Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist Group Forces Removal of Memorial

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:03:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It might be useful to point out how you (and the article linked) excluded the fact that the memorial had been up for two years at the time of its removal. Roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 12:16:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess now would be an appropriate time to review the consequences of this vilification of people simply trying to make sure separation of church and state is enforced out of principle:

http://www.patheos.com...

The person who requested that the cross be taken down now fears for her life because of the retaliation in this case. Anyone who is strongly siding with the mother in this case should acknowledge that their actions have consequences.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 3:04:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 12:16:19 AM, drhead wrote:
I guess now would be an appropriate time to review the consequences of this vilification of people simply trying to make sure separation of church and state is enforced out of principle:

http://www.patheos.com...

The person who requested that the cross be taken down now fears for her life because of the retaliation in this case. Anyone who is strongly siding with the mother in this case should acknowledge that their actions have consequences.

The consequence being that we're morally decent human beings, right?
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 5:46:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm definitely a theist and I agree with atheists on this one: I'm tired of seeing these roadside memorials to people killed in highway accidents. If everyone does these, our roads are going to look like graveyards which maybe they should but who needs to see someone else's grief continually displayed? We all have people to grieve over and we all can't plaster our grief in public places. It's narcissistic to think you should be able to. Graveyards are the appropriate place for displays of grief.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:39:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 3:04:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/13/2014 12:16:19 AM, drhead wrote:
I guess now would be an appropriate time to review the consequences of this vilification of people simply trying to make sure separation of church and state is enforced out of principle:

http://www.patheos.com...

The person who requested that the cross be taken down now fears for her life because of the retaliation in this case. Anyone who is strongly siding with the mother in this case should acknowledge that their actions have consequences.

The consequence being that we're morally decent human beings, right?

How does wanting a roadside memorial to be taken down after it has been there for 2 year immoral?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:40:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 3:27:21 AM, Evan_Shad wrote:
All this separation of church and state stuff is garbage.

The United States Constitution is garbage? If you really think so then I guess we shouldn't follow it at all, now should we?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Evan_Shad
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:55:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whoa, I did not say that. Pretty sure the constitution makes no mention of this separation. And it doesn't matter even if it does. Because since we're free people (meaning free will, since we actually don't have other kinds of freedom in this country), we are not slaves to a document written long before our conception.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:04:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 5:46:15 AM, biomystic wrote:
I'm definitely a theist and I agree with atheists on this one: I'm tired of seeing these roadside memorials to people killed in highway accidents. If everyone does these, our roads are going to look like graveyards which maybe they should but who needs to see someone else's grief continually displayed? We all have people to grieve over and we all can't plaster our grief in public places. It's narcissistic to think you should be able to. Graveyards are the appropriate place for displays of grief.

There's a lot of things I think are an eyesore. But....I don't have the ultimate say on whatever is placed out in public view.

Where I live, there are periodically placed roadside memorials, and I don't think they are narcissistic. Most of them are placed there due to cars hitting cyclists. They are a definite reminder to drivers of the need to use caution when driving on roads shared with pedestrians.

The question, if any, might be are there enough of them on the roadside?
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
LuckyStars
Posts: 244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:45:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:28:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So apparently all war memorials are now also illegal. http://www.100percentfedup.com.... What a bunch of arrogant idiots.

Your fallacy is the false cause. You remain ignorant to the fact that this is a temporary thing that went to far...

Do some research before you make a thread and embarrass yourself again.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:46:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.

Yes, I have. There is a baseball field here named after a child who was accidentally run over (backed over) by one of his parents. There are two plaques, one on each dugout which serve as a memorial to him. The entire park - not only this particular ball field - is owned and operated by the city, yet anyone and everyone who either plays or attends a game at that field is forced to look at those plaques. After about twenty years, who cares about reading about some kid who was run over. Really.

So there you have it. A non-religious memorial + public property, and one that's been there not for two, but for twenty years. Should I contact the Humanist Association in order to have this obvious infringement on everyone's rights corrected?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:51:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:46:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.

Yes, I have. There is a baseball field here named after a child who was accidentally run over (backed over) by one of his parents. There are two plaques, one on each dugout which serve as a memorial to him. The entire park - not only this particular ball field - is owned and operated by the city, yet anyone and everyone who either plays or attends a game at that field is forced to look at those plaques. After about twenty years, who cares about reading about some kid who was run over. Really.

So there you have it. A non-religious memorial + public property, and one that's been there not for two, but for twenty years. Should I contact the Humanist Association in order to have this obvious infringement on everyone's rights corrected?

Go ahead, complain about it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 10:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:51:40 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:46:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.

Yes, I have. There is a baseball field here named after a child who was accidentally run over (backed over) by one of his parents. There are two plaques, one on each dugout which serve as a memorial to him. The entire park - not only this particular ball field - is owned and operated by the city, yet anyone and everyone who either plays or attends a game at that field is forced to look at those plaques. After about twenty years, who cares about reading about some kid who was run over. Really.

So there you have it. A non-religious memorial + public property, and one that's been there not for two, but for twenty years. Should I contact the Humanist Association in order to have this obvious infringement on everyone's rights corrected?

Go ahead, complain about it.

Why would I waste my time bitching about something like that. I leave such petty nonsense to folks like the Humanist Association. Religious or non-religious memorials do not bother me in the least. At the moment, the lady with the Humanist Association appears to be a white nig, i. e. a person with nothing better to do than to whine and gripe about something of little or no consequence.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:01:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:51:40 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:46:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.

Yes, I have. There is a baseball field here named after a child who was accidentally run over (backed over) by one of his parents. There are two plaques, one on each dugout which serve as a memorial to him. The entire park - not only this particular ball field - is owned and operated by the city, yet anyone and everyone who either plays or attends a game at that field is forced to look at those plaques. After about twenty years, who cares about reading about some kid who was run over. Really.

So there you have it. A non-religious memorial + public property, and one that's been there not for two, but for twenty years. Should I contact the Humanist Association in order to have this obvious infringement on everyone's rights corrected?

Go ahead, complain about it.
It's obvious that annanicole has no problem whatsoever with this. What might be in the back of some of our minds is, do you have a problem with it?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:03:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:57:24 AM, annanicole wrote:
Why would I waste my time bitching about something like that. I leave such petty nonsense to folks like the Humanist Association. Religious or non-religious memorials do not bother me in the least. At the moment, the lady with the Humanist Association appears to be a white nig, i. e. a person with nothing better to do than to whine and gripe about something of little or no consequence.

So, if you don't feel like complaining then here is what you can do. DON'T COMPLAIN.

Some people might get annoyed with it after a while and complain, just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you can judge everyone the same way.

It is like saying, since I like short hair everyone should like short hair, if someone has long hair then they are wrong.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:05:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:01:00 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's obvious that annanicole has no problem whatsoever with this. What might be in the back of some of our minds is, do you have a problem with it?

If I lived there and had to see it all the time, I probably would. Thing is, I do not live there, I am not in that situation, so I do not know for certain.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:09:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:03:14 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:57:24 AM, annanicole wrote:
Why would I waste my time bitching about something like that. I leave such petty nonsense to folks like the Humanist Association. Religious or non-religious memorials do not bother me in the least. At the moment, the lady with the Humanist Association appears to be a white nig, i. e. a person with nothing better to do than to whine and gripe about something of little or no consequence.

So, if you don't feel like complaining then here is what you can do. DON'T COMPLAIN.

Some people might get annoyed with it after a while and complain, just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you can judge everyone the same way.

It is like saying, since I like short hair everyone should like short hair, if someone has long hair then they are wrong.

LMAO. What logic! How old are you?

It is like saying, "Since I like short hair, but other people like long hair, if someone has long hair, they have the perfect right to wear their hair that way."

What you are endorsing is that every moron who is "offended" by this or that has a right to bitch about it. The truth is that the Humanist Association woman could care less about a memorial per se. She happens not to like the religious aspect of this one, so she made an entirely false argument in order to get rid of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:09:16 AM, annanicole wrote:
LMAO. What logic! How old are you?

It is like saying, "Since I like short hair, but other people like long hair, if someone has long hair, they have the perfect right to wear their hair that way."

What you are endorsing is that every moron who is "offended" by this or that has a right to bitch about it. The truth is that the Humanist Association woman could care less about a memorial per se. She happens not to like the religious aspect of this one, so she made an entirely false argument in order to get rid of it.

So, when people do not agree with your view they are a moron? Then it follows the example I provided. You also have no evidence that she is complaining about it because it is religious, or do you? If you do I would love to see your source.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:13:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:05:18 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 11:01:00 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
It's obvious that annanicole has no problem whatsoever with this. What might be in the back of some of our minds is, do you have a problem with it?

If I lived there and had to see it all the time, I probably would. Thing is, I do not live there, I am not in that situation, so I do not know for certain.
How about those signs I'm sure you also see on the freeway that honors an officer who was killed on the line of duty?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:15:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 11:13:52 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
How about those signs I'm sure you also see on the freeway that honors an officer who was killed on the line of duty?

I have only ever seen one of those signs once and it was gone by the next year. It was gone within a year, I have no problem with it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:52:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 10:46:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:28:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 10:10:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

You are correct that the Humanist Association is lying about their underlying motives. I'll believe differently when I see them bring a lawsuit over a non-religious memorial.

Have you seen a non-religious memorial on public property for at least 2 years? I know I haven't, and if I did I would complain about it.

Yes, I have. There is a baseball field here named after a child who was accidentally run over (backed over) by one of his parents. There are two plaques, one on each dugout which serve as a memorial to him. The entire park - not only this particular ball field - is owned and operated by the city, yet anyone and everyone who either plays or attends a game at that field is forced to look at those plaques. After about twenty years, who cares about reading about some kid who was run over. Really.

So there you have it. A non-religious memorial + public property, and one that's been there not for two, but for twenty years. Should I contact the Humanist Association in order to have this obvious infringement on everyone's rights corrected?

Exactly. Their ignorance and hypocrisy knows no bounds.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:55:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:28:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So apparently all war memorials are now also illegal. http://www.100percentfedup.com.... What a bunch of arrogant idiots.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard of happening in a long time... Thanks for making this post. Hopefully you've raised a little bit public awareness by this post.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 11:59:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 9:57:10 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 11:20:22 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:57:30 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 3/12/2014 10:10:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
drhead is correct, roadside memorials are supposed to be temporary. Keeping a memorial up for 2 years is too long.
What is the time limit?

I think this video explains the position of removal pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com...
I watched this whole video all the way to the 6:10 mark, and no where did the video state the official time-limit. On the contrary, there seems to be a contradiction in that the narrator suggested placing something else to memorialize the victim instead of a cross.

The whole issue is based on the cross. The Humanist Association is pulling the same stunt here:

http://www.foxnews.com...

It's not about time limit at all.

The cross on government property/Separation Of Church And State is just a convenient loop hole/angle these activists try to work in favor of having Christian icons removed. If they get upset over a statue of Jesus in a ski resort, roadside crosses where someone was killed, then we know that their blood boils when they see churches with huge crosses (they must hate the State of Virginia), and marquees that say "Jesus Saves". It's just that at this point there's nothing they can do about it. There's no loophole yet. Believe me, when/if they find one, they will go after crosses on public property that are within their view.

These orgs should just come out and be honest. Quit working this phony SOCAS loophole angle.

As annicole pointed out, nobody would care if it was a non-religious memorial even if it was there for twenty years.

If the government itself put the crosses there, MAYBE. But they didn't. Funny how they don't take real responsibility for anything else except for matters where they can take away from us, isn't it?
They'll create a loophole eventually, but when they do, everyone will know about it and will then want to fight them.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson