(January 29, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Lek Wrote: It appears that they showed this one because the vandal was cleared of any wrong doing. But I'll try to visit this site once in a while.
That's true, but if you scroll down through the article you'll see a quoted portion of another one written months earlier, calling the vandalism in question stupid and counterproductive. The fact that the writer opted to repeat that sentiment even when the vandal was legally cleared is significant, I think.
Quote:If you pay attention, you'll see that vandalism of churches is quite common. Just go to google and search "church vandalism. I think you're the one without the high horse Esquilax.
Why assume that church vandalism necessarily means church vandalism by atheists? I mean, it's not like this case, where a deliberately religious message was erected in place of the vandalized sculpture; generally speaking there's no indication as to the reason for the vandalism at the scene. I plug that search term into google and all I get is general vandalism, not specifically atheist vandalism, so why should I assume nefarious intent on the part of my side? Wouldn't other religions have equal reason to do this, if you're intent on making this about disagreement with the religious message, rather than just destructive impulses from idiot young people?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!