Ghost Town not for sale, owner wants to erect giant cross

CreditWh0re said:

Nobody mentioned Socialism

rollergator said:

Jesus was a dark-skinned middle-Eastern socially-progressive socialist.

I stand corrected, didn't remember that from the beginning of the thread.

Lord Gonchar said:

The only thing crazy in this thread to me is that idea that it makes sense to use the decisions a man may or may not have made 2000 years ago to influence or decide political policy halfway around the world two millennia later.

Suddenly, I understand why American government is so f'd up.

I can't tell if you're baiting for the sake of "Gonching Out" (see: Hulking Out) or if you genuinely don't understand the claim made by Christianity/religion.

These guys are discussing political leanings compared to religion/Jesus/the Bible.

My comment is in response to that. Nothing more, nothing less.

How about the capitalized pronouns though? I think I'm worthy.

Historically, politics and religion have always mingled, and that's why the United States in part exists. But we were also supposed to fix that problem by no longer mingling them. Almost 250 years later we still can't get it right.

I'd just like to note that the Declaration of Independence implicitly states that our rights come from God, and that our form of government revolved around the protection of those rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Whether you believe in God (or gods, or Nature, or the Big Bang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or not, I don't think it really matters (unless you believe in the power of man only, and the warped idea that man's rights come from other men). I see little to nothing in the Declaration or our Constitution and Bill of Rights that remotely alludes to how our current form of government is f'd up. Most of what has f'd it up has everything to do with man's desire for more power, and the circumventing, misinterpreting, and/or completely ignoring the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To me, that's pretty straightforward based on the experiences in Europe that eventually led to the US forming. Religion should play second-fiddle to secular concepts of governance, because we'll never get a majority of people to agree on what religious belief system should dominate (nor should we).

Vater said:

(unless you believe in the power of man only, and the warped idea that man's rights come from other men).

My POV as someone who doesn't believe in anything greater (in a practical sense as it directly affects us) is that everything we know or believe comes from ourselves (or man, if you will).

That includes our Gods/Religions/Belief Systems and any subtext that lies under that header...which would indeed include "God-given" rights.

I have the rights the US Government gave me. Doesn't matter if we call them "God given", "randomly generated", "The will of 1000 psychotic rapists" or "common sense" - it's all the same.

Sorry Gonch, had to fix my prior post (copy/paste issue).

Moving right along....

And I can't get behind the idea that man just happened. If I could, my beliefs would likely echo yours.

I don't know who said our form of government was f'd up. It's certainly better than most. The problem is that it (and the society it governs) tends to move too slowly when it counts (abolishing slavery, establishing civil rights) and too fast when it gets us into trouble (most military action in our lifetime).

There's nothing constitutionally ambiguous, however, about the First Amendment and the establishment clause.

Why do I love Coasterbuzz? Because a news item about a woman who wants to build a giant cross atop a mountain evolves into a discussion of religion.

In addition to being a flaming liberal gay homosexual, I'm also an atheist. I determined around the 7th grade that God was illogical (I was a lonely gay kid with an almost genius IQ and zero interest in or aptitude for sports in a small town that worshipped its football team... I had lots of time to think.....).

I agree with Lord Gonchar. The rights I have as an American citizen come from the government that is of, by and for the people.

Given the choice between a person who says x is wrong because they've thought about x and studied x and determined that it is wrong and a person who says x is wrong because my religion says it's wrong, I'm inclined to go with the person whose morality arises out of thinking, seriously, about right and wrong.

Are you implying that those are mutually exclusive? I tend to think that God makes declarations not arbitrarily, but because they reflect reality.

See, that's where people start to lose me. When I look at the bad things that happen in the world, and people start to talk about "God's plan," I tend to react by thinking, "Wow, God must be a real jerk." That devolves into a conversation of who knows better than God, which is a cyclical (and convenient) argument.

Would this cross be a 600 ft Wooden Aqua-Trax cross?

Yeah, it's impossible to compete with "Because God."

But that doesn't mean it's correct.

But "I don't understand, therefore it can't be" is also not correct.

slithernoggin said:

I agree with Lord Gonchar. The rights I have as an American citizen come from the government that is of, by and for the people.

The American Government absolutely does not "give" citizens rights. We are presumed to already have rights. The government is there to protect and support its citizens.

You might be thinking about privileges.

ApolloAndy said:

But "I don't understand, therefore it can't be" is also not correct.

I think you're confusing understanding and belief. They're not the same thing. The tricky thing about faith is that you have to take things on faith.

As noted, I don't believe in any sort of deity.

I do believe there are three alternatives: I'm right, there is no magic sky wizard; I'm wrong, there is a sky wizard; there's an alternative to those no one has yet thought of. Believing in nothing is still believing in something.