I have no words. - Page 3

Vash02 · 2012-04-27, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

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, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Vash02

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, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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, 10:02 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, 10:05 AM

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

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-04-27, 10:09 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, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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, 11:29 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, 11:57 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, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

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:

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, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

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.

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, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

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, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

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, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

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.