The Title line of this blog links you to a news story out of San Diego discussing Proposition K in San Diego California. To give you the background, there is a war memorial in San Diego. It is a cross. This cross sits on a hill. This hill is city property. Oh, No! Seperation of curch and state, it must be torn down (thus saith a prominant San Diego Atheist who has been suing the city to have it torn down for the last 15 years.)
I am a moderate Republican and a slightly liberal Christian. It didn't bother me when the ten commandments were removed from the Alabama courthouse last year. I didn't whine about removing organized prayer from public schools. I'd rather teach my kids about God anyway, rather than some teacher. But when does it stop?
As the writer of this article points out, there are other religious sites owned by the city including Jewish synagogues and temples of eastern religions. Why, oh why Mr Athiest are you now concerned with those locations? When will they remove the Shriner images from our money. Please hurry, they bothering my sensibilities and must be removed.
I think my biggest gripe about the issue is this: does a big cross paying homage to our countries war dead make you want to be less of an athiest? Does it cause you to be intimidated into attending Christian church services? If the answer is no, which unless you, oh athiest, are an easily moved shallow person it will be, than why is it so important that you have the cross removed? Why is your comfort more important than mine anyway?
But then again, it's not about religion. It's not about politics. It's not about the constitution. It certainly isn't about honering those veterans that the cross was erected to memorialize. It's about me and my fifteen minutes of fame. God bless America!
6 comments:
I hate to pick nits, but you said our money has shriner imagery on it? You must be thinking of the *masonic* images on our currency. Put your tin-foil hat on and follow this link: http://www.wealth4freedom.com/dollarbill.htmlI pretty much agree with the rest of your points. It's a form of thinly-veiled persecution against the Body of Christ. One that will less oblique with more overt hostility as the days go on.
To clarify for all those readers who may feel that my ethos is now destroyed by calling the symbols on our money shriner, they are infact as my anonymous contributor pointed out, mason symbols. I hope I did not stear anyone from the truth. However, I confess that I do not know the technical difference between the two. I know that here in my city, the shriners attend the masonic lodge and they share common symbols (see these links http://www.mtgilead.com/masons.htm and http://www.ben-ali-shriners.org . You will notice the t-square and compass symbold. this is a mason symbol which for some reason is also the shriners symbol (wee, one of many.) Someone with more knowledge on these sects may coreect us all later, but I believe that the shriners are a branch or, rather, sprang from free-masonry. I see the differences as an outsider much like an outsider may see the differences between a Memphis Church of Christ and an Oklahoma City Church of Christ. Non- existant. well there it is. I beg for your forgiveness for my error, and that's more than Dan Rather will do, so there.
It occoured to me that it seems quite possible to add your thoughts to the issue of Gay Marriage. "I think my biggest gripe about the issue is this: does a big cross paying homage to our countries war dead make you want to be less of an athiest?" Would you agree or disagree... Does the marriage of two men make yours any less valid? Any Less married?
Joe
Random Blogger Reader
No. My marraige is no less valid. And you may or may not notice that I never address this issue in my blog. Nor any other blog I write. But I do thank you for stereotyping me and assuming what my opinion might be. Here is my response.
I would not support a constitutional ban on gay marraige. The constitution is a document designed to outline 1) the structure of our government and 2) and more importantly our freedoms as Americans. It was not designed to place limits on those freedoms. That is the function of statutory law, individual to the states, based on the voting populous of that individual state.
Do I agree with gay marraige or the gay lifestyle as a whole? No. In this instance you may may infact bind me in a nutshell and count me the kind of infinite space. I, like most Christians, do not think that the homosexual lifestyle is natural or morally correct. Do I think that government has the right to enforce my morale opinions? No. That is not the function of government. The function of government is to protect my rights and my safety. Neither of which is affected by whether or not you marry another man.
I hope that the person who made the comment and posed the question which resulted in this response will return to the site to read it. I hope he knows that he is welcome. However, I doubt that he will.
Please note that I at no time accused you of having a view on either side of the issue. I was simply pointing out an interesting paralell. However it was interesting to see such a quick jump to defensiveness over my question.
Again,
Joe
Upon rereading, I suppose, it would be fair to say that my first comment may have had an unintentional tone. I apologize for that. More on topic though, I am a non-christian sort of higher-power believer (I haven't been able to classify myself yet) and I have to say that I agree with you. It is the choice of everyone as to their views of objects and simbols that have meaning to certain groups. I also can't fathom the idea that seperation of church and state is supposed to mean that there may be no pieces of any religion within our government. It seems that simply having the right to have any religion of a person's choosing would be enough.
On the same note, however, I don't think that the President of the USA should be speaking of his faith to the public, as it is not a valid political issue or valid reason for having a stance on legal issues.
Joe
Post a Comment