Athiests terrified by crosses.

[Unkotare]

Forwarded to my nephew. He enjoys laughing his ass off at threads such as this.

No one asked about your family, and it has no relevance to the topic. Keep it to yourself.

 

[jillian]

Want to really annoy an atheist? Ask them for THEIR proof for their BELIEF. Not believing in gods requires just as much proof as believing in them. And since you can't prove a negative...

it isn't anyone's job to prove a negative.

 

[Unkotare]

Given the obvious phobia atheists display of crosses, I am surprised they are even able to drive through an intersection.
A sane and sober person wonders, if they eschew god, why they are so fearful and offended when someone else displays this common christian symbol that they make such a terrible and terrified outcry.

SAy what?

Given the obvious phobia atheists display of crosses...

Kid?

I think you're confusing VAMPIRES (who are figments of our imaginations) with Atheists who are merely people who do not believe in GOD.

Vampires respect others in ways atheists do not. Vampires at least have some reason to fear Christian symbology because it causes them some harm. Whereas, the"harm" alleged by atheists is a figment of their imagination.

There was some atheist group complaining about the cross at the 9/11 memorial because seeing it gave them 'headaches.'

 

[jillian]

[Atheists ] terrified by crosses.

They are more terrified of lack of media attention, the only way atheist activists can feel any degree of relevancy.

link to prove bizarre assertion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe they are vampires.

I actuall thought of that, tongue-in-cheek. But really, if they honestly do not believe in a god, why are they apparently always demanding that others' symbols be pulled down. What is it about such symbols that enrage them and drive them to react so fearfully.

What am I missing here?

What fear are you referring to?

The 1st Amendment guarantees a secular government free from all religion. Nothing more and nothing less. Religious symbols abound in this society and they are of all faiths. But when it comes to government any religious symbol is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Standing up for 1st Amendment rights has nothing to do with fear. It has everything to do with upholding the rights of individuals to choose. The government cannot impose a religion without infringing upon those individual rights.

No. The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government will not establish or order anybody to participate in religious actitivies, nor will it interfere in any way with religious beliefs or activities of the people. It absolutely was never intended for government or anything else to be free from all religion. Which is why there are numerous religious inscriptions and symbols on federal buildings, the Congress itself once held church services in the capital building, and historical and religious symbols are allowed on our coinage, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in our National Anthem.

Religion has been a huge factor in our mutual lives together as Americans and is an important part of our national history. To attempt to deny or exclude that from our museums, histories, and/or imagery is not only dishonest, but absurd.

If Atheists are truly Atheists, then they believe in no god and in no religion and a cross would be seen as having no power whatsoever. And they wouldn't care whether it was included as part of our history and/or how it might be meaningful to anybody else.

 

[Foxfyre]

SAy what?

Given the obvious phobia atheists display of crosses...

Kid?

I think you're confusing VAMPIRES (who are figments of our imaginations) with Atheists who are merely people who do not believe in GOD.

Vampires respect others in ways atheists do not. Vampires at least have some reason to fear Christian symbology because it causes them some harm. Whereas, the"harm" alleged by atheists is a figment of their imagination.

There was some atheist group complaining about the cross at the 9/11 memorial because seeing it gave them 'headaches.'

In which case they should be consulting a doctor instead of trying to take away everybody else's rights. That cross was a piece of debris at ground zero and was a symbol of encouragement and hope to many. To nonbelievers, it was a piece of debris and nothing more. But it is part of the history involved with 9/11 and deserves a place in the museum. To forbid it would be as absurd as not allowing anything Jewish to be exhibited in the Holocaust Museum.

And if anybody is so disturbed that they can't hear or see anything religious without getting a headache, they've got way more problems than any cross could ever be.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Coming from the deep South, I am used to the sight of burning crosses. They don't scare me because I am lily white....

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, can go more into it.

In order to prove the non-existence of gods you'd have to possess knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it to ensure that nothing anywhere might be called a god. Obviously, we're bound to this planet and what we can learn from it. Gods might exist and simply be on some other planet somewhere, but you'd never know it.

We can believe anything we like without requiring any proof of it. But to make a decalrative statement like "There's no such things as gods." requires proof.

By that "logic" you cannot deny the existence of SuperGod, the creator of your God.

 

[gallantwarrior]

SAy what?

Given the obvious phobia atheists display of crosses...

Kid?

I think you're confusing VAMPIRES (who are figments of our imaginations) with Atheists who are merely people who do not believe in GOD.

Vampires respect others in ways atheists do not. Vampires at least have some reason to fear Christian symbology because it causes them some harm. Whereas, the"harm" alleged by atheists is a figment of their imagination.

There was some atheist group complaining about the cross at the 9/11 memorial because seeing it gave them 'headaches.'

It seems like just about every day another story crops up about atheists attacking another place where they found a cross. The one that set me off this morning was where a woman had put up a cross at the location where her son was killed in an auto accident. I don't know about where you live, but such "memorials" are frequently erected at such roadside locations. This group of atheists had their tender feelings mortally wounded because some woman wanted to honor her dead son and her cross was on a public right-of-way. C'mon, really?
While they may argue that their 1st Amendment rights under the establishment clause, the phrasing is quite open to debate due to differences in interpretation.
The 1st "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." You could just as easily argue the second portion saying the the "free exercise of religion" is being impeded by their demands that any religious symbol they find offensive be expunged from public view.
I will continue to ask, if atheists recognize no god(s), why are they so offended by some symbol that should have no meaning for them to the point of trampling on someone else's Constitutional rights, if needs be to satisfy their vitriolic hatred of such displays?

 

[edthecynic]

Ok, can go more into it.

In order to prove the non-existence of gods you'd have to possess knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it to ensure that nothing anywhere might be called a god. Obviously, we're bound to this planet and what we can learn from it. Gods might exist and simply be on some other planet somewhere, but you'd never know it.

We can believe anything we like without requiring any proof of it. But to make a decalrative statement like "There's no such things as gods." requires proof.

There is no such thing as a square circle anywhere in the universe because it is a contradiction.

An omnipotent God is also a contradiction. If God cannot create something that he cannot destroy then he cannot be omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do. The reverse is also true that if he can create something that he cannot destroy then he cannot be omnipotent either.

Ergo there is no such thing as an omnipotent God.

And just to clarify that doesn't mean that there cannot exist beings with "god like powers". But having "god like powers" is not the same thing as being omnipotent. A sufficiently advanced alien race capable of teleporting themselves on and off the earth would appear to have "god like powers" since that is something we mere mortals cannot do.

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

 

[vanityofvanitys]

Coming from the deep South, I am used to the sight of burning crosses. They don't scare me because I am lily white....

I assume a non-burning cross or crucifix doesn't scare you either?

I don't know about atheists, but I can tell you seeing Jesus on a cross scares me.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why would those things bother me?

Perhaps because they are a violation of your 1st Amendment rights?

The government violates my First Amendment rights in far more aggregious ways every minute of every day. The government also violates my 2d and 4th Amendment rights each and every day. Funny, I don't notice the same culprits screeching, filin suit,or demanding that those violations of our rights be immediately remediated.

Please provide links to the "culprits screeching, filin suit,or demanding that those violations of our rights be immediately remediated" that you are noticing "each and every day".

 

[Vandalshandle]

Coming from the deep South, I am used to the sight of burning crosses. They don't scare me because I am lily white....

I assume a non-burning cross or crucifix doesn't scare you either?

I don't know about atheists, but I can tell you seeing Jesus on a cross scares me.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Well, as a famous late comedian once said, "If Jesus were to return today, Catholic schoolgirls everywhere would all be wearing little silver electric chairs around their necks". I think that notion would be a lot scarier.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Vampires respect others in ways atheists do not. Vampires at least have some reason to fear Christian symbology because it causes them some harm. Whereas, the"harm" alleged by atheists is a figment of their imagination.

There was some atheist group complaining about the cross at the 9/11 memorial because seeing it gave them 'headaches.'

It seems like just about every day another story crops up about atheists attacking another place where they found a cross. The one that set me off this morning was where a woman had put up a cross at the location where her son was killed in an auto accident. I don't know about where you live, but such "memorials" are frequently erected at such roadside locations. This group of atheists had their tender feelings mortally wounded because some woman wanted to honor her dead son and her cross was on a public right-of-way. C'mon, really?
While they may argue that their 1st Amendment rights under the establishment clause, the phrasing is quite open to debate due to differences in interpretation.
The 1st "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." You could just as easily argue the second portion saying the the "free exercise of religion" is being impeded by their demands that any religious symbol they find offensive be expunged from public view.
I will continue to ask, if atheists recognize no god(s), why are they so offended by some symbol that should have no meaning for them to the point of trampling on someone else's Constitutional rights, if needs be to satisfy their vitriolic hatred of such displays?

Please provide a link to the article that "set you off".

As far as being open to interpretation is concerned the Supreme Court has made it's rulings on the matter clear. The government cannot endorse any specific religion, period.

Where other religious symbols are concerned they are everywhere on private property and of no concern. However your deliberate attempt to denigrate those that are upholding their 1st Amendment rights as "vitriolic hatred" is disingenuous. Atheists have every right to a secular government that is free of of any religious artifact. This applies to all violations of the Constitution whether they be on buildings or currency. That is not "vitriolic hatred" at all. It is simply an individual right to which they are entitled under the law. If you wish to change the law there is a constitutional process in place and it can be exercised whenever you wish so that you can impose whatever religious symbols on others that you want once it has been passed and ratified.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Coming from the deep South, I am used to the sight of burning crosses. They don't scare me because I am lily white....

I assume a non-burning cross or crucifix doesn't scare you either?

I don't know about atheists, but I can tell you seeing Jesus on a cross scares me.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

I give you full credit for being honest enough to admit that your religious beliefs are founded on fear.

 

[Politico]

Given the obvious phobia atheists display of crosses, I am surprised they are even able to drive through an intersection.
A sane and sober person wonders, if they eschew god, why they are so fearful and offended when someone else displays this common christian symbol that they make such a terrible and terrified outcry.

I could care less if people display crosses.

I DO CARE if my GOVERNMENT does it.

That's strictly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

well seeing as it's not a government building you have no problem then.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe they are vampires.

I actuall thought of that, tongue-in-cheek. But really, if they honestly do not believe in a god, why are they apparently always demanding that others' symbols be pulled down. What is it about such symbols that enrage them and drive them to react so fearfully.

We've got maybe a hundred crosses on hillsides here in San Diego Co. ... on private hillsides. Haven't heard of any atheists demanding that they be pulled down. Imagine that.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Here's one back as far as 1990 very similar to the silliness re the 9/11 memorial:

The American Civil Liberties Union and an atheist group argued Tuesday in federal court for the removal of the crosses atop Mt. Soledad and Mt. Helix on grounds that they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

John Murphy, an attorney and local ACLU president, sued the county to stop it from "displaying and illuminating" the cross on Mt. Helix and to stop county officials from using taxpayer funds to maintain the park, called the Mt. Helix Nature Theatre. Murphy lived in La Mesa five years but said in a deposition that he was not aware at the time that the cross was supported by government funds.

In his deposition, which was given to the county's attorneys, Murphy associated the cross with the Catholic Church, which he called "a threat to the citizens of this county." Murphy, who said he was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic schools, called the church "a political organization that I believe is threatening our constitutional rights."

Murphy went on to say that the cross also reminds him of the "threatening" activities of Christian groups that blockade abortion clinics. . . .
Lawsuits Protest Crosses on Hilltops, La Mesa Logo - Los Angeles Times

And there have also been other similar cases. The Mt. Soledad suit is still active and may be reviewed by the high court:
http://sdnews.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Soledad+cross+again+a+legal+hot+potato &id=24708273

Here locally they went after a tiny cross on our county seal symbolic of the religious groups (Catholic and Presbyterians) who provided the first vestiges of civilization and are integral to the history of the city and county. The county finally capitulated and removed the cross because they didn't have the money to fight the lawsuit.

More recently, the tiny village of Tijeras, population about 500 or so, just east of here, also first settled by Spanish priests around whom the village sprang up, was sued to remove the tiny crosses signifying that history on their village seal. The village was fighting the suit though, and I'm not sure whether the ACLU prevailed or not.

 

[vanityofvanitys]

Coming from the deep South, I am used to the sight of burning crosses. They don't scare me because I am lily white....

I assume a non-burning cross or crucifix doesn't scare you either?

I don't know about atheists, but I can tell you seeing Jesus on a cross scares me.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Well, as a famous late comedian once said, "If Jesus were to return today, Catholic schoolgirls everywhere would all be wearing little silver electric chairs around their necks". I think that notion would be a lot scarier.

I wouldn't know where to begin with you or that comedian?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I assume a non-burning cross or crucifix doesn't scare you either?

I don't know about atheists, but I can tell you seeing Jesus on a cross scares me.

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Well, as a famous late comedian once said, "If Jesus were to return today, Catholic schoolgirls everywhere would all be wearing little silver electric chairs around their necks". I think that notion would be a lot scarier.

I wouldn't know where to begin with you or that comedian?

If you insist that I post something serious about a matter that has been settled scores of years ago by the Supreme Court, then I will add this. In addition to the obvious fact that Americans would not tolerate religious symbols erected on public roadways by Islamic or Wiccans, there is the matter of esthetics. I lived in Louisiana which is heavily Catholic, and now, next to an Indian reservation which is 100% Catholic, and pass more than 100 of these crosses in the 2 hour drive to Phoenix. It is as bad as billboards in the otherwise pristine desert. Tacky does not even begin to describe it. They should all be removed and those that try to replace them should be ticketed for littering.

 

[vanityofvanitys]

Well, as a famous late comedian once said, "If Jesus were to return today, Catholic schoolgirls everywhere would all be wearing little silver electric chairs around their necks". I think that notion would be a lot scarier.

I wouldn't know where to begin with you or that comedian?

If you insist that I post something serious about a matter that has been settled scores of years ago by the Supreme Court, then I will add this. In addition to the obvious fact that Americans would not tolerate religious symbols erected on public roadways by Islamic or Wiccans, there is the matter of esthetics. I lived in Louisiana which is heavily Catholic, and now, next to an Indian reservation which is 100% Catholic, and pass more than 100 of these crosses in the 2 hour drive to Phoenix. It is as bad as billboards in the otherwise pristine desert. Tacky does not even begin to describe it. They should all be removed and those that try to replace them should be ticketed for littering.

Maybe they should fix the highway instead?

That many crosses is a very rare exception, but I was not even talking about crosses on the highway. And, no, I would not mind Muslims or Wiccans doing their thing as long as it was not injurious to another party. That excuse wears thin, imo.

From my perspective, these zealot atheists are ridiculous, but I do not think it is fair to besmirch atheism because of the acts of the few. I doubt most atheists bother to take the time to care about something like this. So I do not hold them in contempt.