• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Aethiests and the ACLU would have a fit over this

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DurocShark
hah! Love all the DurocShark bashing about my comment. :laugh:

Nobody says what they've done is illegal. But it's INSULTING that they use a symbol of our nation to support their particular religion.

Sometimes I forget just who the audience is when posting here...

😛
Click to expand...

you didn't bother reading the thread prior to shooting off your mouth and now you're doing a bad job of trying to cover up your mistake. just man up, accept the ridicule, and move on.
Click to expand...

Eh?

First amendment prohibits the government from influencing religion. Yet religions are allowed to use symbols of our nation to support their particular religion? Insulting. And if the members of that church read the First Amendment, then they're INTENTIONALLY insulting everybody who isn't a part of their religion.

EDIT: Dayum, I have to 'splain everything. I ran my post past a friend, and he knew exactly what I was talking about. Like I said, I forgot my audience. I need to be a lot less subtle.
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DurocShark
hah! Love all the DurocShark bashing about my comment. :laugh:

Nobody says what they've done is illegal. But it's INSULTING that they use a symbol of our nation to support their particular religion.

Sometimes I forget just who the audience is when posting here...

😛
Click to expand...

you didn't bother reading the thread prior to shooting off your mouth and now you're doing a bad job of trying to cover up your mistake. just man up, accept the ridicule, and move on.
Click to expand...

Eh?

First amendment prohibits the government from influencing religion. Yet religions are allowed to use symbols of our nation to support their particular religion? Insulting. And if the members of that church read the First Amendment, then they're INTENTIONALLY insulting everybody who isn't a part of their religion.

EDIT: Dayum, I have to 'splain everything. I ran my post past a friend, and he knew exactly what I was talking about. Like I said, I forgot my audience. I need to be a lot less subtle.
Click to expand...

I watched a documentary on the influence of religion on the constitution and laws in the US.

If you're offended then the whole constitution should offend you.
 
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DurocShark
hah! Love all the DurocShark bashing about my comment. :laugh:

Nobody says what they've done is illegal. But it's INSULTING that they use a symbol of our nation to support their particular religion.

Sometimes I forget just who the audience is when posting here...

😛
Click to expand...

you didn't bother reading the thread prior to shooting off your mouth and now you're doing a bad job of trying to cover up your mistake. just man up, accept the ridicule, and move on.
Click to expand...

Eh?

First amendment prohibits the government from influencing religion. Yet religions are allowed to use symbols of our nation to support their particular religion? Insulting. And if the members of that church read the First Amendment, then they're INTENTIONALLY insulting everybody who isn't a part of their religion.

EDIT: Dayum, I have to 'splain everything. I ran my post past a friend, and he knew exactly what I was talking about. Like I said, I forgot my audience. I need to be a lot less subtle.
Click to expand...

I watched a documentary on the influence of religion on the constitution and laws in the US.

If you're offended then the whole constitution should offend you.
Click to expand...

Show me where the cross is in the constitution? I must have missed that part.

:roll:
 
DurocShark - You were wrong. If your friend agreed with you I advice you two pick up a copy of the constitution.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion if you don't want to see it in any way, shape or form. The government doesn't endorse a religion but you're encouraged, nay welcome to participate in whichever form of it you wish.

Speaking of documents people haven't read - have you ever read the ten commandments? If you are going to deny that religion had any influence on constitution and law you're crazy.


Case and point - You spouted off your hate before you even thought hard enough to form a good point. You said something stupid, people called you out on it.
 
rofl, I want to put that in my yard just to piss some of the BS neighbors off. Better yet, I should just buy a 10'x10' plot next to Duroc's house.
 
pwnage. 😉

It doesn't take many balls to admit you were wrong, but Dura seems to be lacking the required amount. 🙁



Is this stupid? Yes. Sensationalist? Yes. Tacky? Yes. Unconstitutional in any way? No.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: michaels
I don't know, I just was at a light and spotted it and snapped a pic, I wasn't pay attention to the surroundings.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05...1309752000&en=633335bb68bac96a&ei=5088

i would say it is on church property so the ACLU has no claims against it.
Click to expand...

I find it sort of funny that you took michaels claim seriously. I assure he meant it in jest. He doesn't know what the ACLU is or does exactly. It's like posting a picture of a hamburger and saying "I bet vegetarians would hate this picture!"
 
Clearly, a lot of people seem upset that something with a religious connotation is visible to the public.

Why this would be, I have no idea. It comes across as a pathological hatred.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: michaels
I don't know, I just was at a light and spotted it and snapped a pic, I wasn't pay attention to the surroundings.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05...1309752000&en=633335bb68bac96a&ei=5088

i would say it is on church property so the ACLU has no claims against it.
Click to expand...

I guess. If an upside down crucifix appeared on an athiest's property near the church I'm sure opposition would be justified.
 
Originally posted by: amicold
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: michaels
I don't know, I just was at a light and spotted it and snapped a pic, I wasn't pay attention to the surroundings.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05...1309752000&en=633335bb68bac96a&ei=5088

i would say it is on church property so the ACLU has no claims against it.
Click to expand...

I guess. If an upside down crucifix appeared on an athiest's property near the church I'm sure opposition would be justified.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't be justified. Why do you make that rather assinine assumption? 😕
 
Originally posted by: amicold
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: michaels
I don't know, I just was at a light and spotted it and snapped a pic, I wasn't pay attention to the surroundings.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05...1309752000&en=633335bb68bac96a&ei=5088

i would say it is on church property so the ACLU has no claims against it.
Click to expand...

I guess. If an upside down crucifix appeared on an athiest's property near the church I'm sure opposition would be justified.
Click to expand...

The two scenarios aren't even comparable.

That being said, they would still have a right to put the crucifix up.
 
ACLU would be the first one to defend this as free speech, if it's not on government property.
Or course it's only befitting that Christian bigots saddle Liberty with a cross and take away it's light. Very symbolic.
 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: michaels
I don't know, I just was at a light and spotted it and snapped a pic, I wasn't pay attention to the surroundings.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/us/05...1309752000&en=633335bb68bac96a&ei=5088

i would say it is on church property so the ACLU has no claims against it.
Click to expand...

I find it sort of funny that you took michaels claim seriously. I assure he meant it in jest. He doesn't know what the ACLU is or does exactly. It's like posting a picture of a hamburger and saying "I bet vegetarians would hate this picture!"
Click to expand...

Perfect analogy.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
ACLU would be the first one to defend this as free speech, if it's not on government property.
Or course it's only befitting that Christian bigots saddle Liberty with a cross and take away it's light. Very symbolic.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Originally posted by: michaels
But still..I bet it drives every Volvo driving person in Memphis apeshit when they see it.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly you believe that only Volvo drivers are Christians and Patriotic Americans who believe in the symbolism behind the Statue of Liberty. I drive a Mazda 626 and think that the object photographed is an unAmerican and unChristian piece of garbage.
 
I'm rather conservative when it comes to the constitution and rather liberal as far as social/fiscal policy. Having said that, I don't see a problem whatsoever with this thing. I don't quite understand what the OP means .. are you saying because of the implied cohesion of church and state? If so, it's not like this thing was put up by the Memphis county courthouse, so who cares? 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top