A good example of why athiests suck

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

...Society can evolve and abandon symbolic images as well.

I seriously doubt that. Our entire ability to communicate and interact is constructed around the use of symbols. "Abandonment" is simply not an option; certain symbols may be abandoned, but this would merely result in a fairly rapid replacement by other symbols.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I should hope not, but then again I am a closet idealist.


This is the key. But is this perhaps merely the other side of the same coin whereby many Christians protest regarding the trampling of their own liberties and sensibilities? Maybe the problem is not Christians and athiests; maybe the problem in cases such as this has to do with them all being American, as I cannot imagine a similar sort of reaction in any other place in the Western world.

Its certainly not black and white. You can see a whole host of problems tied to every issue, the vitriol in their news and politics. The aggressive beliefs of their views on their own rights (right or wrong as they may be) and of course a nation who has so many identities and is changing too fast for some to cope with.

Its just such a massive experiment that I think its starting a downward trend, maybe for good.

Its so partisan I don't know what could bring that nation back to civility, you'd think 9/11 would have done this; and it did briefly; but boy do the divisions ever run deep.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I seriously doubt that. Our entire ability to communicate and interact is constructed around the use of symbols. "Abandonment" is simply not an option; certain symbols may be abandoned, but this would merely result in a fairly rapid replacement by other symbols.

Agreed. History also recycles symbols as well. The cross was not invented 2,000 years ago by the first Christians.

Also, the corruption of the swastika by Nazi Germany is a prime example of a secular society altering the meaning of a religious symbol. In the case of the cross, society is altering it in an, arguably, positive way.

[Thor]

I think we should all stop wasting value land space and just be cremated, problem solved!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think we should all stop wasting value land space and just be cremated, problem solved!

I want my body put into a missile and shot into the sun.

[photon]

That's the problem with having rules, sometimes they work in your favour and sometimes the bite you in the ass.

I agree with the point that in this case it could be argued that the cross is the most understood symbol to get the desired point across. Though the reason that is is because of Christian influence in the first place, so that doesn't really negate the argument that it is a Christian symbol and promotes a religion, it just pushes that argument back in time. But we can't go back in time, and making a new symbol would be confusing...

And if it was crosses erected by the family or by mourners or something like that, it'd probably be different, but in this case there's other things that add to the issue.

It's a non-profit association that's erecting the crosses with the permission of the state. If it was families there'd be symbols (or not) relevant to whoever it was that died, but in this case they're all crosses even though many of the people that died would have been against the cross as a symbol to represent them. So in that respect it makes it a little more suspicious (why didn't the UHPA ask the families what symbol to use).

In general I'm against roadside memorials as I think they are distracting, and I think it's a little selfish too, I think it's great what people have done to give their lives protecting society, but there are lots of other people who have died or sacrificed in far less public ways as well, why don't they get a roadside memorial too? But if they did, there'd be no roadside left. I think memorials should be limited to where memorials are appropriate, and no roadside memorials be allowed.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not dishonest! It is a clear recognition that symbols are not static, and their meaning invariably changes and evolves over time. By the same token, it seems silly to attempt to deny or eliminate "religious tradition", which has been so instrumental in shaping virtually every culture on the planet. While we happen to live in a secular society, it is saturated with remnants of a religious culture, which in many respects have since been re-interpreted to suit the needs and sensibilities of what is now a consumer society.

What comes to mind when I read this is the Christmas tree. At one point was clearly very associated with Christianity. Today, not as much. Many people of non-faith put up Christmas tress in their house in a completely secular way. I do not think the cross is quite there yet and I don't know if it can. The difference is that people don't wear Christmas tress around their necks and put them on the top of their buildings. The cross today is still the ultimate symbol of Christian faith. I don't know if that association can weaken.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I want my body put into a missile and shot into the sun.

So you can leave the same way you came?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Burninator

...it is surely not a universal marker for dead people as many road side memorials are not crosses, same with other memorials, grave yards etc.

Part of the problem is inherent in this: there is no universal marker, but I think the argument stands that a cross is still the most recognizable symbol for a commemoration of the dead in this society.

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think as an increasing secular culture the cross should be dropped as a memorial because many of us are not Christian. I think it makes more sense to drop the symbol than drop the religious connotations.

I think that that is fair. However, the problem is that symbols don't work that way. There is no committee to convene and decide upon what will become an appropriate symbol for communicating a given message. The decision to change a symbol would go down much like the Pepsi promotional debacle of a new national hockey cheer. Symbols are a part of our cultural memory, and as such, they tend to behave much more organically. If there is a change to be made, then I expect that it is not something that can only happen as the collective consciousness shifts.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I seriously doubt that. Our entire ability to communicate and interact is constructed around the use of symbols. "Abandonment" is simply not an option; certain symbols may be abandoned, but this would merely result in a fairly rapid replacement by other symbols.

There's a whole whack of pagan symbols no longer identifiable to the average person.


Pop quiz: Identify these without looking it up.

[Devils'Advocate]

BTW - there have been many threads that have been critical of religion, particularly Christianity, but I've not seen a thread that was titled like "Prime example of why Christians suck". Correct me if I am wrong.

Was the intention to be inflammatory? Or does the OP just enjoy insulting people?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by puckluck

So you can leave the same way you came?

So the hydrogen in my body can be consumed and give everyone I dislike a sunburn.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What comes to mind when I read this is the Christmas tree. At one point was clearly very associated with Christianity. Today, not as much. Many people of non-faith put up Christmas tress in their house in a completely secular way. I do not think the cross is quite there yet and I don't know if it can. The difference is that people don't wear Christmas tress around their necks and put them on the top of their buildings. The cross today is still the ultimate symbol of Christian faith. I don't know if that association can weaken.

Whether or not it can; Christians should hope that it doesn't and shouldn't. The cross is the whole point of the faith.

[Pagal4321]

Those damn Christians!!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

"Prime example of why Christians suck".

Only if they are married and gargle with holy water afterwards.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

BTW - there have been many threads that have been critical of religion, particularly Christianity, but I've not seen a thread that was titled like "Prime example of why Christians suck". Correct me if I am wrong.

Was the intention to be inflammatory? Or does the OP just enjoy insulting people?

I read it as being intentional hyperbole for the lulz.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Swiss people remind me of their flag, which bears a cross on it. I think there needs to be a government decree that declares that no Swiss people be allowed on public land.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Swiss people remind me of their flag, which bears a cross on it. I think there needs to be a government decree that declares that no Swiss people be allowed on public land.

And Switzerland is one of the most atheist countries in Europe and likely in the world. We don't see them tripping about it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Whether or not it can; Christians should hope that it doesn't and shouldn't. The cross is the whole point of the faith.

Is it really? The cross was not adopted as a Christian symbol until quite a while after the beginning of the Church. There have been other Christian symbols that were much more important early on, but have been replaced by the cross for most. Like any symbol, replacement happens, and I expect the same holds true for the cross, and I think this may already be taking place.

Crosses have become a popular piece of jewelry for many non-religious people; if anything, this trivializes its function as a religious symbol more than anything. And yet, Christians have invented and latched onto more specialized symbols as the cross has become more secularized; surely you have at least seen a WWJD bracelet or necklace?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

BTW - there have been many threads that have been critical of religion, particularly Christianity, but I've not seen a thread that was titled like "Prime example of why Christians suck". Correct me if I am wrong.

Was the intention to be inflammatory? Or does the OP just enjoy insulting people?

Both?

A simple search reveals several dozen threads that argue something or someone sucks, so framing a thread in this fashion is not uncommon. In this case, I was certainly intending to be provacative with the title, but it is also a succinct description of my opinion regarding this matter, albeit taken to an extreme.

The thread title was intended to be eye catching, and has generated a pretty good discussion on several topics related to the story. Which is good, because if athiests didn't suck, the OT forum would be a quite boring today.