ACLU... I hate you.

[tyflier]

Did you know, that at the top of the Washington Monument, are the words "Laus Deo"? Which in Latin means "Praise be to God". Should this be removed. Should the Washington Monument be moved so that it no longer is the center of the cross formed by the White House to the north, The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west? Should the different prayers and memorials in the Washington Monument (on everyone of the 50 landings between the base and the top) be removed? Should we rewrite US history?

Did you know that an obelisk is not a religously significant symbol, and is representative of neither belief nor deity?

And technically, the word "deo" does not imply a Christian god, it represents only a higher power. It is the word from whence comes "deity", which, unfortunately for most Christians, is NOT synonomous with the Christian ideal of god.

What that means is that "Laus Deo" translates to "Praise be to God" ONLY in the mind of Christians. Giving the word "deo" the Christian definition of "God" is like saying that the word "flag" means a piece of fabric with alternating red and white stripes and a field of stars on a blue background. Sure, the American Flag is represented by the word "flag"...but so is every other flag that has ever been invented and flown...

 

[Carinata]

 

[ForkedTung]

If a totem is a cultural icon, then a cross is as well. This country was founded by Christians, with Christian beliefs and ideals. So that would make a cross an American cultural icon .

The cross is a religious icon. This country was founded by people attempting to escape from religious persecution.See they weren't allowed to openly practice their religion, they didn't want to stuff it down anyone's throat, just wanted their own little church to pray in and not be harassed for it, they weren't interested in erecting monuments to their own personal beliefs and fighting tooth and nail to keep them. WWJD? Would he really give a wink about that cross?

 

[Carinata]

 

[Cornsnake124]

However, christianity is an invasive culture, not the native one. Thus, original totem poles and rock art have significant need to be preserved, whereas this cross is relatively new, of no historical significance, and is an symbol of a non-native culture.

No historical significance? It was put up by veterans to honor other veterans. IN WORLD WAR ONE. It is very old, and it has a history behind it. i think its OBSURD that you can't grasp the historical significance.

And as MANY of the founding fathers were actually atheist/agnostic,

List them.

this is NOT a "christian" country in any sense of the word. To equate this country as being "Christian" should mean that all laws should be based on the Bible...

I beg to differ.

And how does that make us any different from Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan? Why do we deplore their impingement on civil liberties because of religious ideology, but glorify it here? It's absurd.

Can you explain this part to me? i don't really get what you mean...

In fact there are provisions to provide you the opportunity to vote on your taxes and how they are used.

I really don't see that happening right now...

this country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom

The post this was a reply to wasn't about what it was founded ON. it was about who founded it. And it seems like regulating where we put crosses and such as MEMORIALS is slightly well, taking or religious freedoms away.

So...Texas isn't a state anymore?

Remember that the Alamo was fought so that Texas could be an INDEPENDENT nation from Mexico. Not so that it could be in the union. It was actually its own sovereign nation for a while before America inducted it into the union. So really its not american history as much as the Texas Republic's history.

Did you know that an obelisk is not a religously significant symbol, and is representative of neither belief nor deity?

The point is that there is a prayer on it and the words "praise be to god" in latin are on it? AND its on federal land, so why don't you want to tear that down? its got religious stuff on it....
And the Deo thing does not matter which god it is. ITS STILL RELIGIOUS. God, or a god, falls under the term RELIGIOUS.

 

[tyflier]

Did you know, that at the top of the Washington Monument, are the words "Laus Deo"? Which in Latin means "Praise be to God". Should this be removed. Should the Washington Monument be moved so that it no longer is the center of the cross formed by the White House to the north, The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west? Should the different prayers and memorials in the Washington Monument (on everyone of the 50 landings between the base and the top) be removed? Should we rewrite US history?

Religous cross?...or the points of a compass? Hmm...let's see if we can figure who attributes it as a religous symbol. I'll bet I know the answer. Want a hint? It's the same people that think "deo" means "God"...

I don't want to re-write US history, but perhaps you do? You claim it was founded by Christians, for Christians, and that because of this Christianity is an integral and inseperable part of our Government and history.

I say that is baloney, and that our country was founded on the guiding principles of equality, freedom, and liberty, most importantly the Freedom of Religion, freedom from religious persecution, and the establishment of a government that was NOT controlled by or for a single religious entity.

I've got thousands of grade school textbooks that say I'm right. What have you got?

 

[Cornsnake124]

I don't want to re-write US history, but perhaps you do? You claim it was founded by Christians, for Christians, and that because of this Christianity is an integral and inseperable part of our Government and history.

Nobody ever said it was founded for Christians. give me a quote.

I say that is baloney

Learn to spell please, or at least use spell check.

I've got thousands of grade school textbooks that say I'm right. What have you got?

and grade school textbooks printed for the atheist school system give you any truth, Who said they were fact? to me they have no more credibility than me. and yes, this country was founded for religious equality. But did it say that because of that we could not show our faith anywhere we wanted to, NO. THAT is as much of non equality than the government picking a religion. And did the constitution ever say that we had to be hostile to any kind of faith on government land? NO.

 

[desertanimal]

Snakemaster24: Your posts in this thread are not only gratuitous, immature, and irritating, they are now beginning to border on harassing. You've sufficiently made the point that you don't favor this thread. If you do not wish to participate in this conversation because you think it's not worthwhile, fine--don't. But please stop making implications that the thread topic and/or participants are worthless and/or stupid. It is obviously not viewed as such by its participants, and if your deliberately insulting posts continue further, I will be reporting them.

 

[ForkedTung]

Learn to spell please, or at least use spell check.

Why don't you try reading some of your own writing before you criticize anothers?
You have run on sentences, an almost complete lack of capitalization. You start sentences with "but" and how about this for spelling

OBSURD

.
Here's a link for you:

Urban Dictionary: obsurd
May 22, 2008 ... obsurd - 1 definition - The way stupid people spell absurd.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obsurd - Cached - Similar

 

[ForkedTung]

Snakemaster24: Your posts in this thread are not only gratuitous, immature, and irritating, they are now beginning to border on harassing. You've sufficiently made the point that you don't favor this thread. If you do not wish to participate in this conversation because you think it's not worthwhile, fine--don't. But please stop making implications that the thread topic and/or participants are worthless and/or stupid. It is obviously not viewed as such by its participants, and if your deliberately insulting posts continue further, I will be reporting them.

I've already reported his last irrelevant "post".

 

[Carinata]

Snakemaster24: Your posts in this thread are not only gratuitous, immature, and irritating, they are now beginning to border on harassing. You've sufficiently made the point that you don't favor this thread. If you do not wish to participate in this conversation because you think it's not worthwhile, fine--don't. But please stop making implications that the thread topic and/or participants are worthless and/or stupid. It is obviously not viewed as such by its participants, and if your deliberately insulting posts continue further, I will be reporting them.

The reason I am doing this is because it is getting annoying. It is my form of pandaing. It is a way to leave this stupid thread that obviously has no point. On many threads people start posting random panda picturs. How is this any different?
How is this:

Different from this:

Ask most of th active members here they will say pandas havesaved people from getting out of control.

 

[tyflier]

No historical significance? It was put up by veterans to honor other veterans. IN WORLD WAR ONE. It is very old, and it has a history behind it. i think its OBSURD that you can't grasp the historical significance.

Historical significance to whom? If it had historical significance to the population of the US as a whole, it would be a sanctioned, approved, and maintained War Memorial, not a small wooden cross established, put up, and maintained by a small group of individuals. I think it's OBSURD that you can't grasp the total insignificance of this religious symbol as an icon of something larger than a personal vendetta.

List them.

Go to History Class and read your textbook. If it's not in there, go to the library and read some biographies of our founding fathers. All of their names can be found in your textbook.

I beg to differ.

Don't beg. It doesn't look good. Doesn't make you right, either...

Can you explain this part to me? i don't really get what you mean...

Well, you see...in those countries, their laws are based almost entirely upon religious teachings. That makes them a religious state. If the US was a religious state, as some people would like you to believe, we would have the same basis of public law, and we would be no different than those countries. It's really a very simple, not to mention accurate, comparison.

I really don't see that happening right now...

That's because you're too young top vote, and most of your opinions are based on what you have heard your parents ranting about over dinner or while watching the evening news. When you are old enough to have your own experiences, form your own opinions, and actually vote for yourself...you might see it then. Perhaps not...but you might.

Like I said...what you vote for doesn't have to win in order for you to have had the right to vote for it...

The post this was a reply to wasn't about what it was founded ON. it was about who founded it. And it seems like regulating where we put crosses and such as MEMORIALS is slightly well, taking or religious freedoms away.

No it isn't. Put the cross on private property, and there is no problem. Put it in your front yard and no one has any right to complain. Erect a personal memorial on private land, and you have every right to build whatever you want within the limits provided by area building codes.

Try to put it on public property, and YOU infringe upon the rights of every other citizen. This isn't about protecting the rights of one person...it's about protecting the rights of EVER citizen.

Remember that the Alamo was fought so that Texas could be an INDEPENDENT nation from Mexico. Not so that it could be in the union. It was actually its own sovereign nation for a while before America inducted it into the union. So really its not american history as much as the Texas Republic's history.

Yea...so was every other territory. Once you become a state, your history becomes "ours" just as much as "yours", otherwise the history of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York(our first Capital, BTW...), and all of the other Original 13 would be discounted, as well. All of a sudden there is no such thing as "U.S. History", only individual stories from independant entitites. Doesn't make for a very good story, if you ask me...

The point is that there is a prayer on it and the words "praise be to god" in latin are on it? AND its on federal land, so why don't you want to tear that down? its got religious stuff on it....
And the Deo thing does not matter which god it is. ITS STILL RELIGIOUS. God, or a god, falls under the term RELIGIOUS.

Because, as I said earlier, it is not singularly and overtly a religious symbol, nor is it in any way directly and obviously associated with Christianity. A Muslim will interpret "laus deo" as "Praise Allah", just as legitimately as a Christian will interpret it as "Praise be to God". What it actually, technically, and directly translated means is "laud deity", which at it's most basic definition means "honor god"...not a specific god, like God or Allah, but god, as in the deity of your choice, whichever religion you choose to believe in.

As for the prayers...I don't know what they say. But I can't say a building should be torn down because of a prayer. Just as I wouldn't request a building be torn down becaues of religious icons built into it as decorations. Architecture is what it is. There are prayers on lots of memorials. But the memorials themselves are not overtly religous symbols. I can read a prayer, and replace the word "God" with any deity of my choosing and feel satisfied. I can't change a cross into a pentacle no matter how hard I try...

However...tearing down a building because of words inscribed on the step is FAR different than taking down a cross in the middle of a Nature Preserve...at least in a rational sense...

 

[ForkedTung]

The reason I am doing this is because it is getting annoying. It is my form of pandaing. It is a way to leave this stupid thread that obviously has no point. On many threads people start posting random panda picturs. How is this any different?
How is this:
Ask most of th active members here they will say pandas havesaved people from getting out of control.

This thread is not out of control, You are. Leave.

 

[Carinata]

This thread is not out of control, You are. Leave.

So it is not ok for me to post random pictures on other peoples threads but it is ok for other people to do it to me?

 

[ForkedTung]

So it is not ok for me to post random pictures on other peoples threads but it is ok for other people to do it to me?

Your only involvement in this thread is posting irrelevant pictures that insult everyone participating.
If you can't figure out why it's NOT appropriate in this situation that you really need to stop. You've been asked twice. Leave.

 

[Carinata]

Twice by you! I have made threads where people don't/barely participate and tehn all of a sudden a influx of panda pictures flows in! I will gladly leave. Just expressing my feelings!

 

[tyflier]

Nobody ever said it was founded for Christians. give me a quote.

Well...it's been touted as part of our cultural heritage. That would imply that this country was founded by and for Christians, to cultivate the Christian Cultural Heritage. That's baloney.

Learn to spell please, or at least use spell check.

Really? You're going to turn it into a debate over "baloney" and "bologna"? Both are used, commercially.

and grade school textbooks printed for the atheist school system give you any truth, Who said they were fact? to me they have no more credibility than me.

Huh?? I'm, talking about textbooks used in public schools to teach history. Use any textbook you like, as long as it has an accurate account of U.S. History. Actually..."accurate" can be applied loosely, because most of the textbooks used in American classrooms are lacking on the "accurate" and "truthful" part. But you can feel free to use an American textbook. It will tell you the same thing.

and yes, this country was founded for religious equality. But did it say that because of that we could not show our faith anywhere we wanted to, NO. THAT is as much of non equality than the government picking a religion. And did the constitution ever say that we had to be hostile to any kind of faith on government land? NO.

Yes, it DOES mean that you cannot show your faith "wherever you want to, because it specifically means that the exercising of your right to religious expression cannot interfere with my right to enjoy life free of religious persecution. We are ALL granted rights in this couintry. Each of those rights, in their public practice, must not, either intentionally or accidentally, impinge upon the same ruights granted to other citizens.

In other words...your rights are not more important than my rights. My right to enjoy public land without being bombarded by overtly and blatantly religious symbolism cannot be impeded upon by your right to religious freedom.

The same is true otherwise. I cannot sue you to remove a religious symbol that you choose to put on your own property, as long as the monument(or whatever) is within the established building codes for the area. Doesn't matter if I can see it from my property, I have no right to impinge upon YOUR rights in that instance. It IS a two-way street. It's just that in this instance...it's not going your way.

 

[glenhead]

Facts: The cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign War explicitly as a memorial to those servicemen and -women who died in World War I. It was built on what was, at that time, private property.

Speculation: It would, I expect, be incorrect to believe there was even a tiny hint of religious exclusion when a cross was chosen as the symbol for the memorial. I expect, rather, that it was chosen because it was a meaningful symbol to those who built it.

Facts: The cross stood as a memorial, and was recognized as a memorial, for 60 years before the federal government acquired the land. (I keep using the word "acquired" because I haven't taken the time to determine the method of acquisition. It is not used pejoratively in my use in this context.) People had been holding frequent worship services at the memorial, including Easter services, for several decades before it became part of the National Park Service.

Speculation: Given the popularity and meaningfulness of the memorial, I cannot envision that the NPS did not know of its existence when the land was acquired.

Facts: Despite what has been described as normal NPS procedure of removing all manmade structures from acquired land, the memorial remained. Easter services continued to be held every year.

Speculation: It appears logical to believe that the NPS viewed the memorial as "grandfathered in", simply from the fact that nothing was ever done about it.

Facts: The first attempt to force the removal was in 2001, seven years after the acquisition of the property. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of a single individual. Things went back and forth, with a court ordering the cross removed, the VFW appealing and being denied, several members of Congress arranging to have the land surrounding the cross sold to the VFW, an injunction being filed with and granted by the 9th Circuit blocking the sale, and the case being moved to the Supreme Court for final determination. Easter services continue to be held every year.

Speculation: If the NPS had removed the memorial as part of a cleansing ritual (or whatever terminology you choose to apply), I doubt the VFW would have done anything about it other than mourn the loss. If they did rebuild, they'd have had their hands slapped, and it wouldn't be done more than once. Furthermore, if nobody had ever raised a stink about it, given that the NPS hadn't done anything about a very popular site in seven years, I'd bet the memorial would have stayed.

My problem with the whole mess stems from how I was reared. If a display or memorial is deeply meaningful to someone else, and it is not based in malice or with the intent to inflame, incite, or harm, then it makes not a whit of difference how I feel about it. If it brings comfort to another human being, then in my world view I have a moral right to let them gain the comfort from whatever it is. To me, it smacks of narcissism and a deep lack of respect to expect other people to give up something meaningful to them simply because one doesn't like the symbolism used. If there's even an iota of a chance of ignoring it, then decency and respect for others means ignore it and move on. The U.S. (and the Mojave Preserve) are danged big places, with lots of places to look that don't have crosses.

 

[tyflier]

The reason I am doing this is because it is getting annoying. It is my form of pandaing. It is a way to leave this stupid thread that obviously has no point. On many threads people start posting random panda picturs. How is this any different?
How is this:

Different from this:

Ask most of th active members here they will say pandas havesaved people from getting out of control.

It's not a stupid thread that is going no where. There is some excellent discourse going on, and obviously the people participating don't think it's "stupid".

When the thread dies...it will die. When everything has been debated(and still no one agrees)...it will die. Otherwise, leave it alone until it gets out of hand or erupts into an argument. At the moment it is very civil. If/when it is no longer civil...save it with a panda. But when there is actual conversation on...leave it alone...please...

 

[Carinata]

OK Chris I will go hang with the DYK-ers