Seen this trending on Twitter:
![[Image: road_cross.jpg]](http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/files/2014/03/road_cross.jpg)
Reason, tolerance and compassion strike once again in Southern California.
Another outlet:
I used to live by an incredibly dangerous intersection just outside of town, not more than a half mile from town. Every year, there were multiple accidents and a fatality every other year or so. One year, a man slid on ice, hit another car and his wife and two daughters were killed on impact.
Crosses were erected -- along with other small monuments -- for the deceased. Only the most militant of atheistic assholes disparaged the practice. I was driving with a group of friends and I had a friend who smugly and sniffily remarked that only fools and those with low IQ's need religion to cope with death. It was incredibly awkward -- and, no, I am not taking this as indicative of atheists, as my wider family is either atheist or strict, conservative Christian -- but indicative of the posture of American atheism taken to its extremes.
First off, losing a child has to be one of life's most psychologically painful experiences, if not the most painful. We all will see our parents perish from this Earth, we are more likely to see a beloved spouse take the dirt nap. Yet, to lose a child -- a person expected to send you off into mysterious world of death -- has to strike at the deepest heart strings of any individual.
Leave aside Constitutionality - that is truly a sideshow in this situation. An individual, with much support, spent their free time (and professional time, to be sure) to demand government remove a simple cross at spot where a parent lost their son. Who the fuck does that? This isn't posting some angry response on an Internet article, these motherfuckers pursued this disrespectful legal action with aplomb and vigor. Like that fool who got his panties in an uproar over his kid having to reference God in the "I Pledge Alliance" speech in public schools, why was he so upset? Was he worried sick that his child might be so insecure in his atheism that he might get converted? Interesting, but not true. That man was all about using his child as a vehicle to port out his political beliefs. Just like whatever loser used this mother's grieving.
The chode that drove by the memorial did a little research and found out the property the cross was on was government property. He knew he could push this forward in federal court. And, he succeeded. I can't imagine how good it must feel to force a mother to remove a cross she placed where her son was killed. Facts and reason, baby!
![[Image: AtheismPlus02.jpg]](http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u487/R3dC3lt/AtheismPlus02.jpg)
This is why I strenuously oppose political atheism and have an upcoming ROK post that puts political atheists (Atheism+) on blast. Look, separation of Church and state is a far more complicated matter than any atheist would tell you. America -- at its roots -- wasn't anything that approached a theocracy, but a libertarian society with incredibly strong Christian roots. Christians -- until the Moral Majority -- weren't politically active. It wasn't until "God died" (a religious society turned into a therapeutic one) and was replaced by government that Christians were spurred into political action. The US government's increasingly authoritarian posture vis-a-vie their citizens caused Christians to become interested as Christians in the political arena.
That being said, what this parent experienced was a couple things. First, is my point illustrated above. They need to trust government, not religious doctrine. The state exists as the salve to the problems in your life, not the Church. Why place a cross at the scene of your son's death? Petition the local government, they know what's best for you. If you are denied the "right" to place a cross there, you should know they know what's best for you, no? I mean, come on, they rule America.
The other thing a parent would realize is that more than a few atheists are interested in forcing their god down Christian throats - the government. I will leave aside a lengthy discussion of class and ethnic provincialism that has long been attendant when the upper classes regard the lower classes. However, it pops up in atheists when regarding Christians. They assume the posture of the superior citizen, the more intelligent and erudite citizen to the slovenly, knuckledragger of lower social status.
Atheists often advance arguments of their superior intelligence and social conditioning and this is reflective of older arguments that the rich and privileged have what they have because of God. This mentality hijacked science and sometimes uses biology as an explanation for their superiority to the unwashed masses who attend mass. For other progressives, they use social conditioning theories to displace distasteful genetic approaches - "I had the luck of having a highly progressive, anti-racist and feminist upbringing. So lucky to have such an enlightened and forward-thinking mindset, huh Gregor?"
I will end this part with this observation: if these atheists are so much better than the unintelligent and uncultured Christians, why do you feel the need to feel superior to them? There is a reason Tariq Nasheed said his number one rule in the game is to not talk down another player. Be careful who you feel the need to feel superior towards, as they offer insights into how you see yourself.
![[Image: lu-logo2f.png]](http://libertyunyield.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lu-logo2f.png)
All the being said, the actual humans in the story are cast aside. I linked to conservative sites, do you really think they care about this woman and her dead son? Conservatives, generally, display more real compassion and empathy, but that seems to track a generation back. Compassion and empathy are stickers on a liberal's progressive badge of honor - but it's just a sticker. Conservatives may be more hardass out front, but when you win their respect and the like, they are more accepting, forgiving and all that. Maybe modern liberalism and conservatism tracks male and female dispositions?
Regardless, the liberals involved in this didn't give two squirts of Obama's piss that this woman would be forced to remove a memorial for her dead son. It was all power + reason to them.
Apparently, I need to state I am not a fan of theocracy and the union of church and state, as per my life experiences and ventures into Internet discussions of this issue. Society has backslided into nihilism - religion is *not* nihilism. To allow a parent to place a cross on government property is not indicative of a vast, right wing Christian conspiracy. There is no slippery slope here.
Like I said in my ROK post on the absolutely sheer inequity visited on Stefan Kiszko, the real personal experiences of the people involved get drowned out in the wider political discussion.
Think about that. Less than two years ago, she lost her son who was killed by another driver. Now, under the studious guidance of the state, she must dismantle a monument she erected in her grief to mourn the passing her son.
There are a few things you don't fuck with if you don't have to, one of them is death. This isn't like she demanded a church to be built on state land, nor she demand to have the right to have nightly gatherings on government land to talk about the Gospel. No, all she wanted was to erect a cross to signify the love she had for her son, a loss no parent should have to endure. You think she gave a shit about whether it was government land?
The more I think about this, the sadder it is. A fleetingly inconsequential "victory" in the battle over Church and state separation has resulted in a parent having to dismantle a tribute to their lost child. Think about it. Who gained what? Plaintiff wins, defendant loses. Defendant cries her eyes out, what does the plaintiff gain? A fist bump? Let me guess: "I feel so much better without that Christian nonsense on my god's property!" I will tell you this: the strongest of liberals/atheists have narcissism coded into their ideological bones. Mark my words.
If ever I lose a child to the danger that is driving, I hold out hope that he or she dies next to private property. Only because I might have the hope of mourning their loss properly without some self-assured atheist looking to score political points in his or her death.
What a reasonable society we are becoming: in the horrible event our children are killed, we need to hope that it happens near private property so we can erect monuments to signify our mourning and love for them? If its government property, you have to erect something that reflects what a governmental figure thinks you should erect. I mean, isn't the Constitution god? Or is it just progressive interpretation?
Imagine being forced by government to remove that cross from where your only son died. Maybe you relive his death, maybe you feel his pain when he collided with that other car.
Regardless, you mourned where you shouldn't mourn. Maybe he died where he shouldn't. You pull the stake up, the raw earth springing up around the cross. You hold it in your hands, realizing it was the thing you created for your son. Maybe you think of that Lego set he forced you to complete, maybe it was a homework assignment you basically did for him. You always did it out of love, never out of compulsion.
The last thing you were forced to do for him never came from him. It came from a faceless atheist who was offended that you constructed a cross and placed it where your only son died. You had to confront his death again, in a very real sense. Seeing a person go from a bloody, slimy infant into adulthood has to be one of the greatest experiences in life.
Now, your government says you have to unearth that symbol, that offensive cross. I would imagine that there is hole where that cross used to sit. A hole that reason and atheism could never fill.
We are one, but we are not the same.
Reason, tolerance and compassion strike once again in Southern California.
Another outlet:
Quote:Quote:
The American Humanist Association – whose masthead slogan reads “Good Without A God” – had previously and successfully fought plans for a veterans monument depicting a kneeling soldier flanked by multiple images of crosses and the Star of David.
I used to live by an incredibly dangerous intersection just outside of town, not more than a half mile from town. Every year, there were multiple accidents and a fatality every other year or so. One year, a man slid on ice, hit another car and his wife and two daughters were killed on impact.
Crosses were erected -- along with other small monuments -- for the deceased. Only the most militant of atheistic assholes disparaged the practice. I was driving with a group of friends and I had a friend who smugly and sniffily remarked that only fools and those with low IQ's need religion to cope with death. It was incredibly awkward -- and, no, I am not taking this as indicative of atheists, as my wider family is either atheist or strict, conservative Christian -- but indicative of the posture of American atheism taken to its extremes.
First off, losing a child has to be one of life's most psychologically painful experiences, if not the most painful. We all will see our parents perish from this Earth, we are more likely to see a beloved spouse take the dirt nap. Yet, to lose a child -- a person expected to send you off into mysterious world of death -- has to strike at the deepest heart strings of any individual.
Leave aside Constitutionality - that is truly a sideshow in this situation. An individual, with much support, spent their free time (and professional time, to be sure) to demand government remove a simple cross at spot where a parent lost their son. Who the fuck does that? This isn't posting some angry response on an Internet article, these motherfuckers pursued this disrespectful legal action with aplomb and vigor. Like that fool who got his panties in an uproar over his kid having to reference God in the "I Pledge Alliance" speech in public schools, why was he so upset? Was he worried sick that his child might be so insecure in his atheism that he might get converted? Interesting, but not true. That man was all about using his child as a vehicle to port out his political beliefs. Just like whatever loser used this mother's grieving.
The chode that drove by the memorial did a little research and found out the property the cross was on was government property. He knew he could push this forward in federal court. And, he succeeded. I can't imagine how good it must feel to force a mother to remove a cross she placed where her son was killed. Facts and reason, baby!
This is why I strenuously oppose political atheism and have an upcoming ROK post that puts political atheists (Atheism+) on blast. Look, separation of Church and state is a far more complicated matter than any atheist would tell you. America -- at its roots -- wasn't anything that approached a theocracy, but a libertarian society with incredibly strong Christian roots. Christians -- until the Moral Majority -- weren't politically active. It wasn't until "God died" (a religious society turned into a therapeutic one) and was replaced by government that Christians were spurred into political action. The US government's increasingly authoritarian posture vis-a-vie their citizens caused Christians to become interested as Christians in the political arena.
That being said, what this parent experienced was a couple things. First, is my point illustrated above. They need to trust government, not religious doctrine. The state exists as the salve to the problems in your life, not the Church. Why place a cross at the scene of your son's death? Petition the local government, they know what's best for you. If you are denied the "right" to place a cross there, you should know they know what's best for you, no? I mean, come on, they rule America.
The other thing a parent would realize is that more than a few atheists are interested in forcing their god down Christian throats - the government. I will leave aside a lengthy discussion of class and ethnic provincialism that has long been attendant when the upper classes regard the lower classes. However, it pops up in atheists when regarding Christians. They assume the posture of the superior citizen, the more intelligent and erudite citizen to the slovenly, knuckledragger of lower social status.
Atheists often advance arguments of their superior intelligence and social conditioning and this is reflective of older arguments that the rich and privileged have what they have because of God. This mentality hijacked science and sometimes uses biology as an explanation for their superiority to the unwashed masses who attend mass. For other progressives, they use social conditioning theories to displace distasteful genetic approaches - "I had the luck of having a highly progressive, anti-racist and feminist upbringing. So lucky to have such an enlightened and forward-thinking mindset, huh Gregor?"
I will end this part with this observation: if these atheists are so much better than the unintelligent and uncultured Christians, why do you feel the need to feel superior to them? There is a reason Tariq Nasheed said his number one rule in the game is to not talk down another player. Be careful who you feel the need to feel superior towards, as they offer insights into how you see yourself.
All the being said, the actual humans in the story are cast aside. I linked to conservative sites, do you really think they care about this woman and her dead son? Conservatives, generally, display more real compassion and empathy, but that seems to track a generation back. Compassion and empathy are stickers on a liberal's progressive badge of honor - but it's just a sticker. Conservatives may be more hardass out front, but when you win their respect and the like, they are more accepting, forgiving and all that. Maybe modern liberalism and conservatism tracks male and female dispositions?
Regardless, the liberals involved in this didn't give two squirts of Obama's piss that this woman would be forced to remove a memorial for her dead son. It was all power + reason to them.
Apparently, I need to state I am not a fan of theocracy and the union of church and state, as per my life experiences and ventures into Internet discussions of this issue. Society has backslided into nihilism - religion is *not* nihilism. To allow a parent to place a cross on government property is not indicative of a vast, right wing Christian conspiracy. There is no slippery slope here.
Like I said in my ROK post on the absolutely sheer inequity visited on Stefan Kiszko, the real personal experiences of the people involved get drowned out in the wider political discussion.
Quote:Quote:
While AnnMarie Devaney pledged to remove the cross by 3 p.m. Thursday, she told reporters she still didn’t understand why the group so vehemently opposed the memorial.
Think about that. Less than two years ago, she lost her son who was killed by another driver. Now, under the studious guidance of the state, she must dismantle a monument she erected in her grief to mourn the passing her son.
There are a few things you don't fuck with if you don't have to, one of them is death. This isn't like she demanded a church to be built on state land, nor she demand to have the right to have nightly gatherings on government land to talk about the Gospel. No, all she wanted was to erect a cross to signify the love she had for her son, a loss no parent should have to endure. You think she gave a shit about whether it was government land?
The more I think about this, the sadder it is. A fleetingly inconsequential "victory" in the battle over Church and state separation has resulted in a parent having to dismantle a tribute to their lost child. Think about it. Who gained what? Plaintiff wins, defendant loses. Defendant cries her eyes out, what does the plaintiff gain? A fist bump? Let me guess: "I feel so much better without that Christian nonsense on my god's property!" I will tell you this: the strongest of liberals/atheists have narcissism coded into their ideological bones. Mark my words.
If ever I lose a child to the danger that is driving, I hold out hope that he or she dies next to private property. Only because I might have the hope of mourning their loss properly without some self-assured atheist looking to score political points in his or her death.
What a reasonable society we are becoming: in the horrible event our children are killed, we need to hope that it happens near private property so we can erect monuments to signify our mourning and love for them? If its government property, you have to erect something that reflects what a governmental figure thinks you should erect. I mean, isn't the Constitution god? Or is it just progressive interpretation?
Imagine being forced by government to remove that cross from where your only son died. Maybe you relive his death, maybe you feel his pain when he collided with that other car.
Regardless, you mourned where you shouldn't mourn. Maybe he died where he shouldn't. You pull the stake up, the raw earth springing up around the cross. You hold it in your hands, realizing it was the thing you created for your son. Maybe you think of that Lego set he forced you to complete, maybe it was a homework assignment you basically did for him. You always did it out of love, never out of compulsion.
The last thing you were forced to do for him never came from him. It came from a faceless atheist who was offended that you constructed a cross and placed it where your only son died. You had to confront his death again, in a very real sense. Seeing a person go from a bloody, slimy infant into adulthood has to be one of the greatest experiences in life.
Now, your government says you have to unearth that symbol, that offensive cross. I would imagine that there is hole where that cross used to sit. A hole that reason and atheism could never fill.
We are one, but we are not the same.
