A good example of why athiests suck

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

If I saw it in a war or disaster zone, I'd immediately think "oh, here comes first aid from a country with Christian roots" as opposed to first aid from a Muslim country.

Really? The first thing I'd think is, "Oh, here comes the medic." You know, the normal, non-Reggie Dunlop response.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's an inverted Swiss flag. The organization is based in Switzerland.

The Swiss flag has Christian roots,

Yup guardians of the pope is the Swiss Guard

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

If I saw it in a war or disaster zone, I'd immediately think "oh, here comes first aid from a country with Christian roots" as opposed to first aid from a Muslim country.

And you would be quite wrong. The Red Cross is the accepted symbol for the organization in 155 of 186 member countries. Not all of those are derived from nations with Christian roots. Virtually every nation in Asia, for example, uses the Red Cross symbol.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Really? The first thing I'd think is, "Oh, here comes the medic."

They could use a variation of this.



Fact is, the Red Cross was a Christian organization at its founding, or at the very least co-opted the idea that Christianity invented caring for the sick and injured.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And you would be quite wrong. The Red Cross is the accepted symbol for the organization in 155 of 186 member countries. Not all of those are derived from nations with Christian roots. Virtually every nation in Asia, for example, uses the Red Cross symbol.

[SeeBass]

I bet you somebody in Gaza thinks "here come those damn Westerners/Christians"

Seems silly to use a big red cross as a symbol though it's like here is a really big target but dont shoot at me.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

...Imagine you are driving and see this huge cross by the side of the road. First thought - Christian? Or Grave?...

How much validity does one's first impression carry in determining the intended meaning of a symbol? For symbols with multiple meanings, there is a possibility that at least some people will initially misinterpret them. However, in the present case does it not also follow that these symbols' intended meaning is not so ambiguous? You yourself noted that there are two principle options in interpreting crosses by the side of the road. You have indicated your own ability to arrive at the correct interpretation. It seems to me that you are advocating for protection against the possibility of misinterpretation, and I find that unreasonable. Even if you did not arrive at the intended meaning right away, you have still demonstrated that you understand the intent, and as such, I find it implausible that you do in fact believe these symbols to be offensive.

[SeeBass]

I was wondering why there is no Mosque at Ground Zero debate post?

or did I miss it?

I sure would like to think we are all on the same page but probably not.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But are the displaying of road-side crosses a clear advocation of a religion? Even if they are religious symbols (this is again completely dependent upon context, as symbols can carry multiple meanings), is the display of a symbol always an endorsement?

All by itself probably no, but maybe that it was one organization that put them all up and they were all crosses despite most being of a religion that doesn't use the cross that contributed to the decision? It wouldn't be advocating if it was just symbols put up by families, but since it was one symbol exclusively chosen by one group supported by the state they felt it crossed whatever line separates advocate and not?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Perhaps I am not being clear, but what I am attempting to suggest is that the interpretation of what does or does not "advocate" is not clear, especially in this case where crosses are very commonly used as memorial markers not intended to convey any religious meaning.

But are crosses used as memorial markers really not intended to convey any religious meaning? If an individual chooses a memorial marker for someone, I am very doubtful they would choose a cross unless they associated themselves with Christianity in some fashion, if they didn't they'd choose something either relevant to their beliefs, or something generic (or a laser light show for me).

Could it be argued that all the other memorials that have crosses in them have crosses in them because of the influence of religious Christians in the decision making process?

Chicken or the egg?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by photon

All by itself probably no, but maybe that it was one organization that put them all up and they were all crosses despite most being of a religion that doesn't use the cross that contributed to the decision? It wouldn't be advocating if it was just symbols put up by families, but since it was one symbol exclusively chosen by one group supported by the state they felt it crossed whatever line separates advocate and not?



But are crosses used as memorial markers really not intended to convey any religious meaning? If an individual chooses a memorial marker for someone, I am very doubtful they would choose a cross unless they associated themselves with Christianity in some fashion, if they didn't they'd choose something either relevant to their beliefs, or something generic (or a laser light show for me).

Could it be argued that all the other memorials that have crosses in them have crosses in them because of the influence of religious Christians in the decision making process?

Chicken or the egg?

Yes laser Floyd!!!!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Thor

The irony of their claiming the Red Crystal is to be a symbol with no religious connotation is that it is currently used only by Israel and was adopted to appease the Magen David Adom inside that country. That, I suspect, will quickly become a case of an attempted secular symbol taking on a religious (or cultural, if you prefer) connotation. The opposite of the cross discussion we are having.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I was wondering why there is no Mosque at Ground Zero debate post?

or did I miss it?

I sure would like to think we are all on the same page but probably not.

It's not a mosque and it's not at Ground Zero.

There's a thread around somewhere.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

They could use a variation of this.

I'm pretty sure that that symbol also has religious roots:

The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live. ~ Num 21:7–9

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Both?

But would a thread entitled "Black people suck", or "Jews suck" or "Asians suck" be considered appropriate? You honestly don't see the difference between those and "Bad Drivers Suck"?

[SeeBass]

someday I would love to see sombody say on a forum page "oh my I have been wrong all along about my beliefs, thank you for changing my life"

I love the conversation but sometimes the intensity is a little high and I would consider myself quilty of that too.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Well that did not change the fact that virtually every nation except Muslim nations in Asia use the Red Cross. The Red Crystal arrived due to the Red Cross Org. idiotic position on Israel's Magen David Adom.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's not a mosque and it's not at Ground Zero.

There's a thread around somewhere.

I agree but dont be so optuse just to score a point
if you read my posts you should fathom were I sit in that conversation

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm pretty sure that that symbol also has religious roots:

True.

It also more clearly denotes medicine, as opposed to the cross, which denotes the faith itself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

But would a thread entitled "Black people suck", or "Jews suck" or "Asians suck" be considered appropriate? You honestly don't see the difference between those and "Bad Drivers Suck"?

Atheists suck is kind of in the middle.. people choose what to believe so it's not like "black people suck", because people don't choose to be black.

It's closer to "NDPers Suck" or "Communists Suck" or "Copenhagen interpretationists Suck"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

But would a thread entitled "Black people suck", or "Jews suck" or "Asians suck" be considered appropriate? You honestly don't see the difference between those and "Bad Drivers Suck"?

It's ironic that you ask me that when you fail to understand the difference between a racial or cultural trait and a concious choice. A person chooses to be a bad driver, and a person chooses to be an athiest, Christian or Muslim. When I create a thread stating that a group sucks because of a racial or cultural trait, feel free to play Mrs. Moderator on me.