Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Although I agree in theory about the "don't read it part", there is the fact that public money paid for one that it didn't pay for all. Clearly that shows a preference. The gay tv channel isn't on public lands, you don't have to watch it before entering a public building, etc.Hannitized said:Thanks Moi!!!
But the police department isn't dishing out Religious pamplets or Preaching or anything. It's a statue in the yard that's been there for how many years. Grant it, there isn't any other Religions statues out there, then let those Religions donate something of theirs instead of removing one that's already in place.
This guy (in the article) is an athiest, he can't be upset because his religion isn't out there too, he doesn't have one. If the police department was out their Preaching the Commandments to passer-bys, then I'd understand. As it is, if this guy doesn't like it, DON'T look at it, just like I'm going to be told to do if I start complaining about the gay channel I just read about on the other thread. If I complain, I'll be told, "Don't watch it". Shouldn't the same go for this guy, or am I totally missing the point, lol.
It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. So, the government didn't purchase it to be out there. Others could donate their own. I would be very upset if theirs were then refused though!Moi said:Although I agree in theory about the "don't read it part", there is the fact that public money paid for one that it didn't pay for all. Clearly that shows a preference. The gay tv channel isn't on public lands, you don't have to watch it before entering a public building, etc.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with removing all religious mentions from public- but I clearly understand why it bothers people who don't support that religion (or none at all).
I was speaking in general about why people have a problem with religious expressions in the public domain.Hannitized said:It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. So, the government didn't purchase it to be out there. Others could donate their own. I would be very upset if theirs were then refused though!
I am not trying to argue this with you, honestly, I hope it doesn't seem that way. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all that you have!!
Actually, you are blind too. For to the victor go the spoils. If those who wish to outlaw any reference to any or to one deity or religion in the public venue, using public money continue to utilize legal means necessary to stop it they will win.-=d=- said:some of you are very foolish...and very blind...
(sigh)
Nobody is FORCED to read or believe anything. NO government office is in ANY way forcing or condoning religion - simply acknowledging the roots of it's foundations - parts of its history.
Thanks again Moi! In general, I would probably agree, depending on the circumstances, that it may be offensive to some. It's just this particular case, I just don't get, LOL!Moi said:I was speaking in general about why people have a problem with religious expressions in the public domain.
Again, I don't think this particular monument needs to be removed; nor, most of the already existing religious references (dare I say on money) be erased.
And I don't think you are agrumentative...we're having a discussion. Nothing progesses without that!
Moi said:Actually, you are blind too. .
Moi said:For to the victor go the spoils. If those who wish to outlaw any reference to any or to one deity or religion in the public venue, using public money continue to utilize legal means necessary to stop it they will win.
Since there are many more people in this country who don't follow the specific religion prevalent during the founding times than there were then, this is certainly possible (I might even say probable).
Doesn't make either the first one nor the final one right, doesn't make either wrong. It just means that the will of the people will prevail.
It was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1959
You read- I specifically stated that I was responding to a general question, not to this monument.-=d=- said:Oooh! nice comeback!
No - it means the will of activist judges will prevail. Will of the people? hah... That's not even PART of the issue. What's driving this is the will of the minority of US citizens - and the vast majority's fear of (gasp) offending them. This was NOT purchased with public money - read the story again....it was 'donated'. That means, it was free to the city.
-=d=- said:Oooh! nice comeback!
No - it means the will of activist judges will prevail. Will of the people? hah... That's not even PART of the issue. What's driving this is the will of the minority of US citizens - and the vast majority's fear of (gasp) offending them. This was NOT purchased with public money - read the story again....it was 'donated'. That means, it was free to the city.
mattskramer said:I created an insightful statue of America Indians being rounded up by some cowboys. I also created a statue of a poor elderly slave being bull whipped casually by a rich-looking, happy plantation owner while the black man's grandchildren stare and cry. Don't worry. All figures are clothed. They don't even have any implied religious connotation. If I donate these statues to "the city" will "the city" display them on public ground? Does this mean that anyone with a monument may donate it to be placed on public land? Wow! The land would be overcrowded in not time. Whether or not it will display the statues is irrelevant.
Who pays for the "public land"? Tax payer pays for the land and its upkeep. Therefore, to a small extent, the taxpayer (myself included) pays to have the "10 Commandments" displayed. I have no objection to someone creating or buying a statue of the "10 Commandments" and displaying them on his own private property. Simply don't have me pay for it an any way, shape, or form.
OCA said:Matts, I feel sorry for you, I will light a thousand candles for your troubled soul.
Wow, Matt, I never thought to compare the 10 Commandments to Slaves being bull whipped.mattskramer said:I also created a statue of a poor elderly slave being bull whipped casually by a rich-looking, happy plantation owner while the black man's grandchildren stare and cry.
Is someone getting paid by the taxpayer (yourself included) to go out and dust the statue? The upkeep would be for the land not the statue. The thing has been there for 45 years and now someones gonna complain?Who pays for the "public land"? Tax payer pays for the land and its upkeep. Therefore, to a small extent, the taxpayer (myself included) pays to have the "10 Commandments" displayed.
Hannitized said:If you're an athiest (the guy in the article), then you don't believe any of it. Why would you be offended enough to have it removed?
I don't know, I'm seriously asking.
OCA said:3. Good idea, don't go around saying goddammit and holy fucken Christ all the time.III) THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN; FOR THE LORD WILL NOT HOLD HIM GUILTLESS THAT TAKETH HIS NAME IN VAIN.
musicman said:If you commit murder and get away with it, there ARE no real-life consequences
Zhukov said:I don't understand it either. That sort of stuff doesn't offend me. I imagine they are offended for one of two reasons.
1.) they aren't secure in their faith
or
2.) they are only 'atheists' because they are rebelling against Christianity
musicman said:I agree. If I don't hold with a particular viewpoint, I tend to regard it with indifference. However, these groups display anything BUT indifference. White-hot hatred is more like it. They want every vestige of Christianity removed from sight or earshot - as if it were somehow painful to them. Why this blind, unreasoning fear?
It makes me think of the stereotype cinematic vampire, cringing at the sight of a cross.
Zhukov said:I don't understand it either. That sort of stuff doesn't offend me. I imagine they are offended for one of two reasons.
1.) they aren't secure in their faith
or
2.) they are only 'atheists' because they are rebelling against Christianity
Well, this makes alot of sense. Thank you both!!musicman said:I agree. If I don't hold with a particular viewpoint, I tend to regard it with indifference. However, these groups display anything BUT indifference. White-hot hatred is more like it. They want every vestige of Christianity removed from sight or earshot - as if it were somehow painful to them. Why this blind, unreasoning fear?
It makes me think of the stereotype cinematic vampire, cringing at the sight of a cross.
Zhukov said:I think most self-proclaimed atheists in this country (and social interaction with many seems to reinforce this hypothesis of mine) are really just anti-Christians.
