A good example of why athiests suck

[SebC]

Originally Posted by peter12

This sort of atheism is more like arguing with your parents than having an independent philosophical perspective.

In my experience, arguing with your parents is usually evidence of having an independent philosophical perspective.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Progressive society sues for anything and everything, why bother with democracy?

Democracy is an effective form of government so long as it doesn't tromp on minorities or discriminate. This is why we have the rule of law.

For example: in the 1960's most of the south supported segregation. It took the rule law to declare such conduct unconstitutional. Despite what the majority wanted.

Progressiveness works towards equality. Taking enormous unavoidable Christian crosses away and having them replaced with non-religious memorials is merely the application of that principle.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

Your disbelief in the existence of God must really be threatened if you have a problem with a cross being displayed as a memorial symbol.

You missed the point...it is on public land if you guys are claiming the cross as a memorial to a grave what would be so wrong about just having a tombstone shape? it is non religious isn't it.

If you need to put a cross on everything I wonder how threatened your beliefs must be.

This discussion can only keep going in circles

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Thor

My only concern is that what memorial do you put up for those who fought in battle and had no faith. Do you dishonor them with having a cross, or is that the right way to go.

I think Troutman is on to something here, something I wasn't as aware of living in the bubble of North America, that there is a vitriol from many American atheists. However isn't that often the case when someone feels oppressed or marginalized as in many parts of the states openly atheist people feel.

That's a good point.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well as an athiest, I really don't care about crosses. I don't mind if grieving families put them up on the side of the Trans Canada, and I don't care that it's on the Alberta flag. Just because something was born in some religious way, doesn't mean it's somehow tainted forever. FFS, I'm baptized.

People need to chill the F out and stop being offended by everything. IMHO, of course.

Again I say, I'm personally not offended by the crosses. I'm not even "offended" that religious overtones continue to permiate government, but I do feel it needs to change.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

It was public land, so I seriously hope it's not consecrated. That's my only issue here.

Not sure how a cross CAN'T be a religious symbol.

There was no intent for it to be used in a religious way here.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I've obviously seen them used as such, so I understand what you're getting at, but to argue everyone should see a clearly christian symbol as a grave marker stretches it much too far.

I just don't see how this is religious propogation,

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I see it as the court rightfully protecting the public from religion. The people responsible have two ways to proceed.

Ok, are we talking about church and state seperation, or protecting people from religion. Because those are two seperate issues.

Again, This was a memorial that was privately funded, and I'm willing to bet that the symbols were chosen with the consent of the fallen officers family.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

1) Put it on private land where the public isn't forced to see it.
2) Put a non-religious memorial up on the public land

Did you fund the actual memorials? Did you pay any part of it?

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

It's not petty to enforce the separation of church and state. It's an exercise of rights, properly conducted under the rule of law.

We will have to agree to disagree, I see this as petty and vindictive and hair splitting because I don't see how this is anything to do with religion. I also think its hilarious that people are going on about how offensive it is to them to even see something like this, yet we convieniently ignore the fact that religious expression is protected. This has nothing to do with the government beyond the land issue. But I don't see how its any kind of amalgamation of church and state.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

If you don't like the law, elect legislators to change it. This is how progressive society operates.

Was this an election issue?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Azure

Soon after that, they'll come after the Silver Cross here in Canada.



Can't wait for that one, considering it is given to the next of kin for anyone who loses his life in combat operations for Canada.

Perhaps it should be re-examined. I'm all for commemorating fallen military, but the silver cross is simply a trinket. I'm sure the families rather have their loved one back.

Ditch the cross for a maple leaf and the award means exactly the same thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Democracy is an effective form of government so long as it doesn't tromp on minorities or discriminate. This is why we have the rule of law.

For example: in the 1960's most of the south supported segregation. It took the rule law to declare such conduct unconstitutional. Despite what the majority wanted.

Progressiveness works towards equality. Taking enormous unavoidable Christian crosses away and having them replaced with non-religious memorials is merely the application of that principle.

So your willing to tromp on the rights of people with religious beliefs.

You know, I find the statues downtown of the two guys playing chess to anger my sensitivities, I demand that they be removed as they depict chess players, and I can't stand chess players.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

You missed the point...it is on public land if you guys are claiming the cross as a memorial to a grave what would be so wrong about just having a tombstone shape? it is non religious isn't it.

If you need to put a cross on everything I wonder how threatened your beliefs must be.

This discussion can only keep going in circles

Because the people that funded it decided that the cross was an appropriate marker for the fallen cops.

[Chump]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

You missed the point...it is on public land if you guys are claiming the cross as a memorial to a grave what would be so wrong about just having a tombstone shape? it is non religious isn't it.

If you need to put a cross on everything I wonder how threatened your beliefs must be.

This discussion can only keep going in circles

The cross is a symbol of sacrifice. These men sacrificed their lives. It really has nothing to do with Chrisitian beliefs being threatened or Chrisitans pushing their beliefs on others.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Perhaps it should be re-examined. I'm all for commemorating fallen military, but the silver cross is simply a trinket. I'm sure the families rather have their loved one back.

Ditch the cross for a maple leaf and the award means exactly the same thing.

Hey, maybe we should change the vic cross while we're at it too, maybe change it to winnie the poo clutching a jar of honey.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You know, I find the statues downtown of the two guys playing chess to anger my sensitivities, I demand that they be removed as they depict chess players, and I can't stand chess players.

WRONG!



It's one guy.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Where does this have anything to do with any religion or faith. As mentioned, these were privately funded memorials, they used the Cross as a marker or symbol in this case not as a religious symbol. The ground was probably not consecrated.

Its pretty much acknowledged that Crosses are usually used as burial markers.

These weren't Christians slapping crosses on everything. These were people putting up a memorial to the police.

It has nothing to do with any organized religion. These atheists were being petty.

Crosses are used as burial markers in countries that are predominately Christian. I think that is the key. It's not a coincidence. In my mind I associate crosses with Christianity. I think that is totally reasonable considering it's the symbol that someone associates their Christian faith with.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hey, maybe we should change the vic cross while we're at it too, maybe change it to winnie the poo clutching a jar of honey.

Well if they do that, I'm sure Disney Corporation will want licensing fees.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Crosses are used as burial markers in countries that are predominately Christian. I think that is the key. It's not a coincidence. In my mind I associate crosses with Christianity. I think that is totally reasonable considering it's the symbol that someone associations their Christian faith with.

So your making a leap in interpretation and attaching a religious belief to something that probably doesn't have to do with religion.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Chump

The cross is a symbol of sacrifice. These men sacrificed their lives. It really has nothing to do with Chrisitian beliefs being threatened or Chrisitans pushing their beliefs on others.

The cross is only a symbol of sacrifice to those who believe in god. To many the cross is a symbol of persecution and intolerance.

[Textcritic]

This whole situation and the arguments pro and con raises the entire issue of what symbols are and how they are interpreted. In this case, while the cross is obviously the most dominant of many Christian symbols, there is no question that its meaning has extended well beyond its religious function.

I think a good case can be made for keeping the crosses as memorials in place of practically anything else, simply on the basis that it is likely the clearest unambiguous representation used to memorialize the deceased. Were they to erect tombstones or shields or plaques in stead, this could in turn become a road hazard, as the meaning attached to these symbols is much more vague.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So your making a leap in interpretation and attaching a religious belief to something that probably doesn't have to do with religion.

What if the crosses were upside down?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Again I say, I'm personally not offended by the crosses. I'm not even "offended" that religious overtones continue to permiate government, but I do feel it needs to change.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm not too concerned about the cross issue either what got me going was the dismissal of my beliefs from the christian side. My wife and I are both aitheists and I would be livid if her memorial was marked with a cross cause I know she would not approve.


But I would rather they focus on bigger fights too like gay marriage and dont ask dont tell.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

To many the cross is a symbol of persecution and intolerance.

Especially crosses on fire.