Mountain Jesus statue could lose its lease (1 Viewer)

[fsword]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

 

[Rayderr]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

 

[CrossEyed]

Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

I don't know if this statement (which was at the end of a multi-post discussion) refers to the statue or the prayer sessions before games - but in either case, it doesn't seem to me like anybody has looked very hard to find the objectionable action.The statue is sitting on public land, on a ski run, and is apparently very easy to see. The lease is up for the statue's small land and the government (rightly, I believe) has stated they are not renewing. It seems to me that the people in favor of keeping the religious symbol on government land are the ones making the bigger deal out of this.

As for the public prayer, it's also not as if you have to look closely to find this taking place. If you go to the football game, then you'll hear the prayer.

My point regarding the bolded is that everyone is subject to hearing things they don't like or agree with. If I walk through the mall or down the street I'll hear conversations and language that I'd rather not. But I don't ask them to stop talking or to take their conversations to a private location.

In general, I agree with you. But I'm sure you realize there's a difference between hearing something you don't like or agree with from a private person versus hearing the same thing from a governmental employee acting in their governmental capacity.

It was a student-led prayer before a high school football game.

 

[fsword]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty. The laws of nature and natures creator provide the justification for declaring the king a tyrant, and also serve as the basis for distinguishing good and evil, right and wrong, obedience or rebellion.

Second, the bolded, no one can make anyone "feel" a certain way. We are all responsible for our own feelings. If man chooses to believe there is no Creator, than that man has, imo, alienated himself, and set himself aside from the overwhelming majority. If the man who alienates himself is too smart to believe in a Creator, than he should also be wise enough to reconcile his feelings, and not blame others for what only he himself can control.

Thomas Jefferson said “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

Removing God from governance and the publi square erodes our liberty. We all serve something, God, money, ourselves. Is it an accidental corelation between our nation removing God from governance while increasing our bondage to the federal debt?

 

[fsword]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

 

[Rayderr]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·giousadj \ri-ˈli-jəs\1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order> re·li·gionnoun \ri-ˈli-jən\Definition of RELIGION1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

[CrossEyed]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

 

[Sconch]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty. The laws of nature and natures creator provide the justification for declaring the king a tyrant, and also serve as the basis for distinguishing good and evil, right and wrong, obedience or rebellion.

Second, the bolded, no one can make anyone "feel" a certain way. We are all responsible for our own feelings. If man chooses to believe there is no Creator, than that man has, imo, alienated himself, and set himself aside from the overwhelming majority. If the man who alienates himself is too smart to believe in a Creator, than he should also be wise enough to reconcile his feelings, and not blame others for what only he himself can control.

Thomas Jefferson said “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

Removing God from governance and the publi square erodes our liberty. We all serve something, God, money, ourselves. Is it an accidental corelation between our nation removing God from governance while increasing our bondage to the federal debt?

Look at this freaking guy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty. The laws of nature and natures creator provide the justification for declaring the king a tyrant, and also serve as the basis for distinguishing good and evil, right and wrong, obedience or rebellion.

Second, the bolded, no one can make anyone "feel" a certain way. We are all responsible for our own feelings. If man chooses to believe there is no Creator, than that man has, imo, alienated himself, and set himself aside from the overwhelming majority. If the man who alienates himself is too smart to believe in a Creator, than he should also be wise enough to reconcile his feelings, and not blame others for what only he himself can control.

Thomas Jefferson said “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

Removing God from governance and the publi square erodes our liberty. We all serve something, God, money, ourselves. Is it an accidental corelation between our nation removing God from governance while increasing our bondage to the federal debt?

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about a lot of things related to religion, the role it plays and should play in our country, and even the nature of man, so there's no use in continuing the conversation.

Thankfully, the law is pretty firmly on my side.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

How could I have forgotten about Buddy Christ

 

[Rayderr]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

 

[CrossEyed]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

People have/show faith in all kinds of things other than God or religion. The last definition just says "complete trust". Could be complete trust in almost anything.I don't go nearly as far on this subject as fsword does, but this doesn't bolster your side of the argument, imo.

 

[Rayderr]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

People have/show faith in all kinds of things other than God or religion. The last definition just says "complete trust". Could be complete trust in almost anything.I don't go nearly as far on this subject as fsword does, but this doesn't bolster your side of the argument, imo.

By this logic, having faith in a company (i.e. a belief that the company will do well) is a religion, which would make the company that you have faith in a church of sorts, meaning they shouldn't be taxed because the U.S. doesn't tax churches and religious organizations.

 

[marshall88]

Not sure why it's such a big deal to some folks to try to look for reasons to feel wronged.

I don't know if this statement (which was at the end of a multi-post discussion) refers to the statue or the prayer sessions before games - but in either case, it doesn't seem to me like anybody has looked very hard to find the objectionable action.The statue is sitting on public land, on a ski run, and is apparently very easy to see. The lease is up for the statue's small land and the government (rightly, I believe) has stated they are not renewing. It seems to me that the people in favor of keeping the religious symbol on government land are the ones making the bigger deal out of this.

As for the public prayer, it's also not as if you have to look closely to find this taking place. If you go to the football game, then you'll hear the prayer.

My point regarding the bolded is that everyone is subject to hearing things they don't like or agree with. If I walk through the mall or down the street I'll hear conversations and language that I'd rather not. But I don't ask them to stop talking or to take their conversations to a private location.

In general, I agree with you. But I'm sure you realize there's a difference between hearing something you don't like or agree with from a private person versus hearing the same thing from a governmental employee acting in their governmental capacity.

It was a student-led prayer before a high school football game.

So long as the prayer is not organized, sponsored or lead by the school, then I'm o.k. with it. Reports on the internet state that this prayer is made using the school's PA system before the game. That sounds like a school sponsored prayer to me, even if a student is speaking.

 

[[icon]]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

 

[[icon]]

So long as the prayer is not organized, sponsored or lead by the school, then I'm o.k. with it. Reports on the internet state that this prayer is made using the school's PA system before the game. That sounds like a school sponsored prayer to me, even if a student is speaking.

If exposure to the prayer is optional, fine. If it's over a PA, or in a highly public place in a manner where non religious folks could be made to feel uncomfortable, it's a no go. You guys want to do something like this? Post up a flyer saying "Meet at _____ location outside the stadium 30m before kickoff for a prayer group" and you're good to go. Stop being all attention whore-ish about it.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

Fear.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty. Second, the bolded, no one can make anyone "feel" a certain way.

Wow.

 

[CrossEyed]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

Fear.

Fear? Would you care to expand on that?

 

[NCCommish]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty.

Drivel. Oh and since the debt has been run up by the party claiming Jesus for themselves seems like you have an issue there as well.

 

[GoFishTN]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

This was meant to be ironic, right?

 

[jon_mx]

I am pretty sure it is human nature to want to push your beliefs on to others. In this forum, the atheists are the worst offenders.

 

[[icon]]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

This was meant to be ironic, right?

How is the act agnostics trying to reduce undesirable exposure to religious noise pushing our beliefs on anyone? I have NO problem with people who believe in god. Just don't try to convert me to your faith and don't force to to be an unwilling attendee at your rituals. In turn, I won't call for open "There is no god" lectures at football games and won't try to convert every christian I meet into nonbelievers. Deal?

 

[[icon]]

I am pretty sure it is human nature to want to push your beliefs on to others. In this forum, the atheists are the worst offenders.

I think you'll find some atheist lashing out against overexposure to christian messages with some sarcastic replies messing with the particularly devout folks on this forum (in the name of good shtick/humor)... but actual attempts to attack/convert believers to non-believers are few and far between.

 

[GoFishTN]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

This was meant to be ironic, right?

How is the act agnostics trying to reduce undesirable exposure to religious noise pushing our beliefs on anyone? I have NO problem with people who believe in god. Just don't try to convert me to your faith and don't force to to be an unwilling attendee at your rituals. In turn, I won't call for open "There is no god" lectures at football games and won't try to convert every christian I meet into nonbelievers. Deal?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[jon_mx]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

This was meant to be ironic, right?

How is the act agnostics trying to reduce undesirable exposure to religious noise pushing our beliefs on anyone? I have NO problem with people who believe in god. Just don't try to convert me to your faith and don't force to to be an unwilling attendee at your rituals. In turn, I won't call for open "There is no god" lectures at football games and won't try to convert every christian I meet into nonbelievers. Deal?

How about no ads on city buses?

 

[jon_mx]

I am pretty sure it is human nature to want to push your beliefs on to others. In this forum, the atheists are the worst offenders.

I think you'll find some atheist lashing out against overexposure to christian messages with some sarcastic replies messing with the particularly devout folks on this forum (in the name of good shtick/humor)... but actual attempts to attack/convert believers to non-believers are few and far between.

I am pretty sure that is what the endless ridicule of believers by several posters is intended to do.

 

[fsword]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty. The laws of nature and natures creator provide the justification for declaring the king a tyrant, and also serve as the basis for distinguishing good and evil, right and wrong, obedience or rebellion.

Second, the bolded, no one can make anyone "feel" a certain way. We are all responsible for our own feelings. If man chooses to believe there is no Creator, than that man has, imo, alienated himself, and set himself aside from the overwhelming majority. If the man who alienates himself is too smart to believe in a Creator, than he should also be wise enough to reconcile his feelings, and not blame others for what only he himself can control.

Thomas Jefferson said “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

Removing God from governance and the publi square erodes our liberty. We all serve something, God, money, ourselves. Is it an accidental corelation between our nation removing God from governance while increasing our bondage to the federal debt?

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about a lot of things related to religion, the role it plays and should play in our country, and even the nature of man, so there's no use in continuing the conversation.

Thankfully, the law is pretty firmly on my side.

eat: Law cannot exist seperate from religion and philosophy. Either law is based upon a known truthg, or it is merely subjective and easily changeable. Maybe the law is on your side now, maybe it isn't; but worse, what law is just when it is based upon popular opinion or personal tyranny?

 

[fsword]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Thought you wanted to stop?But since you continue, your definitions simply illustrate and prove my statements as true. See definition #2 for "religious", definitions 2,3,and 4 for "religion" and definition 1 for "faith".

All authority either comes from a Creator, or from ourselves. Those who believe the former are deists, and those the latter are humanists. Both require faith, and faith is illustrated by talk and action. Freedom from religion, by the definitions you supply, is a religion. Establishing a lack of religion in declaring freedom from religion, is establishing a religion.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Didn't this guy have a huge hit with Mississippi Mary Magdalene?

 

[fsword]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty.

Drivel. Oh and since the debt has been run up by the party claiming Jesus for themselves seems like you have an issue there as well.

NC, did I whiz in your cheerios?Both parties have messed this thing up; especially anyone who claims Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Anyone claiming smaller government is best because we cant afford bigger government is missing the point of our "progressive" founders intent. Smaller federal government is best because it limits how man's corruption can oppress others. Only a nation of citizens capable of self-discipline is capable of self-rule. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." Ben Franklin.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Didn't this guy have a huge hit with Mississippi Mary Magdalene?

Yup, here some of the lyrics:Mississippi Mag, if you know what I meanMississippi Mag, she taught me everythingWay down around Vicksburg, around Louisiana wayLived a Cajun lady, we called her Mississippi MagYou know she was a dancerShe moved better on wine than water...

 

[[icon]]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture).

He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls.

WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

This was meant to be ironic, right?

How is the act agnostics trying to reduce undesirable exposure to religious noise pushing our beliefs on anyone? I have NO problem with people who believe in god. Just don't try to convert me to your faith and don't force to to be an unwilling attendee at your rituals. In turn, I won't call for open "There is no god" lectures at football games and won't try to convert every christian I meet into nonbelievers. Deal?

How about no ads on city buses?

Only if they're in spanish. With sepiatone images.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

This reminds of a situation recently where a good friend got all worked up after a few beers and started telling me he was upset with me for not accepting jesus as my savior. His logic was that when he went to heaven I wouldn't be there and he couldn't bear the thought of me not being there. He then started working on me to read some stupid book called "Heaven is or real" about a 4 year old who supposedly died then saw heaven... then reported to his evangelical pastor father what he saw... all of which was surprsiingly in line with the father's teachings (and several elements were in direct conflict with scripture). He has been hounding me for the last week about this with some high pressure "accept jesus" sales pitches. HOnestly, it's annoying as hell and I've stopped taking the guy's phone calls. WHy do so many Christians feel the need to pressure their belief systems on others?

It comes from a place of love. Misguided love, but love nonetheless. I've always looked at it this way - if you were on a sinking ship and were the only one who saw the leak, wouldn't you do everything you could to save them? Even if that included dragging them to safety as they were kicking and screaming? That's what it's like to some of them. We can start diving into Plato's Cave if we really want to go down this road.

 

[Sconch]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Thought you wanted to stop?But since you continue, your definitions simply illustrate and prove my statements as true. See definition #2 for "religious", definitions 2,3,and 4 for "religion" and definition 1 for "faith".

All authority either comes from a Creator, or from ourselves. Those who believe the former are deists, and those the latter are humanists. Both require faith, and faith is illustrated by talk and action. Freedom from religion, by the definitions you supply, is a religion. Establishing a lack of religion in declaring freedom from religion, is establishing a religion.

Just because you make up your own definitions doesn't mean we have to all agree to them.

 

[[icon]]

I'm not sure how you get the bolded from my post. I guess if you take that sentence out of context, but it's obviously not what I meant.

There are two completely separate questions:(1) is this constitutional (clearly not, in my opinion, end of story), and (2) why would someone find this objectionable.

Since I think the first question is pretty clear, I'll just answer the second, because I think it's interesting and it's good to share the non-Christian perspective.

There's a difference between "offended" (a word I think you used earlier) and "objectionable." I wouldn't be offended by very much, even, say, a teacher that marks tests with religious imagery instead of grades, or if a Congressman introduced legislation to require the judiciary to consider the teachings of the Bible in making sentencing determinations. However, I'd object pretty strongly to both things.

As far as why displays of religion in publicly funded and maintained areas are objectionable- it's hard to really articulate. I think it basically comes down to the fact that non-Christians already are made to feel like outsiders. Is it really so much to ask that the government not provide an avenue for those sentiments? What's the loss if you are required to pray silently, or before you arrive at the game? Or if you have to move your manger to private property?

Obviously a cost-benefit analysis is kind of secondary anyway since it's a Constitutional issue, but even if you do a cost-benefit analysis I don't see much of either. It's not a big deal if that stuff exists in government places, but it's not that big a deal if it doesn't, either.

There a couple of points to make here, imo.First, belief is a Creator is essential to our liberty.

Drivel. Oh and since the debt has been run up by the party claiming Jesus for themselves seems like you have an issue there as well.

NC, did I whiz in your cheerios?Both parties have messed this thing up; especially anyone who claims Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Anyone claiming smaller government is best because we cant afford bigger government is missing the point of our "progressive" founders intent. Smaller federal government is best because it limits how man's corruption can oppress others. Only a nation of citizens capable of self-discipline is capable of self-rule. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." Ben Franklin.

Buffoon

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Just because you make up your own definitions doesn't mean we have to all agree to them.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Didn't this guy have a huge hit with Mississippi Mary Magdalene?

Yup, here some of the lyrics:Mississippi Mag, if you know what I meanMississippi Mag, she taught me everythingWay down around Vicksburg, around Louisiana wayLived a Cajun lady, we called her Mississippi MagYou know she was a dancerShe moved better on wine than water...

While the rest of them dudes was a-breakin' my bread...

 

[fsword]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

um, no.

How so? Are you suggesting religion is restricted to the belief in diety?

Per Merriam-webster:re·li·gious

adj \ri-ˈli-jəs\

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think the bolded is what he's talking about. Pretty much opens "religion" up to things unrelated to a deity.

1faith

noun \ˈfāth\

plural faiths

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Thought you wanted to stop?But since you continue, your definitions simply illustrate and prove my statements as true. See definition #2 for "religious", definitions 2,3,and 4 for "religion" and definition 1 for "faith".

All authority either comes from a Creator, or from ourselves. Those who believe the former are deists, and those the latter are humanists. Both require faith, and faith is illustrated by talk and action. Freedom from religion, by the definitions you supply, is a religion. Establishing a lack of religion in declaring freedom from religion, is establishing a religion.

Just because you make up your own definitions doesn't mean we have to all agree to them.

Maybe the dictionary is wrong?

 

[Sconch]

Maybe the dictionary is wrong?

Yeah, that's what it is.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Maybe the dictionary is wrong?

 

[grateful zed]

HELENA – Montana’s attorney general said Wednesday that he supports keeping a 6-foot-tall statue of Jesus next to a Whitefish ski hill as a group of atheists and agnostics seek to remove it from U.S. Forest Service land.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-attorney-general-enters-fray-over-whitefish-jesus-statue/article_1fe9c6ea-d62f-11e3-b4df-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[joffer]

Pretty sure believing in a higher power is a religion (or religious). Just believing is not. I believe that Alyssa Milano is incredibly hot, yet that is not religious. I believe Honda makes good cars, that is also not religious.

Acting upon any belief is a religious action.

Holy #### This is a stupid cause. Let them damn statue be.

 

[Fennis]

is the statue of black Jesus?

 

[NCCommish]

is the statue of black Jesus?

As I recall kind of peach colored. So no.