Religious Absurdity Vol 2: "WTC wreckage in the shape of a cross is god's love."

1246711

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I'll be a man about it. I want there to be NO religious symbols paid for by public funds or displayed on public property by public decree. It's absolutely unamerican, and unconstitutional. Aren't you righties the ones always (falsely) nitpitcking about constitutionality? Well, buck up.



    Put the cross in the privately owned Christian Ground Zero Memorial or whatever other Christian location is at or near Ground Zero.



    That part in bold above is absolutely, ridiculously false. Religion in America is interwoven into our culture. And the 1st Amendment was intended to PROTECT the exercise of religion, not prevent it. That protection included prohibiting Congress establishing a national religion. Over the last 50 years, the 1st Amendment has been perverted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. The founders of this country never intended for God to be banished from public life. Even the Declaration of Independence references God.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    The major religions started at least 1500+ years ago. This was at a time when so little was known about the world, and so much of what is common knowledge today, via science was considered unknown or mysterious. Just 150 years ago, those considering the possibility of "horseless carriages" would risk being burned at the stake for witchcraft. What happened to Galileo, on the basis of evidence he discovered through observation? (The Roman Catholic Church apologized on behalf of Galileo in 1995). And, how would (a) Jesus Christ, for example, fare in today's society? Probably none too well... and running foul of the law in the process.



    Not much to say in response. You clearly believe that faith/religion is outdated as we have advanced well beyond the need for God. To each his own.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That part in bold above is absolutely, ridiculously false. Religion in America is interwoven into our culture. And the 1st Amendment was intended to PROTECT the exercise of religion, not prevent it. That protection included prohibiting Congress establishing a national religion. Over the last 50 years, the 1st Amendment has been perverted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. The founders of this country never intended for God to be banished from public life. Even the Declaration of Independence references God.



    God is not banished from public life. God, however, is banished from public funding and government promotion.



    How can conservatives say with a straight face that Congress isn't allowed to fund government health care programs because of the 10th Amendment, but somehow the Federal Government is allowed to fund Christian activities and displays? It's insane.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    I live 12 minutes from work. Along the way this morning I counted 18 churches. One synagogue. And zero mosques. Christianity is alive and well in this country regardless of what the hag on Fox screams.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    God is not banished from public life. God, however, is banished from public funding and government promotion.



    That is completely wrong. Look up the Lemon test and familiarize yourself with it.

    Quote:

    How can conservatives say with a straight face that Congress isn't allowed to fund government health care programs because of the 10th Amendment, but somehow the Federal Government is allowed to fund Christian activities and displays? It's insane.



    It's probably because the analogy you are trying to make is utterly wrong and terrible. The government is attempting to mandate you purchase medical insurance. This is very different than funding something that might have an item, that as a secondary purpose, has a religious significance by some percentage of the population.



    You know I've learned that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism find cows to be sacred animals. I'm suing the government because anytime they purchase beef, I think the primary purpose must be to advance religions that do not hold that animal to be sacred and work to the detriment of those religions that do. Sure some people might note that lots of people consume beef to live, but it doesn't matter. It has SOME religious significance to SOME portion of the population and thus, the government must never devote a single cent to beef ever again!
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    God is not banished from public life.



    That is exactly what you're arguing for. No religious symbols, activities, statements in public places. Pretty soon we'll be hearing that the President shouldn't say "God bless America." Just watch.



    Quote:

    God, however, is banished from public funding and government promotion.



    No, that is simply not what the 1st Amendment means, which is the only law that matters. The primary purposes is to protect religious expression. In that vein, Congress is prohibited from establishing an official national religion. Considering that our nation was founded by people escaping religious persecution due to an official state religion in England, this is not hard to understand. Like it or not, the Constitution does NOT prohibit the government from any religious exercise, action, statement, etc.



    Quote:



    How can conservatives say with a straight face that Congress isn't allowed to fund government health care programs because of the 10th Amendment, but somehow the Federal Government is allowed to fund Christian activities and displays? It's insane.



    Conservatives are not saying that Congress "cannot fund healthcare programs." No one has ever argued that to my knowledge. What conservatives say the government cannot do is mandate people buy a product simply because they, as humans, exist on this earth.



    As for funding religious activities displays: Government can absolutely do that. What government cannot do is allow one and deny another. For example, if a Jewish group found rubble that looked like a menorah and wanted to display it, the government cannot allow the cross while denying the other symbol...at least not on purely religious grounds.
  • nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    I thought this was interesting. Just passed by my elementary school today (in Kuala Lumpur)... haven't been there for maybe 10 to 15 years... Interestingly, the cross is still intact.



    Most of the students are nowadays ethnic Malay and by default Muslim. Every Muslim student has to take Islamic classes in addition to the usual standard elementary school subjects.



    My elementary school was founded by missionaries about 100 years ago but turned semi-government/ semi-secular/ semi-Muslim about 30-40 years ago. Non-ethnic Malays are not required to attend Islamic classes but do "Moral Studies" instead.



    After being away for decades it is extremely weird walking under the cross and then through the halls where students were reciting the Quran.



    It's not all peachy in this country though, I've written at length in separate threads about the ethnic, religious and socioeconomic conditions here. Upon reflection, this being a somewhat historic elementary school, I think if anybody suggested to remove the cross (since it really isn't a Christian school and hasn't been for maybe half a decade)... it would be a big brouhaha and politically explosive.



  • nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That part in bold above is absolutely, ridiculously false. Religion in America is interwoven into our culture. And the 1st Amendment was intended to PROTECT the exercise of religion, not prevent it. That protection included prohibiting Congress establishing a national religion. Over the last 50 years, the 1st Amendment has been perverted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. The founders of this country never intended for God to be banished from public life. Even the Declaration of Independence references God.



    As an outsider, I think the average American is being played by both sides. The fundamentalist Christians want to paint themselves as going extinct and atheists are gathering in strength saying they're being crushed by the religious right. Then everybody in between has to then "take a side" in a way by deciding which way to go. For example, agnostic theists, which probably form the majority in Western cultures, may think, Hey I believe in God or something Divine, but some of this Bible stuff makes no sense and some of these Christian fundamentalists freak me out. Or they may think, well, if so many people believe in specifics of the Bible, Torah or Quran, maybe there's something there... What's wrong with these atheists?



    As the pressure builds the middle ground gets squeezed.



    Everybody around the world needs to start to chill the f*** out. (See my next paragraph)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    The major religions started at least 1500+ years ago. This was at a time when so little was known about the world, and so much of what is common knowledge today, via science was considered unknown or mysterious. Just 150 years ago, those considering the possibility of "horseless carriages" would risk being burned at the stake for witchcraft. What happened to Galileo, on the basis of evidence he discovered through observation? (The Roman Catholic Church apologized on behalf of Galileo in 1995). And, how would (a) Jesus Christ, for example, fare in today's society? Probably none too well... and running foul of the law in the process.



    This century, I think the challenge is this. We've gained massive amounts of new information, have instant access to all this information, and live very different lifestyles.



    But a lot of the *human condition* remains unchanged. We don't know when or how we're going to die. Or what happens when we die. We don't know when or how we are going to get sick or get hit by a bus, and we don't know what happens after that. We don't know if the Earth is getting worse for living, or doing fine. Is love any easier to obtain? What about the economy... Certainly it's not a feudal system but it could be inching towards that... If you're in with the big corporations then you may have an easy ride, if you're a Walmart "peasant" maybe not so. But then again, nobody knows. Yes, it depends on individual effort, but rich, poor, savings, investments, debt, stocks, is all still a moving target that science has not really solved. Now with the impending doom of global financial collapse there's even more uncertainty because now we know our economic knowledge is either not sufficient or is not applied correctly by those in "power".



    So this century seems to be starting off with this dichotomy of the immense promise of science, knowledge, forgiveness and new methods of thinking not bound by millennial-old texts... but contrasted with the global human condition.



    The human body/brain/soul/whatever still craves sensations of comfort, security, and has basic physical and emotional needs that still need to be met. So we are in this whirlwind of rapid change all around us and I think this is what gives rise to discomfort, conflict and reversions to fundamentalism. For some people, if a web page can be changed in seconds, and a book reprinted in weeks, the Bible and the Quran seem like "safe havens". Look at the flight from currency savings to purchasing gold. Sounds ludicrous in this day and age, right?



    On the topic of Science. Firstly, Science does not necessarily give answers. It simply narrows the parameters and eliminates certain possibilities. I have a college degree in Molecular Biology. Even at my level of education (even though it's not that high-falutin', I don't have a Masters or PhD), there are so many unanswered questions and huge controversy still on things like "junk DNA" for example. So imagine a layperson, of whom most do not study Science at a college level, how are they to grasp the basics of the scientific method and it's advantages and disadvantages. If one's mother gets breast cancer, the last thing on that person's mind is "Oh, it could be the BRCA1 gene, good on Science!". That person will just be like, WTF, how do we cure this, this sucks!



    So you could say, it boils down to uncertainty. Science tells us about randomness of the universe. Faith tells us it is not so random.



    So, faced with uncertainty, and especially suffering of any kind, people will seek solutions.



    I think the big thing is that Science has not really narrowed the scope of "uncertainty" enough. And it simply breaks down with complex systems like the human body, the environment, financial systems and so on... because of its deconstructionist approach.



    Heck, turn on a Windows PC and during a week you may not even know if anything will crash or not.



    I think the human capacity to handle complexity is either too evolved that we can rise above it or not evolved enough that we cannot navigate multiple, highly complex systems.



    One very last point. Acts of "Evil". This is one thing that has not changed. People still steal, loot, rape, murder, embezzle. There is no real scientific explanation of this yet. Is it brain related? We're also seeing huge gains in controlling mental illnesses but it's still largely taboo in many countries and in developed countries people are now saying mental illnesses are over-medicated.
  • kingofsomewherehotkingofsomewherehot Posts: 3,994member
    But we DO KNOW what happens when we die.... NOTHING!



    We see it all the time, EVERY time someone dies... nothing happens. You're just dead... that's the end... period.



    No, people don't want their life to end, so they imagine what it would be like if there were something else. Then they make up stories about that. It gets passed around until they become so engrained in the culture that people actually BELIEVE that crap.

    There's still no evidence and nothing other than imagination to explain such ideas.

    Every time someone dies we have fresh evidence that NOTHING happens... but people's desires and fears cause them to cling to their invented "beliefs" for which there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    But we DO KNOW what happens when we die.... NOTHING!



    We see it all the time, EVERY time someone dies... nothing happens. You're just dead... that's the end... period.



    No, people don't want their life to end, so they imagine what it would be like if there were something else. Then they make up stories about that. It gets passed around until they become so engrained in the culture that people actually BELIEVE that crap.

    There's still no evidence and nothing other than imagination to explain such ideas.

    Every time someone dies we have fresh evidence that NOTHING happens... but people's desires and fears cause them to cling to their invented "beliefs" for which there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!



    Nothing happens here where you can see it so I guess for you, all that exists is what you can see here. Explains a lot.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    There's an invisible dragon in my garage.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    There's an invisible dragon in my garage.



    That's fantastic for you.



    Now tell me which is the greater harm to society.



    The person who believes there is an invisible dragon in their garage.......



    or....



    the person who sues to make sure the government never builds or uses a garage because they know that when some people look at them, they will think of invisble dragons.



    I choose the latter.
  • brbr Posts: 8,255member
    False dichotomy alert! False dichotomy alert! LOGICAL FLAW DETECTED! ABORT! ABORT!
  • kingofsomewherehotkingofsomewherehot Posts: 3,994member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    ... Explains a lot.



    What, exactly, does it explain ? Do tell !
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post


    What, exactly, does it explain ? Do tell !



    If you cannot see it, it must not exist.





    for example:

    http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/darkmatter.html

    Apparently 90% of the universe cannot be seen and only appears to exist because of unseen forces.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    False dichotomy alert! False dichotomy alert! LOGICAL FLAW DETECTED! ABORT! ABORT!



    Try again and learn what the big boys words mean before you point fingers.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    I still don't get how in the hell federally funding a cross in a museum is an enumerated power.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Is federally funding museums an enumerated power?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I still don't get how in the hell federally funding a cross in a museum is an enumerated power.



    They aren't federal funding a cross. They are placing a piece of debris from the collapse of the towers in a museum. This is the what you can't seem to wrap your mind around.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Is federally funding museums an enumerated power?



    You tell me.
Sign In or Register to comment.