I've Almost Seen It All....

[Verran]

Wow.... a thread that's gone WAY off topic and right into politics/religion! It's amazing! I mean who would ever think of it! That NEVER happens around here....

 

You know, I read this whole thread for the first time today, and it just blows me away. As always, I'm diving into the sea of red, and I'm wearing blue, but what the hell...

 

Someone in there said something to the effect of "well what do atheists care if we have religious stuff on the buildings? Why should that bother them? I don't get mad when I see darwin stuff on cars...."

 

Fine. But by that same rationale, why can't we have representations of EVERY religion on our government buildings? Why is it only Christianity? It's a tradition, you say. It's been like that forever. It's about history. Ok. Then lets put up representations of Native American heritage. That's where this country came from, isn't it? That's just a comparison, that's not what I think we should do. But you say if you don't like it, ignore it. But I bet you'd have a hard time ignoring a mural of Ganesh, the hindu god on the capitol. Or a pentagram. Asking you to ingore those would be as rediculous as asking us to ignore yours.

 

And you say that they've always been there, why change it? Why given women voting rights? Why end slavery? Because it's the right thing to do. Just because "that's the way we've been doing it", doesn't mean that's the way we should continue to do it. It's about bias. The government of a nation that proudly calls itself "the land of opportunity" and a "melting pot" should be completely unbiased. Yet we continue to embrace Christianity in our government and ignore the rest. Sure, you can practice others if you want, but they don't get anywhere near the recognition that Christianity does. Looking around our government buildings and currency, and even documents, you won't find much of anything besides Christianity. That's far from equality. And it's even worse when you listen to the president speak. I haven't heard a speech from him yet that didn't mention God, and in a major way. What does that say to any non-Christian living under this man? It says they're second best. That his priorities fall on Christians. For GW, as a man, that's fine. For GW, as a president, and a leader, that's not.

 

 

Now on to teaching creationism and evolution. I agree that teaching evolution is unfair. Just like I'd raise holy hell if my kids (don't have any, just an example) were taught creationism in PUBLIC school, you should too for evolution. Favoring one side isn't fair. Teaching creationism sparks ideas that could cause a child to go against his parents beliefs. But isn't that true of evolution as well? Even more so maybe? Teaching evolution to a kid from a Christian family probably makes him doubt and question everything that his parents instilled in him. That's not cool. Just as we would want our kids to be free from religion in this instance, they should also be free to believe it, if that's what the parents want.

 

I don't remember being taught either way myself. I don't think anyone ever laid either out for me in school. And I don't see why they need to. You can teach a kid everything he needs to know in school and still leave the discovery up to the kid. Let them figure it out for themselves. If they're from a religious family, they're most likely to lean to creationism. And if they're not religious, probably more evolution. That's the way I'd do it.

 

I believe they can co-exist peacefully. I think there's a lot left to the imagination in the bible's story of creation, and if one were so inclined, one could read it such that it actually took place over a long period of time. I know it says seven days, but who's to say he wasn't "dumbing it down" for us. We weren't too smart back then, after all. Or who's to say that his perception of time is quite unlike our own. Immortality could definately do that to a being.

 

But that's not going to happen, and we all know it. Schools teach science, not religion. And there's not much justification for creationism, apart from faith. And that's something schools just can't teach, and really shouldn't. I can't say I agree with evolution in schools, but I can understand why.

[LoArmistead]

Someone in there said something to the effect of "well what do atheists care if we have religious stuff on the buildings?  Why should that bother them?  I don't get mad when I see darwin stuff on cars...."

 

Fine.  But by that same rationale, why can't we have representations of EVERY religion on our government buildings?  Why is it only Christianity?  It's a tradition, you say.  It's been like that forever.  It's about history.  Ok.  Then lets put up representations of Native American heritage.  That's where this country came from, isn't it?  That's just a comparison, that's not what I think we should do.  But you say if you don't like it, ignore it.  But I bet you'd have a hard time ignoring a mural of Ganesh, the hindu god on the capitol.  Or a pentagram.  Asking you to ingore those would be as rediculous as asking us to ignore yours. 

 

And you say that they've always been there, why change it?  Why given women voting rights?  Why end slavery?  Because it's the right thing to do.  Just because "that's the way we've been doing it", doesn't mean that's the way we should continue to do it.  It's about bias.  The government of a nation that proudly calls itself "the land of opportunity" and a "melting pot" should be completely unbiased.  Yet we continue to embrace Christianity in our government and ignore the rest.  Sure, you can practice others if you want, but they don't get anywhere near the recognition that Christianity does.  Looking around our government buildings and currency, and even documents, you won't find much of anything besides Christianity.  That's far from equality.  And it's even worse when you listen to the president speak.  I haven't heard a speech from him yet that didn't mention God, and in a major way.  What does that say to any non-Christian living under this man?  It says they're second best.  That his priorities fall on Christians.  For GW, as a man, that's fine.  For GW, as a president, and a leader, that's not.

 

 

535929[/snapback]

 

Well you must not have read all four pages of this because I've already answered half of this. If a mural of ganesh, or even a pentagram, had even a remote link to the founding of the nation, I would consider it...but they don't... it's just true.

 

Why give women the right to vote? Because it is only fair for women to vote, they too are humans, guaranteed equal rights under the constitution; it just took a while to interpret it that way. Why end slavery? Same reason stated above.

 

Now for the big one: "Why not embrace ALL religions? why only christianity in the government?" This may be a hard concept for some of you liberals on here to grasp, but I'll give it my best shot and if anyone on here is able to clear it up more, please do. There is no doubt in anybody's mind, including liberals, that the one thing that has kept the world from destroying itself five times over is religion. Monotheistic religion is one thing that got the West to where it is today. Think about it, if there was never a Catholic church, and we were still worshipping animals, would there be a USA? (Warning, takes a moderate to strong understanding of US History to answer logically, stay away if you are going to make yourself look dumb, and one semester of US History in a public high school doesn't count). The morality and humility put in place by the beginning of the monotheistic movement is what has shaped the world to it's current foundation. The one thing holding any government together is the morals and traditions passed down through the ages, all of which are due to worshipping A God, in our case the Christian God. The reason we have the ten commandments on our buildings is simple, THEY, and THEY ALONE are responsible for the foundation of our judicial system. NOT the pentagram, NOT the mural of ganesh. It's not that hard of a concept to understand people.

 

This is exactly like the argument people had after 9/11. Remember that picture of the firemen hanging the giant American flag from the roof of the Pentagon? When they began sculpting a wax reconstruction of it, many people petitioned for the three wax figures to be each a different color. One black fireman, One white, and one hispanic (o0o0o!!! what about the asians! the american indians!!?!!? What about the middle eastern people!!?!?). The reason some people wanted each wax fireman to be a different color was to show unity, as if this is a time that the nation, regardless of race, joined and worked together for a common cause. Now, that'sall fine and dandy, and it touches the bottom of my heart, it really does, BUT, one thing they forgot is....all the firemen who draped the flag that day were WHITE. Would it not only be fair that the wax sculpture of the scene portray all the heoric firemen as they really were? If there were three different firemen from three different nationalities raising the flag that day, I would have nothing against them doing so in the sculpture. However, the firemen were white, so the men in the scuplture should be white.

 

That ties in to this government building dilemma. The ten commandments are what our judicial system is based on, and nothing else, thus why they are not on the building. This Universalist Unitarian approach to government is ridiculous. All of those points you brought up are moot, Verran, but this debate could go on forever, it's a difference of opinion...mine just so happen to be more based on common sense.

[Puck]

A+ rants to both of you - I would attempt to continue by adding another long, well thought out response into the mix but neither my mind or my fingers are in the mood right now . I'll just say this...

 

Peoples beliefs are just that - what they believe. Many times any attempt to change them will be in vain, so we should all just learn to live together and get along with others, which includes being able to accept their beliefs for what they are - opinions - and not make a big deal if we do or do not agree

[Verran]

Well you must not have read all four pages of this because I've already answered half of this.  If a mural of ganesh, or even a  pentagram, had even a remote link to the founding of the nation, I would consider it...but they don't... it's just true.

 

All of those points you brought up are moot, Verran, but this debate could go on forever, it's a difference of opinion...mine just so happen to be more based on common sense.

535953[/snapback]

Typical cocky right-wing response. But that's fine. I bet your logic is "common sense" to you. I wonder why that is.... Maybe it's because you're exactly like all the republicans I know around here. They surround themselve with nothing but people exactly like them. Relatively well-off, white, religious, republicans. They see nothing but their own little world that revolves perfectly around them. That's why they dismiss other people's ideas as if they're stupid. Because they've never had to deal with anyone unlike themselves. Maybe that's you, maybe it's not. I don't know you, and I don't claim to, but I have my guesses.

 

As for links to the founding of this nation, I guess you're right. The question I have is: At what point do non-white people start playing a role? At what point to the immigrants start playing a role? Sure, if you go back far enough, everyone important was White, was Christian, and was even a man. So should we put only these things on our buildings? Are we to imply that no religion apart from Chrisitanity has had a hand in constructing this country? At what point will our history as a country include non-white, non-christian, non-males? I guess us liberal tree hugging hippies would like to think these people are important today. But perhaps to others, we should enjoy a few more hundred years of white male christian dominance. Maybe after a few hundred more years people who don't fit that description will become important to the "history" of our melting pot of a country.....

 

Pardon me while I step from my soapbox, but it just seems to me that the right has always favored the white male christians. In fact, it appears to me that they don't try too hard to hide this. This is one of the major beefs that I have with the right. But it's not a problem for them, as most of the people who hold power in this country still seem to fit the description.

 

I'd even bet that every single one of the "outspoken" right-wingers on OCC fits this description as well. And to boot, I bet most of them are well-off, or come from well-off families. But that's neither here nor there, as I have never met any of you. Just a guess.

 

There is no doubt in anybody's mind, including liberals, that the one thing that has kept the world from destroying itself five times over is religion.  Monotheistic religion is one thing that got the West to where it is today.  Think about it, if there was never a Catholic church,  and we were still worshipping animals, would there be a USA?

535953[/snapback]

 

Speak for yourself, senior. I don't feel this way at all. And I think this may be yet another example of people surrounding themselves with nothing but people like them. If you hang with nothing but christians all day, then yeah, I bet this idea goes over great at a coctail party. However, this idea would tank like a lead zeppelin () if you ran it through my friends. Again, maybe we're liberal hippie freaks, but most of my friends are agnostic, athiest, or non-Catholic, and I can't see much of any of them agreeing with this. I sure don't.

 

Now would the US be exactly like it is if not for religion? Of course not. Anyone would agree on that. Change the course of time in ANY major way and things would be totally different. But I don't think a world that never had religion would be all bad. Hell, I'd gamble and go to that place over here without even seeing it. Maybe I'd end up on a dead planet, maybe I'd end up in my own personal utopia. We each see it different, but that's my point. I see religion as a major source of corruption worldwide, and throughout history as we know it. I also see it as the cause of pretty much every war this planet has ever seen. Even the ones that weren't "based" on religion probably stemmed from a disagreement on a cultural level. And isn't religion one of the most major developers of culture? You think we'd have the war we're in today if there was no religion? Again, as a person with religion at his very core, I'm sure you probably see it differently. But when you say that everyone will agree with your point, I say you're wrong.

[LoArmistead]

I don't surround myself with well-off, religious, republicans. I'm really not even a religious person. I attend church every week more for the emotional and psychological well being of it than anything else (teaches good morals). In fact most people I associate with aren't interested in things like this. Like I said, this is a matter of opinion and could go on for years nonstop. I consider myself an old school American, more conservative than even a majority of the repoublican party. The way I see it, this country has done just fine the way it's been run these past 200 years, why not keep it that way? My motto...stick with what works.

[Verran]

The way I see it, this country has done just fine the way it's been run these past 200 years, why not keep it that way?  My motto...stick with what works.

535976[/snapback]

As I said before, wouldn't this, among COUNTLESS other things, leave women unable to vote? Isn't that something we added relatively recently? Slavery, segregation? Any of this getting through?

 

When are people going to learn that governmental change is VITAL in a changing world?

 

Maybe people don't realize it because they're the ones reaping the benefits of the inequality?

 

This goes along with the question I asked last time, and got no answer for: "At what point will our history as a country include non-white, non-christian, non-males?"

[94Camaro]

Verran, you ask at what point should 'minoritys' start playing a role. I would just like to ask you, why does them starting to get involved mean that everything that is already in place has to be removed? When we allowed women to vote, we didn't take the right of men to vote away. We let them BOTH vote. How is religion any different?

 

It seems like the typical liberal minded "You're ignorant and close minded. Do it our way and our way only" method of thinking. Oh the irony.

Edited August 28, 2005 by 94Camaro

[Kash]

Sticking with what works isn't always the RIGHT thing. Heck, if you think about it, it can be downright IMMORAL as well.

 

Slavery worked for the white man for CENTURIES. The Black man did all the dirty work while the White man enjoyed the fruits of that labor. The system worked so "well" that there was no major movement for it's change for a VERY long time.

 

Never has there been a period of history where women have not been subjugated and dominated by their male counterparts. Never have women had freedoms that made them equal to men. This system apparently worked so much "better" than slavery because it has existed since the DAWN of man. Equality for women hasn't even been around for 100 years, it's such a new concept.

 

So according to your logic, we should reinstate slavery and lock women back into their homes as the personal "slaves" of their husbands whose only societal expectation is popping out children.

 

Sounds like a great plan for white, male, Christian caucasians.

[battery]

maybe it works for you but there plenty of people out there that it doesn't work for...

[swifty11212]

d3, ill give you spam and cookies if you can close this, or linuxpro

[94Camaro]

See my above post kash. I'm all for equality, but since when did equality mean taking away my rights as a white, male Christian caucasian? That's all this is. Some people want to remove 'markings' froma building becuase it 'offends' them. Oh dear, their precious little selves are offend by marking of something they don't even believe in. If you don't believe in it, why does it bother you so much?

 

*disclaimer* Any use of the word 'you' in the above statement is not directed at a particular person. 'You' is simply used in a general blanket statement to refer to a person involved in the scenario described.

[Verran]

Verran, you ask at what point should 'minoritys' start playing a role. I would just like to ask you, why does them starting to get involved mean that everything that is already in place has to be removed? When we allowed women to vote, we didn't take the right of men to vote away. We let them BOTH vote. How is religion any different?

535987[/snapback]

 

I agree with you whole heartedly. Women voting doesn't mean men shouldn't. African American freedom should not come with white people in slavery.

 

However, I ask you this. What am I asking you to give up? What is it that you're so afraid of losing?

 

Some art on the sides of government buildings? Just like Lo said earlier.... if you don't like it, don't look at it. This whole arguement is because you're afraid of "losing" the stuff on the sides of the buildings? Why can't we keep some of it and put up other things that are more significant to other people? The fact is, this isn't even relivant. We're talking about freedom of all religions, not just christianity. The government buildings are meerly an example of the dominance.

 

What do you, Mr. Camaro, stand to lose from the TRUE equality of religions in this country. Just as whites lost dominance over blacks, men over women, you too stand to lose dominance. Being a white christian would hold no sway in any part of this country. You think Mr. Bush doesn't favor Christian ideals in the white house? Of course he does. And it works out great.... for Christians.

 

As a person, you're free to do as you please with regards to religion. But as a leader, our president shouldn't be. Obviously, he is, because I see his favoritism in every speech he makes on TV. But if this were truely an equal country, then the president, and the government itself (including its buildings and currency) would remain undecided. Not to ignore our country's white-christain-male history that you folks are so proud of, but out of respect for EVERY CITIZEN that doesn't meet that description. Removing this christian marks is not out of disrespect for christians, but rather out of respect to everyone equally. Just as freeing the slaves was done despite the effects it had on the slave owners.

 

 

 

It seems like the typical liberal minded "You're ignorant and close minded. Do it our way and our way only" method of thinking. Oh the irony.

535987[/snapback]

 

I don't even think you see the irony. That's how I see republicans. Ever think that maybe each side sees the other this way? Yes, the irony.....