So I will, al least this week. Head's hurting, need to get some more work done so I'll send you somewhere else. Somewhere that explains why I do this far better than I can. This Sunday, ask yourselves Why don't Atheists just shut up and stay home?
Read the comments!
Best,
Brett
29 comments:
Hey, thanks for the link! Had no idea the post would be such a touchstone. It's funny... my original got like 100 views. Reposted it after moving to FtB, and it's like I'm suddenly famous or something. :)
It's a great post Jason. It reflects my views and I know a lot of others as well. Keep up the good work :)
No problem Jason! It's a great read!
You're playing with the big boys now so I'm sure you'll get LOTS more views:)
Best!
Brett
The issue at hand is simply that militant atheists and militant theists are equivalent in the visceral nature of their tone and their inability to see anything good or slightly redeeming in the opposing point of view.
When theists try to get into science classes and team creationism as a scientific theory that SHOULD piss you off as an atheist. I understand that and as a Christian tbh it kinda pisses me off too because it's just not appropriate.
However when an atheist turns around and does something like sues a school board for labeling the December break as "Christmas Break" that elicits a big eye roll usually followed by a fuck you from me too. If we're going to be intellectually honest which Athiests are supposed to do then it IS a Christmas break. It was never intended to be a Kwanzaa or Hannukah or Winter Solstice break. The country DOES have some Christian roots and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the existence of those roots by putting "In God We Trust" on a dollar bill or taking break from school for Christmas. If you honestly believe these things infringe upon your personal liberties as an atheist then you're probably a pussy with thin skin who needs to grow up. Those things don't infringe on your personal liberties anymore then teaching evolution in science classes infringe upon those of theists.
Obviously that should reach "...TEACH creationism..."
TheORKINMan,
Damn I wish Blogger, wouldn't keep sending me to peoples info when I try to copy their names!
I hadn't heard about that. Is there a link I can see?
But it's is ALSO Kwanzaa or Hannukah or Winter Solstice break to OTHER people. The population has shifted and because schools are public they need to change with the times. Private schools can do what they want. How does treating everyone equally in this case hurt anyone? Everyone knows it's Christmas, all the songs about baby Jesus and the specials on TV, drive that home (and me nuts!) The public school system should be secular, everyone should be and feel included.
Sure suing a school system that has little to no money is not a good thing and should be avoided but this kind of thing speaks to a deeper Christian in the school. I can't really say more since I don't know the full context.
Best,
Brett
I personally could give a rats ass what they call it,it's simply a title and is completely inconsequential.Suing a school because they call it Christmas break is petty,counterproductive and who ever would think of doing it needs a big ol slap upside the head. I also seriously doubt if the kids themselves care what it's called either,all they care is that they get a couple of weeks off from school.
I'm not so sure about the money issue though.The "In God We Trust" phrase is supposed to represent the nation as a whole and I just don't think that phrase is representative of American views anymore.
It should actually read something like "In This Currency We Trust" Or "In Money and Power We Trust" That while not necessarily appropriate would at least be more honest.
Oops! That should say 'Deeper Christian ROOT.'.. which now that I see it, maybe a bit perverted or the next movie from Vivid!
I kid!
But I haven't been able to find out anything about this on the interwebs. Maybe a Poe?
Best,
Brett
Christian porn Eh? Maybe that's the next big thing,there are certainly enough "Oh God's" being screamed. ;)
(My CAPTCHA phrase is dexter...I LOVE these things!)
Here is a current example of ridiculous atheist militarism for you guys to consider:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-26/us/new.york.wtc.cross_1_atheist-group-american-atheists-cross?_s=PM:US
Basically an atheist group is suing to stop a cross which was actually part of the world trade center and survived the disaster from being placed in the government backed memorial because it is "an enshrinement of religion". If a person genuinely believes seperation of church and states goes to that level of absoluteness then I'm just inclined to think of that individual as a truly stupid human being.
AS long as other groups are allowed to place their symbols as well I have not problem with it. It's when Christians want to exclude the others that this becomes a problem. I've heard that's what this was about, but I can't be sure because I've heard 2 different things.
Is that anymore absurd than when Christians than't God that they survived a plane crash when everyone else died? OR when that guy brought that plane down in NY and DIDN't Thank god, and the Christians had a hissy?
Best,
Brett
The thing with this is that cross is an actual artifact from the world trade center. There is a fireman's jacket fused to the beam. The atheists here said they'd drop the lawsuit if they were allowed to bring in something they MADE aka something contrived that is not an artifact from ground zero. Other religious items from other religions which were actually part of the disaster are included in the memorial as well. It's just some group of jackasses trying to get their names in the paper to draw attention to their particular Atheist group but it highlights the stupidity of absolutist positions on both ends.
It would be like saying a cross from Pearl Harbor that was used to mark the grave site of dead soldiers should not be allowed in a Pearl Harbor museum. Or even saying that the government of Egypt should not be permitted to administer the site of the Great Pyramids because it endorses the worship of Ra the Sun God. At some point you just cross a line between concern for civil liberties and ridiculousness.
So wait, because the Atheists who died there (and there were some) didn't have any Atheists symbols that were found they can't put a new on in there with the others? I'm sorry I didn't know there were rules for honoring the dead. Why not just let them put their symbol there as well? How do you know there wasn't one and some Christian Fundie didn't toss it out or someone just didn't recognize it? What about the the wants of the people who actually died there?
Those other allegories don't work. Not the same thing.
Best,
Brett
How is it not the same thing? The whole problem is that it ix being examined through the lense of being a religious symbol when it is also, and more importantly, an historical artifact. Anything brought in after the fact is by definition not an artifact. Are you seriously advocating that an actual steel beam from the world trade center should not be included in a world trade center memorial/museum because it happens to be in the incredibly generic shape of a Christian cross or because certain Christians view it as a religious symbol? Are we now going to be erecting modern atheist monuments at Gettysburg and Antietam now because there were obviously some atheists that fought in those battles?
Lets put it this way. If a meteor crashed into a building housing the ACLU and in the rubble someone found an evolution "Evolve" car tag (you know the one I'm talking about that is based on/mocking the Jesus fish symbol) I would not have a problem whatsoever with that going into a memorial for the site because it is an artifact that belongs there. Moreover I would be opposed to Pat Robertson walking in and demanding this new Jesus status he just built to be installed for the sake of "fairness".
TheORKINMan,
Well, first off Egypt is not a secular nation as is the US. Secondly while religion is part of the history of the Pyramids is also a political divice. And of course the religion is dead.
I'm not saying a steel beam from the actual WTC should not be used, in fact I think a beam from the old buildings SHOULD be used as part of the new building. But WHY must it also be the beam from but ONE of the many religions that died there? Why not just a single unbent upright beam or 2 upright beams to symbolise the 2 towers? Christians weren't the only people who died there. But they seem to think they have all rights to make monuments.
Sure why not erect some atheist monuments? Why would that even be a problem? You do a lot of those monuments were made AFTER the events right? Why would more modren ones be a problem? DO Jewish ones or hell even Vaudou ones. Why is it only OK to do the symbols of the Christians?
If they found and evolve tag on a meteorite I would HOPE it would go to NASA ro some other place to figure out how it got there. And since that's not an atheist symbol it can go anywhere it wants to. You seem to be missing the elephant in the room. You want to plaster an RELIGIOUS symbols on the place of a RELIGIOUS attack... I'd prefer there not be anything religious there, and just a nice monument to the people who died there. By putting only approved religious symbols (and I'm sorry if I was Jesus the LAST thing I'd want is a symbol is a cross.) Makes this now a religious symbol, and don't we have enough of them already? Why not just honor the dead?
Best,
Brett
Also, please note that Atheist in general don't wear Atheist symbols on them for fear of being ostracized, especially at work. If I died in a car wreck tomorrow people on scene would not know I'm an Atheist. It's not like I were jewelry or carry a card that says Atheist on it and I'm out fo the closet! And no I don't have a fish on my cars, I'm worried they might get broken into.
So much for a free society I guess.
Best,
Brett
What an interesting conversation!
I don’t think atheists should be quiet; they should speak up and articulate their points as clearly as they can. Remember tolerance isn’t agreement, it is accepting an opposing view’s right to be heard even if you don’t consent to it.
Atheism is at its heart a philosophical view based on accepting certain unprovable truths by faith. It is a religion in as much as it echoes all of the major world religions in offering a worldview, a set of lenses, to view all of reality through.
Logic is always going to favor those with a Christian worldview, any deep discussion which moves beyond the superficial will always end up in the theist’s court. So believers should always welcome opposing views. It is the lazy Christian who hasn’t studied and applied himself toward learning the deep truths of God who will find him/herself woefully unprepared.
The ground zero cross is one great opportunity to discuss the significance of the Christian faith. The cross’s importance is based in the life death rebirth example of Jesus. Christ’s crucifixion seems on the surface like a tragedy (and in many ways it is), but there is also a deeper truth to the cross, out of tragedy there is hope, there is more to life than shattered lives and rubble. There is more to life than the visible and after our last breath we will still live on. The enemies in this life will only ever be capable of a shallow momentary victory since Christ has defeated death and offers new life to those who trust in Him. The cross offers hope and purpose in the midst of chaos.
I am curious what is the message of hope atheism offers? It would seem to me that the ground zero cross has historical significance because many looked to it and found comfort and hope. It would seem to me there was also at ground zero many monuments to atheism, they were the chaotic gnarled misshaped girders which offered no hope and no deeper truth. If matter and physical form is all we are then any ol’ odd piece of concrete or melted steal should have been viewed as a worthy atheistic monument; “Take hope in this,” the atheist would say, “death is final and decay is inevitable. You are always at the mercy of violence and your future is as pointless and as temporal as a man-made building. Now try to live as if there is greater significance and meaning.” I tend to think the vacuum of ultimate meaninglessness at the heart of the atheistic message is why all of the “monuments” to its credo were swept up and bulldozed away.
-Steve
Brian,
Yes I am!:) But I think you saw it eventually. No worries it is down rather low now.
Steve...
Atheism is NOT a philosophical view. It starts and ends with No gods. This is based on the lack of evidence religion provides.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There is NO logic in religion. The evidence you have claimed that supports your position is the Bible, written 4,000 years ago, not even at the very beginning! A coin with a Christian symbol... still not quite sure how that is evidence for god, and a feeling in your heart! That last one in itself is so completely illogical I might have to laugh again.... but then I rad the net part...
Ground Zero should not be about any one faith it should be about the people that died there. By trying to swindle a specific faith into it you cheapen what happened. Not everyone who died was Christian.
There is no message of hope other than learn, rely on yourself because no magic manis going to help you.
Oh, and Steve get of your high horse, that last paragraph was disgusting and beneath contempt. Your god refused to help the people on those planes and in those buildings... he didn't act. If he's real he CHOSE to let those people die. He chooses to let people suffer. Never forget that.
Brett
Oh, and if something like this happens again I challenge all Christians to simply call on the power of their god and pray the rubble away... then you can as many crosses as you like!
Best!
Brett
Awesome points Brett!
Now the Bible has always been clear, bad things (sickness, calamity, and even death) happen to Christians and non-Christians alike.
In saying God did not help those people on the plane (which you would not know unless you were there. There is evidence he very much helped some from the leaked telephone messages) you seem to see a contradiction between how God presents himself in the Bible and what we observe.
Please explain why from the Bible you believe God, to be good and loving, would have had to help those people, and exactly what kind of help you feel he was lacking in supplying.
Remember, God does not stop you from sinning. He doesn't always stop people from making bad choices, or acting as free moral agents.
Please describe how you see God lacking in caring out his responsibilities.
Also if you care to, please try to include how God could allow Jesus to be without sin and yet experience some of the most horrendous treatment imaginable from sinful people. In Jesus we see that God does not prevent bad from happening to even his Son, do you find that is also contradictory of a good and loving God?
Also how do you see Christians planting the ground zero cross there? If it did not occur in the collapse, how did it get there? If it did occur in the collapse how can we be said to be swindling our faith in?
Steve
Ps: Yes there is the feeling in my heart, the Roman coin, and you seem to have forgotten about at least 6000 years of recorded history, thousands of historically reliable documents, and a few billion other folks who collaborate my story-including thousands who died violent painful deaths rather than recant. Oh yeah, there’s that too, guess they slipped your mind? Oh wait, I forgot, anything that supports Christianity is automatically unreliable because of your unfounded preexisting bias.
Please describe how you see God lacking in caring: should be CARRYING out his responsibilities.
You know why this is an issue Steve?
Because by not allowing others to also honor their dead and erecting their symbols you posthumously make them Christian, just like the Mormons do. People will go there and think look at all these CHristian souls that died.
You know what would be better? A wall with all the names AND there Religion (or lack of) and a little saying about that person, so people can see that ALL kinds of American suffered and died that day, not just the 'special' Christian ones. That's honoring ALL the people
Brett
Brett,
Cool, your ideas are actually a lot closer to what is happening at the memorial. No one said the cross should be the only memento there (and it ain't), and so you do have lots of other faiths mentioned, lots of non-Christians remembered by name, etc.
Because the cross was already there, not built by Christians, it was prominent for months at the site and featured in many news stories, it is a part of the legacy. It is a small part, and so no one is saying it should be the only religious image, just that it is relevant and worth preserving and displaying.
The whole making the deceased post-mortem Christians is a bizarre sentiment; because they mention and display firemen's gear are they also trying to change everyone's career? Very odd.
Steve
I normally do not agree with everything Steve says, but this time I whole heartedly agree with the last paragraph. As he said, not everyone who died in the towers or the pentagon was a fireman, just as not every person who died in the planes was a member of the flight crew. Just as how many people understand that those who died 10 years ago were of many faiths, and none at all.
So to use a blanket statement in regards to saying 'everyone will assume they are christians' is a tad shortsighted. It's just like saying that everyone who died on that day, 10 years ago, was right handed, based on where a pencil landed during the explosion, and after the debris was found. I know being left or right handed is about as unimportant as one's beliefs or non-beliefs, (even though in the past, both could lead to imprisonment or death in the past. According to Fox, one should still result in imprisonment or death. They really hate lefties ;)) but the analogy is still the same.
George Bush and his cronies maintained that those who lost friends and family in the attacks wanted revenge, making a blanket statement for everyone in order to force the American country into combat with a country who was not responsible. Yet the Not in Our Name movement sprang up, and they proved that many people did not want war.
It just went to show how people could not be convinced to follow some pro-war chickenhawk no matter his lies.
I feel it insults many people to say they will all assume one person's faith based on a cross. We know that the world is multicultural, and multi-faith.
It is similar to assuming that everyone who died that day was white/ black/ asian etc.
Sorry, I know I kind of ranted here. But I just feel that sometimes we underestimate the intelligence of people based on certain presumptions. Yes, their are idiots in the world, who happen to hold certain beliefs, but they do not represent the majority.
M.O.R. And Steve,
I'm sorry but by excluding one group while the government pays for the others it is illegal, and once again re-enforces that this is a 'Christian Nation'. There is no need to assume, it's already all over the culture, look at all the war monuments, crosses ever where. Look at al the religious symbols and statues all over the place, Most might not notice them, but I sure as hell do. But this really ISN'T the issue.
The issue is Inclusion. There is NO reason that EVERY faith or lack there of not be included. NONE. Sure some people will know this doesn't represent the entire US culture, by why not simply include everyone and make EVERYONE happy.
Seems fairly obvious to me.
Best,
Brett
Well, Brett, I understand where you are coming from, completely. I know it can be very unnerving, at times, to be a minority in a country/ state/ city/ town/ village/ group, whether that is based on skin colour, belief (in science or religion), sports teams, or even DC vs Marvel. We humans are fickle, and fear far too much.
The thing is, the cross is an artifact, just like the fireman's jacket is an artifact. They were in the building when it collapsed. These are objects, reminders of the individuals, not the group conciousness. The same way that a necklace indicates what the owner was like.
If it was a star of David, recovered in the rubble, and included in the museum, would the same argument be made?
What TheOrkinMan and I are trying to say is, that the group who wishes to include symbols for those who died on 9/11 are trying to put in objects, (And I mean objects same as the cross is an object in this case and not religious iconography), that were not present on the day of the attacks. If they get their way, what else will be included? And how long before people start protesting? You may find people are completely oblivious to the Flying Spaghetti Monster plaque/ or the fish example you give, yet throw a massive hissy fit when someone wants to put an Allah medal or muslim ring into the memorial. Based on the fact that the killers were Muslim. Just look at what happened with the proposed Mosque, never mind that there were Muslims who died on that day, 10 years ago.
If a memorial were to be built, which did not have any items from the towers, but instead highlighted each persons beliefs, and non-beliefs, with the associated symbols representing each belief, I feel, would be more appropriate, rather than demanding that an object, of one's own making be jammed into a museum of possessions indicating the personality of those who died.
It is not about belief, it is about a tragic event that has since been made into a political/ religious issue by those with an agenda.
What about having a book indicating the names and religious/ non-religious beliefs of those who died in the towers? Indicating their beliefs, their mentors, their hobbies, their girlfriends/ boyfriends/ husbands/ wifes/ life partners?
Regarding the statues...why not admire them for their artistic merits, similar to how we admire the statues of Zeus and Athena? Even if most of us no longer worship those deities (there's bound to be a few who do)one can still admire the creativity inherent within.
And I understand the plight that Atheists and those of other faiths must endure. I mean, the Pat Robertsons and Ted Haggards of this world practically call for every gay person, and non-believer to be lynched. Fox not only does not understand atheists, they don't even try to understand atheists. And certain individuals call for the conversion of atheists to their belief systems. Ignorance seems to be prevalent in all forms of media.
M.O.R.
You're still missing the point. That's only a 'Cross' because we've made it one. Likewise I have seen lots of 'A's in the rubble, and I've even heard someone mention a crescent shape. But these were just considered trash and tossed out. Were there ACTUALLY Atheists symbols there? Maybe, were the fonud? Maybe or maybe they were simply overlooked because most people don't really know much about Atheists. You can't know for sure and simply excluding them be cause something wasn't found is insulting to their memory, it erases them. Like the Christians try to do all the time, thus this post.
2 very easy solutions, allows object honoring all the people who died there. Or move the cross to a nearby church. This is being funded by the government and by allowing the Christian groups to exclude others is a violation of the Establishment clause. This crap about the rubble is just that, crap. These people DIED, the rubble is not nearly as important as their lives were. Excluding ANY group that died there because nothing was found is so morally wrong to me I can't even describe it. Unless it was NAMBLA.
A book is fine, but a shrine like the Vietnam Memorial would be a really nice visual, most people won't bother reading a book.
Statues are fine, but why MUST they be Christian then? Why not Muhammid looking sad or Vishnu or Budda? Or Einstein or simply the Greek Gods? Oh that's right the Christians will complain. I'd have no problem with Muhammid looking sad BTW. I think that would actually be VERY powerful.
Would I sue over this? No, I just would avoid going there.
Best,
Brett
Okay, I understand what you mean, now.
Yeah, a statue of Mohammed would be very powerful. One could even include a statue of all the so-called prophets, as well as Darwin (I know he ain't a prophet, but he got the ball rolling on evolution :)) looking sad, but then people might think that it was a tribute to the holy friends from South Park. That mock super hero team led by Jesus.
The sad problem with a Mohammed statue is that certain Islamic groups do not want anyone drawing or making a statue of Mo. So that would cause more problems. It's lose/ lose. Particularly because they carry bombs.
Personally I would like to see a statue, as a big middle finger to those extremists.
Maybe you should draw the memorial, as you would like to see it? I am saying that with a completely sober/ non-sarcastic mindset. Because you are fortunate enough to be able to show what you mean with traditional and digital means, wheras many of us do not. Draw something that you would feel would best represent EVERYONE who lost their lives, every belief, non-belief, race, and even sexuality.
Post a Comment