|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 4:40:01 GMT
Oh goodness yes. Our national anthem is bloody awful, the thing sounds like a funeral dirge. I always rather liked the French national anthem. It's so jolly and energetic. And it has that wonderful scene in Casablanca. And the one in Escape to Victory! The American one is nice, too. And the German one is so bombastic, I like that one. Hell, just about everyone's anthem is better than ours. No I don't, since those are national rather than religious figures. The government isn't required to treat different national heroes equally. It is, or should be, required to treat different religious beliefs held by its citizens equally. But not by all people. I'm sorry, but I don't see any way to simplify the statement. And there's no evidence at all that he or they ever did. I am sorry, but, regarding religious figures you're wrong. The Government & society are not required to treat ALL religious figures equally. Religious figures that are deemed to be evil, or at the very least symbolic of what we understand to be evil, should not be given the same equal footing as religious figures that are to be revered for their Goodness. For example, the Buddha, while not an Abrahamic figure, is known to be a highly altruistic figure, & is revered as such, by Buddhists. Therefore, if Buddhists want public displays of Buddha (or any other revered figure from the Buddhist pantheon) in public displays, the Government should allow it. The Devil does not fall into that category. Why? Because he is a figure of evil, & not just in Christianity, but, most religions believe that there are supernatural entities that are evil, & should be rejected. (I actually responded to your post earlier, tonight. But, for some reason, it didn't post.) I can't believe that you actually had the temerity to post this claptrap about YOUR OPINION of other religions! You know what REALLY gets up my nose ( or my butt if you prefer and you seem to) that poe faced stupid people think that THEIR religion is right and good, and that other people's could be or is, bad or evil. Can you NOT see how stupid and bigoted that position is? Christians: " We made up God and the Devil and we say the Devil is bad so no one else is allowed to have an opinion. We sometime say the Buddha is good so we MIGHT let you put up a statue of Buddha if we say so. We don't like Mohamed much so he is probably out of the statue thing or whatever Muslims wroship, and the Hindu statues are quite cute so if we think they are OK they can be viewed in the same space as our crosses, Mother Mary bloody Jesus statues and all the other clobber we like."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 4:46:01 GMT
...and I, as an atheists have to ask what is the difference, since they are BOTH manufactured concepts? They should have the same right/s as those with YOUR belief! Taking into consideration your earlier comment about "anti-intellectual & dangerous," Goz, I am quite certain that you do have some concept of good & evil, don't you? Despite the fact that you are an atheist, you do realize that within religion, there are figures that are "all Good," or at least symbolize all that is good, & there are figures that "all Evil," or at least symbolize all that is evil. I'm about to post to you the very same question that I posted to Graham (& even earlier in this very thread): Should Governments pay the same kind of homage to Adolf Hitler, that they do to Winston Churchill? Why or why not? Good grief, what a stupid question. 'Governments' are there to govern the people.(hopefully elected) There should be no religious images of any kind nor political ones on ANY public property that are not of people of the home nation OR apolitical ones like scientists authors etc. The trouble with you religious people is that you see EVERYTHING in your ridiculous religious terms and are so blinkered that you seriously don't seem to understand secularism, separation of church and state AND the fact that freedom of religion also can mean freedom FROM religion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 4:56:17 GMT
I am sorry, but, regarding religious figures you're wrong. The Government & society are not required to treat ALL religious figures equally. Religious figures that are deemed to be evil, or at the very least symbolic of what we understand to be evil, should not be given the same equal footing as religious figures that are to be revered for their Goodness. For example, the Buddha, while not an Abrahamic figure, is known to be a highly altruistic figure, & is revered as such, by Buddhists. Therefore, if Buddhists want public displays of Buddha (or any other revered figure from the Buddhist pantheon) in public displays, the Government should allow it. The Devil does not fall into that category. Why? Because he is a figure of evil, & not just in Christianity, but, most religions believe that there are supernatural entities that are evil, & should be rejected. (I actually responded to your post earlier, tonight. But, for some reason, it didn't post.) I can't believe that you actually had the temerity to post this claptrap about YOUR OPINION of other religions! You know what REALLY gets up my nose ( or my butt if you prefer and you seem to) that poe faced stupid people think that THEIR religion is right and good, and that other people's could be or is, bad or evil. Can you NOT see how stupid and bigoted that position is? Christians: " We made up God and the Devil and we say the Devil is bad so no one else is allowed to have an opinion. We sometime say the Buddha is good so we MIGHT let you put up a statue of Buddha if we say so. We don't like Mohamed much so he is probably out of the statue thing or whatever Muslims wroship, and the Hindu statues are quite cute so if we think they are OK they can be viewed in the same space as our crosses, Mother Mary bloody Jesus statues and all the other clobber we like." It's not just my own opinion, Goz. It is PURE LOGIC. Anything that opposes what is Good, is evil. YOU'RE the one that has a stupid, bigoted, position, Goz. The fact that you would put the following words into our own mouths: Never said that we would not or do not allow Muslims public worship. Opposing evil in the public square is the right thing to do, hence opposing a satanic statue on government property is correct. Yes, that includes when that evil is within spirituality.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 5:00:27 GMT
I can't believe that you actually had the temerity to post this claptrap about YOUR OPINION of other religions! You know what REALLY gets up my nose ( or my butt if you prefer and you seem to) that poe faced stupid people think that THEIR religion is right and good, and that other people's could be or is, bad or evil. Can you NOT see how stupid and bigoted that position is? Christians: " We made up God and the Devil and we say the Devil is bad so no one else is allowed to have an opinion. We sometime say the Buddha is good so we MIGHT let you put up a statue of Buddha if we say so. We don't like Mohamed much so he is probably out of the statue thing or whatever Muslims wroship, and the Hindu statues are quite cute so if we think they are OK they can be viewed in the same space as our crosses, Mother Mary bloody Jesus statues and all the other clobber we like." It's not just my own opinion, Goz. It is PURE LOGIC. Anything that opposes what is Good, is evil. YOU'RE the one that has a stupid, bigoted, position, Goz. The fact that you would put the following words into our own mouths: Never said that we would not or do not allow Muslims public worship. Opposing evil in the public square is the right thing to do, hence opposing a satanic statue on government property is correct. Yes, that includes when that evil is within spirituality. When will you God botherers understand that YOUR opinion, doesn't matter? What YOU judge to be I good or evil is NOT the yardstick in these matters! Other people and other religions have rights JUST the same as yours. FFS YOUR church says that condoms and homosexuals are 'evil'!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 5:08:31 GMT
Taking into consideration your earlier comment about "anti-intellectual & dangerous," Goz, I am quite certain that you do have some concept of good & evil, don't you? Despite the fact that you are an atheist, you do realize that within religion, there are figures that are "all Good," or at least symbolize all that is good, & there are figures that "all Evil," or at least symbolize all that is evil. I'm about to post to you the very same question that I posted to Graham (& even earlier in this very thread): Should Governments pay the same kind of homage to Adolf Hitler, that they do to Winston Churchill? Why or why not? Good grief, what a stupid question. 'Governments' are there to govern the people.(hopefully elected) There should be no religious images of any kind nor political ones on ANY public property that are not of people of the home nation OR apolitical ones like scientists authors etc. The trouble with you religious people is that you see EVERYTHING in your ridiculous religious terms and are so blinkered that you seriously don't seem to understand secularism, separation of church and state AND the fact that freedom of religion also can mean freedom FROM religion. No!!! This is not a stupid question!!!! Only in the mind of a bigoted theophobiac, such as yourself. The fact is, there ARE statues, busts, and/or portraits of historical political figures on Government properties and/or public squares. No, we do understand that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If it wasn't, then people would be MARCHING atheists, and/or non-practicing religious people OFF to Church, Mosque, or any other kind of religious temple. It is not about censoring God. In the United States, they have written on their dollar bills, " In God we trust." There is one lyric in the Canadian National anthem that goes " God Keep our land glorious and free," and then we have the afore--mentioned British National anthem entitled God Save the Queen.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 5:11:15 GMT
It's not just my own opinion, Goz. It is PURE LOGIC. Anything that opposes what is Good, is evil. YOU'RE the one that has a stupid, bigoted, position, Goz. The fact that you would put the following words into our own mouths: Never said that we would not or do not allow Muslims public worship. Opposing evil in the public square is the right thing to do, hence opposing a satanic statue on government property is correct. Yes, that includes when that evil is within spirituality. When will you God botherers understand that YOUR opinion, doesn't matter? What YOU judge to be I good or evil is NOT the yardstick in these matters! Other people and other religions have rights JUST the same as yours. FFS YOUR church says that condoms and homosexuals are 'evil'! The Church doesn't teach that homosexuals are evil. It teaches that homosexual acts THEMSELVES are sinful (just as it teaches that heterosexual acts, outside of marriage are sinful).
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 5:20:08 GMT
Good grief, what a stupid question. 'Governments' are there to govern the people.(hopefully elected) There should be no religious images of any kind nor political ones on ANY public property that are not of people of the home nation OR apolitical ones like scientists authors etc. The trouble with you religious people is that you see EVERYTHING in your ridiculous religious terms and are so blinkered that you seriously don't seem to understand secularism, separation of church and state AND the fact that freedom of religion also can mean freedom FROM religion. No!!! This is not a stupid question!!!! Only in the mind of a bigoted theophobiac, such as yourself. The fact is, there ARE statues, busts, and/or portraits of historical political figures on Government properties and/or public squares. No, we do understand that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If it wasn't, then people would be MARCHING atheists, and/or non-practicing religious people OFF to Church, Mosque, or any other kind of religious temple. It is not about censoring God. In the United States, they have written on their dollar bills, " In God we trust." There is one lyric in the Canadian National anthem that goes " God Keep our land glorious and free," and then we have the afore--mentioned British National anthem entitled God Save the Queen. Anachronisms. I also totally agree with Graham who said when asked the question BTW freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion I free societies who do not have a State religion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 5:25:01 GMT
No!!! This is not a stupid question!!!! Only in the mind of a bigoted theophobiac, such as yourself. The fact is, there ARE statues, busts, and/or portraits of historical political figures on Government properties and/or public squares. No, we do understand that freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If it wasn't, then people would be MARCHING atheists, and/or non-practicing religious people OFF to Church, Mosque, or any other kind of religious temple. It is not about censoring God. In the United States, they have written on their dollar bills, " In God we trust." There is one lyric in the Canadian National anthem that goes " God Keep our land glorious and free," and then we have the afore--mentioned British National anthem entitled God Save the Queen. Anachronisms. I also totally agree with Graham who said when asked the question BTW freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion I free societies who do not have a State religion. And I will now give you the exact same response I gave to Graham, when he gave me that answer" Just as the Governments are not required to treated national historic figures equally, so too they are not required to treat religious figures equally. If the particular religious figures are symbolic of what we know to be evil, they should not be given the equal treatment of the religious figures that are deemed worthy of our reverence. And as I said, freedom from religion means nobody is forcing you to go to worship.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 5:30:17 GMT
When will you God botherers understand that YOUR opinion, doesn't matter? What YOU judge to be I good or evil is NOT the yardstick in these matters! Other people and other religions have rights JUST the same as yours. FFS YOUR church says that condoms and homosexuals are 'evil'! The Church doesn't teach that homosexuals are evil. It teaches that homosexual acts THEMSELVES are sinful (just as it teaches that heterosexual acts, outside of marriage are sinful). What is a homosexual to do for a sex life then? They are born that way, so your stupid church says 'suck it up'? Have no sex EVER or go to Hell? Great choice there! Look what the ' no sex ever' did for the priesthood! What about condoms? The lack of them is spreading the AIDS virus in Africa and Asia
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 8, 2018 5:33:33 GMT
Anachronisms. I also totally agree with Graham who said when asked the question BTW freedom of religion DOES mean freedom from religion I free societies who do not have a State religion. And I will now give you the exact same response I gave to Graham, when he gave me that answer" Just as the Governments are not required to treated national historic figures equally, so too they are not required to treat religious figures equally. If the particular religious figures are symbolic of what we know to be evil, they should not be given the equal treatment of the religious figures that are deemed worthy of our reverence. And as I said, freedom from religion means nobody is forcing you to go to worship. ..of what WHO knows to be evil? It is NOT your (church) call! No freedom from religion means that everyone has the same rights UNAFECED by their religion. (homosexual anyone?)( pregnant woman not wanting to have a baby, anyone?) (native Africans having access to condoms on missionary property, anyone?) etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Dec 8, 2018 8:07:46 GMT
Festive Satanic statue added to Illinois statehouseA satanic group has added its own statue to a series of displays in the government building of the US state of Illinois to mark the festive season.
Placed between a Christmas tree and a menorah, the four-foot sculpture depicts a snake coiled around an outstretched arm holding an apple.
It's the first display sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the Temple of Satan.
The state government said the temple had the same right as other religious groups to have a display.
"Under the Constitution, the First Amendment, people have a right to express their feelings, their thoughts," Dave Druker, spokesman for the Illinois secretary of state, told the State Journal-Register. "This recognises that."
The move has been criticised on social media by Illinois Family Action, an anti-abortion pressure group.
I don't understand the thinking behind it. Christians are celebrating Christmas, the birth of Christ; Jews are celebrating Hannukah. What exactly are Satanists celebrating? Unless their something they celebrate around the same time frame as the previous two, then it shouldn't be there.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 8, 2018 10:30:03 GMT
I don't understand the thinking behind it. Christians are celebrating Christmas, the birth of Christ; Jews are celebrating Hannukah. What exactly are Satanists celebrating? Unless their something they celebrate around the same time frame as the previous two, then it shouldn't be there. Actually, the Satanists can make a plausible case that this is a holiday season for them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_holidays But even if it wasn't, the state can't refuse a religious display from one group while accepting them from others.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 8, 2018 10:39:21 GMT
Festive Satanic statue added to Illinois statehouseA satanic group has added its own statue to a series of displays in the government building of the US state of Illinois to mark the festive season.
Placed between a Christmas tree and a menorah, the four-foot sculpture depicts a snake coiled around an outstretched arm holding an apple.
It's the first display sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the Temple of Satan.
The state government said the temple had the same right as other religious groups to have a display.
"Under the Constitution, the First Amendment, people have a right to express their feelings, their thoughts," Dave Druker, spokesman for the Illinois secretary of state, told the State Journal-Register. "This recognises that."
The move has been criticised on social media by Illinois Family Action, an anti-abortion pressure group.
I don't understand the thinking behind it. Christians are celebrating Christmas, the birth of Christ; Jews are celebrating Hannukah. What exactly are Satanists celebrating? Unless their something they celebrate around the same time frame as the previous two, then it shouldn't be there. I can totally understand your wonder Morgana because at least at present you are not living in the west. While it may seem a very smart thing to do to mock the religious by celebrating Satan we the people who are not from the west can't identify with these people because Satan is merely a part of the Abrahamic system. As long as they associate with Satan or Biblical elements they only extend the releveance of the system. While they derive pleasure in mockery the whole association of anyone with elements such as devil or satan seems laugh-worthy and depicts them as people with not so great imagination (in minds of people not from the west). Even this kind of humour has very little place in the east. of course this isn't a view that is shared by your average non-religious western people. For them these things achieve something. They hurt the religious in some way and help them fullfill their goal of mocking the religious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 12:34:57 GMT
I am sorry, but, regarding religious figures you're wrong. The Government & society are not required to treat ALL religious figures equally. Religious figures that are deemed to be evil, or at the very least symbolic of what we understand to be evil, should not be given the same equal footing as religious figures that are to be revered for their Goodness. And where in the US constitution does it say that? Nowhere. Indeed adopting that policy would put the government in the place of becoming the arbiter of which religions are acceptable and which are 'evil' - exactly the sort of thing the 1st amendment is designed to prevent! Of course, this is about what the government can and can't do - "society", whatever that means, can accept or reject anything it likes. All you're saying here is that the government can and should support one religion over another. In the US, that's exactly what they are not allowed to do. And nor should they be allowed to do so. Religious freedom means freedom for all religions, or it's worthless.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 13:35:24 GMT
The Church doesn't teach that homosexuals are evil. It teaches that homosexual acts THEMSELVES are sinful (just as it teaches that heterosexual acts, outside of marriage are sinful). What is a homosexual to do for a sex life then? They are born that way, so your stupid church says 'suck it up'? Have no sex EVER or go to Hell? Great choice there! Look what the ' no sex ever' did for the priesthood! What about condoms? The lack of them is spreading the AIDS virus in Africa and Asia With regard to Look what the 'no sex ever' did for the priesthood!,' I assume you are referring to the various pedophile cases, which occurred in the Church: Question for you, Goz: If marriage is the solution to prevent sex offences happening in the priesthood, then please explain why, so many married men have committed sex offences?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 13:38:35 GMT
And I will now give you the exact same response I gave to Graham, when he gave me that answer" Just as the Governments are not required to treated national historic figures equally, so too they are not required to treat religious figures equally. If the particular religious figures are symbolic of what we know to be evil, they should not be given the equal treatment of the religious figures that are deemed worthy of our reverence. And as I said, freedom from religion means nobody is forcing you to go to worship. ..of what WHO knows to be evil? It is NOT your (church) call! No freedom from religion means that everyone has the same rights UNAFECED by their religion. (homosexual anyone?)( pregnant woman not wanting to have a baby, anyone?) (native Africans having access to condoms on missionary property, anyone?) etc etc etc Goz, do you not believe that committing murder is evil? Rape to be evil? Stealing? Adultery? Most people, regardless of religion, or lack of, consider these to be evil.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 13:43:18 GMT
I am sorry, but, regarding religious figures you're wrong. The Government & society are not required to treat ALL religious figures equally. Religious figures that are deemed to be evil, or at the very least symbolic of what we understand to be evil, should not be given the same equal footing as religious figures that are to be revered for their Goodness. And where in the US constitution does it say that? Nowhere. Indeed adopting that policy would put the government in the place of becoming the arbiter of which religions are acceptable and which are 'evil' - exactly the sort of thing the 1st amendment is designed to prevent! Of course, this is about what the government can and can't do - "society", whatever that means, can accept or reject anything it likes. All you're saying here is that the government can and should support one religion over another. In the US, that's exactly what they are not allowed to do. And nor should they be allowed to do so. Religious freedom means freedom for all religions, or it's worthless. It's not about what is in the US constitution. It is about what we recognize to be good or evil. If there is to be no distinction between honouring the Lord Jesus, and honouring the Devil, then there should be no distinction between honouring Winston Churchill, and honouring Adolf Hitler. All I am saying is, evil and glorifying what we know to be evil, should not be tolerated, unless you believe we should do that with historical figures too. If not, then we certainly do not do that with religious figures.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 8, 2018 14:04:19 GMT
All I am saying is, evil and glorifying what we know to be evil, should not be tolerated, unless you believe we should do that with historical figures too. If not, then we certainly do not do that with religious figures. Your idiotic thought control has no place in a democracy where people have freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 8, 2018 14:21:39 GMT
All I am saying is, evil and glorifying what we know to be evil, should not be tolerated, unless you believe we should do that with historical figures too. If not, then we certainly do not do that with religious figures. Your idiotic thought control has no place in a democracy where people have freedom of speech. And I suppose when it comes to freedom of speech, you support Hate Speech too, right.....?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 14:23:57 GMT
It's not about what is in the US constitution. It is, if we are talking about what the US government is allowed to do. The two are not equivalent, for reasons already explained. There is no requirement for government to treat political ideas and figures equally. There is a requirement for the government to treat religious ideas and figures equally. And all I’m saying is that you’re obviously wrong about that.
|
|