Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/10 03:51 AM, Gario wrote:

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote: Isn't allowing anyone to practice their belief without persecution is the same as having a completely unbiased society?

Nope. I allow Pastafarians and Scientologists to practice their own belief without attempting to repress them in any way, but I'm terribly biased in my opinion against them. Given the chance, I'd question them and discuss how they could believe the crap that they do, but I wouldn't restrict or repress them from believing it. Asking for an entity to be unbiased would be to ask them to make all of their decisions outside of the opinion of every other person, which is virtually impossible (the government is made up of people, too, and people cannot get rid of their biases - they can only change them in favor of one thing or another).

One is a feasible task that Americans should strive for. The other is impossible.

Even if it is impossible to make a society perfectly equal, we can still attempt to represent all groups of people (rather than the majority). The other 20% of people in our society still have rights.

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote:

Have you considered the fact that the government is not an individual and does not have freedom of speech? It is unconstitutional for the government to make decisions biased towards any particular group of people, and that's all I was trying to say.

I have considered that, and I agree that the government isn't a person, and thus doesn't hold the same rights as one.

Have you considered that an action that bans all crosses from the highway is a 'biased opinion' in favor of atheism performed by the government, while the status quo is a 'biased opinion' toward the majority of America, not just a religious group (Christians still make up over 80% of the population, you know)? Or, perhaps, that removing crosses from the road (that the government had in no way participated in erecting) is restricting the Christian people from practicing their own faith? It's the equivalent of Christians telling the government to ban images of Buddha because it isn't representative of their own beliefs, and the government responded to it by making a law banning the use of images of Buddha in public spaces. Wouldn't you see that as an infringement on Buddhists right to express their own religion (or other people's right to criticize the stupidity of assigning an arbitrary numbers and images with so much meaning)?

Banning images of Buddha is nothing like this situation... we're not banning crosses, we're asking them to be removed from government property.
It would be biased in favor of Atheists if they had the crosses taken down and replaced with Atheist symbols. They're asking for the crosses to be take down because the crosses are erected on government property, its just separation of church and state. Atheists aren't given any special privileges in this situation, they're asking for equality.

It's harder to see what the truth is when the action directly favors your own position. Look at it from a perspective that doesn't favor your bias and try to make your same arguments. You'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to do so.

I can look at situations from other perspectives, that's why I'm actually talking this through with you and haven't called you ignorant.

At 8/20/10 04:12 AM, bgraybr wrote: Even if it is impossible to make a society perfectly equal, we can still attempt to represent all groups of people (rather than the majority). The other 20% of people in our society still have rights.

That's fine, except when the opinion of one group is mutually exclusive to the opinion of the other. I wish we could come to an agreement and say "Let's both keep the crosses on the side of the road as not to interfere with their religious practice and remove the crosses from the road to comply with the atheists non-religious belief", but that's not possible. It makes less sense to follow the minority in this case (which is actually closer to 2-5%, not 20% - atheists generally hold that view that strictly, not other non-Christian groups) than the majority simply because it doesn't represent what America wants, but what a few interested parties want.

You can only go so far to represent groups as equally as possible. There comes a point where it's impossible to do so, so why would you follow the minority rather than the majority, in those cases? It makes little logical sense.

Banning images of Buddha is nothing like this situation... we're not banning crosses, we're asking them to be removed from government property.

... you're banning crosses from public property. That's pretty close to what I said, isn't it, banning images of Buddha from public property vs banning crosses from public property? The only difference that I'm trying to make is that atheists are instigating the ban on one side while Christians are instigating it on the other. The reasoning is the same (It conflicts with my own beliefs in the same way as crosses represent a conflict in atheists beliefs), so there should be no difference between the two when you evaluate them. If there is, ask yourself why.

It would be biased in favor of Atheists if they had the crosses taken down and replaced with Atheist symbols.

Atheists don't have special symbols for a religion, to my knowledge (those that I know tell me that they don't, anyway), since they believe there is no representable 'god', so that's sort of a pot shot, there (ouch, nice one). Sure, the situation would be much worse if it were possible for the grave to be replaced by some sort of atheist symbol, but just because one situation is worse than another doesn't mean that the current situation isn't bad, on it's own.That's a non sequitur argument, there, which skirts around my statement without actually addressing it.

I don't understand how removing religious symbols at an atheist's request is not biased.

Let me ask you something real quick, to see if we're on the same page. How do you define 'church'? If you define it as the Christian church (or some combination of religions) then sure; removing the crosses will successfully separate the 'church' from the state. If you're speaking more for any religion and belief then imposing atheism is just as bad as imposing Christianity, isn't it? The state will be supporting either one belief or another, so what gives atheism a special pardon in this situation? Atheism is the belief that there is no god, so removing anything that represents a god is an action that supports atheism.

"Separation of Church and State" only goes as far as the First Amendment in America, so masking your argument with that will only take us back to that argument (which, as I've already told you, is only infringed by the atheists that are preventing Christians from practicing their faith, not by Christians putting their symbols on public property). If you want equality, then allow atheists to respect their dead on the side of the road in any way they see fit. That doesn't infringe anyone's right to practice religion, and everyone is getting equal treatment, here.

I can look at situations from other perspectives, that's why I'm actually talking this through with you and haven't called you ignorant.

*bows* Much appreciated. I will admit you're relatively level headed with your argument, so I'm lightening my tone, here. Kudos.

Some people got offended over something that they should not have to see going down a highway everyday, so they demanded that the crosses be moved.

While it is understandable to say that crosses do not just reference Christianity but other possibly non-religious practices as well, all of you against what the government deemed unconstitutional must understand that most people associate the crosses with a religion, and that factor alone was enough to push for the motion of deeming the crosses near the highway unconstitutional.

Despite what you may view, in the end the majority believed that the crosses were out of place, even if they were meant to be secular.

Though I am curious who honestly gets offended over a memorial that is not directly in their view and is dedicated to people who risk their lives protecting the peace on the road.

At 8/19/10 11:54 PM, Memorize wrote:
Should we ban swastikas just because they bring images of Nazi Germany, despite the fact that he stole the image from asia?

So what? Are you arguing that a Swastika isn't a symbol of Nazism?

What's funny is that you say that when the crucifix was being used well before Christianity for a specific purpose that was very common.

Big fucking deal. Triangles have been around as long as humans, are you going to argue that a Star of David isn't a symbol of Judaism? And a crescent isn't a symbol of Islam merely because Islam is younger than the moon?

It predates a religion that doesn't even signify it in any way.

Do you not know how symbols work? The gadsden flag is hundreds of years older than the Tea Party movement, yet they use it as symbol for their cause.

Dare I say: Egyptians...

But oh, you're not going to give a damn about that are you?

More excuses, please?

Why should we give a damn? So the crux of what you're saying is that another ancient culture also used crosses before Christians adopted it as a symbol. Do they use it anymore? Or more importantly, is the symbol in discussion a symbol for ancient Egypt or Christianity?

Notice nowhere do I agree to the wisdom of this ruling. I think its ridiculously exaggerated interpretation of the Establishment clause, and I agree with the OP that the people complaining need to pull the stick out of their asses.

Bottom line when YOU see someone with a simple cross around their neck, you think "Oh, a Christian." not "Oh, an Egyptian from antiquity."

At 8/19/10 07:49 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: If someone you know died on private property, you wouldn't be allowed to erect a memorial there in their honor either... Maybe its emotionally "cruel" but oh well.

What are you talking about? You can erect a cross or whatever the hell you want on private property.

As for the court ruling the police memorial unconstitutional.. eh, I can see how the problem arises with that. However, the police work under the government and they aren't immune to the laws although cops commonly have the misconception that they are.

At 8/20/10 04:24 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So what? Are you arguing that a Swastika isn't a symbol of Nazism?

The Swastika is not just a symbol of Nazism at all my friend. It has been around for a loonggg time.

Actually the term "Swastika" is actually Indian, Sanskrit to be precise. It is still commonly used by Buddhists and Hindus as a sign of life and prosperity.

The German term for the sign is actually "Hakenkreuz". It was more commonly referred to as Swastika by Nazi Germany because of it's Aryan origins.

So to sum this up, if the Swastika is used politically, then there is a problem. Religiously is a totally different story. Just thought I'd clear this up. Let alone that Buddhists and Hindus position the symbol completely different from the Nazi form...

So they can put things up... just not crosses?

Like, if it was just a stick with a wreath would it be ok?
What if somebody else puts it up... someone who doesn't work for the government?

At 8/20/10 05:03 PM, HooglyBoogly wrote:

At 8/19/10 07:49 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: If someone you know died on private property, you wouldn't be allowed to erect a memorial there in their honor either... Maybe its emotionally "cruel" but oh well.

What are you talking about? You can erect a cross or whatever the hell you want on private property.

Not on someone else's private property, with out their permission. Public property is similar, you would need a consensus from the public. That clearly doesn't exist, even if we choose to ignore the first amendment.

As for the court ruling the police memorial unconstitutional.. eh, I can see how the problem arises with that. However, the police work under the government and they aren't immune to the laws although cops commonly have the misconception that they are.

Yeah. Also, I have nothing against the memorial, I just think that the cross shouldn't be erected by government, just like I firmly believe religious doctrine doesn't belong in government.

At 8/20/10 01:08 PM, Jackotrades wrote: Some people got offended over something that they should not have to see going down a highway everyday, so they demanded that the crosses be moved.

I shouldn't have to see people making out in public, does that mean i should have it banned?

Despite what you may view, in the end the majority believed that the crosses were out of place, even if they were meant to be secular.

prove the majority believed the crosses were out of place. Last time i checked, some butthurt atheists and 3 liberal judges decided they didn't wanna see em. I don't think that constitutes a majority. sorry.

Though I am curious who honestly gets offended over a memorial that is not directly in their view and is dedicated to people who risk their lives protecting the peace on the road.

the same self righteous people who go apeshit when someone doesn't see everything their way, then begin to spout insults that the person if inferior or stupid or ignorant of the "truth"

either way, this gives me an idea. If i ever wind up super rich I'm gonna build as many massive crosses as I can get built on private land that will allow it, crosses that tower high enough to be seen for miles, and at night, huge lights will make damn sure it can still be seen.

Let's see how atheists like that one.

Do you wanna know what the super hilarious thing about this? The Mormons don't even use the cross as a symbol for anything. In fact, they oppose the use of the cross. Like, have you ever seen a Mormon wearing a crucifix on a gold chain? Not a chance.

At 8/20/10 10:00 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/20/10 01:08 PM, Jackotrades wrote: Some people got offended over something that they should not have to see going down a highway everyday, so they demanded that the crosses be moved.

I shouldn't have to see people making out in public, does that mean i should have it banned?

Well you are well within your right to try...

Oh it would be funny as hell!

Despite what you may view, in the end the majority believed that the crosses were out of place, even if they were meant to be secular.

prove the majority believed the crosses were out of place. Last time i checked, some butthurt atheists and 3 liberal judges decided they didn't wanna see em. I don't think that constitutes a majority. sorry.

Perhaps "majority" was not the right word, maybe people with the most political influence?

Though I am curious who honestly gets offended over a memorial that is not directly in their view and is dedicated to people who risk their lives protecting the peace on the road.

the same self righteous people who go apeshit when someone doesn't see everything their way, then begin to spout insults that the person if inferior or stupid or ignorant of the "truth"

either way, this gives me an idea. If i ever wind up super rich I'm gonna build as many massive crosses as I can get built on private land that will allow it, crosses that tower high enough to be seen for miles, and at night, huge lights will make damn sure it can still be seen.

Let's see how atheists like that one.

Oh oh! I think you could get non-atheists who do not celebrate Christmas by making those lights Red and Green! It'll be purdy...

Anyways, to make it short... people can get annoyed at anything and complain about it, the courts within sensible reason (and hopefully not political bias) judge such cases under the full extent of the law, and people either feel better or get denied.

At 8/20/10 06:18 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Not on someone else's private property, with out their permission. Public property is similar, you would need a consensus from the public.

Ah, ok. I had misread what you typed earlier and thought it referred to ANY private property, including my own.

Interesting fact: separation of church and state isn't mentioned in the Constitution or any of the amendments. In fact, its origins come from an informal letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, where he states that the First Amendment creates a "wall of separation" between Church and State.

At 8/20/10 04:24 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Notice nowhere do I agree to the wisdom of this ruling. I think its ridiculously exaggerated interpretation of the Establishment clause, and I agree with the OP that the people complaining need to pull the stick out of their asses.

Agreed.
To me, the ruling came from the idea of "no religion on govt property", but it's a little off-kilter. The crosses and stars of David on graves aren't representing state promotion of religion, they're representing the beliefs of the deceased. It'd sorta be like removing "Christian" as a description of someone in government documents. It's a statement of fact, not government promotion of religion.

If crosses were the only option for grave markers, yeah, that'd be a problem. Clearly not the case here though.

I'd be anxious to see if this gets overturned citing the 1st amendment. There's definitely an argument to be made removal violates freedom to practice.

Article also mentions the "size" of the crosses was an issue. I wonder if there's a really simply middle ground here.....I wonder if both sides could have come to an agreement on an appropriate size that's visible but not overbearing, and just avoided the problem that way.

At 8/22/10 02:17 AM, MrOctopi wrote: Do you wanna know what the super hilarious thing about this? The Mormons don't even use the cross as a symbol for anything. In fact, they oppose the use of the cross. Like, have you ever seen a Mormon wearing a crucifix on a gold chain? Not a chance.

There's a distinction between the cross and the crucifix. Only Catholics use the crucifix. Protestants use the cross. Doesn't surprise me Mormons don't use anything. They're the craziest of the crazies.

@Memorize:

Visual patterns and Audible Patterns have meaning only in the meaning that is projected on to them by society. Prior to the advent of Christianity the cross had no religious meaning, but today the use of the cross is almost universally accepted as being a religious symbol.

It's just like the word Anarchy, I can say that Anarchy doesn't actually mean Chaos, it means statelessness, [From the origins of the word An-Archon [Archon = Ruler] = Without Rulers], but the fact that everyone considers the word Anarchy to mean Chaos means that the definition of Anarchy IS Chaos, and I have to respect the intersubjective consensus of language. Just like you have to accept the intersubjective consensus of words.

______________________________

Well... hmm... As for the actual Topic. I'm not sure what view to take. I oppose the state in general and i regard the state's claim to most of it's property as illegitimate.

If we regarded the state as a singular entity that is in fact separate from society, (A view contrary to the believers in democracy who claim that 'We are the state') and we regard the State's claim to this particular cemetery as legitimate. If the state decides It will not permit Crosses on their 'property' I would consider such a decision a legitimate use of their property. The state deciding what it is going to do with property that it and it alone owns and actually provides somewhat of a service on, in this case, the government is actually running a Cemetary. This is not the same as the government telling other people that they can't have crosses on their property because the government is the ultimate owner of all property.

Now I am unsure in this instance whether we can regard the property claim as legitimate. It really throws a wrench in the works if we find that this particular government manages the cemetary through the collection of taxes. Would we say that a citizen who finances a legal business by illegal means does not have a legitimate business?

But yeah, I gave my opinion of the separation of church and state. Ignoring the propertarian approach to this whole issue... The idea of the government prohibiting certain symbols and phrases simply because they have a connection to a specific class of idea, namely, religion, in the modern day strikes me as bizzare and arbitrary.

The idea behind separation of church and state is to protect people from having a religious doctrine imposed upon them. But why simply a religious doctrine? Why shouldn't we be protected from the imposition of a secular doctrine? The government initiates aggression against citizens to get them to live how some politically powerful individual wants them to live, why is this suddenly wrong if a religious doctrine is invoked?

Would a law stating that all women have to be accompanied by a selected male at all times be acceptable if it wasn't part of Sharia law? Hopefully not.

That people get so upset about the government having crosses on it's property while moralizing busybodies are actively trying to impose their doctrines on the whole of society is rather scary.

At 8/27/10 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/22/10 02:17 AM, MrOctopi wrote: Do you wanna know what the super hilarious thing about this? The Mormons don't even use the cross as a symbol for anything. In fact, they oppose the use of the cross. Like, have you ever seen a Mormon wearing a crucifix on a gold chain? Not a chance.

There's a distinction between the cross and the crucifix. Only Catholics use the crucifix. Protestants use the cross. Doesn't surprise me Mormons don't use anything. They're the craziest of the crazies.

Well, when a offshoot branch of a religion encourages you to marry more than 1 wife, but doesn't allow to drink, gamble or do any fun stuff, yeah they are pretty crazy, probably why the vast majority live in Utah, surrounded by mountains so that no outside influence can pervert their crazy way of life.
Having Glenn Beck as the most famous Mormon doesn't help their cause, either.

Ugh, yeah the cross is Christian, but are they seriously going to object the people who died being honoured like they would want? It's not like a cross will be dangerous or obstruct traffic or so.

There is something like separation of church and state, but that isn't valuable here, I feel.

Hey guys let's pretend that the overwhelming meaning of the cross today doesn't imply a Christian belief of some kind and continue to play "Pedantic-as-Fuck-Semantic-Gymnastics" for the sake of not appearing wrong.

At 8/31/10 08:46 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Hey guys let's pretend that the overwhelming meaning of the cross today doesn't imply a Christian belief of some kind and continue to play "Pedantic-as-Fuck-Semantic-Gymnastics" for the sake of not appearing wrong.

Funnier still watching atheists (mostly) complain about a plus sign stuck in the ground.

At 8/31/10 09:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/31/10 08:46 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Funnier still watching atheists (mostly) complain about a plus sign stuck in the ground.

I know, there are more important issues to deal wth, usch as complaining about "God" in the pledge of allegiance.

At 8/31/10 11:14 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

I know, there are more important issues to deal wth, usch as complaining about "God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Be my guest, it wasn't in the original.

But have fun digging up deceased relative's graves at the expense of a family's grief because an inanimate object burned your retinas.

At 8/20/10 03:09 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: That being said, I still think it would have been smarter (and no less of an honor to the fallen) to have normal, rectangular markers instead. Making them all in the shape of a cross was just inviting complaint.

Hmm, this seems like a simple solution to it all. But it kind of ignores any wishes the people who erected the memorials had.

It's like people calling the cops on a birthday party because alcohol was served in presence of children. And then you could say "Oh well, maybe it was smarter to stick to OJ instead."
It may be against the law to serve alcohol in presence of minors or at least serve alcohol to a minor and perhaps on he party an 18 year old is offered 1 glass of cider n the spirit of celebration. But it's still a dick thing to do, to sic the cops on a private party just for that.