Autocratic theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
|
Autocratic theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You know... a statement like that could easily be interpreted as you wishing harm upon those who are different that you. Not very Christ-like, if you ask meQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Those countries weren't founded with the idea of Freedom of Religion, or the separation of church and state.
Apples to oranges there.
And really---CHRISTIANS wouldnt' get a very good reception in any of those countries, either. Especially since they (the Christians) tend to be very vocal about pushing their belief system on others.
When was the last time a Christian "pushed" their beliefs on you? Anyone? I don't go around "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, I can't think of a single friend among the hundreds of Christians I know that "pushes" their belief systems on others. A nativity scene likewise does not "push" Christianity on others, it's a symbol, it's passive and harmless. The atheist sign is not a symbol, it's openly hostile to religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Oh really? Harmless?
What pagan traditions do you celebrate in your home every year, calling them "Christmas" holidays? Do you even KNOW?
And the whole "In God We Trust" on our money isn't pushing someone's religion on me? What about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
I'll give you a perfect example: I am openly pagan. I am happy with my religion, and completely believe it. I have never made it through a MONTH without someone asking me if I believe in Jesus, or telling me that I'll go to hell, or that I'll be cursed. I've never made it through the holidays without people calling me a hypocrite for celebrating "Christmas", but have been literally spat upon for pointing out that Christmas borrowed almost all of its traditions from other religions--religions that they (the Christians) burned people at the stake for believing.
I have been shunned at work gatherings once people find out my religion. I've been called a baby-sacrificer, a devil-worshipper, a witch, an evil spellcaster, and just plain evil. I've had people spit on me, and throw stones at me, and leave me hate notes. I've had my pagan symbols stolen from my car, or had them defaced.
I've had my religious rites interrupted by people with no respect for them. I've had decapitated rats left outside my front door with notes that stated that if I didn't repent and choose Jesus, I'd see worse.
And, to the best of my knowledge, all of those things were done by Christians. I certainly can't see Muslims or Jews doing it, anyway. Maybe Atheists did it--I don't know for sure--but I somehow doubt it because atheists tend to be a lot more tolerant than Christians.
It was a sign, passive. It wasn't hurting anyone who really had faith. It was a declaration of a belief, just as the nativity was a declaration of belief---just as the sign down the street that says "Jesus is Lord" is a belief.
And Christians responded---not by turning the other cheek and offering love to those who didn't agree with them (which, really, is what Jesus would have done), but by stealing the sign (breaking one of their own Ten Commandments), screaming "hate" when it was just a statement of belief, and basically attacking the atheists, who until that point had just put up a sign that stated their beliefs.
If that sign were TRULY an offense to all religions, why as EVERYTHING I've seen that cries "offense!" been from Christians? Why aren't the pagans and Muslims and Jews and Satanists all screaming "foul!" right along with them, if it were an attach on "religion"?
Probably because this is a tempest in a teacup, and the only people offended are those that are offended simply because they don't have a monopoly on the holiday season anymore.
C'mon Steve... Father Chuck spruiks here all the time that it is a Christians job to spread the word of the Lord and anyone who does not accept him will not be saved blah blah blah... You may not personally push it on people Steve (not directly anyway) but your religion certainly does. To deny that is ignorance to the extreme.
If a simple sign causes this much angst over there than you guys really are a helluva lot more divided than you try and make the rest of the world believe.
Synnen, there's no accounting for idiots like that of any persuasion, and most Christians do not go out of their way to confront others like that. In fact I'd say the majority of Christians in this country rarely if ever talk about their faith with others, and any that don't take the time to care about who they're talking to regardless of their faith or lack of it have seriously missed the boat on what Christianity is about.
I'll grant you this, nobody said we had the right to not be offended and that goes for both of us. You choose what offends you just as we do, but we can argue the same to you. "In God we trust" and one nation "under God" isn't really hurting anyone either if they're secure in their beliefs. I've already said I have no problem with them having "a place at the table" as they said, but you can't whitewash the fact that the sign is an openly hostile anti-religious statement. There's nothing about it that fits your description of the season as being about "goodwill and generosity," "spreading love instead of hate" or "kindness instead of pettyness." "
Just the same that a gift certificate to PP shouldn't offend Christians if they are secure in their beliefs..Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No??
Exactly. The fact that atheists can have the right to free expression, offending whoever, is proof that the US is NOT a theocracy despite the atheist paranoia.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The challenge to atheists about spreading their gospel and belief that god does not exist, in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, is the fact that atheists know they can take advantage of the US legal system to spread their own gospel. The stereotype is that we Christians are intolerant bigoted hate mongers, but the proof is that they can do this here in this country because they know Christians are not intolerant or hate mongers or bigots. If this were a Christian autocratic theocracy, then the consequences for what they attempt, would be no different than in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
g&p
It's really very simple Skell, we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others and whether we do or not has nothing to do with our salvation no matter what Father Chuck says. I am in no way suffering from denial, but I do think all this talk about "pushing" and "forcing" is in most cases greatly exaggerated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
As for the sign, I've already said I don't care if atheists feel that way and say so publicly, but it is not appropriate for the state to endorse hostility toward religion no matter what any of you say.
How about the state endorsing "In God We Trust" on our money, then? I mean, really---I believe in a Goddess, and some people believe in the FSM. Isn't THAT the government condoning the pushing of religion onto people?
And see it how you like--when you're in the minority, and have the majority CONSTANTLY get their way on these things, even though there should be a separation of church and state--you DO feel as if it's being pushed.
The sign hurt no one, really--yet it was stolen. It's been flipped around. Its message is blown out of proportion. How would you feel if someone stole the Jesus out of that nativity? Or turned him over every time they walked by so that he was butt-up? What if they put a mustache on him? Wouldn't THAT be more hateful than just ignoring it?
This would have never reached the proportions it had if someone hadn't gotten mad that a belief so opposite their own had the SAME right to be their as a nativity scene.
I, personally, am offended every time I see a religious symbol of ANY kind on state property. The Christmas tree in the Capitol building in Washington, DC bothers me. I do, however, just put up with it, because everyone should be able to put up symbols in recognition of their beliefs.
I ask yet again: What would Jesus have done about it? *I* think he would have shaken his head, and walked away, knowing that a sign couldn't hurt him, and that he would love those who didn't believe as much as those who did--because that's what Christianity is about, isn't it? Loving and forgiving those who don't deserve to be loved and forgiven?
Again Synnen, this separation of church FROM state is nowhere in our constitution, "in God we trust" is entirely consistent as a part of this nation's heritage from its inception and is not intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile to others. Feel free to mark it out on all your money, I won't get offended. The atheist sign IS intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile toward others. For I think the third time now I've allowed for an atheist display, why the heck can't it be one in good taste instead of telling people their faith "enslaves" their minds? I still don't see how that fits in the spirit of the season as you describe it.
speech, did you happen to miss my post below?
You are saying the nativity scene isn't an attack, that it's just a symbol, but there are people who don't feel that way. These people feel the Christians are attacking them - it's the same thing on both sides. BOTH sides feel attacked. The difference is the Christians have resorted to theft and destruction of property, while the atheists have put up a sign. To them, the nativity scene is an "openly hostile anti-atheist statement".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).
Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine. But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life. But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...
Jillian, come on now, if people "feel" attacked by shepherds, sheep and a baby in a manger they have bigger problems to deal with. But coming right out and telling me emphatically in words that religion "enslaves" me is a whole different ball game. Show me some of that peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance Synnen keeps talking about, but don't intentionally insult me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.Quote:
I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).
This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.Quote:
Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine.
I acknowledged those already.Quote:
But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life.
Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?Quote:
But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...
Maybe they have bigger problems to deal with, but the same argument can be said for those who are up in arms over words on a sign. But beyond that, perhaps this group doesn't adhere to the things Synnen is talking about - you acknowledge not all Christians think and act the same way, why must all atheists? It would be better if their sign wasn't so aggressive, but it doesn't reflect the POV of every non-believer out there, the same way that the WBC signs don't reflect the views of every Christian. Maybe asking for this group to put up a non-aggressive sign is like asking WBC to back off - it just ain't going to happen. But either way, BOTH groups (all groups) have a right to say what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I hope I didn't indicate you thought she was lying, I didn't mean to if it came out that way. And yes, these public faces of Christianity give the good ones a bad name, but the point is, they are still the face that a lot of people see. So maybe from the perspective of this particular atheist group, they are seeing minds being enslaved (people giving money to people who mismanage it, or who go off and have sex with men when they say homosexuality is a sin). In that sense, their minds are enslaved. These people are pushy and aggressive. The actions of a few vocal people have a stronger impression than the actions of those who are less vocal - look at this site for clear evidence of that!Quote:
I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.
I agree, many of you are. But the ones who are stealing signs and defacing property aren't trying to get along the best that they know how. They're aggressors, and again, their actions taint the rest of the group.Quote:
This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.
Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.Quote:
Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?
Agreed, but not state approved attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
No sarcasm, just alternatives to "push."Quote:
Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.
You're still missing the point. The atheist group sees the nativity as an attack - a state approved attack. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees (not everyone sees the atheist sign as an attack, after all) that it is or isn't. Both groups feel attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
My friend has recently become a born again. He loves it. It makes him happy. It fills a hole in his life. Im happy for him. But he isn't the friend I once knew. His mind is enslaved. He struggles to make house repayments yet still he gives 10% of his wage to his Christian church / leader.
He can't put petrol in his car yet his church leader drives a Porsche.
He asks me all the time to go to church with him. He wants me to see how great it is. He thinks I need to learn to love myself. He pushes. His mind is enslaved. As are all his friends from church. And from what I see this a is a pretty common trait amongst all the so called "new age" christian groups. Not at all really with the Catholics and Anglicans I know. And from what I see in the United States its even more so the case.
No Jillian, I most definitely am not the one missing the point. I've acknowledged that some people "feel" attacked, but only one IS an attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Yup. The nativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's caused wars, crusades, inquisitions, stake-burnings, annihilation of native peoples in the new world, and generations of people who think that because THEY believe it, everyone ELSE should believe it, and if they don't, they have bad things happen to them.
It's caused splinter sects of weirdos that perpetuate horrible things in the name of "God". It can really be accused of promoting sexism--until this century, women could not serve as lay people with most churches, and many STILL do not allow it. It causes people to go off the deep end at abortion clinics, gay pride marches, and Wiccan rituals.
Yeah---that sign from the atheists has NOTHING on what the "signs" from Christianity has done over the years.
You really do NOT get it. Christian symbols ARE an attack to some people, just the way you see the sign as an attack, or that Jews would see a swastika as an attack. Actually, that's probably the BEST analogy---the known meanings behind Christian symbols ARE an attack on those who have suffered because of the misdeeds of some Christians. Therefore, the nativity is JUST as much an "attack" as the sign. EQUAL.
You think your religion's symbol is harmless. They think their sign is a statement of their beliefs. NEITHER are meant to attack the other, but BOTH are felt as attacks by the opposite side.
You have GOT to be kidding me. Now we've gone to the obligatory Crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings. What the heck does that have to do with this? Not a thing is what. The last Crusade was 552 years ago. The last Inquisition was 148 years ago. The last person executed as a witch in Europe was in Poland in 1792, 216 years ago, the Salem witch trials were in the 1690's over 300 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Of course in Saudi Arabia Fawzi Falih was convicted of witchcraft in February of this year and now faces beheading. The Bantu in Southern Africa still hunt and kill witches, one can be convicted of witchcraft in Cameroon and Togo, and 11 alleged witches were burned to death by a mob in Kenya in May of this year... I seriously doubt the nativity had anything to do with those. But hey, if you want to talk about what followers of a certain religion are on a Crusade and executing infidels we can do that.
Oh yes, and let's not forget the obligatory crazed Christians at abortion clinics, especially those abortion doctor killers, how rampant is that again?Quote:
It's caused splinter sects of weirdos that perpetuate horrible things in the name of "God". It can really be accused of promoting sexism--until this century, women could not serve as lay people with most churches, and many STILL do not allow it. It causes people to go off the deep end at abortion clinics, gay pride marches, and Wiccan rituals.
Absolutely, all of those "signs" are so relevant to a man and a woman looking at a baby accompanied by a sign that says, "This Nativity holiday display was provided and erected by private citizens of the State of Washington to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated by Christians around the world."Quote:
Yeah---that sign from the atheists has NOTHING on what the "signs" from Christianity has done over the years.
Please, for the last time, stop telling me I don't get it. I do get it, I have acknowledged it. You guys just can't bring yourselves to acknowledge the difference between a commemoration and an expressed, written insult.Quote:
You really do NOT get it. Christian symbols ARE an attack to some people, just the way you see the sign as an attack, or that Jews would see a swastika as an attack. Actually, that's probably the BEST analogy---the known meanings behind Christian symbols ARE an attack on those who have suffered because of the misdeeds of some Christians. Therefore, the nativity is JUST as much an "attack" as the sign. EQUAL.
It's simple Synnen, one is in good taste, one is not. One is appropriate, one is not. It is not in good taste to insult others in writing on public land, it is not appropriate to insult others in writing on public land. One is a representation of salvation, innocence, peace, good will. The other is anything but. Change the message to something appropriate and I'll have no issues, but I believe I stated that already.Quote:
You think your religion's symbol is harmless. They think their sign is a statement of their beliefs. NEITHER are meant to attack the other, but BOTH are felt as attacks by the opposite side.
You all have made some great points.
Speech, I agree it was in bad taste. I am not offended but I could see how someone may be. (I choose not to be) I believe in letting people have their say... but respectfully. I do believe your last statement hit it on the nail.
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I have come to believe now that the parts of the sign I have illuminated above are, indeed, offensive. The point could have been if they'da just put a period after superstition.
See?? I listen. That's why I ask this stuff. I THINK I know all the answers, but...
excon
Yes Start, respectfully. What is wrong with that?
And the birth of Christ was reportedly approximately 2000 years ago. The last day of WWII in Europe (basically the end of the Nazi regime) was in 1945--63 years ago. The 95 theses of Dr. Martin Luther was in 1517 -- 490 years ago. The Council of Nicea was in 325 --1,683 years ago. Henry the VIII's separation from the Church in Rome was in 1534--474 years ago. I could go on and on.
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that these things have no relevance today?
*I* find Christian displays on public property to be offensive in the extreme. I get seriously ticked off when I go to a high school football game and there is a prayer beforehand. I went to church last year, on the request of my in-laws, and had to walk out because the message wasn't one of love, but of political one-upness, and of continuing to fight to have Christians get their way in the world. This was on Christmas Eve, by the way, when one would think that the message would be one of harmony and peace rather than dissention and pride.
So Christ was crucified on a cross, 2000 years ago. The last witches were burned at the stake 216 years ago. If your memory is long---so is ours! Those of us who are Wicca, and practice modern witchcraft hold those men and women as martyrs--of COURSE we are going to bring it up! Christians still bring up the sacrifice that Christ made, don't they?
I was RAISED Christian. All of my family and my husband's family are Christian. I know some GREAT Christians. I'm just sick of having Christians claim their message is harmless when it is NOT.
For those of us NOT of your faith, those of us who have suffered at the hands of other Christians, ESPECIALLY those going back in history--yes, the nativity IS offensive. So is the cross. So what? Most of the time, we don't make a big stink about it, reasoning that if you can put up YOUR religious beliefs and symbols everywhere from your own front yard, to the Capitol building in Washington, to the roadsigns that advertise "Jesus is Lord" and "God loves ALL of His children, even the unborn", then we should be able to put up our beliefs too.
Want to know the sentiment that drives me the craziest? The one that makes me want to deface public property, because I feel so enraged that people don't see how offensive it is? It's those signs that advertise that adoption is better than abortion. "Adoption: The loving option" and "Choose life, not death! Adoption is the caring option!" Now---those might not be offensive to you, in the least, but they ARE to me. They make me angry and sad, and I want to buy up billboards that state the number of suicides, the number of women depressed, and the statistics on adoptive parents that break their word about keeping the adoption open.
What does all of this have to do with a "harmless" nativity scene? Nothing--except that OFFENSE IS IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED.
You are offended by the sign that says that ALL religion enslaves minds and hardens hearts. I'm offended by the signs that make it seem as though adoption isn't as bad as abortion, but you're still not "good enough" to be a parent if you choose it.
You're offended that someone doubts your faith. I'm offended that your faith assumes that everyone sees the symbols of your religion innocuously.
Bottom line is that we're never going to agree.
Now that's a start. Thanks, ex.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What was the NATURE of those things as opposed to Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings? What Christians today are involved in Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings? Why the heck should we today pay the price for those ancient transgressions? I don't know a single witch-burner, we are not guilty of Inquisitions or Crusades. They are entirely irrelevant to today's Christian community and I will not stand for ANYONE connecting my Christian family to such atrocities. Wasn't it you who first mentioned FORGIVENESS in this thread? Where is your forgiveness for people who are not even guilty of the sins you mention? Shouldn't we at least have to commit the alleged transgression before we're tried and convicted? I'll agree we must remember those things and guard against them, but I am NOT going to pay the price for sins I haven't committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
So there is no freedom of speech, no right to dissent, no right to have a say in the affairs of this land for Christians? Are we not citizens, too?Quote:
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that these things have no relevance today?
*I* find Christian displays on public property to be offensive in the extreme. I get seriously ticked off when I go to a high school football game and there is a prayer beforehand. I went to church last year, on the request of my in-laws, and had to walk out because the message wasn't one of love, but of political one-upness, and of continuing to fight to have Christians get their way in the world. This was on Christmas Eve, by the way, when one would think that the message would be one of harmony and peace rather than dissention and pride.
Relevance, Synnen, relevance. Since witch-burnings at the hands of 'Christians' have long ended, been condemned and repudiated, we should be released from the guilt you unfairly project on us. I feel no guilt whatsoever about any of those things so I'm fine, it would be to your benefit to forgive and move past long resolved issues. It would be rather silly to not remember Christ's WILLING sacrifice on OUR behalf since that is the entire basis for our faith, and that we believe He is God and is alive today, now wouldn't it?Quote:
So Christ was crucified on a cross, 2000 years ago. The last witches were burned at the stake 216 years ago. If your memory is long---so is ours! Those of us who are Wicca, and practice modern witchcraft hold those men and women as martyrs--of COURSE we are going to bring it up! Christians still bring up the sacrifice that Christ made, don't they?
Again, some supposed 'Christian' messages are not harmless, another thing which I have already acknowledged. I believe I said I have "no use" for such people, so how about a little credit here finally?Quote:
I was RAISED Christian. All of my family and my husband's family are Christian. I know some GREAT Christians. I'm just sick of having Christians claim their message is harmless when it is NOT.
If these atheists want to put their sorry sign up in their front yard, on a roadside sign on private land, buy space on a billboard or buy ad time on TV, radio or print, more power to them. That's an entirely different situation.Quote:
For those of us NOT of your faith, those of us who have suffered at the hands of other Christians, ESPECIALLY those going back in history--yes, the nativity IS offensive. So is the cross. So what? Most of the time, we don't make a big stink about it, reasoning that if you can put up YOUR religious beliefs and symbols everywhere from your own front yard, to the Capitol building in Washington, to the roadsigns that advertise "Jesus is Lord" and "God loves ALL of His children, even the unborn", then we should be able to put up our beliefs too.
Buy all the billboard space you want, that again is an entirely different situation - public and private property. I could be wrong but I don't know of any PUBLIC property that promotes adoption over abortion in that manner.Quote:
Want to know the sentiment that drives me the craziest? The one that makes me want to deface public property, because I feel so enraged that people don't see how offensive it is? It's those signs that advertise that adoption is better than abortion. "Adoption: The loving option" and "Choose life, not death! Adoption is the caring option!" Now---those might not be offensive to you, in the least, but they ARE to me. They make me angry and sad, and I want to buy up billboards that state the number of suicides, the number of women depressed, and the statistics on adoptive parents that break their word about keeping the adoption open.
I don't disagree, but we are talking about what is allowed and what is appropriate on public, i.e. state, city, county or federal property. It is improper for the state to expressly offend a particular class of people. Post an appropriate message and I'm fine with it. How many times do I have to say that?Quote:
What does all of this have to do with a "harmless" nativity scene? Nothing--except that OFFENSE IS IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED.
You are offended by the sign that says that ALL religion enslaves minds and hardens hearts. I'm offended by the signs that make it seem as though adoption isn't as bad as abortion, but you're still not "good enough" to be a parent if you choose it.
You're absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I've been very clear about this, I'm offended that the State of Washington endorsed an expressed, written insult to not only my faith but me personally. I'm offended that some of you keep telling me I shouldn't be offended. But I am NOT offended that someone doubts my faith, and I'll defend your right to do so and say so, just not state approved attacks.Quote:
You're offended that someone doubts your faith. I'm offended that your faith assumes that everyone sees the symbols of your religion innocuously.
Nope, but I've made numerous concessions. When will you?Quote:
Bottom line is that we're never going to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
My wife is a Born Again Christian and recently met a self-professed church attending Christian all his life who is now a recovering alcoholic who has attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for years; and he said to her, "I had no idea what being a Christian was until I walked the walk of AA. I wish all Christian's could walk the AA walk, then they would know what it is to be Christian".
The funny thing is, my mother is an Alcoholic and I've attended many AA meetings and they are for everyone of any religion where your specific religion or the tenets of your religion are not discussed so as not to discourage others from attending and immersing themselves in the principles of the program.
If all Christian's truly knew the walk of Christ in their heart through a program like AA which regularly produces miracles of the spirit (and I might add without the mention of Christ) rather than simply parroting their preacher or the other self-appointed interpreters of "God's word", Christian's would be the role models people may aspire to be like, just like your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
As an adoptive parent of 3 children, how can you equate abortion to adoption? :confused:
Do you want to ask MY kids if they find their death or my CHOOSING to adopt them
Offensive? Or morally equivalent? :confused:
g&p
As a birthmother who has attended the funerals OTHER birthmothers who committed suicide due to the depression and lack of understanding--and in one case, when the adoptive parents moved, left no forwarding address, and deliberately made it impossible for her to find them after promising her an open adoption---who are YOU to say whose death is more relevant?
My point was that it offends me that people think one choice is "better" than another, and really, the "better" is only from your point of view.
However, that has nothing to do with this thread other than as an example of how what ONE person finds offensive isn't offensive to ANOTHER person. Obviously, my anger at what offends me actually offends YOU.
So--who's to say whether something is "offensive" from the point of view of those supporting it?
Some people were offended by a sign, others by the nativity, others by whatever. Yes, it was in a state building, but so was the nativity.
Want my solution on the whole thing?
Get rid of ANY religious displays on ANY public property. Period. If you want to put up a nativity, do it in your yard, or in your church, or pay for the billboard. If you want to put up a menorrah, do the same. If you want to put up a pentacle, do the same. If you want to state your belief that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds--guess what? You can do the SAME THING as all those other people.
And then--no SCHOOLS can put up Christmas trees or candles in the window or holly berries or whatever. No Capitol buildings can have menorrahs or signs that offend religious people or nativity scenes. The White House (as a public building) is now relegated to having their Christmas tree someplace else, someplace on PRIVATE property.
No city can put up holiday decorations unless they are so vague (like plain lights) that there is no reference to any religion. No more holiday parades put on by towns. Private parties are welcome to pay for parades, but no city can sponsor one.
You want absolute equality of religious displays so that NO ONE is offended? Then get rid of them entirely.
Geez Synnen, how can I have been more clear at what offends me than to state it plainly as I have? Why on earth should anger at what offends you, offend me? Inappropriate application of that anger doesn't make me too happy, but feel free to be offended by whatever you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
That is probably the only solution. I don't necessarily think it should be the solution but that's probably what it will come to. A little respect for others would go a long way to easing the problem, but these atheists obviously missed that.Quote:
You want absolute equality of religious displays so that NO ONE is offended? Then get rid of them entirely.
Perhaps 'these' atheists aren't showing the proper respect, but I can assure you that the atheists I know 'seem' far more tolerant of religious displays than religious people 'seem' to be of atheist displays of their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
However, despite the fact that I don't agree with you probably 60% of the time, I do have a respect for you as you 'seem' unlike the stereotypical Christian poster in that you can acknowledge the other sides view point and even agree from time to time.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago. That's why I feel it should be discard as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And what of the Christians who stole the sign, defaced it, or put up an identical one with the word "atheism" instead of "religion"? Did those Christians miss it too? I sure think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm not saying the sign is innocent. I'm not saying a nativity is offensive. All I'm saying is the Christians put up something offensive to a group of atheists, meaning it is state-sponsored. The atheists put up something offensive to a group a Christians, meaning it is state-sponsored. It's the same thing, you're just dismissing the offence of the other side. And now, the Christians have taken the atheist's message and turned it around, putting up yet another offensive item, again, state-sponsored. There is offence and uglyness all around - don't try to pin it all on one group.
I may not have expressed it directly about them (I forget, so many posts here), but I have said more than once I have "no use" for 'Christians' like that. Yes, whoever it was (do we know a 'Christian' stole the sign?) missed it, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Have you not read my recent posts? I don't deny it may offend some, but as I said earlier, one is a commemoration, the other an expressed, written insult. What is so difficult about the obvious distinction between the two? It's like me posting an image of Jesus and you saying "you're an idiot."Quote:
I'm not saying the sign is innocent. I'm not saying a nativity is offensive. All I'm saying is the Christians put up something offensive to a group of atheists, meaning it is state-sponsored. The atheists put up something offensive to a group a Christians, meaning it is state-sponsored. It's the same thing, you're just dismissing the offence of the other side. And now, the Christians have taken the atheist's message and turned it around, putting up yet another offensive item, again, state-sponsored. There is offence and uglyness all around - don't try to pin it all on one group.
LOL... well put :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Thanks, and by the way, thanks for your earlier comments. I'm not unreasonable... I just have a little Texas stubbornness and orneriness. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
How about this comparison, instead:
One posts a picture of Satan standing in Hell and gloating over a suffering Christ, being tortured by demons (but not graphically--the offense needs to be what the picture represents, not it's content) at Easter (since hey--he did descend into Hell for 3 days, and one would assume Satan had power over him then). Let's just pretend this side is a group of devout Satanists, and this is a commemoration of their only triumph over Christ or something (I have to say that I hope I don't offend any Satanists here--I honestly have no idea of that would be a valid commemoration or not). Another group puts up a sign saying "Christ is the only salvation and the only truth, and if you don't believe that, you will suffer for eternity in hell with murderers, traitors, and rapists".
Okay--one is just a picture, a commemoration.
The other is a statement of belief that equates being NON-religious with being a rapist, murderer and traitor.
Would you condone that sign being put up? Is it not, after all, what you believe? And would you fail to be offended by the Satanists picture, and the timing of its placement?
I for one have already stated that a Christian sign with similar content should not be approved .
As far as Satanic symbolism I see it all the time in State sponsored art museums where vile depictions mocking things sacred to Christians are often displayed despite our protestations .
Hello again:
Ok, I have the answer... All right, I don't. But, amazingly, our framers did. They didn't want the public square to be a forum for ANY religion... Those guys were really, really smart.
Wouldn't we all be better off if we did that??
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:50 AM. |