| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word – Symbol-Minded | ||||
|
||||
We’ve seen this before in Mt. Soledad and of course the Utah Cross case. Christians want so much to place their symbol on public land without symbols from those pesky other religions that they are willing to call it secular. Yes, a secular cross.
You see, if a cross isn’t religious, it can be placed on roads, in schools, and of course in federal buildings and courtrooms all over the country, all in the name of the dead. It’s not Christian anymore, so there is no religious freedom issue.
I went on Catholic radio a few months back to talk about this, and guess what – all the callers agreed with ME! THEY thought that saying the cross is secular is a lie, and they didn’t want to lie about their symbol!
Of course, if the cross isn’t religious, then it’s not religiously intolerant to pee on it, or stick it in dung! Indeed, since the cross symbolizes death for ALL people (including atheists), then it is BAD! It is something to be defiled! So if people were to make videos defiling the cross, then post it on youtube, and I link to it, well, that’s not intolerant — it’s pro-life!
Do you think that would make a statement?
This is a good reason why religious symbolism should have no place in a Christians life or teaching. It is an unhelpful diversion from Jesus. All religious symbols are secular. The problem is that your disdain for the cross is a manifestation of your hatred of Jesus. Since it has unfortunately become a symbol of the Christian religion, you manifest your disdain for Christianity at the cross. In truth, symbols have nothing to do with being a follower of Jesus. Pee on it or stick it in dung if you wish, it is irrelevant to the followers of Jesus and I doubt it would offend any religious people either, besides the ones that mistakenly believe it represents their form of Christianity as a formal religion.
As far as your question about whether or not it would make a statement. I guess it depends on what kind of statement you want to make. You seem to be preoccupied with stating your disbelief in God as loudly as you can. What are you denying? Why are you so preoccupied with something that you believe doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t it be more consistent to ignore it, rather than debate it? If God doesn’t really exist, then all you can possibly accomplish is to offend people who believe in God. Is your motivation one of concern and compassion for people who are believers, desiring to help them be free from their belief, or is it one of hatred of the value system of religious people?
A hilarious video. Thanks. Yes, the cross is a Christian symbol and should not be erected in public places. Yes, it has been used for a marker for the dead, but usually for the dead believer.
RLTaylor:
Disdain? I have no disdain for the cross, only a desire that it be placed where it should be, not in public domains.
Hatred of Jesus? None there . His teachings were for the most part gentle and positive. For a mythical figure he has quite a following, almost as great as the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.
RLTaylor:
Denial? Nothing is denied. Denial would infer existence of god. I simply state that the god of the bible and the gods invented by mankind, do not exist. There is no denial, just an assertion.
RLTaylor:
Offending someone? Not the purpose. My purpose when I refute the proseltyzing Christian is to blunt, or negate their message. In many ways it is compassion as I am trying to free the believer from his/her delusion.
The history of Christianity speaks for itself: badly. The problem is not the value system, it is the gullibility of the believer, who has, and can be persuaded to do the most horrid immoralities in the name of their god.
Thanks DW. I share your frustration with most of the violence and oppression in the name of religion, especially in the name of Christianity. I find much of the history of the church in this area to be incompatible with the teaching of Jesus. However, I’m a little surprised that a site that touts itself as being based on reason would have so much talk about denying the historical existence of Jesus. It seems a little insincere, but I suppose it doesn’t matter in this context. I respect the motivation to free people from delusion and if you are right no one wants to be freed from it more than I. I agree with the text that says, “… if Christ is has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” and “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” It’s pretty clear that if the historical truth of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are not true, then nothing of any religious value remains. I myself am anti-religious, but cannot conclude what you have concluded, respectfully.
One of my great curiosities about the atheist motive as you state it is this. Once you have freed people from their delusion, what do you replace it with? When a slave is set free, what does he do and how does he proceed. Where can I go to study the value system that is based on an atheistic worldview? How does an atheist determine right from wrong? What is the basis of formulating ethics, norms, values, taboos, etc. in society? The repercussions of setting people free are enormous, especially if you replace their “souls” with nothing. I do not want to assume that you would adopt a Marxist form of socialism or the Nietschean view of anarchy, but what other models do we have to judge the value system of atheism since these are the historical models we see? What is it about “do unto others, as you would have them do unto you” that is bad for society? Furthermore, how would an atheistic ethic be more beneficial for society?
Once a slave is free, as in this case, of the delusion, he lives the life he desires, with of course, the constraints that a just, moral, and law-abiding society places upon him/her.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Value judgements were in place long before religion came along. Social animals had to develope certain traits just to exist in a social setting. You will have to admit that murder, robbery, lying, and assorted other foibles would not tend to promote a cohesive social grouping.
Dead, alive, dead. Death before life was as a great man once said, not a great inconvenience. Life, pursue it with gusto, as it is the only existence we will ever know. Dead, oblivion.
Marxism, everyone assumes this. Just as there are many flavors of religious folks, there are many flavors of the non-religious. Atheists especially are very hard groups to get to agree to anything beyond the basic. I like to think of myself as a conservative atheist.
Capitalism works for humans as it feeds the greed, at least for some. You can do anything you want without a dictator telling you what you will be before you have a chance to decide.
Treating people as you would want to be treated is a basic tenet. You help someone else in need and in the future that person will usually be there for you.
How would an atheistic ethic be beneficial for society? Well it couldn’t be any worse than a religious ethic if history is a teacher. A moral base is possible without religion, and without a deity to enforce it. I have often said about work: it is not so important what I do while the boss is watching, as what I do when he walks away. That’s why I think it possible for an atheist to be more moral than a believer, in that, when an atheist does good works he expects no reward (afterlife) and if he does not he expects no punishments (the pits of hellfire). Whereas a believer may be doing good works while the old man is overhead, to please him, and to guarantee reward (if only for believing), then he must believe that should no god exist that he would never do good works, and is incapable of good works without him.
As far as Jesus, there is no non-forged record of Jesus until 40 years or more after his supposed death. There are many similar deified figures in history before Jesus came along, some with near the same attributes, deeds, miracles. If Jesus existed at all he was probably not named Jesus and lived long before the biblical accounts.
Ok. Consider my concerns though. It is true that Marxism is based in atheism. The three tenants of the philosophy are:
1. Materialistic interpretation of history. Responses to social conflict produces social values.
2. Anti-capitalism. The belief that it oppressed and disenfranchised the worker (poor).
3. Pro Revolution. Uniting the working class to seize power from the wealthy.
Considering that most of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented in America, including free public education. Including teaching an atheistic evolutionary paradigm to every citizen from pre-k through post graduate school. It concerns me that we are moving more toward Leninism than we are a free society.
Secularism is the dominant value system of our culture, class warfare is at it’s apex, party politics and union power is at it’s highest level in history, our currency is under the control of a central bank (alias, Federal Reserve), a congress controlled by marxist philosophy, a devoted Marxist as president who uses religious jargon as a tool of manipulation, etc. all tends to point toward the dawn of a new day in American society. I believe that if you want to know what a society looks like when it is ruled by an atheistic paradigm, then I think we will be seeing it in the near future and it will look very much like Lenin’s revolution in Russia in 1917. The similarities are frightening. Atheist do not need to convince others that God does not exist, they just need to create a society as if he didn’t and they’ll get the same culture. Practical atheism is the present American direction. You may be closer to a country controlled by atheistic philosophy than you think.
In addition, the historical documentary evidence of Jesus’ existence would be overwhelmingly sufficient to verify the existence of any other historical figure. I understand your skepticism considering all the silliness like The Da Vinci Code and the Jesus Seminar and stuff like that is often mingled with scholarship, but I’m sure an educated man like your self can research the evidence if you were interested.
Thanks for your input.
Are you joking? Lysenkoism wasn’t an ‘evolutionary paradigm’, for 1 thing, & for another, evolution’s the reality. & ‘leninism’ is a dead metaphor, & a joke to boot.
ROFLMAO! Are you kidding? Secularism isn’t the same as your precious ‘Leninism’, this is a non sequitor.
The Bolshevik revolution overthrew an aristocracy, so again, your panic-mongering republican bullshit is just that – bullshit.
Wait atheism = communism? Are you really that fucking stupid?
Wow. Thus far, you haven’t been right yet. There isn’t any historical ‘documentary’ evidence of jay-sus.
Krystalline. I’m not a republican and you missed my point all together. You can dismiss Leninism, Lysenkoism or any other ism you feel like. Actions are based on ideologies. Marxism was, in fact, an atheistic philosophy and yes, communism was based in Marxist philosophy. Therefore, one historical expression of atheism is communism. Relax. I’m not saying that you or any other atheists are advocating communism. My point is that the secularization or materialism of our culture is tending toward a similar result. It doesn’t matter if Leninism took over an aristocracy, monarchy, or a democracy, it is was still based on the same philosophy that is taking over our own culture. What I’m asking is, “If not Marxism/communism or Neitzsche/nihilism, then what? What does an atheistic society look like?”. Has anyone codified an atheistic ethic besides men like these? If so, who are they and how is their code superior to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which is the basis of Jesus’ ethics for his followers? If you are going to do away with it, then what are you going to replace it with? If you are going to keep it, then why are you trying to remove it in the first place?
It seems that atheism logically leads to existential and moral nihilism. I hope I’m wrong because I believe America is headed toward a more atheistic social order.
If this is that old ‘creeping socialism’ argument, guess what? Some parts of our society have ALWAYS been socialist, otherwise, no public roads, library cards, etc.
Uh – you compared a violent overthrow of an aristocracy to the non-existent takeover of a democracy?
Try any of the secular countries for that…Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Japan. & Israel’s rapidly becoming secular.
You realize that Confucius came up w/that 1st? & Hillel 2nd? So no, not a Christian development in the slightest.
Analysis & critical thought might be a good idea.
Rule of thumb is, more education usually diminishes religion. So, eliminate hunger & poverty, & educate the masses, & voila! A huge % of them will throw over those romantic anachronisms.
Here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/nihilismnihilists/a/atheism.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/typesofexistentialism/a/atheistic.htm
These -isms are not schisms in the prism of the world. Many famous people espoused these (Machiavelli was a nihilist AND an xtian, Søren Kierkegaard was an xtian AND an existentialist, for instance). Trying to codify these into absolute stances is a fool’s game.
If you’re looking for a sound-byte or an elevator speech, no such thing.
RL
I think what DW wrote should have cleared this up for you but apparently you are still stuck. Atheists are not followers of any philosophy in particular and atheism does not lead to any philosophy in particular. Atheist are simply people that assert, for the best of reasons, that they are not believers in any of the gawd myths. Are Asantaists lead to some particular philosophy? Of course not. Come on man stop pacing back and forth over the same rhetorical rut. You have dug a trench from which you are having difficulty extricating yourself.
Great googalee moogalee. Krystalline, if you think that paved roads and library cards are forms of socialism, then I would study socialism before I made public comments about it. I bet your a democrat because this sounds like their talking points. Paved roads and library cards are not economic or political mechanisms… oh, never mind. Your to smart for to let politicians think for you. Step it up.
Confucius said: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” There is a fundamental difference between not doing something and doing something. Jesus was quoting the second most important important commandment in the Pentateuch, which was written over 600 years before Confucius was born. Jesus’ summation of it was to “love your neighbor as yourself”. I can not kill you or harm you without ever loving you. Love is an action. Jesus’ ethic is superior.
Thanks for the links. I’ll take a look.
Dude, they’re socialist in principle – you’re sharing in the common good.
Wow, are you joking? Anything that costs tax money are economic & political mechanisms.
I bet you’re a republican, because you invoke the scary ‘creeping socialism will make us commies!’ talking point, not realizing communism’s dead & gone.
Splitting hairs. Same thng.
Tobit 4:15 “Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”
Sirach 31:15 “Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.”
Huh – that sounds – Confucian. The silver rule.
Besides, you can’t prove any of that pre-dates Confucius, as your bibble is such a confused mess of ahistorical contradictions anyways. In fact, closest timeline is parallel, & from a society relatively untouched by Western thought.
The whole point here, is that the concept wasn’t formulated by your mythical jay-sus.
I see now. It’s been so long since I’ve heard this argument, that I’d forgotten it.
No, the ‘Golden Rule’ isn’t something that requires religion. In fact, I don’t give religion any kind of credit for anything, because belief in the supernatural is like any other rationale – it gives people the excuse they need to be good or bad. Religion does nothing – it’s the people that actually get the credit.
So, in summation, a lack of belief in the supernatural doesn’t make anyone better or worse (there’s Christian socialism, & some of that is described in the ‘gospels’) – people are just the way they are, & better off w/o some anachronistic code that humanity’s outgrown already.
The Cross isn’t Christian. It is the symbol of the undying sun, known in Greek as the Savior and King, ie. “Jesus Christ.”
Do you think that Christianity and Judaism originated in a Sun worhiping belief in the beginning?
I would think it reasonable to conclude Christianity is Sol Invictus with a splash of judaism.Egypt had a solar religion could moses have been inspired by this.
The Incas had a solar religion adoring ‘Inti’, the sun, as the giver of life and warmth. The mighty church forced them into believing in Jesus & Co. after they were conquered in 1535 (Peru). Every year they celebrate the Inti Raymi, in Cuzco, with dances and foods which honors the Sun. Today the South American natives continue this adoration openly.
I dont think the court will rule in favor of no cross because they know the that that would mean no crosses at Arlington either….the US is not ready for the crosses to come down there….yet
RLTaylor…..when your religion is out of my public view then I will no longer be disdained….
10-4. My religion has nothing to do with symbolism, so I’m as content as you are to remove all of them. Unfortunately, the only manifestation of my religion is my life. I hope you wouldn’t deprive me of that just yet:)
Respect must be shown for private property and there is nothing wrong with Christian symbols on public property in a nation that is a declared Christian state like UK for example.We are a secular republic and the proper place for the church is the private sector.I’m atheist and i’m not okay with wiping out our cultural heritage,each case must be judged on its own merits.I think in the mojave case the cross should come down but the ten commandments carving at supreme court can stay for example.
Regarding Communism it is simply Christianity without the supernatural in my view. Both have good people and both have been used by tyrants.
I cannot deprive you of what I dont know….unfortunately I know way too much about monotheism…and I think jesus worshipping falls under monotheism….
The only problem I have with the religious is their proselytizing. If they want to believe in an all-powerful ever present over whelmingly vague and slacker god that is their right. But keep it to yourself. Otherwise it prompts me to point out the error of your ways.
Somehow i suspect those pesky darn jews are involved.
Tear down the cross and replace it with an American flag. Problem solved.
again…this is not just about 1 cross on public land….its about many crosses…its a long URL to copy and paste, but, its what the court is desciding on…hers a pic of a many crosses on public land…
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bcrosses%2Bat%2Barlington%2Bnational%2Bcemetery%26sado%3D1&w=500&h=375&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F3067%2F2582667046_c8c9597cff.jpg&size=162.1kB&name=2582667046+c8c9597cff+jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fadamrstone%2F2582667046%2F&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fadamrstone%2F2582667046%2F&p=crosses+arlington+national+cemetery&type=jpeg&no=2&tt=49&oid=2d019db92f05e92e&fusr=adamr.stone&hurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fadamrstone%2F&tit=Arlington+Crosses&sigr=11j5e403i&sigi=11ge5eqm0&sigb=133ks3232&sigh=118qe1c3i#FCar=6ef5340043105348
tinyurl.com is your friend.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brian Gregory and American Atheists, Darryl. Darryl said: RT @AmericanAtheist: The Cross Isnt Christian http://ow.ly/15V8P9 [...]
I agree with KA. Those who think religion teaches morals are up in their nighty. I never learned a speck of right vs wrong in church. My family taught me that. Jesus simply provides believers with a get out of jail free card. Where’s the morals in that?
“Pee on it or stick it in dung if you wish, it is irrelevant to the followers of Jesus and I doubt it would offend any religious people either”
This would offend the religious people greatly. Where i live (the bible belt) if you just say i dont believe. They will fire you, spit on you and HATE YOU they will forget all of their stupid wannabe Christian morals and HATE YOU. So when i see people complaining about our country heading towards an Atheistic society i wish to ask.
WHAT! Did you honestly not see it coming. I mean do religious people really to expect us to believe in things that can not be proven. Now that Science is answering more questions that religion i do see this country heading towards and secular, atheistic path. I truly believe an Atheistic society will be more productive, ambitious, and moral. I think we will make better judgments, especially in politics. God knows they have very little good judgments lately.
I also wish to say, i think our forefathers were very very intelligent. They saw all of this coming and that my friend is why it says “freedom of religion”.
I am a firm atheist but by being so petty and objecting to it we are calling attention to it. Just ignore and pay it no mind. It only has significance because someone feels the need to care about it.