people valued. Facepalm indeed.
Manchu wrote:What is the point of your argument George? I'm not trying to be snippy I just can't figure out what, if anything, you have against people wanting their tombstones to reflect something they think is significant about themselves.
That living people wanting these things? Nothing. Don't pretend that you know what dead people want or that dead people's opinions matter.
Ok so we can just burn all of Thomas Jeffersons writings and wipe all electronic copies then...
GG
There goes the christian wanting to burn books again. Why the disrespect for the dead?
@George: That's overly literal. To me, generalgrog is saying dead people in reference to the wishes they made known when they were alive. I think he mentioned being "present with the Lord" means that dead people aren't just absent from reality because they've died. Some people like myself believe in the notion of the communion of saints but even an atheist can acknowledge the concept of "respecting the memory of the deceased."
Manchu wrote:@George: That's overly literal. To me, generalgrog is saying dead people in reference to the wishes they made known when they were alive. I think he mentioned being "present with the Lord" means that dead people aren't just absent from reality because they've died. Some people like myself believe in the notion of the communion of saints but even an atheist can acknowledge the concept of "respecting the memory of the deceased."
Already covered in the first post I wrote that GG objected to.
George Spiggott wrote:Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do.
sirlynchmob wrote:the point still is the headstones and memorials are for the living. If you're dead, you're either in heaven, purgatory, hell, trapped on the river styx without a penny, or just gone. in any of those 5 options the stiff could probably care less about what is on his stone. Normally the stiff doesn't even get a say on whats on it. Even respecting the memory of someone has little to do with the one who died, but being respectful to the ones still alive.
Manchu wrote:@George: That's overly literal. To me, generalgrog is saying dead people in reference to the wishes they made known when they were alive. I think he mentioned being "present with the Lord" means that dead people aren't just absent from reality because they've died. Some people like myself believe in the notion of the communion of saints but even an atheist can acknowledge the concept of "respecting the memory of the deceased."
the point still is the headstones and memorials are for the living. If you're dead, you're either in heaven, purgatory, hell, trapped on the river styx without a penny, or just gone. in any of those 5 options the stiff could probably care less about what is on his stone. Normally the stiff doesn't even get a say on whats on it. Even respecting the memory of someone has little to do with the one who died, but being respectful to the ones still alive.
George Spiggott wrote:Already covered in the first post I wrote that GG objected to.
George Spiggott wrote:Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do.
I guess what I am saying is, people who were once living cared about what is on their tombstone and just because they are now dead doesn't mean that their wishes don't matter anymore.
OTOH, it is hard to fault your assumption that GG meant something more bizarre.
Manchu wrote:guess what I am saying is, people who were once living cared about what is on their tombstone and just because they are now dead doesn't mean that their wishes don't matter anymore..
Their wishes don't matter. The wishes of living people who want to carry on their wishes matter. Although they carry no extra weight because they think a dead person agrees with them.
Manchu wrote:OTOH, it is hard to fault your assumption that GG meant something more bizarre.
That doesn't seem correct. For example, a woman wants to be cremated upon dying but her only son finds cremation abhorrent. It is possible that the son would still have his mother's corpse cremated because of her wishes.
That doesn't seem correct. For example, a woman wants to be cremated upon dying but her only son finds cremation abhorrent. It is possible that the son would still have his mother's corpse cremated because of her wishes.
its possible, but its just as likely if not more likely he would ignore her request and bury her.
It's also possible, and one might even say likely, that some living person might ignore the wishes of some other living person. That does not mean that the wishes of living people do not matter.
Manchu wrote:That doesn't seem correct. For example, a woman wants to be cremated upon dying but her only son finds cremation abhorrent. It is possible that the son would still have his mother's corpse cremated because of her wishes.
Either way it's a decision being made by a living person. If the woman is cremated the son chose to do that. We can choose to do what they asked or we can choose not to. Either way we (the living) make the final choice.
That has nothing to do with whether the wishes of the dead matter.
EDIT: I guess I should clarify that I understand that you are saying that the wishes of the dead only matter because the living say so. But if we say the wishes of the dead matter then they do -- which I think is what does in fact happen, as opposed to what you are saying happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This does illustrate well, however, that the distinction between the living and the dead is not so absolute as we casually assume.
Manchu wrote:That has nothing to do with whether the wishes of the dead matter.
The wishes (choices) of the dead only matter to people who want to follow them. At which point they become the wishes (choices) of the living.
The example of the mother who wants to be cremated seems to undermine this. OTOH, the son does not wish to cremate his mother's body. OTOH, the son wants to respect his mothers wishes. You are saying that the only important factor is that the son wants to respect his mother's wishes but this is obviously false. The son cannot respect his mother's wishes if she had none. Thus her wishes are of central importance even though she is now dead.
Manchu wrote:It's also possible, and one might even say likely, that some living person might ignore the wishes of some other living person. That does not mean that the wishes of living people do not matter.
for the most part though, wishes do not matter. you know the saying wish in one hand, you know what in the other, see which hand fills up first.
Your wish would only matter based on its merits and the likely hood of it happening.
Like everyone wishing for world peace, but as of today it seems like its never going to happen.
I wish I could have pizza and beer for dinner, hey look I have beer in the fridge and pizza is just a phone call away. Its a wish, because dinner is still a couple hours away and against my wishes, I might not live to see dinner.
Manchu wrote:The example of the mother who wants to be cremated seems to undermine this. OTOH, the son does not wish to cremate his mother's body. OTOH, the son wants to respect his mothers wishes. You are saying that the only important factor is that the son wants to respect his mother's wishes but this is obviously false. The son cannot respect his mother's wishes if she had none. Thus her wishes are of central importance even though she is now dead.
I'm saying that they are no longer hers. If the son cremates her it is his wish, he wanted to do as his mother asked.
The wishes of the dead are only of use where they are compatible with the wishes of the living.
sirlynchmob wrote:Your wish would only matter based on its merits and the likely hood of it happening.
We've just been using the word "wish" because it's a funerary colloquialism. What we really mean is desire, goal, preference, etc. I don't think the value of any expression among these categories is dependent upon likelihood of realization.
George Spiggott wrote:I'm saying that they are no longer hers. If the son cremates her it is his wish, he wanted to do as his mother asked.
The wishes of the dead are only of use where they are compatible with the wishes of the living.
Again, the example seems to contradict this, if I understand what you mean by "of use."
The mother's wish is to be cremated. By respecting his mother's wishes, the son has not developed the desire to cremate his mother. He is cremating her against his own wishes because of his separate desire to respect her preferences -- which are meaningfully distinct from his own. It is possible to voluntarily act against one's will, as it were, according to a particular evaluation for the sake of some separate interest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:What do the Atheists want to replace the cross with?
They could save their pennies and do something like this:
sirlynchmob wrote:Your wish would only matter based on its merits and the likely hood of it happening.
We've just been using the word "wish" because it's a funerary colloquialism. What we really mean is desire, goal, preference, etc. I don't think the value of any expression among these categories is dependent upon likelihood of realization.
Its still applicable, you can desire, set goals, or state a preference for something, but until it happens, it hasn't been realized yet. As all of those require predicting the future, they are also dependent upon likelihood.
It is very unlikely that someone who wants to be a movie star will make it big in the pictures. And yet most of the people who have made it big in the pictures wanted to be movie stars.
Manchu wrote:It is very unlikely that someone who wants to be a movie star will make it big in the pictures. And yet most of the people who have made it big in the pictures wanted to be movie stars.
and some people just working at a coffee shop became movie stars.
Unlikely things can happen, but until it happens, its just a wish, desire, goal, preference, dream, etc.
like the moms request for his son, I'm sure the son would consider her wishes, but in the end its his decision. if he does what she wanted, her wish was realized. If he does something else, it wasn't.
Manchu wrote: It is possible to voluntarily act against one's will, as it were, according to a particular evaluation for the sake of some separate interest.
Are you talking about cognitive dissonance? You may have two or more conflicting thoughts but they are all your thoughts.
Manchu wrote:I guess I should clarify that I understand that you are saying that the wishes of the dead only matter because the living say so
Absolutely.
That's a fine looking monument by the way. Anyone would be proud that they're venerating their predecessors with that.
sirlynchmob wrote:if he does what she wanted, her wish was realized. If he does something else, it wasn't.
The latter course of action (much less her death) does not annihilate the meaning, validity, existence, etc, of her wishes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:Are you talking about cognitive dissonance? You may have two or more conflicting thoughts but they are all your thoughts.
No, I am talking about distinct interests. In my example, their are three interests at play.
(1) the mother's wish to be cremated
(2) the son's abhorrence of cremation
(3) the son's desire to respect his mother's wishes
The third interest does not transform the second into the first. The third prioritizes the first above the second. It was never the son's wish to cremate the mother. The example illustrates that a person's wishes are not only important after she dies but also that the wishes of a person who is now dead can be even more important than some of the interests of a living person.
sirlynchmob wrote:if he does what she wanted, her wish was realized. If he does something else, it wasn't.
The latter course of action (much less her death) does not annihilate the meaning, validity, existence, etc, of her wishes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:Are you talking about cognitive dissonance? You may have two or more conflicting thoughts but they are all your thoughts.
No, I am talking about distinct interests. In my example, their are three interests at play.
(1) the mother's wish to be cremated
(2) the son's abhorrence of cremation
(3) the son's desire to respect his mother's wishes
The third interest does not transform the first into the second. The third prioritizes the first above the second. It was never the son's wish to cremate the mother. The example illustrates that a person's wishes are not only important after she dies but also that the wishes of a person who is now dead can be even be important than some of the interests of a living person.
But the wish is only as important to the living as much as the living allows it to be important. In the end its the sons choice on what happens to the body. If he doesn't consider his moms wish at all in his decision her wish was meaningless. Its not like mom has any more say in the matter, she can't object to what her sons does with the body.
(3) the son's desire to respect his mother's wishes
The third interest does not transform the second into the first. The third prioritizes the first above the second. It was never the son's wish to cremate the mother. The example illustrates that a person's wishes are not only important after she dies but also that the wishes of a person who is now dead can be even more important than some of the interests of a living person.
One and three are the same thing. Without the son there is no mother's wish/desire. The mother's desire only exists because of the son and he alone will be the arbiter.
sirlynchmob wrote:If he doesn't consider his moms wish at all in his decision her wish was meaningless.
I think you mean "is meaningless" but I would still object. This is just like what you were saying earlier, if you don't mind me paraphrasing via my own counter example, that wanting to be a movie star is meaningless until you actually become one. It seems to me that you view "meaningfulness" in terms of realization. I simply object to that definition of "what matters." To me, things matter even if they are not yet realized or even if they never can be.
Let me give a further example, using your modification of the uncremated mother scenario. The son completely ignored his mother's wishes to be cremated. But the friend of the son thought badly of the son for doing so.
Manchu wrote:It is possible to voluntarily act against one's will, as it were, according to a particular evaluation for the sake of some separate interest.
Not really, to the extent that the will is real, we cannot act without it. You might choose one desired action (according to the wishes of the mother) while ignoring another desired action (not doing so), but that doesn't mean you're acting against your own will.
That being said, if the mother had not wished to be cremated, the son would not have done so. That wish does matter, to the son, but is of little concern to the deceased once they are deceased. Unless, of course, they're looking down from on high, in which case they'll haunt the gak out of you for ignoring their wishes.
George Spiggott wrote:One and three are the same thing.
That is not the case. The son does not want to cremate the body. He wants to respect his mother's wishes. They remain distinct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You might choose one desired action (according to the wishes of the mother) while ignoring another desired action (not doing so), but that doesn't mean you're acting against your own will.
Yes, as I indicated, I was being a little pithy rather than exact.
That being said, if the mother had not wished to be cremated, the son would not have done so. That wish does matter, to the son, but is of little concern to the deceased once they are deceased.
The question is not whether the wishes of the dead matter to the dead, unless I have very much misinterpreted George's comment. His comment seems fairly absolute, however: "Their [the dead's] wishes don't matter."
Manchu wrote:The question is not whether the wishes of the dead matter to the dead, unless I have very much misinterpreted George's comment. His comment seems fairly absolute, however: "Their [the dead's] wishes don't matter."
From what I have understood his position is that the dead matter only because the living say they do.
dogma wrote:From what I have understood his position is that the dead matter only because the living say they do.
From above, to George:
Manchu wrote:I guess I should clarify that I understand that you are saying that the wishes of the dead only matter because the living say so. But if we say the wishes of the dead matter then they do -- which I think is what does in fact happen, as opposed to what you are saying happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, I should clarify: only the living can enact the wishes of people who are no longer alive; but the wishes of the dead do not cease to exist or have value merely because they are not enacted.
dogma wrote:From what I have understood his position is that the dead matter only because the living say they do.
From above, to George:
Manchu wrote:I guess I should clarify that I understand that you are saying that the wishes of the dead only matter because the living say so.
At least my message isn't garbled.
Manchu wrote:But if we say the wishes of the dead matter then they do -- which I think is what does in fact happen, as opposed to what you are saying happens.
They matter to us (the living) not to them (the dead). At which point they become our (the living's )goals/dreams/wishes.
sirlynchmob wrote:If he doesn't consider his moms wish at all in his decision her wish was meaningless.
I think you mean "is meaningless" but I would still object. This is just like what you were saying earlier, if you don't mind me paraphrasing via my own counter example, that wanting to be a movie star is meaningless until you actually become one. It seems to me that you view "meaningfulness" in terms of realization. I simply object to that definition of "what matters." To me, things matter even if they are not yet realized or even if they never can be.
Let me give a further example, using your modification of the uncremated mother scenario. The son completely ignored his mother's wishes to be cremated. But the friend of the son thought badly of the son for doing so.
Things that matter to us, matter to us because we are still alive. But if you set a goal, and you chase your goal to the exclusion of all else, of course the goal matters to you. But at some point either while your alive, or the moment you die, if you never achieved that goal, then your life goal could be considered meaningless. Maybe that is to harsh a term, and there's a better way to say it? because really you can wish and work towards whatever goal you want, but that won't necessarily affect the end result of seeing that goal realized. If you achieve your goal, it worked, if you didn't, you didn't, you just never know til the end.
That doesn't mean while your alive you shouldn't set goals and work on the goals that matter to you, or plan for the future. Because if you don't the likelihood of it happening drops close to 0.
but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then? is there a better word? unrealized? pointless? without merit? irrelevant?
but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.
but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then?
Wait I never said that all of the wishes of all the people who have died end up mattering after their deaths. I objected to the statement that none of the wishes of any of the people who have died have mattered since their deaths.
but lets say for your example, the son dies upon hearing the news his mom died. so her wishes were never known and they buried her in a plot next to his. would her wish be meaningless then?
Wait I never said that all of the wishes of all the people who have died end up mattering after their deaths. I objected to the statement that none of the wishes of any of the people who have died have mattered since their deaths.
I agree with that, my thought is the wishes of the dead only matter to the extent that the living act on or consider them. Its a case by case basis and could either be a lot, or none at all.
sirlynchmob wrote:I agree with that, my thought is the wishes of the dead only matter to the extent that the living act on or consider them.
That statement just seems to define what matters to you. You could rephrase it as "the wishes of the dead are only enacted or considered by the living to the extent that they are enacted or considered by the living." Or similarly, "the wishes of the dead only matter when they matter."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.
That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.
George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.
That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.
Indeed, but it only matters if a living person chooses to give the advice value. Without the living person the advice has no value. I think our differences lie with the order of will and action. I believe that the will causes the action, others disagree. IIRC it is a philosophical question that cannot truly be resolved.
sirlynchmob wrote:but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.
I've been largely passing over your posts over the last couple of pages to answer Manchu but I agree with much of what you have written.
Manchu wrote:I don't see things as only having value if I have a use for them.
Neither do I. Things have value if I accept or enact them, If I don't then they had less value. The difference here between less value and no value is semantic.
George Spiggott wrote:The difference here between less value and no value is semantic.
I very much disagree. Milton was no Shakespeare but he was hardly worthless.
I think you're going off track a bit there. Have both Milton and Shakespeare given me a piece of conflicting advice that I must choose between? This isn't a binary cremate/don't cremate situation.
I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.
Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.
and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.
lets take my dinner plans analogy. I was wishing for pizza and beer and due to a weird twist of fate ended up having spaghetti and wine. So my wish to have pizza and beer for dinner ended up being meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
Manchu wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:The dead can leave advice but I choose to take it.
That is an excellent way to put it. The advice itself is something separate from the decision to take it. Even if you don't take the advice, the advice still exists.
Indeed, but it only matters if a living person chooses to give the advice value. Without the living person the advice has no value. I think our differences lie with the order of will and action. I believe that the will causes the action, others disagree. IIRC it is a philosophical question that cannot truly be resolved.
sirlynchmob wrote:but in any case, in the end, when your dead, your dead. Your life has been written beginning to end, and it was what it was. Anything you wished for those still alive only matters to those who remember you and to the amount they allow it to. It could matter a lot, or not at all. In the end the living will decide what's on your tombstone.
I've been largely passing over your posts over the last couple of pages to answer Manchu but I agree with much of what you have written.
Thanks I appreciate that. you've been making a lot of sense as well.
Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.
and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.
I don't think they have to necessarily come to pass in order to impact the lives of the living. Fruitless =/= meaningless. Take Manchu's example from before, where a friend of the son is aware of the mother's wish, and winds up respecting the son less for failing to carry out his mother's request. Even if there was no third party, the son may regret disregarding those wishes and feel guilt or shame.
Mannahnin wrote:I'm with Manchu. The previously-expressed wishes of someone who is now dead can and do matter and have an impact on the lives of the living. Even if we disagree with them, we may choose to act or not act on them, and the choice matters.
and if you choose not to heed what they say, their wish was meaningless, it had no influence or bearing on the decision you ended up making. so while the wishes of the dead may matter, if they do not have an impact on the lives of the living they did not matter in the slightest.
I don't think they have to necessarily come to pass in order to impact the lives of the living. Fruitless =/= meaningless. Take Manchu's example from before, where a friend of the son is aware of the mother's wish, and winds up respecting the son less for failing to carry out his mother's request. Even if there was no third party, the son may regret disregarding those wishes and feel guilt or shame.
That's a consequence, that does not make the moms wish any more meaningful. In the end its the sons decision, and there is nothing the dead mom can do about it.
and if there is no consequence then it was meaningless.
No, volition and enaction aren't purely causal. The wish is meaningful because it 'means something', 'can be interpreted', 'has an impact on it's recipient's volition and mental discourse'. If there is a recipient, there is a volitive consequence (the apparition of a possibility of enaction) weither or not there is a realized consequence.
Because the interpretation is only possible if there is an essential reality which can be interpreted (an object of interpretation), logically, the wish is meaningful by itself. Not acting on a wish is an act of will(acts of self limitation).
And BTW, no, the wish of the dead are recognised as being legally binding in many society, for reasons of social cohesion. Weither that's the living giving a value to the dead's wish, or the future-dead wanting to make sure that their wishes are fulfilled, is just a question of semantics ; no matter what, all those who voted those laws in are already dead. So it might as well be that those wishes are recognized as having an intrinsic value, simply due to the fact that they are wishes coming from a dead person
And even as a completely irreligious person (I am very interested by all conversations about the divine, and open to the possibility of its existence, but I definitely lack any faith fiber), I have a hard time not considering the wishes of the dead as something somewhat sacred. I mean, how weak of integrity, empathy and honor must you be to refuse to fulfill the last wishes of someone you cared about, as long as the wishes aren't ridiculous?
It's the closest thing to 'sacred' an almost-atheist like me can think of.
Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing).
To give contrast, here in Quebec, we have an issue with a town mayor who refused not to pray before starting assemblies, while its clearly, unequivocally against the constitution. But it's a rural town and lots of folk there are behind him, and gave him lots of funds to fight the subsequent lawsuits, and escalated it to the Supreme Court. Atheist groups fighting for the secular society as the constitution defends secularism : perfectly fine. But the shape of the gravestone isn't an attack on secular society, in itself. It's a figure marking the area where a dead lays, not the symbol of religious affiliation a students wears around the neck in a school embroiled in ethnic and religious conflicts, or the mark that may define you as the same member of a religious group as the political figure you're dealing with, leading to him unjustly giving you favors. Everyone should chill and remember this is ultimately a story about dead people, and the proper way to show them respect.
And even as a completely irreligious person (I am very interested by all conversations about the divine, and open to the possibility of its existence, but I definitely lack any faith fiber), I have a hard time not considering the wishes of the dead as something somewhat sacred. I mean, how weak of integrity, empathy and honor must you be to refuse to fulfill the last wishes of someone you cared about, as long as the wishes aren't ridiculous?
It's the closest thing to 'sacred' an almost-atheist like me can think of.
Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing).
To give contrast, here in Quebec, we have an issue with a town mayor who refused not to pray before starting assemblies, while its clearly, unequivocally against the constitution. But it's a rural town and lots of folk there are behind him, and gave him lots of funds to fight the subsequent lawsuits, and escalated it to the Supreme Court. Atheist groups fighting for the secular society as the constitution defends secularism : perfectly fine. But the shape of the gravestone isn't an attack on secular society, in itself. It's a figure marking the area where a dead lays, not the symbol of religious affiliation a students wears around the neck in a school embroiled in ethnic and religious conflicts, or the mark that may define you as the same member of a religious group as the political figure you're dealing with, leading to him unjustly giving you favors. Everyone should chill and remember this is ultimately a story about dead people, and the proper way to show them respect.
"He and his group, which claims several thousand members, say the site can stay as a memorial, suggesting the crosses be replaced with the Marine Corps globe and anchor, or some other appropriate but nonreligious symbol."
"Pentagon regulations forbid the military from promoting any religion. The Department of the Navy also has a formal process for designating memorials, which was not followed for the hilltop memorial."
"the cross unconstitutional. Judge McKeown wrote for the court, "Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla." It was a unanimous decision"
Kovnik Obama wrote:"Personally, as long as no close family members of the defuncts oppose the symbol, or as long as it was the wishes of the dead, I think its very bad taste on the part of the group to 'hijack' the issue (or in fact make one out of nothing). "
It has nothing to do with the family members. Its about the actual marines who work at that base, and none of the wishes of the dead was about making a christian memorial. The dead get buried somewhere else and they can have a standardized tombstone there. Eventually a proper Iraq war memorial will be built somewhere and you can bet money that it won't have a cross anywhere on it.
sirlynchmob wrote:[ Eventually a proper Iraq war memorial will be built somewhere and you can bet money that it won't have a cross anywhere on it.
The memorial for the RAMC Iraq casualties that was erected at the entrance to the hospital in Brady lines was in the shape of a cross. It was only a temporary one though and it was removed when the hospital was closed so the official one, if it should exist, will likely be different. I never even made the religious connection; to be honest I'm not really all that bothered and I'm an atheist fundamentalist
The cross is also widely used in the UK for war memorials so it has, in this country at least, an association with honouring war dead which doesn't necessarily have any religious connotations. Perhaps the US has a similar reason as to why this particular design was originally chosen?
At the end of the day there are far more worthy battles to fight that the shape of a war memorial.
The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.
There is an inertia in social change which probably has preserved this tradition beyond its validity as a reflection of the make-up of the population.
While 70% of Britons still identify themselves as Christian on the census form, the number of active church goers is much smaller. Without checking it, I think there are about 5-6 million regular service attenders in the UK. That's roughly 10% of the population. There will be a larger number who might go for major services like Easter, and a fair number like me who describe themselves as S of E because that is how they were brought up, but are in fact lapsed.
I think with the number of non-Christians now in the armed forces, we will see a change towards secular or multi-faith memorials if they are requested by the non-Christian groups.
Personally I would have no issue with that. I think it is important to memorialise war dead in a way which increases rather than reduces social and national cohesion.
Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.
Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.
Firstly no one is actually buried there, its a memorial. Here is a better article about it:
Oh thanks for the clarification. And yes, it seems as a global memorial, the actual symbol of the Marine Corps would be more appropriate. Or maybe the statue of a fallen Marine.
Sergeant Sidonus deserves something.
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
GG
Feel free to post some Young Earth evidence.
The only 'evidence' that exist's to support the young earth hypothesis began with a guy called Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland who made a careful study of the Bible and other historical sources and concluded that the Earth had been created at midday on 23 October 4004 BC, an assertion that has amused historians and textbook writers ever since.
No geologist of any nationality whose work is taken seriously by other geologists advocates a timescale confined within the limits of a literalistic exegesis of Genesis.
In short, there is not ONE shred of evidence in existence, beyond a biblical one, that supports the 'theory' that the earth's age is measured in the timescale that the Bible suggests.
If there is anyone out there who really does believe that the Earth is thousands and not billions of years old, I would be interested to know if that belief is based on anything even remotely scientific and not mumbo jumbo that has been extrapolated from adding up the ages of all those people who apparently lived for almost a thousand years (in some cases).
In my opinion this is just one more shining example of how embarrassingly wrong you can get things when you take the Bible literally.
generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?
It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that may or may not be wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.
GG
Feel free to post some Young Earth evidence.
The only 'evidence' that exist's to support the young earth hypothesis began with a guy called Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland who made a careful study of the Bible and other historical sources and concluded that the Earth had been created at midday on 23 October 4004 BC, an assertion that has amused historians and textbook writers ever since.
No geologist of any nationality whose work is taken seriously by other geologists advocates a timescale confined within the limits of a literalistic exegesis of Genesis.
In short, there is not ONE shred of evidence in existence, beyond a biblical one, that supports the 'theory' that the earth's age is measured in the timescale that the Bible suggests.
If there is anyone out there who really does believe that the Earth is thousands and not billions of years old, I would be interested to know if that belief is based on anything even remotely scientific and not mumbo jumbo that has been extrapolated from adding up the ages of all those people who apparently lived for almost a thousand years (in some cases).
In my opinion this is just one more shining example of how embarrassingly wrong you can get things when you take the Bible literally.
Since I started to really delve into the issue a few years ago I have become quite disenchanted with the "evidence" that has been presented. A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing. Going beyond the blatant nonsense that I have seen presented as science when it isn't science at all, there are some interesting, what I have begun to call "alternative explanations". I.E. if you don't accept blindly that the speed of light has always been constant, if you can't prove this, than it isn't a good thing to pretend that you can prove it, and come up with some convoluted "scientific"explanation. Just keep it simple and offer an alternate possibility. I think that's much more fundamentally honest.
Using the age of the earth and radio isotope dating for an example. It is assumed that the radioactive decay rates have always been constant. It's fine to keep trying to find a way to prove that this assumption is wrong. But I would like to see the creation scientists actually prove it, and don't make stuff up. In the mean time offer the alternative explanation, and make sure that people are aware that you are offering an alternative explanation, until the proof is found. That is the way I look at things now. I have even softened my stance on old earth creationism. I'm still not convinced that old earth is correct, but I certainly see the attractiveness of the position a lot clearer than I did 3 years ago.
If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.
Oh wait...it IS funny
Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.
Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.
timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.
Oh wait...it IS funny
Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.
Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.
timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.
Oh wait...it IS funny
Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.
Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.
slurping down a bloody mary, OMG what a pun
I'll be honest, the pun didn't even cross my mind when I wrote it. Good catch. Hehe.
timetowaste85 wrote:If I were a lesser man, I'd find the idiocy of this thread hilarious.
Oh wait...it IS funny
Seriously, for those who believe in religion, all the variously believed God(s) out there suggest loving your fellow man-not insulting him, not calling him names, not tearing him down, and not starting topics on gaming forums that will piss people off on purpose, thus trolling. God hates trolls. Trolls are designed to offend other people and sew the seeds of hate and human indecency. Pushing for it and then playing victim is against the teaching of God-any God, whether He's the God believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or if he's the freaking flying spaghetti monster. I also doubt he cares what he's referred to as-if you believe, you believe. Religious nuttery just drives people apart and further pulls you away from His will. I see too many people stand up for their narrow-minded, bigoted religious beliefs, and God is probably shaking his head at you at this very minute.
Then again, I firmly believe that God is sitting at his laptop, sipping the best Bloody-Mary ever made and slurping it down through a straw while laughing at this thread. He's got a great sense of humor after all.
Maybe thats why the Trolls in the Trollhunter movie had such a hot nut for Christians.
Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.
Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.
I'm guessing you are a traditional English, white Christian-by-family person like me.
If you were Sikh or Jewish you would probably have a much greater degree of awareness that the religious symbology on the war memorial was not of your religion.
That is part of the difference of perception between the majority and minorities.
I don't think the UK is going to disestablish the C of E in a hurry but I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.
And given what we have seen with modern designs such as... well, anything to do with the upcoming London Olympics, it will most likely be some horrific abstract mess that bears no relation what so ever to the thing it is supposed to represent
SilverMK2 wrote:
And given what we have seen with modern designs such as... well, anything to do with the upcoming London Olympics, it will most likely be some horrific abstract mess that bears no relation what so ever to the thing it is supposed to represent
Or, as with the London Olympics, it will look like Lisa Simpson giving head.
Kilkrazy wrote:The cross is widely used for war memorials in the UK because our most significant wars occurred during times when the nation was made of an actively Christian majority. It should be remembered too that we have an official state religion, and the government will use that for official memorials, unless there is a drive to make them secular.
Of course but as they are so common this thread is the first time that I have even made the connection between these memorials and the christian religion, I doubt that I am the only one. There are far more urgent areas where church and state need to be detangled,.
I'm guessing you are a traditional English, white Christian-by-family person like me.
If you were Sikh or Jewish you would probably have a much greater degree of awareness that the religious symbology on the war memorial was not of your religion.
That is part of the difference of perception between the majority and minorities.
I don't think the UK is going to disestablish the C of E in a hurry but I think we will see modern memorials created with multi-faith or secular symbology.
I'm a Scot actually and my family were strict presbyterians which have basically no iconography at all so the cross probably means less to me than most people with a Christian upbringing; the war memorial in my home village is in the shape of a cross so I have always been aware of the association. Obviously my personal circumstances are quite rare but given the steep decline in the relevance and prevalence of christianity in the UK I suspect that a lot of people are ambivalent about the cross. I would hope that memorials will simply no longer make a reference to religious iconography at all but I don't think that existing ones need to be changed.
I'm not saying that I don't understand the objections its just that its hardy something critical.
A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing.
More so than totalling the ages of people in the bible and using this highly accurate and reliable figure as the basis of the age of the world? Apparently Archbishop Usher's work was meticulous and very well researched, its a pity that he used such dubious sources.
generalgrog wrote:
Since I started to really delve into the issue a few years ago I have become quite disenchanted with the "evidence" that has been presented. A lot of the "evidence" is quite bad and is quite embarrassing. Going beyond the blatant nonsense that I have seen presented as science when it isn't science at all, there are some interesting, what I have begun to call "alternative explanations". I.E. if you don't accept blindly that the speed of light has always been constant, if you can't prove this, than it isn't a good thing to pretend that you can prove it, and come up with some convoluted "scientific"explanation. Just keep it simple and offer an alternate possibility. I think that's much more fundamentally honest.
Using the age of the earth and radio isotope dating for an example. It is assumed that the radioactive decay rates have always been constant. It's fine to keep trying to find a way to prove that this assumption is wrong. But I would like to see the creation scientists actually prove it, and don't make stuff up. In the mean time offer the alternative explanation, and make sure that people are aware that you are offering an alternative explanation, until the proof is found. That is the way I look at things now. I have even softened my stance on old earth creationism. I'm still not convinced that old earth is correct, but I certainly see the attractiveness of the position a lot clearer than I did 3 years ago.
Fruitcake, no, just very miss guided. The problem is that you are flying in the face of all scince. You are, and admit, to presenting ideas as theorys. All evidence shows that radioactive decay is and has always adheard to fundamental rules. The same with the speed of light. I can prove the speed of light through experimentation. It has been proved through observation of background radiation from the big bang. The only point it falls appart is in the first few nanoseconds after the big bang. Th socalled expansion stage. What happend then is a matter of much theorising on the details, but dose not fundamentaly effect the things you are talking about. If you can find me any propper scince proving your side i will be happy to read it, but as far as i am aware, as both an engineer and a christian, this dose not exist.
i like how the lead guy for the protest is pretty much saying
Thanks, that made my night!