|
Grex > Agora46 > #92: Keep your religion off your private property! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 185 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 25 of 185:
| 
Jul 17 19:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 26 of 185:
|
Jul 17 21:51 UTC 2003 |
*nathan lane yell and faint*
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 185:
|
Jul 17 21:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 28 of 185:
|
Jul 17 23:05 UTC 2003 |
Sabre's posts need more intelligence. I cranked up the "brightness"
on my monitor to the max, but it didn't work.
Since sabre won't fix the problem at the source, I went to twit-filtering.
I'm amazed that there are still people who haven't. Let him do what he
does best: talk to himself.
|
sabre
|
|
response 29 of 185:
|
Jul 17 23:22 UTC 2003 |
some people find entertainment in my posts russ..unlike yours
no one will listen to your jealous whining so STFU.
I wish you would make good on your filter threat.
You piss and moan like a two year old.
|
novomit
|
|
response 30 of 185:
|
Jul 17 23:36 UTC 2003 |
I tried using twit filters, but when I did, PicoSpan didn't scroll right, so
I deleted them.
As for sabre, he does seem too stupid to reply to, but as others have said,
it offers occasional amusement.
As for me casting the first stone, I think your posts will show that that is
incorrect, not that such a thing would bother you, but Jesus himself tended
to feel more sympathy for the downtrodden and "sinful" while seeming to
disdain those who were really into condeming others (the pharisees). If "God
is Love", I have yet to see anything of the sort emanating from you sabre.
Then again, the "right thinking" murdered Jesus as well. I think I will take
my chances with the wrong-thinking.
|
russ
|
|
response 31 of 185:
|
Jul 18 02:02 UTC 2003 |
novomit, it sounds like you used a filter, but deleted your
*pager* in the process. Try using a filter but add the
following command to the end:
| more
That will give you a filter *and* a pager. All I see when
a response is deleted is a skip in the response numbers; it
works great.
|
bru
|
|
response 32 of 185:
|
Jul 18 02:13 UTC 2003 |
The monument wasn't there illegaly. It had been placed there in 1965, a time
when such actions were still considered legal by the government.
|
dcat
|
|
response 33 of 185:
|
Jul 18 02:54 UTC 2003 |
Sorry, one does not imply the other. It wasn't any more constitutional then
that it is now.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 185:
|
Jul 18 05:41 UTC 2003 |
I don't think the federal government placed that monument there in 1965.
|
slynne
|
|
response 35 of 185:
|
Jul 18 16:45 UTC 2003 |
I have been thinking about this some and I wonder if there might be an
argument for keeping the monument in the park because of artistic and
historic reasons. It has a religious theme, it is true, but there are
lots of other examples of public art that do too. Perhaps the value of
this sculpture is that it reflects the minds of the people in the town
in 1965 when it was installed?
It would be a shame if the idea of creating a separation of church and
state became so extreme that public money could not be used to support
anything with a religious theme. Would such legal precedent be used to
rid public art museums of anything in their collections that had a
religious theme? That would be the majority of most collections, I
imagine.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 185:
|
Jul 18 17:02 UTC 2003 |
There are no written religious messages associated with almost all art in
museums that is based in biblical or other myths, and hence the art does
not, per se, convey any religous beliefs. Also, the art is usually
arranged by period, which mixes in many different depictions, not just
religious ones. (The religious art does become rather repetitious in many
museums, however, even if well executed.)
|
flem
|
|
response 37 of 185:
|
Jul 18 20:03 UTC 2003 |
I think one reason I resist twit filters so strongly is seeing how smug people
who use them are. Of course, I suppose there could be (and probably are) a
lot of people who use them and don't feel the need to point it out gleefully
whenever their filter hides something, but if so, how would I know?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 38 of 185:
|
Jul 19 03:32 UTC 2003 |
I will mention it once that I do for your benefit. I remember this
discussion well. Again, I see twit filters as an active sorting;
simply skimming is passive. If I feel that I need to view an ignored
response, I will do so, otherwise filtering saves me some time and
space. It is simply a tool; no more, no less.
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 185:
|
Jul 20 19:20 UTC 2003 |
Re #37: I agree. I don't mind if people use twit filters, but I do
think it's a bit annoying when they make snarky comments about it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 40 of 185:
|
Jul 21 16:50 UTC 2003 |
re#36 - A lot of art *does* have written religious messages actually.
Even the art that does not have a written message usually was created
to convey a religious message to an illiterate population. And yet, it
still has a secular value. Could there be a secular value to this
monument in La Crosse?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 185:
|
Jul 21 17:17 UTC 2003 |
The written religous messages are usually in Latin. You have to be cued
into the tradition to get any religous message from most of the religious
art. Most of it just depicts stories from the bible, which means no more to
those not part of the tradition than art depicting Greek mythology means
to those unfamiliar with Greek mythology.
In so far as the art conveying religious messages to the illiterate public
- that only worked if the public was first indoctrinated by oral
transmission of the creed. The art was also used, of course, as
advertising to induce the illiterate public to inquire about what the fuss
was all about. After the reformation the public wasn't kept quite so
illiterate as the bible was published in local vulgates.
I don't think the objection is to any secular value of the LaCrosse
monument. The objection is having the Ten Commandments written in English
exhibited on public property (with no "balance"....for example, equivalent
quotes from the Koran and other religious texts, and responses from
different traditions of secular humanism.....).
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 185:
|
Jul 21 19:05 UTC 2003 |
Yes. I wouldnt have any trouble with adding balance to the site. I just
worry that this concept of total separation of church and state could
be used to rid museums of important works just because they happen to
have a religious theme.
Maybe the solution would be to allow a statue of Darwin, some sort of
Wiccan statue, Verses from the Quoran, A big nekkid statue of Baccus
swilling wine and humping nymphs, and whatever else at the site. ;)
I am sure that the Christians wouldnt object to that.
|
tod
|
|
response 43 of 185:
|
Jul 21 19:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 44 of 185:
|
Jul 21 19:43 UTC 2003 |
I dont know. Can they?
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 185:
|
Jul 21 19:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 46 of 185:
|
Jul 22 21:24 UTC 2003 |
Re #32: Just because it took years for someone to enforce the
Constitution doesn't mean it wasn't being violated for the
intervening time. If you drive 75 in a 55 MPH zone but there's
no cop there to clock you, are you not breaking the law?
Re #37: I don't make a point of it except when I see someone else
obviously wasting their time with an idiot (specifically, not having fun).
|
bru
|
|
response 47 of 185:
|
Jul 23 00:00 UTC 2003 |
problem is, I understand the law to say the government cannot create a
religion, not that there cannot be religion in government.
Also could be understood to mean government will make no law preventing
religion, which it is currently doing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 185:
|
Jul 23 00:26 UTC 2003 |
No laws have been adopted that prevent the private practice of religion.
If you think otherwise, please let us know of one.
|
slynne
|
|
response 49 of 185:
|
Jul 23 01:33 UTC 2003 |
If I was required by my religion to throw poop in your face, you might
hope the government would pass a law to prevent *THAT*, bapster.
|