Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Ryantology]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

Yeah, it is. If we wanted to take that approach, it would have been gone since 1989 and we would have shot your family for complaining about it.

[Bob Kelso]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

I really have to wonder if you're serious, or if you're being a troll.

[Angrboda]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

I really have to wonder if you're serious, or if you're being a troll.

False dichotomy.

[Bob Kelso]

I really have to wonder if you're serious, or if you're being a troll.

False dichotomy.

An unintended one on my part, Polaris tends to go for the "shock" comment. So perhaps a better statement would be;

I really have to wonder why you would suggest that it's the same thing, because it seems to me you're just trolling.

[Polaris]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

I really have to wonder if you're serious, or if you're being a troll.

Just echoing a point of both rational atheists and the Moslem spiritual leaders who lambasted the Taliban.

The rational atheist view is "it's been here for many years and atheists for decades did not have a problem with it, so I won't be a dick and take issue but I will push that they won't erect new religious monuments on tax dollars hence forth." For all the talk about people saying these momuments waste tax dollars, how many have they wasted debating it just like the Republican Congress with their anti-Obamcare attempts...

The spiritual leaders likewise held the same point that "yes, even though these Buddhist movements were not of the Book, that since believers centuries before them had not destroyed them, what gave these Taliban extremists the right to destroy them?"

[Ryantology]

Christians could have respected the Consitution of the United States and voluntarily relocated it from its illegal perch. Christians said "fuck the Constitution of the United States" for almost 25 years. Christians gotta sleep in the bed they made.

[Bob Kelso]

Just echoing a point of both rational atheists and the Moslem spiritual leaders who lambasted the Taliban.

The rational atheist view is "it's been here for many years and atheists for decades did not have a problem with it, so I won't be a dick and take issue but I will push that they won't erect new religious monuments on tax dollars hence forth." For all the talk about people saying these momuments waste tax dollars, how many have they wasted debating it just like the Republican Congress with their anti-Obamcare attempts...

The spiritual leaders likewise held the same point that "yes, even though these Buddhist movements were not of the Book, that since believers centuries before them had not destroyed them, what gave these Taliban extremists the right to destroy them?"

These situations aren't the same Pol, I know you're trying to make a point of symmetry but it just isn't there. These atheists/secularists aren't extremists they're operating inside the law and working for the continuance of seperation of religion and government.

This cross to my understanding, unless there has been a recent development, is not being destroyed. It is being moved from the area because it is unconstitutional for it to be there in the first place. Just because it has been there since the 50's and atheists/secularists haven't made a big deal in the past doesn't make it right. In counterpoint these lawsuits have been ongoing for quite some time.

In my opinion; To leave this government display of religion would set the precedent for more attempts for state-sponsored religious monuments, which is wrong.

[Angrboda]

No it's not. It's fairly plain. One opinion is allowed because it doesn't further a single religion...

Please explain how making provision for multiple points of view and various religious traditions is furthering a single religion. Your position is absurd. It is also bigoted because clearly you have a problem with only one particular religion: Christianity. Haters just gotta hate.

Seriously, now you're arguing a 43 foot cross is "multiple viewpoints" ? Or were you pinning your hopes to, "I'm right and you're wrong because you're a hater." Even if I were a hater, my being a bigoted hater would do nothing to establish the correctness of your view. Is this really your best argument, patent absurdities and the red herring of my views on Christianity? If I did hate Christianity, I can't imagine a better reason for doing so than good Christians like you.

[Faith No More]

We should let them leave the cross and then resurrect other monuments, as the Christians claim they are for. More specifically, we should put a 43 foot "A" to the left of the cross and then a 43 foot "heist" to the right.

[Esquilax]

The rational atheist view is "it's been here for many years and atheists for decades did not have a problem with it, so I won't be a dick and take issue but I will push that they won't erect new religious monuments on tax dollars hence forth." For all the talk about people saying these momuments waste tax dollars, how many have they wasted debating it just like the Republican Congress with their anti-Obamcare attempts...

And here we see the two deeply rooted tactics of the christian; one is deflection, trying to put the locus of blame onto the atheists, "Oh, you can't have an opinion because you waste money when your argument is about wasted money!"

The second is appeal to tradition: "We've gotten away with it for so long, why won't you just quietly allow us to keep getting away with it now!"

But that's the issue, Polaris: if we give an inch, christians have already shown that they'll take a yard. I don't even think it's a particularly christian trait, it's a very human thing to normalize things even when they're technically wrong, but here it's intensified by decades of christian privilege, and so it's so much stronger now. The fact is, you've got the laws here in place for a reason, and no matter how much you've enjoyed being allowed to break them in the past, the only way the situation is going to improve and be fair is by pushing back the tide of privilege.