I have no words. [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-26, 08:03 AM

The "poor, abused" christian victim sob story is one of the greatest fictions of our time. Christians and religious people in general represent a huge (if ever shrinking) majority in this country, and in many ways religious thinking, symbols and concepts absolutely dominate our culture. The idea that such a powerful majority, whom even presidents need to bow to in order to have any hope of being elected, can be bullied by a tiny, almost politically insignificant minority, is laughable, and you are deeply deluded if you think the situation is otherwise.

All that being said...

As a secular humanist and fairly committed atheist I have to say that it is not a good idea to demand the removal of this memorial. It is akin to a grave; a statue put up to honor the dead. I fail to see any harm that it's doing.

But seriously guys. This whole "under attack" "christian victim" "oh golly we're so bullied" routine is hokum and everyone ought to know it. Religious people: you are the vast majority. A little resistance against religious domination is a good thing. Let us never forget what the world looked like when religion had utter and complete control of people's lives; when it was an unassailable, sacred facet of culture and government. I'll give you a hint: people like me were burned alive in town squares.

Things are a lot better now. And if you really do feel that your imaginary friend is 'threatened', you may was to re-evaluate how much faith you have in your "all powerful" deity that seems so under the gun, all the time, from every angle, from such a small group of mere mortals.

Good golly miss molly.

The Desert Fox

2012-04-26, 12:54 PM

Vash02

2012-04-26, 01:29 PM

Here is my message to all the Atheists out there. let's think logically for a second, you believe that when we die we become fertilizer and nothing happens, and if your right then I lose nothing for believing in God, but if I'M RIGHT and when we die our faith decides if we go to Heaven or Hell well then at least I have a chance of going to heaven, while your definitely going to Hell. I'm just increasing my odds bro...

Only waivering christians find pascals wager convincing.
I cant be bothered to type out the list of flaws with it myself so here's a link:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager#Begging_the_quest ion

The Desert Fox

2012-04-26, 01:57 PM

Only waivering christians find pascals wager convincing.
I cant be bothered to type out the list of flaws with it myself so here's a link:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager#Begging_the_quest ion

I care not about the flaws. I feel you take me too seriously lol

Vash02

2012-04-26, 02:06 PM

I care not about the flaws. I feel you take me too seriously lol

Maybe you're obnoxiously coloured signature annoys me.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-26, 02:15 PM

Desert Fox, welcome to Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).

The Desert Fox

2012-04-26, 02:37 PM

Maybe you're obnoxiously coloured signature annoys me.

Why do you hate freedom Vash?

NewSith

2012-04-26, 05:06 PM

Why do you hate freedom Vash?

Because where one's freedom begins, other's freedom ends. Resizing your freedom would be nice.

Also OP - I've never seen people die from seeing symbols. Especially if these symbolize righteous sacrifice, not of the Lord, but instead of those who died protecting something. Hell, I'm even not against swastika on my grave if people take the symbol for a sign of my good deeds, not nazism.

Figment

2012-04-26, 05:08 PM

Maybe you're obnoxiously coloured signature annoys me.

Oi that's the dutch flag. :(

http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/NETH0001.GIF

Let them Americans feel dutch!

(would be funnier if he used the Yugoslavian or Russian order of colours though)

NewSith

2012-04-26, 05:13 PM

Oi that's the dutch flag. :(

http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/NETH0001.GIF

Let them Americans feel dutch!

(would be funnier if he used the Yugoslavian or Russian order of colours though)

Using the Russian order he can always pretend to be Slovenian.

Figment

2012-04-26, 05:16 PM

Using the Russian order he can always pretend to be Slovenian.

It's said the Russian flag is derived from dutch naval flags and the pan-slavic flags are derived from Russia, so meh. >.>

Now if he wanted to be trully american he should make words , or better yet, individual letters, white blue white blue and do line by line in red and white. :)

Would be totally unreadable and too much work, but funsies.

Quovatis

2012-04-26, 05:20 PM

Because where one's freedom begins, other's freedom ends. Resizing your freedom would be nice.

I'd like to point out that your sig actually takes up more space than his. Just saying.

NewSith

2012-04-26, 05:21 PM

It's said the Russian flag is derived from dutch naval flags and the pan-slavic flags are derived from Russia, so meh. >.>

Now if he wanted to be trully american he should make words , or better yet, individual letters, white blue white blue and do line by line in red and white. :)

Would be totally unreadable and too much work, but funsies.

Not much of a challenge. He should totally go for the confederate flag, now that's some hard work! I mean placing white and blue letters so they form a diagonal is somewhat great amusement...

I'd like to point out that your sig actually takes up more space than his. Just saying.

Yes, but mine is separated by a picture, so people can see where the bottom line is...

/LETTHERAILSGOBACK!

Figment

2012-04-26, 05:44 PM

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/TrainToTopic.jpg

Zulthus

2012-04-26, 06:23 PM

Vash02

2012-04-26, 06:32 PM

Those are not atheists. Atheists are people who reject the belief of a deity. I very much respect Atheist's opinions. However, the people mentioned in this article are a group of anti-religion dicks who should just keep their damn opinions to themselves.

I wish I'd see the day where people could believe in whatever the hell they want to without one group of people thinking they're better. Sadly, this day will never come.
How about Christians keep their damned opinions and symbols to themselves and stop trying to use tax payer money to spread their religion?
And yes they are athiests. They, by the very definition you just gave, disbelieve in god.
They are also not anti-religion but anti-theocracy. they dont want the establishment of a national religion and are prepared to fight in the courts to protect the constitution.

Zulthus

2012-04-26, 06:59 PM

How about Christians keep their damned opinions and symbols to themselves and stop trying to use tax payer money to spread their religion?
And yes they are athiests. They, by the very definition you just gave, disbelieve in god.
They are also not anti-religion but anti-theocracy. they dont want the establishment of a national religion and are prepared to fight in the courts to protect the constitution.

I'm not Christian. I don't believe in anything but I don't care about religion at all, so I can't really classify myself as anything.

I'm against Christians who do the same thing just as much as Atheists. However, this article was not about Christians, therefore I am opposed to these anti-religion dicks.

This doesn't have anything to do with preventing the establishment of a national religion. It's just a bunch of people crying "there is no god, THERE IS NO GOD!!!!" because they want to be better than them.

Honestly, I wish either everyone respected each other's opinions or any concept of religion/atheism is just erased from everyone's minds. It's just a source of useless hate, whining, and bitching.

Vash02

2012-04-26, 07:45 PM

Red Beard

2012-04-26, 09:30 PM

Yes, it does have something to do with the establishment of a religion. Its a christian symbol on public land, paid for by the taxpayer, maintained by the taxpayer and being used to represent everyone who died. That is 100% an establishment issue.

The public is for the free expression of all ideas, and the suppression of none, Vash.

Going any further is trampling on the free expression of others.

CutterJohn

2012-04-26, 10:16 PM

Even if I was a soldier I wouldn't mind the prospect of rotting away under a cross that I attribute no sensible value to whatsoever. I wouldn't be there to consciously experience my own indignation anyway.

Dude, the athiest gravestone is totally bitchin! It looks like the symbol for some super hero, like Atomic Man!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Gravestone%2C_United_Church_of_Religious_Science_a nd_Atheist.jpg

Because where one's freedom begins, other's freedom ends. Resizing your freedom would be nice.

Your 'freedoms' take up more space than his do. Though I do grant yours is easier on the eyes. :groovy:

Right then. Those people are quacks, just like the Westboro Baptist Church(Not to that degree of course, WBC was just the first thing that came to mind when it comes to distasteful religious activism).

I've had athiests correct me about using B.C. for dates before, saying I should instead use the nondenominational B.C.E. Of course then I ask if they still worship Woden on Wodin's Day(Wednesday). Its pointless. Artifacts of religion permeate most every culture on the planet. Its in our speech, in our art, in our entertainment. I didn't have to be a catholic to appreciate the wondrous beauty of the Sistine Chapel as I stood there looking up at it.

Live and let live I say. Regardless of your beliefs, or the beliefs of the soldiers that memorial is dedicated to, the sentiment is nice. Hell I've had people say they will pray for me. I don't debate them about their god, or point out flaws in the concept of prayer, nor the complete lack of empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of prayer(yes, there have actually been studies on this). I just say thank you. What they believe in doesn't bother me, and I appreciate the sentiment even if I doubt the results.

Effective

2012-04-26, 11:24 PM

The public is for the free expression of all ideas, and the suppression of none, Vash.

Going any further is trampling on the free expression of others.

Then why is there only a christian symbol? There should be a symbol for EVERY religion there then.

It's just a lot easier to make monuments secular in nature, honoring their sacrifice doesn't require a religious symbol.

Also, love it when people use pascal's wager as a reason we should believe in god. Dumb concept is dumb.

WildGunsTomcat

2012-04-26, 11:56 PM

Then why is there only a christian symbol? There should be a symbol for EVERY religion there then.

It's just a lot easier to make monuments secular in nature, honoring their sacrifice doesn't require a religious symbol.

Also, love it when people use pascal's wager as a reason we should believe in god. Dumb concept is dumb.

Yeah. Let's change 90 years of tradition because we're not including everyone in this new day and age....because everyone is a special little snowflake.

It's about respect. The damn thing has been there 90 years...and now a group of asshole walk by and decide they don't like it because a cross honors the Christian God.

This isn't about fairness, and those of you that say it's about fairness are frankly assholes. This is about "OMG a Christian symbol...let's cover it up because we don't like those people and their ways."

Same thing radical Christians do....so I have zero respect for this so called "Atheist movement". They should change the name to "Asshole Prick Movement"

Figment

2012-04-27, 04:42 AM

I just like to think of crusifiction sized crosses as commemorating 6.000 dead slaves crusified along the Via Appia. :) Everyone's a Spartacus!

Though I understand the sentiment to put a cross on there, at the same time it does not represent everyone else.

The question here is, is it about respect for the religion of the makers of the monument or is the monument there to respect the religion of all those who have fallen?

Considering the goal of the monument is the latter, paying your respects by planting your religious symbol on everyone's grave to some is like confiscating and monopolising the memorial in the name of one religion.

If the graveyard is exclusively christian, I'd have no problem with it in the least. If it's shared by others, it's not a... very good choice to put on top. It's more or less saying these are the fallen (heroes) of a crusade. There are a lot of neutral things you can put up there that respect every fallen regardless of religion without at the same time promoting/worshipping a specific god or a specific variant of said god. I mean, if there's any Orthodox Christians in there, they're not represented either.

That may not concern the ones who are represented and they might feel it's impacting their freedom of expression or religion, they may even feel it's not respectful to them. Especially because it's been there for a while, but that's a rather arrogant position to take as well as they forego thinking of anyone else. Does it really matter in the end? Meh. If religious symbolism being present is enough to indoctrinate, you don't have much of a strong will of your own anyway. If it's a private community, it should stay. If it's a public memorial and graveyard, it's far less appropriate.

Still, the best war monuments look like this:

http://th00.deviantart.net/fs7/PRE/i/2005/156/5/5/Triumph_pillar_of_Trajanus_by_Guldihart.jpg

But, as you can see, there's unfortunately a misplaced statue on top.

Ancient coins indicate preliminary plans to top the column with a statue of a bird, probably an eagle, but after construction a statue of Trajan was put in place; this statue disappeared in the Middle Ages. On December 4, 1587, the top was crowned by Pope Sixtus V with a bronze figure of St. Peter, which remains to this day.

I'd be in favour of restoring the monument with a statue of emperor Trajanus up there and putting the St. Peter statue somewhere in the Vatican. After all, it was emperor Trajanus who conquered Dacia for the then pantheon gods worshipping Roman Empire. Though an eagle would do as well being a symbol of the Roman Empire.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 08:07 AM

Vash02

2012-04-27, 08:38 AM

Yeah. Let's change 90 years of tradition because we're not including everyone in this new day and age....because everyone is a special little snowflake.

It's about respect. The damn thing has been there 90 years...and now a group of asshole walk by and decide they don't like it because a cross honors the Christian God.

This isn't about fairness, and those of you that say it's about fairness are frankly assholes. This is about "OMG a Christian symbol...let's cover it up because we don't like those people and their ways."

Same thing radical Christians do....so I have zero respect for this so called "Atheist movement". They should change the name to "Asshole Prick Movement"
Yes it is about respect, those soldiers died and the christians ended up hijacking their deaths to promote their religion.
If a resident across the road offered to take it and put it up in their yard the FFRF would be completely fine with that. But it is on public land that is supposed to be used for all citizens and not just one group.

P.S. I am still personally against the removal of the statue. I certainly wouldn't be in favor of erecting any new ones, at least not on taxpayer property. But if they're already there, and have been for a while, then I fail to see the harm. Not everyone in the area has been there for 90 years, why should the new generation have to put up with it?

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 08:52 AM

Not everyone in the area has been there for 90 years, why should the new generation have to put up with it?

Because it's old. It's a holdover from an earlier time. A time when putting giant crosses on public land was okay. I think it has something to teach us. It's a holdover from the past and the idea of removing history upsets me.

We shouldn't get rid of it; its a part of our culture, whether you agree with that culture or not. If nothing else I would say it gets 'grandfathered in' because, let's face it, the statute of limitations has long since passed.

Rather than getting angry at it, we should view it for what it is; a relic of an earlier time when the division of church and state was not considered as important as it should have been. A reminder that we come from an earlier time.

Figment

2012-04-27, 08:55 AM

But if they're already there, and have been for a while, then I fail to see the harm.

See, that's the thing, in the example I cited, Trajan had been on there for what, 1300, 1400 years when it "disappeared"?

Disappearing from the top of a 30 meter high collumn that's also the emperor's personal grave (well his ashes anyway).

Wonder why. Depicting a pagan in all his glory got a bit unwanted in medeval Papal States Rome? Then suddenly catholic imagery on top of a Roman Emperor's tomb.

Can't think of a greater symbol of religious dominance than to crown the tombs of pagan emperors with your own symbols. But that was not objectional then.

Note, I'm not saying it's something Wildguns or others from this age are responsible. Just that there's a great deal of irony here regarding the application of religious symbolism as replacements for other things.

If you travel through Catholic Europe, you'll find churches in former temples, you'll find Egyptian obelisks ordented with gold plated crosses. You'll find catholic saints replacing older statues and more.The cross symbolism on memorials and buildings has always been a sign of religious dominancy over society by certain faiths, not just a sign of "there is a church here". If that was the case, fine.

Similarly, often you'll find holocaust memorials just represent the **** that died, while the gays, Roma and other victims that wern't "pure" according to the nazis aren't always represented as much since they counted fewer in numbers. Does that mean they have to be represented by Jewish symbolism? It's a bit... I dunno, skewed. It's about focus, really.

Vash02

2012-04-27, 08:59 AM

Because it's old. It's a holdover from an earlier time. A time when putting giant crosses on public land was okay. I think it has something to teach us. It's a holdover from the past and the idea of removing history upsets me.

We shouldn't get rid of it; its a part of our culture, whether you agree with that culture or not. If nothing else I would say it gets 'grandfathered in' because, let's face it, the statute of limitations has long since passed.

Rather than getting angry at it, we should view it for what it is; a relic of an earlier time when the division of church and state was not considered as important as it should have been. A reminder that we come from an earlier time.
Put it in a musem then if thats the only reason for keeping it.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 09:02 AM

All the more reason, Figment, that going forward we should be more understanding and measured in our approach. That we should leave for future generations the message we want to send.

Is it unfortunate that ancient catholics replaced an old statue of some old roman emperor with one of their fakey god heroes? Sure, that's unfortunate. But there's an interesting lesson there. It serves a purpose, because you can tell that story and show people just how negative an impact religious thinking has on our culture. We can repupose the statue to mean something new, given our enlightened view on things.

If we tear THAT statue down and replace it with a different one, in what way are we different? Religion used to have the power, and abused that power by ruining history. Now that their power IS history, should we use the new dominance of secular power to do much the same, only from OUR perspective rather than THEIRS? I feel it's much more valuable if it serves as an enduring lesson of how things used to be... isn't that what monuments are for?

Vash02

2012-04-27, 09:05 AM

I think his point is that is a unique item/grave while crosses are a dime a dozen.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 09:09 AM

Then we're not at cross-purposes, if I'm reading you correctly.

I understand that people feel differently about this and frankly, I have a hard time getting too worked up in defense of a giant cross on the front lawn of a firefighter building because, well, religion is dumb. And I really do think this resistance and criticism of religion is to societal benefit; the more under attack religious thinking becomes, the better off we all are in the long run.

But I feel there are better hills to die on. The cross, while inappropriate, has been there a very long time and the longer its there, the more its meaning is given opportunity to shift.

You know what I would suggest? People who want the cross to remain there should pool their resources and buy the land its sitting on. then they can pay for its maintenance and upkeep, or rely on volunteers or whatever. Then it won't be public land.

Figment

2012-04-27, 10:21 AM

I feel it's much more valuable if it serves as an enduring lesson of how things used to be... isn't that what monuments are for?

Monuments are there to not forget about the past.

Replaced monuments in the name of religion... They're pointless relics to be put in the Vatican museum. Restored monuments, those are about preserving the past. The past before the past.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 10:29 AM

Our history is made from the stuff of civilizations who replaced the old with what, at the time, was the new. While I agree that the original statue should be displayed somewhere where it can be appreciated, I just don't see the value in "restoring" something that was "defaced" over a thousand years ago or whatever. As I said, there's a statute of limitations; I don't know what it is, but I know it doesn't reach hundreds of years.

Vash02

2012-04-27, 10:57 AM

efalio your post failed. Its a christian monument on public land, the FFRF are not going up to individuals and demanding they take down a cross on private land. They are also not demanding that people be forced to live the way they want them to (thats the christian position).
Either the government permits equal access to all religious groups to build memorials on the land or they should take it down.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 11:11 AM

So locals have to pay through the nose to save a part of their cultural heritage because some aggressive interest group suddenly saw a problem that isn't there and threatens to sue them otherwise?

That's the worst idea ever. I have a better one:

http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/strawman1.jpg

I think you missed the point.

It's a religious symbol on public ground. Taxpayer owned and operated. It is, in fact, unconstitutional. There is a legitimate complaint.

People like yourself need to calm the hell down and recognize when someone from the 'other team' is in fact on your side. I've stated, again and again, that I have no problem with the cross' presence. My suggestion was for there to be a compromise. A way for the cross to remain where it is while at the same time removing the grounds by which it is being protested.

You might have heard the word 'compromise' before. It's what happens every day, a million billion times a day, that helps society survive. We all make compromises, big and small, so that our civilization doesn't crumble into anarchy. It's only when our ability to compromise breaks down that needless suffering enters the world.

Put on some calming music and put away the pitchfork. I'm not your enemy.

WildGunsTomcat

2012-04-27, 11:52 AM

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on how nice it is that there are groups of people who can make demands like "remove that cross from public land" and the worst people like Tomcat can do is complain right back at them.

Because it wasn't very long ago when people much like Tomcat could have those people tortured to death. But the religiously devoted lost that power long ago, and are steadily losing more and more every day. I find it hard seeing that as anything other than a bad thing.

Little by little we as a species crawl our way out of the dark ages. We here just have the good fortune of being alive at around the time where we are finally almost free of that stupidity entirely.

P.S. I am still personally against the removal of the statue. I certainly wouldn't be in favor of erecting any new ones, at least not on taxpayer property. But if they're already there, and have been for a while, then I fail to see the harm.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/FeralTomcat/1251592961624.jpg

Blah Blah Blah

More "Look at me I'm Sheppy and my opinion is the only one that matters ever...blah blah blah"

I also love how I can't give my opinion on a debate forum without being attacked by pseudo intellectual neckbeards with a superiority complex.

The bottom line is, this group is making a fuss over nothing. They're picking fights for the sake of "bringing down the horrible Christians"

Also, protip: I'm not a Christian. I just hate seeing people get shit on because someone else has a superiority complex...like I mentioned earlier.

Most atheists I know, have a smug...self righteous...superiority complex. They think they're better than everyone else. And they let you know it. "Oh you believe in God? Hueheueheuehue" *Swills Tea with his/her pinkie outstretched* "Simpleton. People like you brought about the dark ages."

But I also hate moron Christians like the Westboro baptists....fucking stupidity on an epic scale there.

It's the attitude I don't like. The smug bullshit attitude of *most* Atheists. ((Like Sheppy))

Keep talking shit though, you amuse me. People like you are as irrelevant as "people like Tomcat" at the end of the day.

Vash02

2012-04-27, 12:11 PM

Blah Blah Blah

More "Look at me I'm Sheppy and my opinion is the only one that matters ever...blah blah blah"

I also love how I can't give my opinion on a debate forum without being attacked by pseudo intellectual neckbeards with a superiority complex.

The bottom line is, this group is making a fuss over nothing. They're picking fights for the sake of "bringing down the horrible Christians"

Also, protip: I'm not a Christian. I just hate seeing people get shit on because someone else has a superiority complex...like I mentioned earlier.

Most atheists I know, have a smug...self righteous...superiority complex. They think they're better than everyone else. And they let you know it. "Oh you believe in God? Hueheueheuehue" *Swills Tea with his/her pinkie outstretched* "Simpleton. People like you brought about the dark ages."

It's the attitude I don't like. The smug bullshit attitude of *most* Atheists. ((Like Sheppy))

Keep talking shit though, you amuse me. People like you are as irrelevant as "people like Tomcat" at the end of the day.
Is it ironic that your post came off as "my opinion is better than your opinion because I think you think your opinion is better... doodoo head"

Rather than attacking the person I suggest you should attack the argument. Or is that advice too arrogant for you?

WildGunsTomcat

2012-04-27, 12:14 PM

Is it ironic that your post came off as "my opinion is better than your opinion because I think you think your opinion is better... doodoo head"

Is it ironic that you never bring anything to the thread but smartass posts with no substance?

Nah.

Vash02

2012-04-27, 12:17 PM

Is it ironic that you never bring anything to the thread but smartass posts with no substance?

Nah.

No, its just irritating that whenever someone responds to an argument you made you attack them for having a "better than thou" attitude rather than actually addressing their points.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 12:31 PM

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore Tomcat, as he appears to have run out of steam and has fallen back to the old tried-and-true 'when in doubt, ad hominem'.

I didn't miss the point at all, and just because I wrote something you can't connect with the points you made yourself, it doesn't make it a strawman. I don't agree the slightest with the terrible resolution you proposed, which I think is unfair to the locals.

Many things are maintained through tax money. Many of those things have some connection to religion, which isn't surprising when religion permeates everything in our societies, especially when it's historical/monumental.

Plenty of churches in the Netherlands get government subsidies. It's done because they're part of our cultural heritage. They're considered works of art on top of places of worship. They're part of the landscape/cityscape and people value them despite not being religious. I know because I'm one of those people.

Museums get subsidized through tax money, even though most people don't give a rat's ass about art. Classical orchestra's get subsidized, even though most people prefer Lil Wayne, dawg. You can go ahead and try to call false analogy on that.

I'm mainly just skeptical about an organization that calls itself "freedom from religion", and then goes around acting like totalitarians.

You cover a few different points in your post and I'll try to address them as best I can, as I feel they deserve separate attention.

I called your suggestions largely straw man examples (through use of a brilliantly clever image) because they featured lots of 'examples' of things that bear little to no resemblance of what I was saying. Addressing them in particular would have been off topic and distracting. I ask that you address what it is that I actually am saying, not whatever semi-logical extreme you feel they may extend to.

I will agree with you that tax dollars does end up supporting religious symbols through the context of art. This is a major reason why I am not for the removal of the statue. It certainly could be classified as art. You and I are not in disagreement over this.

I cannot, however, comment on what is done in the Netherlands. You say they do this or that... well, okay, but I'm limiting the scope of this conversation to the United States, which is where I live and where this incident is taking place.

I will say there is a difference between certain forms of music and art being subsidized through tax dollars and what is going on here. This would take us into a very bumpy road of 'what is and is not art', which is frankly a conversation that's been happening since ancient times and unlikely to be resolved here, and also distracting from the central topic, which revolves around the monument in question. I will merely say that I do not feel the monument was placed there to be intended as 'art'. It was placed there as a religious symbol with religious significance.

The Freedom From Religion group in question is being totalitarian only in their adherence to the Constitution. If you disagree, then you are taking a stance in opposition to the guaranteed freedoms of our constitution; which you are free to do, of course. I have my own problems with the document, and that can be a very interesting conversation. But don't name-call them something they are not to obfuscate the issue. Totalitarians would advocate, for example, the immediate execution or deportation of opposing viewpoints. Freedom From Religion wants to remove a religious monument from government property, using the Constitution to excuse the request. Not even remotely the same thing.

Effective

2012-04-27, 01:13 PM

Doesn't really make a point

You may want to try 1 more time.

Figment

2012-04-27, 01:38 PM

@Wildguns: you are being a tad hypocritical there. >.> Read your post and pretend Sheppy wrote it, replace christian/believer by atheist and the other way around and just sit back for a second. >.>

Anyway. Regarding the Netherlands, yes there's subsidies, though the liberal/christian democrat/populist right wing minority government (that just fell), cut 200 million in subsidies of the arts. The first thing the metropolitan orchestra did, was make a new pop hit with other artists to... subsidise themselves.

Something they could have been doing for decades, but wern't allowed to do under the terms of the subsidies, that stated they were to make this type of music and this type alone (classical music).

They took it as a protest, I, breathed a sigh of relieve. Finally they're creating something instead of parroting old music - which is nice, but a waste of a good orchestra if it is ALL they do. Look at the Japanese Philharmonic Orchestra: they do Nintendo and other video game music as part of THEIR cultural heritage!

Glorious!

It attracts youth to classical music and it pays well too. No need for subsidies there!

See, a lot of monuments and art can also be maintained by public funds, rather than government. I would rather the government stimulate education, than art. If you make sure schools make sure art is appreciated by children, then it's a win-win situation. Of course, support for setting up musea is fine, but it's a bit of a waste to spend millions of euros in tax money on paintings, IMO.

Vash02

2012-04-27, 02:09 PM

The reason I'm skeptical towards this organization is that I can't fathom how, with all the actual, serious religious corruption around the world, they chose to focus on something as menial as this.

"Why are you typing here when there are people starving!!!"
People should really stop using that cruddy argument.

Why are they doing it when there is other stuff to do? It's because they can, all it takes is a letter and a lawyer. Not a monumental effort (hehe).

ItsTheSheppy

2012-04-27, 02:13 PM

Elcyco, you and I are not at cross purposes here. I cannot stress that enough. I agree with you. The cross should stay. In fact, you pointed out something that's really rather significant: That the cross has become a symbol of a 'grave' in our culture. The cross has become so much a part of our western culture that it has started taken on meanings beyond "jesus loves you". I seriously doubt you thought putting a cross over the grave of your dog would score him points with Jesus.

What I have opposed you on is your language. Calling the atheists in question "totalitarian" and such, or hinting that all atheists (like Richard Dawkins, not sure why you roped him into this, I haven't seen his name attached anywhere) have a hand in this. I stand as living proof that it is not the case. You would be hard pressed to find someone with more contempt for religion than I, and I think the monument should stand.

I suggested the compromise more because it would take the wind out of the sails of the protesters. If it wasn't public land, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. How much does a 10'x10' plot of land cost? Can't be very much. They could take up a collection at a local church. Maybe hold a bake sale. Buy the land and call it a day. Everyone would leave happy, or at least legally satisfied, if not morally.

The problem, Elcyco, is that you make some very good points, but you pollute them with calls to straw men arguments and inflated language that takes away from what you're saying. That's what I have opposed you on.

Figment

2012-04-27, 02:21 PM

Hell, a symbolic purchase of a total sum of $1 would probably suffice.

Real Madrid bought a football pitch for that kind of money from the local government once (after selling it for half a billion a bit earlier to the local government...).

RawketLawnchair

2012-04-27, 03:33 PM

http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/religion-funny1.jpg

I'll just leave this here.^

also

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/song-chart-memes-insult-religion.jpg?w=504&h=497

Zulthus

2012-04-27, 04:33 PM

http://funny-pictures-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/religion-funny1.jpg

I'll just leave this here.^

This... see how much useless bitching and attacks the topic of religion has brought? It's so useless. I don't see the point of arguing about something like this when there are more important things.

Effective

2012-04-27, 08:52 PM

This... see how much useless bitching and attacks the topic of religion has brought? It's so useless. I don't see the point of arguing about something like this when there are more important things.

You call attacking religion iteself useless, but try studying a little bit of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism).

Nevermind that the suppressed rights of LGBT community is a direct result of religious influence on the government. Not to long ago, atheists were the most mistrusted group of people in the united states. President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement. And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg that forms hatred towards the atheist community.

The overall movement to making sure the government stays secular is a very good thing overall. Now this particular lawsuit is a bit over the top, sure. But saying the entire thing is "useless" is downright dumb.

Zulthus

2012-04-27, 09:17 PM

You call attacking religion iteself useless, but try studying a little bit of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism).

Nevermind that the suppressed rights of LGBT community is a direct result of religious influence on the government. Not to long ago, atheists were the most mistrusted group of people in the united states. President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement. And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg that forms hatred towards the atheist community.

The overall movement to making sure the government stays secular is a very good thing overall. Now this particular lawsuit is a bit over the top, sure. But saying the entire thing is "useless" is downright dumb.

Sorry, I meant the bitching and attacks part was useless. My bad if I didn't make that clear.

Figment

2012-04-28, 04:25 AM

President George Bush (1st one). Said he didn't believe atheists were even citzens in the US and to my knowledge never took back that statement.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Nice source for that.

Also fun is that the atheists were told by some member of the Bush Sr. administration that they had to sue for discrimination if they wanted anything changed.

On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veteran's groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination. On January 3, Mr. Sherman crossed paths with Ed Derwinski again at the Illinois inaugurations. He asked Mr. Derwinski, at that time, what American Atheists could do to have the Bush administration take an interest in the problem of discrimination against American Atheist veterans. Mr. Derwinski's response was:

"What you should do for me is what you should do for everybody: Believe in God. Get off our backs."

When Mr. Sherman was in Washington, D.C., on another issue on March 20, 1991, he again met with Mr. Derwinski, who, on this occasion, shouted that the atheists should "get off his back," that the Bush administration would do nothing for them, and that they would need to "sue" to end discrimination against them.

And when they sue as suggested, it's 'mean spirited people that have it in for religion', right?

Figment

2012-04-28, 06:51 AM

Figment how is bringing down this statue going to help stop discrimination against atheists by ignorant politicians at large? It's the means that frustrate me, not the ends. This is like picking flowers with industrial chainsaws, and it only seems to happen because of symbolic thinking. You can find a million references and examples of discrimination, but it doesn't change the fact that this discussion revolves around this one little cross.

How is it going to help? Though I don't really can care much for the example here (as it's - as Sheppy also noted - an old thing that's been there for a while), from a pure principle point of view, it is setting a precedent.

It's indeed symbolic thinking, but I'm not sure if that's entirely "wrong". Within cultures, symbolism expresses the norms and values of a culture. In that sense, symbolism create by the state or nation sets the norms and values of that state or nation. Correct? An example would be Justicia.

http://static.nationalgeographic.nl/pictures/genjUserPhotoPicture/original/67/70/32/vrouwe-justicia-327067.jpg

This represents that justice is blind (unbiased) and that the state supports this sentiment.

If you put a religious item in the same or a similar spot, for instance you place the ten commandments next to the Texan court of law...

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050302/050302_10command_hmed_7a.grid-6x2.jpg

...then you create the impression of prejudice and bias.

If you have a graveyard just for catholics or protestants, etc. Fine. It's their personal turf, use any personal symbols you want. If you use the same symbol on a governmental institute or monument, you essentially claim the public domain as yours - whether or not you intend to.

Similarly, representatives of a state or nation expressing their personal morality, norms and values through symbolism can be confused with representing the morality, norms and values of a state - even when they're not. This though, comes from distrust regarding people that use their own morality, norms and values to determine that of others.

So the point of such lawsuits - whether or not I support lawsuits in individual cases - is to protect the secularism of the state and the state morality from being claimed by any particular group. If you condone its symbolism to dominate here or there, where does it end? That's the slippery slope those groups are afraid of. And by setting precedents over even the most menial monuments, they not only make a statement, but they make those particular governments that got sued think about these constitutional issues the next time they issue the building of a monument.

This is not to be confused with an attack on religion though, it's not claiming the public domain for atheists: it's claiming the public domain for anyone, regardless of religious conviction. For no symbolism means nobody can claim bias.

As usual, lack of something does not mean the affirmation of something else.

Figment

2012-04-28, 07:50 AM

Just to add. Symbolism goes very far. Just look at the design of (post-)renaissance buildings. Even the use of (fake) pillars on state buildings, everything represents morality of the state through symbolism.

Why are specific buildings and people selected to be printed on money? For what they represent and for their authority, not because they look nice.

That's why "In God we trust" is such a controversial statement. Personally I cringe everytime some US president ends a speech with "God bless America" because it just indicates how dominant religion is in US politics: not doing that probably costs voters. If it's so present, it's become a tradition that chains politicians to religion and it becomes "second nature"-symbolism which is the exact intend of a religious agenda: stop second guessing and accept it as "how it is".

There are people even on these forums (as seen in other threads here, we can actually all guess who I'm talking about I presume) who take these expressions of religion and say "See? Even the state says so". At that point very innocent symbolism (when looked at seperately from the rest) becomes a dangerous tool of subtle, but structural indoctrination.

So if people have principle objections regarding the constitutionalism or legalism of such iconery - regardless of how long something has been there - and they are valid purely objectively speaking, then they have every right to sue, IMO.

I would recommend reading up about Hofstede and any related antropological/social/cultural studies regarding symbolism and culture.
http://www.geerthofstede.nl/

His articles are used by industrial designers to learn to understand other cultures (classify their charactersistics) in order to be able to design products for those cultures without having the same background. Note that they are NOT a study on bad effects of religion or what not, but simply on what culture is.

Symbolism is the outer ring of culture in the "onion model".

http://laofutze.wordpress.com/category/hofstede/onion-model-of-culture/

http://laofutze.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hofstedeonion.jpg

As said before, symbolism is a form of superficially expressing and communicating the deeper meanings of culture. If one form of symbolism is dominant, then that culture becomes more dominantly present in every day life - does that make it more important and accepted? Perhaps. Elcyco questioned the impact of the lawsuit (does it do anything to change the thinking of those in charge), probably not. The question is whether or not you can change the fundamental values of a culture through symbolism. Maybe not, but as Elcyco already illustrated quite aptly, the cross symbolism has become part of his death ritual. So one could argue symbolism can influence underlying layers.

CutterJohn

2012-04-28, 08:01 AM

An example would be Justicia.

A roman goddess. No different than the 10 commandments, excepting for the fact that only 3(loosely 4, if you count the adultery one in divorce cases) of the commandments have any actual relevance to notions of modern justice.

Figment

2012-04-28, 08:04 AM

A roman goddess. No different than the 10 commandments, excepting for the fact that only 3(loosely 4, if you count the adultery one in divorce cases) of the commandments have any actual relevance to notions of modern justice.

Indeed! Glad you picked that up actually. :)

It is however different, since the one is backed by an active religion and the morals of THAT religion, while the other has become an expression of neutrality without religious morality, including no bias towards Pantheon gods as that religion is "dead".

EDIT: In fact, the blindfold was added to express just that neutrality in the middle ages. In Roman times, Justitia was not blind. In Roman times the virginity of Justitia resembled the lack of bias (I would presume virginity stood for "uncorrupted").

EDIT2: I presume you see a difference between a cross, crescent moon or weighing scales ornamenting a court of law? Which of the three comes over as least biased?

CutterJohn

2012-04-28, 08:38 AM

Indeed! Glad you picked that up actually. :)

It is however different, since the one is backed by an active religion and the morals of THAT religion, while the other has become an expression of neutrality without religious morality, including no bias towards Pantheon gods as that religion is "dead".

A fair point. Few actually know who lady justice is. I didn't, I just had a sneaking suspicion.

EDIT: In fact, the blindfold was added to express just that neutrality in the middle ages. In Roman times, Justitia was not blind. In Roman times the virginity of Justitia resembled the lack of bias (I would presume virginity stood for "uncorrupted").

More roman times fun facts. Homosexuality wasn't frowned on so long as you were the pitcher. Buggering a slave boy was perfectly fine. Instead of calling someone a *** to insult them, you'd say they went down on a woman. To be subservient to a woman? Unthinkable! The ultimate in humiliations!

Various cultural mores throughout the world and history are fascinating.

EDIT2: I presume you see a difference between a cross, crescent moon or weighing scales ornamenting a court of law? Which of the three comes over as least biased?

I would worry most about the moon, since it means I am in very much the wrong country. Here? I am not worried, since it is still just a symbol. Whatever preconceptions or biases the court may have, they will have with or without symbols.