Whiny Atheists

[resurrected]

1. I think ....

no


you don't

 

[Angel4Truth]

I didn't tell anyone how to grieve or how long to grieve. And I didn't say I dislike the cross, and i didn't say I don't like the idea of memorials and don't look at them.

But apart from that, your comment is accurate.

I was saying how it is done here without littering the roadside with permanent, huge, mawkish displays, and, by application of common sense on all sides, without upsetting anyone.

If there had been somewhere to set one up where my son was murdered, i would have one up - i wouldn't give a flying rats behind if anyone thought it huge, mawkish, or upset anyone and if they sent me a letter telling me to remove it, i would tell them where they could put that letter and they could just sue me.

Why do you think anyone greiving their loss by putting up a cross should even be concerned AT ALL about you whiney heartless weirdos being upset about a symbol you dont like?

We owe you NOTHING.

 

[Angel4Truth]

1. I think a lot of religious bigots search out these stories so they can use them as justification for their bigotry. And likewise, a lot of sensationalist phony "news" outlets dig this stuff up, or make it up, just to cater to their bigotry. Because as Rupert Murdock learned long ago, there's money to be made in catering to fools, idiots, and bigots.

Because of course being that my son was murdered on the highway, and the fact that i identify with that greiving mother and anyone greiving a loved one, has nothing to do with it.

This pitiful statement you just made shows you to be so much more of a bigot than what you decry.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm not against someone grieving but at some point its got to be time to get over it already.

How long do these memorials stay for? This one had been there for two years already. Are there rules to govern this? Rules would be a sensible way to go, so the emotion is kept out of it.

'Round here, small memorials are left for a time, a couple of months maybe, then they are removed by the local council with responsibility for the road as a matter of course.

No-one gets upset. On the anniversaries new memorials often get put up for a couple of weeks to mark the occasion, smaller every year, then taken away after a couple of weeks. Any more seems mawkish, and everyone seems happy with the set up. Why would anyone want a permanent 5' roadside memorial to be put up?

That makes sense, as we would not expect the loved ones who put those symbols up to come and take them down. Yet someone has to, as we can't just leave them there indefinitely.

Around here, I don't think it's the road crews that take them down, I suspect it's the property owners who do it. And it's up to them how long they allow them to stand.

No one is whining about how long it has been on display, they are whining about the type of display.

Should grieving family be able to erect a roadside cross memorial for deceased loved ones killed near that site?

 

[PureX]

How long do these memorials stay for? This one had been there for two years already. Are there rules to govern this? Rules would be a sensible way to go, so the emotion is kept out of it.

'Round here, small memorials are left for a time, a couple of months maybe, then they are removed by the local council with responsibility for the road as a matter of course.

No-one gets upset. On the anniversaries new memorials often get put up for a couple of weeks to mark the occasion, smaller every year, then taken away after a couple of weeks. Any more seems mawkish, and everyone seems happy with the set up. Why would anyone want a permanent 5' roadside memorial to be put up?

That makes sense, as we would not expect the loved ones who put those symbols up to come and take them down. Yet someone has to, as we can't just leave them there indefinitely.

Around here, I don't think it's the road crews that take them down, I suspect it's the property owners who do it. And it's up to them how long they allow them to stand.

 

[WizardofOz]

Are you STILL crying about this valid complaint Oz?

:deadhorse:

:rotfl: Valid? So far, the courts have rejected the suit. This is their last shot at removal if I read it right.

Why haven't the courts forced the t-beam to be removed yet?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I grieve with you A4T . . . but you need counseling . . .

 

[Angel4Truth]

I grieve with you A4T . . . but you need counseling . . .

For what?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Valid?

Yip . . . in the extreme.

Why haven't the courts forced the t-beam to be removed yet?

. . . to avoid pissing-off the religious right who are more vocal and radical.

 

[WizardofOz]

1. I think a lot of religious bigots search out these stories so they can use them as justification for their bigotry. And likewise, a lot of sensationalist phony "news" outlets dig this stuff up, or make it up, just to cater to their bigotry. Because as Rupert Murdock learned long ago, there's money to be made in catering to fools, idiots, and bigots.

So, it's a made up story? Why are you having so much trouble accepting this story as legitimate? I understand that it is ridiculous and offensive but I accept it as unfortunately true.

2. As with any such pop phenomena, this particular 'ritual' has become somewhat meaningless, the more it proliferates.

3. Keep in mind that these crosses and other paraphernalia are often being placed on other people's private property, without permission. It's quite possible that not all the objections to them are coming from "God-hating atheists".

Then check into the story rather than make assumptions that are not based in the reality behind this story.

Yes, they really are whining because it is a cross.

The removal comes after an organization that promotes the rights of atheists and other nonreligious people called the cross on city-owned property a "serious constitutional violation" in a letter to city council of Lake Elsinore, a western Riverside County community. "The city's selective enforcement of its signage ordinance and its display of the Christian cross on government property violates the state and federal Constitutions, and must therefore be removed immediately," the letter states. here

"Signage ordinances" are not usually (claimed to be) in violation of the state and federal Constitutions, are they?

4. I very seriously doubt that I'm in the minority in saying that I personally have never heard of anyone objecting to these expressions of grief. I doubt that the vast majority of people have ever heard of such a thing. I feel pretty sure that this is a tempest that exists only in the religious bigot's teapot, who likes to paint himself as the victim while he slings any mud he can find at the targets of his bigotry.

:sigh:
Well, you're wrong. Why not take the time to educate yourself on what is actually going on?

 

[Silent Hunter]

For what?

. . . for an extended period of time.

 

[PureX]

Because of course being that my son was murdered on the highway, and the fact that i identify with that greiving mother and anyone greiving a loved one, has nothing to do with it.

That isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed God-hating atheists fighting to have these roadside shrines taken down, which basically never happens.

If I were an atheist objecting to these roadside shrines, I'd simply go take them down, myself. After all, they are nearly always put up without anyone's permission, so why shouldn't they be taken down the same way?

But no one ever really does this, because they empathize with the grieving families. So the inference that there's some such trend is just stirring up the bigotry on both sides. And it's usually the bigots doing the stirring.

This doesn't really have anything at all to do with your son's death.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed God-hating atheists fighting to have these roadside shrines taken down, which basically never happens.

If I were an atheist objecting to these roadside shrines, I'd simply go take them down, myself. After all, they are nearly always put up without anyone's permission, so why shouldn't they be taken down the same way?

But no one ever really does this, because they empathize with the grieving families. So the inference that there's some such trend is just stirring up the bigotry on both sides. And it's usually the bigots doing the stirring.

This doesn't really have anything at all to do with your son's death.

It has to do with every parents sons and daughters death when jerkwads without a heart pretend that they are harmed more by our memorial choice symbol and that their taking offense to a symbol is worth more than our expression of mourning and remembrance.

If you cant understand that, then i cant help you.

Oh and i am who made the thread on it, i know what its about better than you.

 

[Angel4Truth]

. . . for an extended period of time.

For what? What are you saying i need counseling for? There isnt a parent alive who loved a lost child that ever stops grieving them.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yip . . . in the extreme.

. . . to avoid pissing-off the religious right who are more vocal and radical.

:doh: Or because it has historical (not necessarily religious) significance and is included because all courts that have heard this case agree that it does.

The Director and Senior Counsel of the ACLJ’s Washington office is Colby M. May. He is a friend, so I asked Colby for an exclusive comment about how the ACLJ will frame their arguments in their upcoming brief. Here is his response: Regarding the relentless attack on the Ground Zero Cross by American Atheists, and its demand that it be torn down, the simple reality is that the Cross is a historic artifact – an actual piece of 9/11 history. The two intersecting steel beams found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center became (and remains) a symbol of hope and healing for first responders on the ground in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for thousands of Americans across the nation. It really means something to those affected. Despite the unmitigated rage of American Atheists, placing this Cross in a museum does not violate the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, the Constitution’s “goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.” Simply put, the Constitution is not an atheist manifesto. here

I am an Atheist and I worked down there then. I never took issue with the creation of the cross or it's use, and I see no reason to now. The 9/11 memorial is also a museum, and that cross played a part in the history of the site. This is not the only religious-themed item in a National Museum by far (think Jefferson's edited bible) and I think it is important to retain that perspective. There are so many other infringements on the First Amendment, but having a religious themed item included in a museum for historical purposes is not one. Making every argument just makes you argumentative, and weakens your credibility when you have an actual complaint. here

 

[resurrected]

That isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed God-hating atheists fighting to have these roadside shrines taken down, which basically never happens.

:doh:


seriously dude, you have got to be the biggest retard on the site

 

[Silent Hunter]

For what? What are you saying i need counseling for? There isnt a parent alive who loved a lost child that ever stops grieving them.

. . . and should receive counseling, at least for a while, to help them cope. You obviously haven't because you're ALWAYS combative about it.

 

[WizardofOz]

ASLJ archive

School Allows Student to Wear Cross Necklace

On September 3, 2013, a parent from Florida, contacted the ACLJ about his middle school son who was told not to wear a cross necklace. A teacher had told the student that wearing the cross necklace was against school policy. We provided the student’s father with information about students’ legal rights in school. The father met with the school principal to discuss the matter. Initially, the principal tried to tell the father that the teacher was correct. However, the principal relented after the father shared the ACLJ information about his son’s legal rights with the principal. Ultimately, the principal agreed to allow the student to wear the cross necklace and correctly concluded that it did not violate school policy.

A teacher thought that a student wearing a cross necklace violated school policy? :doh:

Yikes

 

[Angel4Truth]

. . . and should receive counseling, at least for a while, to help them cope. You obviously haven't because you're ALWAYS combative about it.

yes, i am combative about heartless morons telling others how and for how long they can greive because they are crybabies about a symbol they dont want to see.

I suppose youre right about one thing, whats normal and natural and right is completely foreign to everything anymore.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Or because it has historical (not necessarily religious) significance and is included because all courts that have heard this case agree that it does.

That's because they fear the religious right more than they do a few atheists.