|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 4, 2011 20:31:29 GMT
Fanny Hands Lane, Butts Wynd, Jingle Pot Road or Wino Way, Farfrompoopen Road, This Ain't It Road, Little Schmuck Road, Candy Cane Lane.......They are just street names.....I don't think about them as political/religious or anything statements. I have seen streets named after cartoon characters and things from fictional books........didn't make them real to me or bother me if someone does believe it. HUGE difference hon. you are intelligent. trash like this obviously aren't
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 4, 2011 20:34:04 GMT
I see how a government-backed Nativity could be interpreted as promoting Christianity over other religions but I agree that it gets ridiculously excessive when this sort of thing is held to show government endorsing private displays unless they actively forbid it.
It's the difference between religion and religiosity - religion is worshiping divinity, religiosity is worshiping religion. Atheists may reject religion but some of them suffer just as much from religiosity as any fundamentalist.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 4, 2011 20:37:45 GMT
My sympathies lie with the atheist argument generally. But the atheists have it completely wrong in this case. Right war, wrong battle. The seven fire fighters are known locally and with affection as the seven in heaven and it is those 7 people who are being honoured with this street naming. It's a personal commemoration. Personal beliefs are protected by the American Constitution. Now, if these same atheists want to argue that ''In God We Trust'' and ''one nation.... UNDER GOD'' breaks the separation of church and state policy, then go for it! They are correct there. no, they are NOT, in any of those cases. they are entitled to be atheists if they wish, but they are NOT entitled to have their opinions infringe on the right of the normal people. there is NOTHING in the constitution prohibiting, under ANY intelligent theory, any of those things. none of those, in any way, shape or form, can be considered, by rational people, to be establishing a state religion
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 4, 2011 20:38:27 GMT
My sympathies lie with the atheist argument generally. But the atheists have it completely wrong in this case. Right war, wrong battle. The seven fire fighters are known locally and with affection as the seven in heaven and it is those 7 people who are being honoured with this street naming. It's a personal commemoration. Personal beliefs are protected by the American Constitution. Now, if these same atheists want to argue that ''In God We Trust'' and ''one nation.... UNDER GOD'' breaks the separation of church and state policy, then go for it! They are correct there. no, they are NOT, in any of those cases. they are entitled to be atheists if they wish, but they are NOT entitled to have their opinions infringe on the right of the normal people. there is NOTHING in the constitution prohibiting, under ANY intelligent theory, any of those things. none of those, in any way, shape or form, can be considered, by rational people, to be establishing a state religion
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 4, 2011 23:05:25 GMT
They are relatively late additions though, so could be argued as contrary to the original spirit and violating the rights of polytheists. 'God' could be argued as generally descriptive for the Biblical religions and possibly Parsees but could raise a legitimate question of which one? for any devout Shintoists or animists and pagans.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 5, 2011 0:52:45 GMT
My sympathies lie with the atheist argument generally. But the atheists have it completely wrong in this case. Right war, wrong battle. The seven fire fighters are known locally and with affection as the seven in heaven and it is those 7 people who are being honoured with this street naming. It's a personal commemoration. Personal beliefs are protected by the American Constitution. Now, if these same atheists want to argue that ''In God We Trust'' and ''one nation.... UNDER GOD'' breaks the separation of church and state policy, then go for it! They are correct there. no, they are NOT, in any of those cases. they are entitled to be atheists if they wish, but they are NOT entitled to have their opinions infringe on the right of the normal people. there is NOTHING in the constitution prohibiting, under ANY intelligent theory, any of those things. none of those, in any way, shape or form, can be considered, by rational people, to be establishing a state religion Eh? Street sign good (atheists wrong) - agreed. But... In God We Trust Motto of a country that BY LAW cannot have a state/national religion. Motto of a country that claims to have separation of church and state. Motto of a country that claims to allow freedom of religious thought -- and that includes NORMAL people who don't follow any god, never mind the biblical God. One nation under God. (Yeah, that really does not infringe on rational thinking atheists). What's wrong with just ''one nation''? I think it's great that everyone may worship whomever they choose. Now why can't non-worshippers have the same freedom of choice instead of having to be ''under God'' and ''in God'' to trust? If you believe in these freedoms, why shove your choice down anyone else's constitution?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 5, 2011 4:10:03 GMT
Most important of course, Trubbs, these were later additions never there in the original. One dates from around 1870 and the other from that mad fascist MacCarthy's belief that ungodly Communists would never be able to swear by God - a lot like (hell, identical to) believing that witches could not say the Lord's Prayer.
It's about time that we accepted the USA is economically and war-wise very powerful, but culturally, is the world's leading 3rd world nation we should see as something like the late Christianised Roman Empire or Iran, and build our own free socialist Europe before they drag us 100 years and more into our past.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 5, 2011 13:30:16 GMT
I see how a government-backed Nativity could be interpreted as promoting Christianity over other religions but I agree that it gets ridiculously excessive when this sort of thing is held to show government endorsing private displays unless they actively forbid it. It's the difference between religion and religiosity - religion is worshiping divinity, religiosity is worshiping religion. Atheists may reject religion but some of them suffer just as much from religiosity as any fundamentalist. the reality is that the constitution gives government the right to have the ten commandments in the courtroom, have nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn, etc, etc etc. that is NOT establishing a state religion by law, which is what the constitution forbids muslims, buddhists, atheists, and the rest are free to not associate themselves with any of it, but they do NOT have a right to complain about it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 5, 2011 13:46:26 GMT
no, they are NOT, in any of those cases. they are entitled to be atheists if they wish, but they are NOT entitled to have their opinions infringe on the right of the normal people. there is NOTHING in the constitution prohibiting, under ANY intelligent theory, any of those things. none of those, in any way, shape or form, can be considered, by rational people, to be establishing a state religion Eh? Street sign good (atheists wrong) - agreed. But... In God We Trust Motto of a country that BY LAW cannot have a state/national religion. Motto of a country that claims to have separation of church and state. Motto of a country that claims to allow freedom of religious thought -- and that includes NORMAL people who don't follow any god, never mind the biblical God. One nation under God. (Yeah, that really does not infringe on rational thinking atheists). What's wrong with just ''one nation''? I think it's great that everyone may worship whomever they choose. Now why can't non-worshippers have the same freedom of choice instead of having to be ''under God'' and ''in God'' to trust? If you believe in these freedoms, why shove your choice down anyone else's constitution? exactly how is that establishing a state religion? the atheist is free to choose to not accept that we are a nation under god. in no way is he compelled by law to acknowledge it. THAT is what the first amendment is prohibiting. it has nothing to do with holding a church service in the city hall, or any other such thing. it is ONLY about the fact that government is prohibited from passing a law dictating that one religion is now the state religion, a la the church of england back in the day, and that all must conform to the tenets of that religion. NOWHERE in the first amendment does it give the atheist, nor anyone else, a right to dictate that those who choose to follow a religion be prohibited from doing so, which is the ONLY thing that the anti civil liberties union and the school prayer trip is about there has never been, nor never will be, any merit whatsoever to their argument
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 5, 2011 13:51:33 GMT
Most important of course, Trubbs, these were later additions never there in the original. One dates from around 1870 and the other from that mad fascist MacCarthy's belief that ungodly Communists would never be able to swear by God - a lot like (hell, identical to) believing that witches could not say the Lord's Prayer. It's about time that we accepted the USA is economically and war-wise very powerful, but culturally, is the world's leading 3rd world nation we should see as something like the late Christianised Roman Empire or Iran, and build our own free socialist Europe before they drag us 100 years and more into our past. i remember when "under god" wasn't part of the pledge of allegiance. it was around the time i got to the third grade i believe that it was introduced. yeah, it was during nutjob joe's gig that it was put in, but, he was not the force behind it. you already have your socialist europe, the european union, which is the bane of civilization everywhere, and which every rational person thinks only of getting rid of
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jul 5, 2011 14:30:14 GMT
Religious or not, what would offend me is the parsity of thought that came up with the name of "Seven in heaven way". Is that the best they could come up with to honour the memory of brave men?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 5, 2011 18:52:23 GMT
Religious or not, what would offend me is the parsity of thought that came up with the name of "Seven in heaven way". Is that the best they could come up with to honour the memory of brave men? parsity of thought? where do you come up with that? an immense amount of thought went into it. it was discussed repeatedly in several council meetings, with public input
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 5, 2011 20:34:32 GMT
Religious or not, what would offend me is the parsity of thought that came up with the name of "Seven in heaven way". Is that the best they could come up with to honour the memory of brave men? Not so much parsity of thought as the kind of cultural crassness capable of something like a luminous plastic Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 5, 2011 20:46:21 GMT
I love this parsity.
If we go on repeating it often enough, it might become a word!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 6, 2011 1:25:32 GMT
I love this parsity. If we go on repeating it often enough, it might become a word! Hi Jean! I can't find a definition for parsity either. thesaurus.com/browse/parsityI assume Liberator is trying to say parity.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 6, 2011 1:34:08 GMT
The 2 YouTube videos broadcast a debate over the 7 in heaven street sign.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2011 7:25:16 GMT
I love this parsity. If we go on repeating it often enough, it might become a word! Hi Jean! I can't find a definition for parsity either. thesaurus.com/browse/parsityI assume Liberator is trying to say parity. Just for the record, it wasn't Liberator who first used the word - he was repeating it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 6, 2011 7:51:02 GMT
Yes, I did not mean to suggest it was Liberator's word. (Just for the record.)
I think it may have been paucity that was meant.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jul 6, 2011 12:53:29 GMT
An ancient Chti word signifying the perspicacity of a parsnip.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 6, 2011 19:14:32 GMT
An ancient Chti word signifying the perspicacity of a parsnip. As long as it's not the perspiration of a parsnip. It's evident enough what BL intended anyway. Whether it's related to paucity, parsimony or sparsity all falls into the same sort of matrix.
|
|