Signs & Wonders: A Non-Religious Cross?

Although I'm probably agnostic on my more optimistic days, I have no objection to a cross - unless it's burning on my front lawn.

I think that falls under, 'I'd really rather you didn't do that,' in my personal world.

And of course, the people who wanted to remove the image of Pomona from all public property had no religious motivation about it... after all, the people who drew up that seal were clearly card-carrying classical Pagans with a religious- establishmentarian intention behind using Her as a symbol.

A little consistency would be nice, anyway.

Since the cross is so strongly identified with Christianity, the monument gives the appearance of a government endorsement of the religion. With First Amendment issues, as with journalism and contracting, the appearance of a conflict of interest is the same as an actual conflict of interest.

The appearance isn't a problem with individual headstones for fallen soldiers, since it's obvious that these reflect the individual religions.

I see two possible solutions - either San Diego sell the land to a private party, or replace the cross with a truly nonsectarian monument.

"the monument gives the appearance of a government endorsement of the religion. "

It does do that. Perhaps romantically, I don't like to think of the original placers of the monument as having all this nonsense in mind, but in the current climate, it *is* something which appears to be a dominionist claim on the state we're all supposed to count on for justice and equal protection.

Frankly, I'm not sure the image of a big cross looming over the flag of our nation is ever going to be innocuous to me, but I do know that in general, religious displays are less *threatening* when they aren't part of a program to *be* threatening to my rights and liberties, either as someone of a different religion, or as someone members of that religion want to use that religion to deny full citizenship and humanity to.

"non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice"

If this symbol were carried in battle at the head of the troops, what would it mean?

That's an Irish plus sign. You must not know about Irish math yet.

Irish math.
+it and +it = tat.
"You never learn the answer; you can only become the answer." Problem solved.

imagine:

Call IT the "4-WAY TOTEM POLE" [not Cross]!

"Call IT the "4-WAY TOTEM POLE""

Haha. :) Actually got a laugh out of that one. In actual fact, garish or over-the-top displays tend to get their very own nicknames, among my crowd. :)

Judge Burns cross. People get caught in the middle of the crossfire. Totem is Saturday morning when people load up at Sams Club and Costco to haul home more stuff than they need because it was a bargain. Then on Sunday the curbs are filled with tons of trash. There's enough garbage to go around. More than enough and never enough all at the same time.

Waters says:
“The site became the Mt. Soledad Memorial to war veterans, which includes 2,400 plaques commemorating the fallen. In 2006, the federal government acquired the property as a war memorial.”

A cross in a Memorial for war veterans. What is wrong with that? Those who are wasting time and energy to remove a landmark should consider a more beneficial project in which to spend their time. I know some people, especially from the insignificant minority religions,who are spooked by that symbol. But that is their problem and they should not try to enforce their prejudices on the good people of San Diego.
The fact that crosses have been erected on that location since 1913 indicates to me that that location is shouting for a cross. I felt that way the first time I saw that edifice.

Deflag - Irish plus sign? I like it! I think I know Irish math. "One Guinness times six = one drunk". Right, Arminius? :D

(still laughing!)

Athena!

Oh, no! Your math is incorrect! It is One Guinness times TWELVE = one drunk! ERIN GO BRAUGH!

Addendum: your label of McCain's current wife as the Budweiser Barbie had me rolling on the floor. Thanks!

Ibrahim:

"insignificant minority religions,"

I *beg* your pardon, sir?

Pardon my great indignance, but a) As someone Irish, if I need special math, I'll let you know,
and b) on this: "Totem is Saturday morning when people load up at Sams Club and Costco to haul home more stuff than they need because it was a bargain. Then on Sunday the curbs are filled with tons of trash."

No, 'totem' is a word from the folks that used to live around Seattle-way, and modernly is a loan-word to describe something the right-wing Christian people who made Wal-Mart and Sam's Club would prefer to plant a cross on and see forgotten.

yeah - no self-repsecting irish man or woman would ever cop to getting drunk on a mere six-pack!

I'm not hung over.

Courage! What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage! What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? What have they got that I ain't got? Courage. You can say that again! Huh? Don't get hit by lightning.

I met a pagan with a Harley. I ask him what year is it. He says what part. The engine is a 71, the frame is a 63, the forks are 73. He was a outlaw.

Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to have more than one home.

"the appearance of a conflict of interest is the same as an actual conflict of interest."
They hauled me away after they got a warrant. My neighbor says what were you in trouble for. I said that it only looked like I was getting into trouble, I was actually getting out of trouble. Then I got over a grand worth of bills for all the troubles. Now I need to deal with all these dopes and they'll know they have been dealt with.

In politics the Irish come in first and early too.

Irish Law
The judge says, if that's the law I'm going to burn my law books. The Irish lawyer says, my lord you would be better served by reading them.

Let the good times roll while the fire burns out of control.

"the appearance of a conflict of interest is the same as an actual conflict of interest."

Getting burned alive is not the same as the fire of love.

I agree with the comment to sell it, or deed it over, to a private party for maintenance and preservation. That would solve the problem for all and put an end to it. It wouldn't stop the complaining, but it would stop the legal wrangling.

As for the camp who seems to feel that Americans shouldn't have to come in contact with symbols of faith, or the practice thereof, last time I read the constitution, it promised freedom of religion, but never guaranteed freedom from religion. I come in contact with lots of things in this life I find offensive, some on government property, yet I don't expect the government to shield me from them. I'm a big boy. I can deal with it. Besides, I'm not against allowing things that have value and meaning to others just because I don't find value and meaning in them. To do that would be selfish and work against of notion of acting for the common good.

But I do regret, as a Christian, the court's decision to claim that a cross is something other than a symbol of Christianity. I do find that offensive. Would they say the same thing about the Star of David, or the Crescent? I doubt it.

That's the problem with our culture. We seem to want to water things down, robbing them of any power they might have, in the interest of not offending anyone. Instead of 50 flavors, we make everything vanilla, and we end up with a flat, bland culture that finds no sense of purpose in anything, so it turns inward. We've become a self-absorbed nation of people that spend a lot of time contemplating our navels, picking at any little thing that invades our increasingly self-centered worlds. We've lost all sense of doing anything for the common good, such as letting go of our objections to things that others find valuable and meaningful.

"As for the camp who seems to feel that Americans shouldn't have to come in contact with symbols of faith, or the practice thereof"

I know of no one who advocates that. The issue is not exposure to religious symbols but government favoritism of some religions over others. The only reason the park is an issue is because it's government property.

As a follow-up to Tonio:

I agree that the government should show no favoritism for one faith over another, and that people's issue with the symbol is consistent with what the constitution calls for. I don't have a problem with that, and even agree with the concept of separation of church and state. As I noted, if enough people want to keep it, then simply move it into private hands. Otherwise, be willing to change it.

However... I do know quite a few people who do resent having to come into contact with anything that deals with faith in the public arena. Two prominent personalities (leaders of action groups) have spoken at length about it in the past year on the news, and I know people personally who angrily resent having to come into contact with anything dealing with faith. They deeply resent the very existence of it, and would be happy to see it totally removed from their lives, even if it takes government action to do so. These are the people I speak of, and I encounter a lot of them.

Thanks for your comments, as they helped me clarify my own...

The resolution is simple, change the cross to a star of david. I mean, it sits on the graves of the fallen Americans who are jewish just as a cross sits on graves christian fallen soldiers. So change it to a star of david. Would that be ok? If not then either is a cross.

When you look back in history to the origins of this nation you do not see people sneaking in religious symbols. Even on currency, the first of which did not have "in god we trust". That appeared in the 1950s as fervent christians pushed it through congress as the national motto. The founders of this country were proud of their separation of church and state. It had not happened anywhere else in the world, and the resulting freedom of all religions was a not just a good idea to them. They had suffered under British Anglican rule, being forced to support the Anglican church even if they were not Anglican.

Freedom of religion and separation of church and state were what distinguished Americans from other nations. To push any religion into government is as anti-American as you can get, and the people who fought to create this nation, themselves christians, would be the first to tear down that cross.

Get over it. There's nothing you can do about it. The cars keep going by.

You have lawyer and money. We have guns. Want a fight?

It is high time that atheism should be declared as an official religion. They always hide under the cover of "separation of church and state" to undermine other religions when in fact they are spreading their own kind of religion.

They are using the state to propagate their atheism religion. What a "SMART IDIOT".

It is constitutionally unfair if atheists' "gospel" (evolution) is preached inside schools while other religion's kind of science is banned. There is always an intelligent input to every intelligent object. That statement is more scientific than evolution's claim that there is no natural intelligent object.

Why do our state giving this atheist religion an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE? IT'S TIME CHRISTIANS SHOULD FIGHT BACK AND RE-ESTABLISH TRUE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION AND THEY ARE GETTING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

--
Only Jealous/lost Queers can make Fun of the 4-way Totem Pole Reality!

ATT: P A G A N P L A C E; an Openly QUEER National Homosexual on WAPO whom was Told To Leave this Straught-Blofg for a Non Straoight Blog of Many!

Why Don't Ye Evilgelicals & QUEERS NATIONALS LEAVE Us STARIGHTS ApocalyptarIan-NATiONALS ALONE! Go to Queer Bars, Queer Blogs, Querr Church’s, not Here! (Straight-Place)!

QUESTION f.a.g.i.t QUEER : pagan-place:

Stop Evading:

" A Marriage (oral or Writtenly) is Sacred (if Ye Know What that Word Means) between a real Gent (Mavorite) and a Real Lady (Sporade) is IT! Never Between a 1/2 Man & !/2 Women! aka QUEERS!

So: P A G A N Queer: Yes or NO! Please no in between! YES or No on Marriage Question. Please don't tell Us Ye Don't Knoweth!???

We are still waiting for answer that ye Evaded on this straight Blogg: Soo,: YES (Yea) or NO (Nay)!?

Why waste time arguing with the pagans? Just resist the atheists and ACLU-America-hating types at every chance and in every way you can.

I don't really care that the cross is on the hill. To much time and money is expended on fights like this. It is annoying that many religions continually seek gov't endorsement of their symbols (often to the exclusion of others), but it is really much ado about very little.

The money in my wallet says "In God We Trust." I think it's stupid, and I certainly don't trust or believe in any god. But it really makes me no difference, and changing it is not worth the trouble or the hard feelings it would engender among religious people.

The topic is a “Non-religious Cross“. If that was intended to show an irony it failed miserably There is a precedent for non-religious crosses; namely the Red cross for a humanitarian organizations and the Blue cross for a health insurance. The Red Cross is used by many non-Christian countries including China, India and Japan. Israel and some predominantly Muslims countries replace the cross with Star of David and the Crescent respectively because of their wrong interpretation of that symbol as the Christian symbol of redemption, which they do not want to have anything to do with . In reality it is the Swiss flag with switched colors. This symbol was adopted to honor Switzerland for initiating ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) organization in 1863.

I think this is just a strategy to eradicate all signs of religiosity in the public arena...besides the legal arguments- so much of the discussion seems to be a sour-grapes response from post-ex- and non-christians to suppress what they can't personally share.

If time and money are all that gets wasted, don't let me stop you. I have a special big flag for a special little boy and some paperworkto go along with it . You can not buy it and he doesn't know about it yet. He will and he will like it. It will make a big difference to him in the future. It was given to me and I'm passing it along. I'm flying the flag today. People drive by and don't even know what they are looking at and it's right in front of them. We keep it all in the old family tradition. What you do matters more than what you think. Keep banging the keyboard though, you might find the flag. Watch who you cross though.

Christianity simply isn't true (nor any religion).

Take down this monument to fairy tales!

I'm sitting here and some rubbernecker is looking at me and driving. Watch children, watch the road in front of you. When the little boy gets the flag, he will know more than the adults think they know. His future isn't going to wait on hold until somebody decides what he should be. I need to check with his Mom first. This isn't trick or treat, it's the genuine old glory and a paper story. Fly your kites and love your kids.

Sorry for the multiple posts. Technical problem.

We could take you down, but you are already down. I'm on the way up.

Going up is a big+ +you know who you can trust. Going down sucks, so as you can see the Irish math has a number of advantages. Love multiplies your interest and you never find the solution, you are the solution. The world problems continue to grow and love conquers all, so there is hope for the future. The United States is the hope of the world and that hope was attacked, but it can never be destroyed. Evil destroys itself and the best we can do is help it do so more efficiently. Love is never efficient. It seems fast, but it is the slowest emotion. Great things take time and love always makes time. Evil destroys time. Time + Love = Justice. Money is not the proper reward for love, justice is and there is liberty in all her glory. I have to love that lady and never leave her if she will have me. I can only pray that she will.

Paid for by thousands of American Servicemen and Women.

Finally someone go it right. The judge spun his court decision and actually lied about the cross, calling it non-religious.

The cross is strictly religious and symbolizes the death of Jesus. Every biblethumper knows that.

Why did the City of San Diego give a permit to erect a religious symbol on government property. All courts for 18 yrs said to remove it.

If the cross is nonreligious, let's expect to see one over the White House and Capitol, on the American Flag and all military insignia.

The cross on Mt. Soledad violates the rules for flying the American flag. NOTHING can be above the American flag. However, the American flag is BELOW the Easter Cross, as it was known for decades due to being dedicated on Easter Sunday in 1954 and having annual Easter sunrise services there. Do you know of any other WAR memorial where weddings and religious services are held? Imagine a wedding at the Statue of Iwo Jima. Why didn't they raise a CROSS on Iwo Jima instead of an American flag?? Gee, Jesus's ultimate symbol is non-religious, thanks to a lying Judge.

Maybe all the people can protest the judge and burn crosses in their front yards tonight. That would be some story.

As Paul said, I have neither harmed anybody, nor have I violated the customs of our ancestors. The cross isn't harming anybody and it is following a long standing custom in a traditional way. People are looking for a problem, as if there are not enough problems in the world today. Go look around and you will find six other problems. Attack them and we'll see what gets fixed and what doesn't. The cross proves one thing. There's nothing wrong with killing people, if the right people get killed.

It is high time that atheism should be declared as an official religion. They always hide under the cover of "separation of church and state" to undermine other religions when in fact they are spreading their own kind of religion.

They are using the state to propagate their atheism religion. What a "SMART IDIOT".

****

It is constitutionally unfair if atheists' "gospel" (evolution) is preached inside schools while other religion's kind of science is banned. There is always an intelligent input to every intelligent object. That statement is more scientific than evolution's claim that there is no natural intelligent object.

Why do our state giving this atheist religion an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE? IT'S TIME CHRISTIANS SHOULD FIGHT BACK AND RE-ESTABLISH TRUE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION AND THEY ARE GETTING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER RELIGIONS. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

It's time to get back to the business of figuring out who needs killed next. It got bloody for me a couple of weeks back and business being business, it could get bloodier the next time around. Just so you know, I'm all ready for war and it's looking like blood by the bucket fulls with the evil I'm up against. Aren't we all?

May 03, 2006
Ruling on a 15-year-old ACLU case, a federal judge today ordered the city of San Diego to remove a mountain-top cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5,000 a day.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said, "It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property," the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

4:16 p.m. July 29, 2008

A federal judge has ruled that the Mount Soledad cross can stay put in San Diego.

The ruling forces critics who say the symbol's presence on public land violates the Constitution to take their case to an appellate court to continue a legal battle dating to 1989.

A total waste of time, just like the ACLU. Take it to hell and argue there. You'll have all the time you need.

Great God in heaven. I just looked up over my house a little earlier and there were two vapor trails forming the biggest cross that I ever saw in my life above and beyond. We're under God and well protected. I know I'll sleep better tonight.

Someone asks;
“Why did the City of San Diego give a permit to erect a religious symbol on government property? All courts for 18 yrs said to remove it.”

There has been a cross on that same spot since 1913. It is getting to be a defining landmark just as the Eiffel tower is to Paris and the Statue of Liberty is to New York. The people of San Diego are attached to that edifice and not about to let few mostly outsiders remove it. If worse comes to worst the city will donate the hill to a private institution to keep that cross. My advice to those who have nothing more important to do than file frivolous law suits is to move on and get over it.

This judge could also rule that a swastika is
non-nazi.

He abused his power.

The cross is the ultimate symbol of Christianity and Jesus's death on the cross. It is an insult to any Christian to say it is a non-religious symbol of military service. Let's put this non-relibious symbol on EVERYTHING that stands for this country, including the flag.

I wonder how long it would take this Judge to determine that a Star of David, if it were up on Mt. Soledad where Passover would have been conducted, was a non-religious symbol. LOL. How dumb can u people be?

This judge is a blatant liar. I guess he wants to be re-elected. He sells his soul to the devil on this one.

The judge is busy. The nazis stole it, like they stole everything else. We didn't steal the cross, we didn't need to steal it. I have a Red Cross flag on my post. The next thing you know the ACLU will be having fits about the Red Cross.
Morons!

"Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. An ancient symbol, it occurs mainly in the cultures that are in modern day India and the surrounding area, sometimes as a geometrical motif (as in the Roman Republic and Empire) and sometimes as a religious symbol. It was long widely used in major world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HinduSwastika.svg

Maybe the ACLU can ask that the cross be painted red. The Stones can sing I see a red cross and want to paint it black. It's black and white and red all over. I have the apolitical blues. I still have my faith in the mission.

Judge Burns Red Cross. Burning the Red Cross wouldn't be right. They are helping people.
Where? http://www.redcross.org/where/where.html
Everywhere people need helped.

Perhaps the effect is different in person - but the picture of this memorial screams religious symbolism to me.

On the other hand - pictures of the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial and the field of (mostly)crosses there only make me think of patriotism.

I can't really explain why they evoke different feelings.

Someone claimed:
"The cross is strictly religious and symbolizes the death of Jesus."

How about the Red Cross as in the International Red Cross or the Blue Cross as in the Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance?

I think the responses from Christians on this thread show it's rather disingenuous to claim that a big whackin' cross doesn't make a Christian religious statement.

These are generally the same folks who turn around and say that anything on a public edifice that smacks to them of Paganism must obviously mean that what was obviously put up as Neoclassical symbolism must be 'State endorsement of a religion.'

A little consistency here would be nice, at the very least.

Frankly, I'd prefer to see we, the people, come to an appreciation for religious diversity than have to take down war memorials. In an atmosphere where it *is* about people trying to claim Christian dominion over our secular government, and where these 'historical' arguments are also applied to attempts to put up written and overt religious *commandments* commanding citizens who to worship, though, it's unseemly, certainly, to be adding any *more* of this stuff, particularly right now.

Yes, a big cross like that is a bit intimidating and exclusionary, and shows favoritism. I would have preferred a ruling that says, 'This is wrong, but at the time it wasn't meant that way, and maybe we can let it slide.'

In honoring our nation's religious diversity, taking stuff *away* (nor retroactively-justifying doing *more* Unconstitutional displays) isn't really what I think is the best way to go about it. Unless it's really egregious, anyway.

Which is of course a matter of perspective.

The cross in San Diego is a very different cross from the red cross or blue cross symbols, both of which have 4 arms, all equal in size. the San Diego cross can never be mistaken for anything other than the symbol of Christianity, and from it's initial construction as a Christian cross to today, any judge who believes it is a non-religious symbol is with blind, deaf or so completely mentally challenged that he has no business being a judge.

Atheism is not a religion and there are many religious people who don't feel the need to put specific religious symbols in every public venue. Putting a cross up everywhere is the easiest and cheapest way to push your religion without truly living it. I don't recall Jesus teaching religious intolerance but I do remember he taught compassion and caring for your fellow man.Seems quite a few of you think sticking a cross up absolves you from actually living Christ's teachings.

And there is the slippery slope you just started walking on. If the judge just ruled the cross is not a religious symbol, he just stripped it of its meaning and its sacredness. Crow all you want now, at some point you'll understand just how much you gave up to play king of the hill.

I'm from San Diego. I've seen that cross up close. I was there when they added the flag and crazy-glued some portraits of dead soldiers to the base of the cross to make it a "war memorial".

The cross is a religious symbol that is violating the separation of church and state by being on public land. The city should take down the cross and move the flag to the center of the monument to make it a true war memorial. There are plenty of non-Christians in the military and only having the cross there gives them short-shrift. Having just the flag and the portraits would be a suitable way to pay our respects for their sacrifices.

On an emotional level, having the cross on public land makes me mad. (As a caveat I'd like to say there is nothing wrong with a cross-shaped tombstone in a military graveyard.) On a more practical level, as a law-student, I like it there. It's more work for lawyers. That part of me wants it to stay. Keep up the great work ACLU!

Notsogreatscot: The military cemeteries puts crosses or stars on the graves to reflect the personal faith of the individual soldier. I also find those pictures to be profoundly stirring because you see cross by cross and star by star the sacrifice we've made to keep this country free. I'm unaware if and how other religions would be symbolized but I know others of different faiths, atheists and agnostics have died for that same reason.

A cross on a national monument is a statement by the government. It is favoritism, and unconstitutional. For those of us who are not Christian, it is extremely disturbing and not a little frightening in its implications.

God forbid the cross offends some. What happened to tolerance? And don't start with the "what about the Crusades" spiel. What about the evil done in the name of Atheism? Or Islam? Or any other religion? The frame of reference is the here-and-now. Tolerance does not include an exclusionary clause for Christianity

The cross doesn't offend. It's the intolerance of those "christians" who have to shove it down everyone else's throat that offends.

What evil is done in the name of atheism? It's not a religion, it doesn't have a system of belief that demands it be forced on everyone. There have been no wars or pograms in the name of atheism, no symbols of atheism burned on the lawns of Blacks people, no Inquisitions to demand you do ot believe- pray tell. What evil has been perpetrated in the name of atheism?

Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. AT LEAST 100 million dead, many of which were victims of explicit anti-religious hatred on the part of Stalin and Mao and their communist systems built on the premise that the state would replace God. Pure evil. Much worse than any atrocity ever perpetrated by Christians (which Christians have duly apologized for).

communism is a political system. Atrocities done in the name of communism are politically motivated and defined. They are about power, not atheism, which posits there is no g-d. Communism would have you believe that the state is g-d, making it closer to a true religion structurally than atheism is.

As for "duly apologized".... oh, yes. Of course- that makes it all better. However if you look at Christianity today, there is no break with the thinking of the past that assumed every other religion is inferior to christianity and everyone must be brought into the fold or they burn in hell. If you haven't changed that arrogance after all the crimes you've committed in its name, what makes your apology an apology at all?

" Aaron from SD:

"God forbid the cross offends some."

Interesting you should say that.
Do you think your God would want you to use that symbol *to* offend some?

To say, 'We're better and more powerful than you, and if you don't like it, we'll force it and claim not-believing in our view makes you evil?

" What happened to tolerance?"

Self-righteousness happened to it.
The 'Culture war' happened to it.

The only 'tolerance' some Christians want is for the 'tolerant' to tolerate their triumphalist intolerance.

That cross has become a symbol of intolerant repression, religiously-induced fear, and hate, and religiously-justified terrorizing of children.

That's not my doing. It's 'yours.'

Yes, I'm all for 'tolerance.'

People erecting a giant cross to loom over the flag and a city, certainly does strain that tolerance.

People *using* spurious arguments about 'Christian heritage' is certainly *beyond* that tolerance.

I certainly don't want to take away some Christians' war memorial that they put up in all good faith.

But when these things become *weapons* and symbols of exclusion and encroachment upon *my* rights as a citizen.

Don't come crying to me when the tolerance runs out.

Ah, so we're ranking atrocities here? isn't that completely ridiculous? based on the numbers communism is worse than christianity so christians get a pass... uh huh.

I worked for 9 months in the WTC recovery after 9-11. the first week I was there a Christian group came into the Sallie Ann tent to help serve food. I'm a New Yorker, was in the subway under the Towers when the 2nd plane hit. We were less than a block away from the site, smelling the reek of the fires and reeling in shock from the attacks and this woman announces that she felt so sorry for the people who died without accepting Jesus because they were burning in hell.

They had to separate us. That's my memory of Christian "tolerance"

Standard Christian tactics, Anonymous.

Say, 'You're doing wrong,' they just say, 'Oh, yeah, look over there. They're doing *worse.* So shut up and take it.'

It strains the imagination to think they expect to face their God Of Absolute Binary Judgment that way.

And, Gods, Sparrow, you'd think they'd let you get the smoke out of your nostrils before they started blaming non-Christians for their God magically 'removing protection' from America for Christians not sufficiently throwing the first stone.

The only "cross" that I believe in is the one I carry which keeps the vampires at bay.

I'm a Christian, but this crosss, just like the 10 commandments deal in Alabama is nothing but idolotry.

An organized religion chose it as a revered symbol, uniquely representing that religion, and embraced it for over a thousand years. If it no longer represents Christianity, people are free to adopt it for irreverent uses. Is that what the judge wants?

What about adultery? Boith McCain and his made-up co-adulterer should be held accountable.

This is exactly like if some organization erected a giant statue of Xenu on public land and then donated it to the city (which had a Scientologist majority so they thought it was A-OK). During its dedication they proclaim that the statue is in honor of "Our lord and savior L. Ron Hubbard." Then someone points out that the giant statue is a violation of the constitution and a misuse of public funds, so rather than tear it down the Scientologists ring their giant statue of Xenu with plaques engraved with the names of war dead and start calling it a war memorial thinking that somehow erases the original intent of the statue.

So I guess the lesson here is when you get called out for blatantly breaking the law all you have to do is inscribe the names of some war dead on plaques and pretend your giant religious territorial marker is a war monument. What arrogance and utter crassness to use the dead that way. The thing was originally called the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross. It was never about honoring the dead. It was all about saving an obnoxious and tacky idol.

This is a case of Puritans who look for a land to have freedom of worship. After they claim the land, outsiders followed suit and started using a law that was originally made for freedom of worship, to undermine that freedom.

They are like uninvited visitors who begin acting like they were the owner of the land.

Atheists should go back to their native countries or to communist lands where there are no crosses to be seen.

For many years that America existed, it is only this time that we have this kind of problem because some new idiot immigrants arrived.

spiderman 2: "This is a case of Puritans who look for a land to have freedom of worship. After they claim the land, outsiders followed suit and started using a law that was originally made for freedom of worship, to undermine that freedom."

Do you even understand what you wrote? That only Puritans are entitled to freedom of religion. Fact # 1: when only one group is entitled to freedom of religion, it isn't freedom of religion- it's oppression.

fact # 2: Puritans were outsiders too. Just ask a Native American.

fact # 3: Except for Native Americans, we are all immigrants, so by extension you are also one of the "idiot immigrants." Course if we all went back to our native countries there would be very few people left.

fact # 4: the outsiders who wrote the law you are referring to were the Founding Fathers.

fact # 5: the Puritans were far from the first Europeans to come here. there's evidence that the vikings came, and Columbus, an Italian, discovered America for Spain. If any European country had first rights, so to speak, it was Spain. All those Hispanic people we think don't belong here certainly have as much right or more than any descendant of the Puritans or the DAR.

Separation of church and state was established by the Founding Fathers to enhance freeedom of worship and not as tool to be used to hinder worship.

For many years nobody is complaining in America about crosses in government properties until idiots arrived.

I have a simple solution for this, why not put the issue to referendum to the TAXPAYERS and we can see if the people who paid for it to be there really want it there or not. As for all forms of ignorant xenophobisms, put your head back in the sand.

Notwithstanding many of the less-than-useful dialogs already posted, I would say that both sides are probably right (or as right as they can get).

The system of checks and balances on which democracies are based allow all views a venue for being presented. Of course, this doesn't guarantee them an attentive audience or even supporters in the end, but they can be voiced.

Lots of folks who chime in on topics of religion aren't Christians, and they probably never will be. They're simply on 'this side' because they can't (for whatever reason) be on the 'other side'. Others who weigh in against aren't actually athiests. Statistics offer that most of both aren't very highly educated and most are fat.

I could even make the argument that a dead soldier isn't necessarily the embodiment of nobility lost. I served with them; many were lowlifes and carriers--not a of a patriotic standard--but rather a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases and only rarely a diploma. Soldiers are foreign policy workers. We do (did) our jobs for the money, maybe the CV polish or because we have (had) nothing better to do at the time.

Build a monument to whatever makes you happy, but while you're at it, be reminded that democracy is what gave voice to both the dippy monument AND the silly way you hate it.

How should a monument to that actually be shaped?

The Cross doesn't bother me as I see it as a memorial to IDIOTS who believe in fairy tales. Much like the soldiers who went to Iraq looking for Bush's make believe WMDs that his make believe God told him were there!

Just proudly name it the "Memorial for Ignorant Superstitious People" or the "Bush Memorial"!

Religion is a mental sickness, an intellectual handicap, a mind trap. Instead of the government humoring these poor sick handicap people with crosses on government property, they should be providing mental health care to them!

Or, is the cross there to tell all that the community of La Jolla is a christian based community and non-christians are not allowed?

This is the community showing it's prejudice against others by erecting their religious symbol, and then when finally challenged, draping their symbol with memorials.

The government discriminates against non-christians through their support of this religious icon. Oh, sorry, the judge says it's not a religious icon any longer. I guess that makes the La Jollans and christians happy!

Those whose life ambition is to KILL on behalf of a cause...a cause that might be irrelevant to the majority of the citizenry...love to use the Christian symbol to defend their actions.

They know so well how it intimidates weak-willed Christians to show THE CROSS as a symbol of patriotic endeavor, and so that take every opportunity to link THE CROSS to their anti-Christian message of "holy war."

What brought GOD to sacrifice his only son? The failure of humankind, on the day of Christ's crucifixition, to end war and violence.

I am certain the Prince of Peace cries when he sees THE CROSS at a memorial to war.

Neither candidate described themselves as a Christian should. Rich is the state of mind of a content and grateful spirit. It has nothing to do with money.

spiderman2- when the freedom of worship for one religion means imposing itself on every other, that is oppression.

while it's easy for you to label those who disagree with you idiots, rest assured there were plenty of other faiths here along with the christians. Not only did we fight in the War of Independence, we contributed to the building of this nation, served more than honorably in every war, and more to education, science and medicine than you or yours. And we did it without slaughtering Native Americans, owning slaves, burning crosses on lawns or making people sit in the back of the bus.

Van ness (German name that? Hmmm...I'm not surprised.) I wouldn't worry about the level of education (or fat for that matter) of us non-Christians and atheists. It may shock you to know that education goes above the level of junior high and fine cuisine doesn't include recipes for muskrat.

Why pick on the Germans? Besides, every van ness I've ever met is Dutch.

spiderman2 wrote: "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION..."

You mean atheism is theism? For someone who calls everyone else stupid you need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

kinda obvious with his attitude. Let's condemn all who disagree or are different as uneducated, obese idiots.But I do admit to a bit of hyperbole.

And his take on soldiers was so charming. Van Ness has an inflated view of himself, as opposed to "them" and forgive me for pointing out, the us superior, them inferior is a classic of German thinking and politics which resulted in the Second World War. One only has to look around and read some of these posts to realize the vestiges of that kind of thinking still exist. I am not referring solely to Jews, but also the treatment of political prisoners, priests, Gypsies and the disabled.

KD wrote: "I have a simple solution for this, why not put the issue to referendum to the TAXPAYERS and we can see if the people who paid for it to be there really want it there or not."

Because its not an issue for the taxpayers. Its an issue for the courts because taxpayers cannot pay for something that violates the Constitution.

As for the courts, and the judge calling a cross non-religious, well, I hope someone appeals since it should be easily overturned. And the idea of the land being donated to a non-profit, that's a great idea. Otherwise we will soon have non-religious stars of david, non-religious statues of Ganesha, non-religious buddas, non-religious navitity scenes, non-religious name-your-religious-icons, all funded by taxpayers of any and all religions.

I haven't followed this conversation very far, but when Fate says that theism = religion, he has a much bigger problem than when spiderman2 says atheism is a religion.

It's hard to have a real discussion without defining terms. In legal matters, I suppose that the court's ruling depends on legal interpretations. And I also suspect that in the court's view, atheism is a "religious conviction".

It all depends on whether you consider "religion" to be a set of fundamental beliefs about the nature of God, man, and the origin of both, or whether you consider "religion" to be an organization with specific mores, customs, and ceremonies. If the former, then atheism is a religion. If the latter, then various atheistic societies adhere to something that might be called a religion.

I'm not sure how relevant the status of atheism as a religion is to the matter at hand, but it's worth a footnote.

Nearly any organization could fit those generalized terms. the more important issues aren't how we define religion, but the contortionist thinking of the judge that the Cross is not a religious symbol. That flies in the face of over 2000 years of history. He's playing with semantics and he's doing it for the worst of reasons- religious bias.

Okay... how about this compromise: the cross stays. The city puts up a plaque saying that this monument honors the city's war dead, regardless of faith or beliefs. Because regardless of their religious preferences, they were all AMERICANS.

Why do some people consider "atheism" to be a religion? It is not. No one is the head of the "Atheist" church. Atheism has no set of beliefs. No one donates monies toward atheism. To define atheism as a religion makes about as much sense as an English speaker holding a fervent belief that the Italian language should not be spoken.

According to dictionary.com:

theism (noun):
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Atheism: (noun):
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Religion (noun):
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

So you see, to be a religion you need a set of beliefs in the supernatural . Atheists consider the supernatural to be akin to magic and fairy tales. Calling an atheist a believer in no religion is like calling a christian a believer in no leprachauns. Is that a belief akin to a religion?

Now you could use the colloquial use of the word "religion", such as "many Italians and French are religious about good food", and I don't mind calling atheists "religious" about keeping religion out of the public square. Its when people refer to atheists as having a "belief" in no God that I disagree. There are many gods people believe in with the Judaeo-Christian God just being one. But we do not say that jews and christians have a belief in no Hindu gods. They simply do not consider that they exist. There is no "belief" behind it just as there is no "belief" in an atheist against the existance of the Judaeo-Christian god or the Hindu gods. Atheists simply do not condone the existance of the supernatural in any form.

So theism = religion since you must be a theist to have a religion. Atheism cannot be a religion since there are no sets of beliefs defined. Why must theists consider everything to be a belief? Do they believe cars were made by man and not God as an edict of the faith or do they, like atheists, consider cars as having been made by man and have no supernatural component? If so why can they not understand that atheists have no belief in anything supernatural and consider all religions to be simple and mostly harmless delusions, harmless until they start teaching my kid their delusions or putting their religious artifacts up on government land when no religion is allowed to be promoted by government. Maybe the non-religious "Easter Cross" should be replaced by a statue of the Hindu God Ganesha. Maybe then christians would begin to understand that religions should not be promoted by government, and that it applies to all religions, not all religions *except* christianity

Athena wrote: "Okay... how about this compromise: the cross stays. The city puts up a plaque saying that this monument honors the city's war dead, regardless of faith or beliefs. Because regardless of their religious preferences, they were all AMERICANS."

That might fly with American christians, but what will you say when a jew wants a Star of David up there since the cross does not represent the jews that have died, or a Hindu wants a statue of an elephant, or any of the multitude of religions want their symbol there? How will the government deny that?

Arlington Cemetary, another war memorial that honors war dead, places the following symbols on graves upon request:
-No symbol.
-Latin Cross - Christian; generic.
-Wheel of Righteousness - Buddhist.
-Star of David - Jewish.
-Russian Orthodox cross.
-Lutheran cross.
-Episcopal cross.
-Flaming chalice: Unitarian Universalist.
-United Methodist Church cross.
-Aaronic Order Church.
-Latter-day Saints: Angel Moroni with horn.
-Native American Church of America: Teepee with three feathers.
-Serbian Orthodox: cross.
-Greek Cross: similar to the Red Cross.
-Baha'i: 9 pointed star.
-Atheist: A stylized symbol of an atom with the letter A in the center.
-Islam: A crescent and star.
-Hindu symbol.
-Konko-Kyo faith.
-Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called the Community of Christ): A child between a lion and lamb.
-Sufism reoriented symbol.
-Tenrikyo church symbol.
-Seicho-no-ie symbol.
-The Church of World Messianity symbol.
-United Church of Religious Science symbol.
-Christian Reformed Church: Cross and triangle.
-United Moravian Church: Lamb carrying flag.
-Eckankar: Stylized letters "EK"
-Christian church - generic: A cup.
-Christian & Missionary Alliance: a cross, chalice, crown and pitcher
-United Church of Christ: a crown, cross and world symbol
-Humanism: a stylized image of a human.
-Presbyterian Church, USA: A flaming cross
-Ixumo Taishakyo Mission of Hawaii: A hexagon surrounding a symbol
-Soks Gakkai International - USA: A complex symbol
-Sikh: The Khanda symbol; three swords and a rink
-United Church of Christ.
-Christian Science: cross and crown.
-Islam: Five pointed star.
-Wiccan: Pentogram inside a circle.

If you want the hill to only have a cross, get it out of government ownership and into private ownership ASAP or begin accepting other religious symbols. Do you really want the government to maintain a single religion site and deny other religions their symbols? Its unconstitutional for a reason, a good reason.

Athena- how is that a compromise? A huge cross and a little plaque with a half hearted attempt to make it seem a universal symbol of all faiths? How is it that so many Christians (not all- my closest friend is a born-again Christian and she thinks this cross is a mistake here) simply cannot accept that they must respect other people's beliefs if they want respect for theirs? A cross does not represent me- and I mean no respect by that.A cross does not represent the equality this country is supposed to be founded upon, and it ignores the faith and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of non-Christians who fought and died for this country and still do so today. The cross does not represent what this country stands for. the cross represents a religion.

Last year many groups of Christians made an issue if a store sued the words holiday greetings or season's greetings instead of Merry Christmas. Honestly, how ridiculous is it to worry about what a retail store does when Christ was born in a manger and had little patience for the rich or for those who thought money was important? They threatened a commercial boycott and you don't see how that demeans the teachings of Christ?

Fate says:

Why do some people consider "atheism" to be a religion? It is not. No one is the head of the "Atheist" church. Atheism has no set of beliefs. No one donates monies toward atheism. To define atheism as a religion makes about as much sense as an English speaker holding a fervent belief that the Italian language should not be spoken.

According to dictionary.com:

theism (noun):
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Atheism: (noun):
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Religion (noun):
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

***************************************

You used a whole lot of text, but you just proved my point. If we accept that definition of religion, Atheism is a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", namely, that the universe has no cause save itself, that its nature is entirely self-contained, and that it has no purpose in a teleological sense, since it has no external referent. These are clearly beliefs, since they cannot be proven in a factual sense (they are not falsifiable, since in order to falsify them, one would require exhaustive knowledge of the universe). So atheism is a religion by both definitions above. You sound really illogical when you insist this is not the case.

Fate:

By the way, the use of qualifications such as "especially" or "usually" do not negate my argument. One might say that birds usually fly. However, penguins do not fly. One might claim that politicians lie, especially if they are presidential candidates. But that would not negate the prior claim that politicians in general lie.

Lockett wrote: "You used a whole lot of text, but you just proved my point. If we accept that definition of religion, Atheism is a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", namely, that the universe has no cause save itself, that its nature is entirely self-contained, and that it has no purpose in a teleological sense, since it has no external referent. These are clearly beliefs, since they cannot be proven in a factual sense (they are not falsifiable, since in order to falsify them, one would require exhaustive knowledge of the universe)."

No, one only needs the existing known knowledge of the universe, which does not require anything supernatural. To put it another way, it is encumbant on a religion to prove its belief in a supernatural being, which has not manifested itself in any way, exists. It is not a belief of the atheist that such a made-up being does not exist. As I aksed before, do you have a belief that leprechauns do not exist or do you not given them any thought since there is no evidence they exist? And leprechauns have more legend behind their existence than God. An atheist no more *believes* that God does not exist than you *believe* that leprechauns do not exist. Its not a belief.

Lockett wrote: "So atheism is a religion by both definitions above. You sound really illogical when you insist this is not the case."

So what do you call your religion that leprechauns do not exist? Aleprechaunianism? Where do I donate?

Fate:

I didn't claim that atheism is a belief about God. I claimed it was a belief about the nature of the universe, which conveniently fit the definition of religion that you gave.

Your discussion of leprechauns is irrelevant. As a side note, you base your conclusion regarding the supernatural on Occam's razor, which could be applied both ways for and against the supernatural depending on perspective. Occam's razor, however, is simply a rule of thumb, not a law of reasoning. The simplest (or most elegant) explanation is not always the most true. For example, Newton's three laws are simpler than that given by quantum mechanics. However, Newton's system is demonstrably flawed.

Occam was a religious philosopher, Newton was a scientist. He postulated his 3 laws on what he observed and using the state of science at the time.science has a method and although the facts learned through scientific method change, the method itself remains the same.

Referring to Newton as an argument to illustrate the truth of Occam's razor is like using creationism to disprove evolution. They are 2 different systems of thought and approaches. In fact they are inherently not comparable.

Just to comment on the leprechauns for the fun of it, I suppose if I were around a group of people that seriously believed in leprechauns and could present evidence, and if I could not readily dismiss them as mentally deranged, then I would have to consider their belief in leprechauns more seriously, even if only to be more certain in rejecting it.

The difference between this and major world religions is that serious religions are based on historical fact and (for the most part) have coherent and consistent claims about the nature of the man, his origins, and his purpose.

There was a man named Jesus, who claimed to be God or equal to God, who was crucified, and whose followers claim to have observed alive after his death.

There was a man name Siddartha Gautama who gave up riches in order to seek truth, who had a series of epiphanies that became Buddhism [BTW, pure philosophical Buddhism itself is atheistic - it denies cause and effect, and sees only sequence; it professes anatman, i.e. the lack of soul]

There was a man named Mohammed who claimed to hear voices from God, and who together with his followers conquered much of the ancient world.

This is the pedigree of major religions. Each one can be made to look foolish by examining its adherents, and in some cases, its founder. But that does little to establish or deny the founding ethos of each one.

Atheism should be more of a sentiment than a conviction, but it is a belief about man and his origins nonetheless. As such, it is a religion.

And that makes the atheists that say that religion is the root of all human ills sound extremely foolish - if not a little dangerous, since, viewing atheism as a religion, we can see that it is just another form of sectarianism, and potentially just as murderous.

Sparrow:

In Occam's day (13th century?) science and religion were not considered so distinct as they are today. In any case the principle is applied quite often in the natural sciences today.

The point with Newton was to say that Newton's laws were highly accurate with respect to the measuring tools that were available in his day. But with more accurate tools and more exploration, later scientists discovered phenomena that Newton knew nothing about. In other words, Newton's knowledge was incomplete, therefore his conclusions were incomplete as well. Anyhow, the particular example is not that important.

Atheism is not a religion. there are no churches, no ceremonies, no book to follow, no unified system of beliefs. For most people it is a personal belief in how they perceive the universe.

Are not atheists allowed to have strong convictions? I question your idea that it should be a sentiment, not a conviction. I have a conviction the sky is blue. does that make it a religion? I don't think so.

Religious beliefs are your strong convictions and religious people also have strong convictions about other things. Cats are better than dogs, Tom Sawyer is an immoral book, etc. Religion, and the entities that grow up around a belied are based on a belief in g-d, or g-ds, by definition. Without a belief in a supernatural Being, you have politics and sociology, not religion.

Sparrow,

I'm surprised you say that Occam's razor is not applicable to science. In fact, scientists, especially Physicists, use it all the time - wittingly or not. It is simply the principle that the most elegant theory is correct.

As to the scientific method, it is useful, but not immutable, and certainly not Platonic. And if you had only the scientific method, but no genius or intuition, you would never get anywhere in science. The scientific method alone is not sufficient to generate hypotheses. Science is not quite so methodical as it proponents maintain.

Anon:

I suppose you missed the entire discussion with Fate below. Atheism is a religion according to a 3rd party definition of both atheism and religion. If you wish to define them differently, feel free, but please provide your definitions. Religion does not require "churches, ceremonies, books to follow, etc." It only requires a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, which atheism has.

The orginal meaning of sentiment is "a considered opinion". I consider a conviction to be a sentiment infused with passion. I doubt that the blueness of the sky invokes passion for you. You do not passionately argue against someone who does not believe the sky is blue. You think, "what an idiot", and move on with your life. (Of course, the sky is not only or always blue, but that is beside the point). If atheism were a sentiment in the older sense, then atheists would simply scoff at foolish theists, and then ignore them. What I see instead is that atheists have whole organizations directed towards the disparagement or destruction of other religions, viz. Richard Dawkins, "The Golden Compass", etc. These people preach atheism with the evangelical fervor of a true convert. You can agree with them, or not. But this is a conviction, not merely a "considered opinion".

Lockett: The definition says -as per you- Religion (noun):
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism addresses the belief (not a set of)there is no G-d. there are no unified beliefs about the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. Many atheists may be scientists and of course they study the nature of the universe by scientific method, but of course science is not religion which is based on faith. So this definition is not applicable to atheism. You'll also note that your definition includes the words" usually involving devotional and ritual observances"- atheism does not have devotional and ritual observances.

"I consider a conviction to be a sentiment infused with passion." You stated atheism should be a sentiment, not a conviction. That is your opinion and really has no implications for either religion or atheism. Passion is not associated only with religion. Having passions does not make what you are passionate about, a religion.

Actually, as an artist I do get passionate about the color blue. And as you mention the sky is not always blue. But think of a blind person who has been told the sky is blue. I am passionate about my conviction (based on observation) the sky is blue and say so -it is not a religious statement. The blind person, listening to me can either be skeptical or take a leap of faith and believe the sky is blue because of my conviction. In neither case does religion play a role. You can have both faith in something and conviction without religion. In other words, faith and conviction are not solely in the realm of religion.

Atheists do have organizations, granted. So do plumbers, masons, doctors, secretaries. To claiming they exist solely to disparage or destroy religion is founded totally in your own religious convictions and those by nature are prejudiced against those who do not believe. If you want to understand the fervor of atheists (and I do not consider myself an atheist fyi) look to your own attitude. Look at the history of the catholic church, the Protestant reformation and fundamentalist Islam- all done in the name of G-d, and supposedly "with G-d on our side." How can you think atheists would not be passionately convinced that a belief in G-d brings nothing but heartache and pain? As for the Golden Compass- well... that seems a little paranoid. Especially in light of the extremely distasteful Left Behind series so popular amoung Christians.

Lockett wrote: "Religion does not require "churches, ceremonies, books to follow, etc." It only requires a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, which atheism has.

I agree that a religion only requires a set of beliefs and not rituals, but atheism does NOT have a set of beliefs. Can you tell me what they are for I have no idea what an atheist believes? They may believe the universe was created in a big bang as evidence suggests, or they may believe that the universe is in a steady state of expansion/contraction, as other less likely theories suggest. Atheists only have one thing in common and that is a non-belief in the supernatural that works to shape the natural through a consciousness. That does not make the non-belief a religion anymore than you and I are of the aleprechaunian religion. You will find atheists disagreeing on many topics of origins and ethics, but not members of a real religion where a set of beliefs are based solely on some scripture, and not science or rationality.

Lockett wrote: "You do not passionately argue against someone who does not believe the sky is blue. You think, "what an idiot", and move on with your life. (Of course, the sky is not only or always blue, but that is beside the point)."

What of a person who believes God "makes" the sky blue? Are they deranged? Would you argue that it is actually Rayleigh Scattering, a well known and understood physical phenomenon which can be reproduced?

Lockett wrote: "If atheism were a sentiment in the older sense, then atheists would simply scoff at foolish theists, and then ignore them."

They usually do...when was the last time you saw atheists outside any house of worship scoffing? Pretty rare to non-existant.

Lockett wrote: "What I see instead is that atheists have whole organizations directed towards the disparagement or destruction of other religions, viz. Richard Dawkins, "The Golden Compass", etc."

These are individual books by individual authors who make separate arguments against not just the existance of God but organized religion. This is more like political books written by Solchenitzen, Churchill, and other political writers. They are not discussing topics of a new religion or organizing one.

Lockett wrote: "These people preach atheism with the evangelical fervor of a true convert. You can agree with them, or not. But this is a conviction, not merely a "considered opinion"."

No, they make arguments against many religions and do not propose a religion that is better. Instead they simply propose that ALL religions are wrong in their supernatural beliefs and that their ethics and morality are based on shifting sands of books that contradict themselves and in many ways call for the sins they also do not allow. Arguing against a religion's tenants and foundations is not a religion in itself any more than anti-communism is a religion, or anti-corruption is a religion, though some who are anti-commmunist and anti-corruption have been said to have a religious zeal for their work. That is not that same as an actual religion.

anon: Occams razor is a principle that really involves a approach to choices, and which choice would be the most likely. There are loads of elegant theories but it does not make them correct. And while it is a philosophical approach to ideas, scientific or otherwise, Occam's razor cannot form the basis of scientific method.

"As to the scientific method, it is useful, but not immutable, and certainly not Platonic. And if you had only the scientific method, but no genius or intuition, you would never get anywhere in science."

The premise behind science is that it is provable or reproducible. Scientific method is the discipline involved in substantiating observations. It's not merely "useful"- it is the basis of science. And that concept is immutable.

Of course genius and intuition play great roles in science. But intuition and genius are not the same as religion or faith. Einstein was a genius and he intuited his theories long before scientists were able to prove them. But you can't rely on Occam's razor to prove them, as elegant (but certainly not simple) as they are.

I stated atheism's religious beliefs earlier. The core atheist creed is that the universe in general, and man in particular, reached its current form as a result of purely natural processes, i.e. the universe is self-contained and has no external cause. This is a belief, and if used as a foundational one, it is a religious belief.

Several other derivative beliefs are very common, such as:

1. Empiricism - those things are true which can be demonstrated experimentally
2. Faith in human reason - a belief that mankind is capable of discovering anything of use by the application of his reason
3. Belief that ignorance is the scourge of the earth, and education (of the proper kind, of course) is its solution

etc.

These are all beliefs. As such, they form a religious outlook that governs how its adherents direct their energies and resources.

Thus atheism is a religion in any sufficiently general sense.

Sparrow:

I actually agree with you in all except your 3rd paragraph. I was not advocating Occam's razor as a method of proving anything. I was stating that to be an atheist, you have to apply Occam's razor in order to concluding that an explanation that excludes the supernatural is more elegant than one that does not.

But as you say, Occam's razor proves nothing. It is simply a useful tool for when you have to live in the real world, and don't have the luxury of perfect proof for much of anything.

Which leads to my comment about your 3rd paragraph. Proof is a very tricky word, and is more often than not interpreted subjectively. Anyhow, the scientific method is a very useful tool.

Alan Lockett:
"I stated atheism's religious beliefs earlier." You keep insisting on calling atheism a religion and yet you haven't proved your contention.
"The core atheist creed is that the universe in general, and man in particular, reached its current form as a result of purely natural processes, i.e. the universe is self-contained and has no external cause. This is a belief, and if used as a foundational one, it is a religious belief."

Atheism is a belief based on science, not on faith. There are 2 types of beliefs- ones based on faith and ones based on science or "naturalism". By its very nature,religion is based on faith. "Empiricism", faith in human reason and education are not religious beliefs albeit they are systems of belief. But playing semantics with the words "belief & faith" to prove your argument won't make atheism a religion.

Atheism is a doctrine. doctrines can be legal, military, religious body of teachings, instructions or a code of beliefs.

Religion requires faith to accept G-d, something you can't see, or touch, or feel. Atheism rejects the belief in a supreme being for that very reason. Trying to force atheism into the mold of religion is to misunderstand atheism and careless about religion.

Regarding Occam's razor- Atheists do not use Occam's Razor for their disbelief. They base their rejection of G-d on tangibles, on what they can see, and touch and measure.They aren't interested in the elegance of the argument but in the truth of the argument.

Science is based on methodology. Scientific method is not simply a useful tool- Science is defined as :"(from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "to know") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work"

Scientific method is not simply a "useful tool" as you insist on calling it. It is the basis of science. Redefining atheism as a religion negates the whole concept. It's a very Orwellian idea,like Love is Hate. The danger is that by redefining atheism as religion, you redefine religion and destroy the meaning of both.

Lockett wrote: "The core atheist creed is that the universe in general, and man in particular, reached its current form as a result of purely natural processes, i.e. the universe is self-contained and has no external cause. This is a belief, and if used as a foundational one, it is a religious belief."

It is not a belief. It is based on the evidence presented through science and observation. And how the universe came about is not entirely clear nor many aspects about it, such as dark matter and dark energy. And these understandings of our universe may change over time as science learns more. There is no central dogma, no central "faith" that an atheist holds. It is simply the non-belief in a supernatural world or being which has no evidence. Atheism is no more a belief than your believing that there is no flying spaghetti monster.

Lockett wrote: "Several other derivative beliefs are very common, such as:
1. Empiricism - those things are true which can be demonstrated experimentally
2. Faith in human reason - a belief that mankind is capable of discovering anything of use by the application of his reason
3. Belief that ignorance is the scourge of the earth, and education (of the proper kind, of course) is its solution
etc."

These are not so much beliefs as they are methods, proven methods. Methods to predict things or methods to some end. They also have been proven to exist through observation. These are not beliefs if they have evidence behind them. Once a belief is proved to exist, and is repeatable, it is no longer a belief but becomes a fact. If God were to come down and heal all the sick and turn water coming out of a faucet into wine, atheists would have no reason not to conclude God was real. There is no "atheists faith" that says God cannot exist, just that there is no evidence for God existing or anything else that is supernatural.

Lockett wrote: "These are all beliefs. As such, they form a religious outlook that governs how its adherents direct their energies and resources."

No, these are proven methods. They may have a form of belief behind them but it is a faith in the method having been proven to work. You are comparing the tangible with the intangible. For example, faith in human reason is tangible. It has been shown to exist, it is repeatable, it can be a useful method and so it is a useful tool, one that exists. Faith in God is not tangible, faith does not produce repeatable results that prove a direct effect from a God, and any experiment that uses faith to produce an effect is very likely to fail. That is not the case with the three methods you call faith.

Lockett wrote: "Thus atheism is a religion in any sufficiently general sense."

No, atheism has no doctrine. If God were to appear He would be considered natural, a part of the universe we were not aware of. His existance would be accepted and studied. To put it another way, atheists do not "believe". They require proof. If you give them proof then they will accept even the most outlandish things. Show them a flying saucer and aliens and they will accept that they exist, but without evidence they will not accept it because it would be pure belief. Atheists tend to be rationalists and understand the world to be made of tangible things, and even those things we consider intangible, like friendships and love, have a reason for existing, are measurable and are thus real. But God is intangible. God has no basis in reality. God does not create an effect of any measurable kind. Therefore God, any god, does not exist as leprachauns do not exist, as fairies do not exist, as aliens do not exist, as no supernatural diety has ever been proven to exist. But show them evidence to the contrary and there is nothing preventing them from accepting what is shown to be real. However a believer in God is not likely to accept that God does not exist no matter how much you explain that there is no evidence for His existance. It is a pure belief based on nothing that is real and no amount of proof that God's presence cannot be measured will change their faith. It is delusional, believing in something that cannot be shown to exist. Atheists do not suffer from any delusion since what they understand to be real can be measured. That is not a religion, that is simply living within reality. It is not a belief, it is an understanding of what is real and that what cannot be shown to be real is not real. It is sanity while religion, which requires pure belief, requires delusional thinking. Its is the opposite of theism, it is atheism.

First of all, I don't appreciate that you equate atheism with science. The existence or non-existence of supernatural forces is not something that science has the ability to say anything about, precisely because one cannot experiment in any meaningful form on what is by definition not part of the physical world, especially if the supernatural force you wish to examine is a Personality or a Will.

I have no problem equating science with empiricism; the two are basically equivalent in modern usage.

As to my argument that atheism is a religion, it is not Orwellian at all. We used the following definitions:

1. Atheism is a belief that the world and man arose purely as a result of natural process with no external influence.

2. Religion is a set of fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world and its inhabitants.

Ergo, atheism is a religion. Which part of that syllogism do you dispute? You seem very offended, but the logic is indisputable unless you are attacking the premises.

If you mean to say that atheism is the only logical conclusion given what we know from science, and that therefore the "belief" in (1) is actually an established, empirical fact, then I would ask you, what experiment have you devised that generates a preponderance of evidence in favor of your conclusion? And in any case of which I am currently aware, your empirical proof would be insufficient to exclude the existence of God. Therefore, your claim that the world arose from purely natural causes is nothing other than a belief. There is nothing Orwellian about it. If you believe something, it is a belief, unless it is so clearly established as to be a fact.

What I have never said is that science is religion. That would be something verging on Orwellian (though I do not agree that science and religion are pure opposites). Science is a method of discovering and validating the discovery of physical truths. As such, it is a valuable tool. It is not a creed.

So then what exactly are you taking objection to, if not to some implied claim that science is a religion? But the implication was yours; I have not claimed this, and would not, because it is absurd. Atheism is not the only logical outcome of scientific inquiry.

Fate:

Btw, the way you write has all the trappings of religious conviction. And the fact that you can't consider the idea that someone else might not reach the same conclusions you have shows a certain religious fervor on the matter that precludes objective discussion.

And who in the world believes anything for which he has no evidence? To say that your beliefs are not beliefs because they have evidence does not make sense. The scientific method is inductive. A preponderance of evidence is gathered in order to derive a conclusion. This conclusion is necessarily defeasible because it was based on a finite body of evidence. Such is the nature of inductive reasoning.

I believe that there is a God, based the evidence I see around me. Beyond the evidence of order and design ubiquitous in nature, I have a vast array of personal experiences that also serve as evidence. I'll give some examples - you'll think I'm crazy, but I am talking about what I have seen and heard, and there are others who can corroborate many of these things. To start with the basically meaningless, I have seen people shake uncontrollably when I pray for them. I wasn't expecting it, neither were they, and frankly I think it's silly. But there it is. I and my friends have prayed for people and seen them healed of various diseases and injuries - including "incurable" illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis or Cancer. Again, it sounds far fetched but there are other witnesses of these things. In mid-August 2001 I prayed that God would bring judgment on the Taliban for their oppression of the Afghan people. He spoke to me and told me that he would judge them soon. We all know what happened in September 2001, but it wasn't predictable or expected in August. Another, more parochial incident. One morning I prayed for an outreach my church was doing. God told me we would meet a woman named Tiffany, who would come to our meeting that night, and would then become a Christian. It happened exactly that way. Out of thousands of people I know, I only know a handful by the name of 'Tiffany'. Yet this happened exactly as I was told during prayer.

These are just a few of the more notable things that I have experienced personally. I know I'm jumping in deep here, but the bottom line is that empirically, there's no way that I could deny God's existence. You may think me a fool, but I have tried very hard to adhere to the standard of logic and reason. And I believe that I understand these things well enough to apply them; I am no sophist.

Lockett:

Let me say it as simply as I can: Theists have faith in what cannot be seen. Atheists have no faith in what cannot be seen. Not having faith is not "faith". Why is that hard to understand? As I've asked before, if you do not believe in fairies, is that a religion? Is that based on a belief that there are no fairies? Does this "afairianism" religion have a fundamental set of beliefs that guide the believer? I'm not being flippant but this is how your argument that atheism is a religion sounds.

I'm not offended by anything. I object to your manipulation of semantics. Fate wrote an incredibly well done explanation and yet you still persist in saying:" Religion is a set of fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world and its inhabitants."
Yes, it is BUT that's only a partial definition and you know this, because in religion that set of beliefs includes the belief in a supernatural force, or G-d, or greater being. You keep leaving that out and that's where your argument falls apart. You cannot redefine the meaning of religion to suit your argument, especially to make it include a school of thought that is the very antithesis of religion. That's what I found Orwellian.

You wrote: "If you mean to say that atheism is the only logical conclusion given what we know from science, and that therefore the "belief" in (1) is actually an established, empirical fact, then I would ask you, what experiment have you devised that generates a preponderance of evidence in favor of your conclusion?"

In fact I did not say that. Atheists tend to be skeptics but as Fate points out, open-minded in their thinking. They disbelieve in G-d because they think it is a logical conclusion based on the state of knowledge today, and like scientists, they understand that if the state of knowledge changes, so will their conclusion. They are not experimenting to disprove the existence (or not) of G-d, nor do they see any reason to not believe, simply based on principle. In that respect atheism relies on science and that is a far cry from equating atheism with science as you claim I do. Science is a discipline, atheism is a school of thought. I have never said or implied that science is religion. On the other hand, if atheism is a religion as per your definition, then you must also say that science is a religion as well. By removing the belief in g-d from your definition, you remove the very meaning and history of religion.

No one should call you a fool for believing in G-d. Certainly I don't. As I say, I don't count myself an atheist. But the premise of science is that a fact be provable and reproducible. Neither of those are the function of faith or its premise. And science does recognize what it does not know, which is why scientists still search for answers, and why there are scientists who do believe in G-d.

I don't really understand this need to define atheism as a religion. To what purpose? It won't bolster an argument that atheism is merely a weak religion. It doesn't negate your own beliefs. So, why?

Lockett wrote: "Btw, the way you write has all the trappings of religious conviction."

You are saying atheism is a religion. I consider that very wrong. I have also seen this stated by many others in this and other forums. There is a wide view among believers that atheists are not only another religion, but a religion that is against them. I want to set the record straight on what an atheist is and is not.

Lockett wrote: "I believe that there is a God, based the evidence I see around me."

I would bet it was because you were immersed in it from childhood and taught the belief in the supernatural as being real, or at least were brought up to believe a supernatural world exists in the form of magic, Santa, etc.

Lockett wrote: "Beyond the evidence of order and design ubiquitous in nature, I have a vast array of personal experiences that also serve as evidence."

Order? Have you been in SanFranciso durig an earthquake? Design? Have you seen the design of your own digestive system? Maybe you can explain the design criteria for the appendix. Horses have functioning appendixes. Ours does nothing except kill those of us unlucky enough to get them infected. Who ever designed a human apendix would be fired in any engineering company.

Lockett wrote: "I'll give some examples - you'll think I'm crazy, but I am talking about what I have seen and heard, and there are others who can corroborate many of these things. To start with the basically meaningless, I have seen people shake uncontrollably when I pray for them. I wasn't expecting it, neither were they, and frankly I think it's silly. But there it is."

That is interesting. It sounds repeatable and so you should be able to set up an experiment to show that the effect is real. Has it been done? If so why not? Have you done controls, like having the person in a separate room? There are other reasons than the prayer causing the shaking. Humans have terrific peripheral vision, some of it unconscious, yet we perceive sight that does not register. Have you ever ducked but not seen what was coming at you? Someone who you were staring at might have seen you and become fearful and shook, or got a shiver from your stare. I don't know other than there are rational explanations which could be determined through experimentation.

Lockett wrote: "I and my friends have prayed for people and seen them healed of various diseases and injuries - including "incurable" illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis or Cancer. Again, it sounds far fetched but there are other witnesses of these things."

There was a study done to determine if praying for people helped them get better. You can read about one here:
http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=122
Other studies on prayer and healing only found a positive result when the person who was ill was praying for themself or knew they were being prayed for and is considered a placebo effect:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msciprayer.html.
If you believe your experience is real and repeatable, you can be the first to prove its effect through an experiment. And if you did that I would take notice, but considering the very poor results from experiments already done on prayer I'm doubtful.

Lockett wrote: "In mid-August 2001 I prayed that God would bring judgment on the Taliban for their oppression of the Afghan people. He spoke to me and told me that he would judge them soon. We all know what happened in September 2001, but it wasn't predictable or expected in August."

Not sure how you conclude what you conclude. The Taliban have not been judged. Their leader Mulla Omar is still alive. They just killed over 60 people in Pakistan. They are still an organization and its 2008.

Lockett wrote: "Another, more parochial incident. One morning I prayed for an outreach my church was doing. God told me we would meet a woman named Tiffany, who would come to our meeting that night, and would then become a Christian. It happened exactly that way. Out of thousands of people I know, I only know a handful by the name of 'Tiffany'. Yet this happened exactly as I was told during prayer."

Interesting but anecdotal. Now if you had written it down beforehand or even told someone beforehand it would have much more weight. You should als consider that you overheard the name but took no notice, but your unconscious did.

Lockett wrote: "These are just a few of the more notable things that I have experienced personally. I know I'm jumping in deep here, but the bottom line is that empirically, there's no way that I could deny God's existence. You may think me a fool, but I have tried very hard to adhere to the standard of logic and reason. And I believe that I understand these things well enough to apply them; I am no sophist."

Let me share a story with you. I was studying for comprehensive exams in engineering and I just could not get this one system of equations dealing with engines and power. I was very close to just putting it aside and ignoring it so I would have time to study everything else, but a little voice said to me that since it was so hard it would likely be what a professor would put on my test. So I decided to pull an all nighter until I understood it. I did and it was on the test. I do not think that little voice was God. It was my intuition, my brain analysing the situation and bringing to my attention the danger I was heading into by putting that aside and not studying it. It did seem miraculous though. I actually laughed when I saw the problem on the test. But nothing supernatural happened, just good judgement and trusting my gut.

If you believe you can control the supernatural, or that God tells you the future, these are things you can perform experiments on. For example, when God speaks to you write it down in an email and send it to your friends or even just yourself. That will timestamp it. If they continually come true you will have evidence of something. But a good guess now and then happens to all of us, as it did to both you and me. Bad guesses happen too, like when I shifted money into a China fund which is now down 50%. Should I blame God for that? Have you had bad experiences from what you thought was God speaking to you? Maybe this is how we differ. You have a good experience or two and stop and believe without question. I continue to ask questions, which is probably annoying, since I want to determine whether it is real or not. I cannot prove you are jumping to a bad coclusion and you cannot prove you are seeing an actual effect. Unless we do an experiment neither of us can prove anything.

And experiments done so far only bring up a placebo effect at best. Predicting the future has been tested for countless times with no significant results. This is why science has its rules of evidence, how even well crafted experiments can be biased, so care must be taken. The scientific method, as you know to be a proven method at seeking the truth, may be something for you to consider, but it seems you do not need convincing. It is your belief that stops you from going further to determine the truth whereas an atheist would be the first to say 'lets set up an experiment to see if its real'.

Lockett wrote: "In mid-August 2001 I prayed that God would bring judgment on the Taliban for their oppression of the Afghan people. He spoke to me and told me that he would judge them soon. We all know what happened in September 2001, but it wasn't predictable or expected in August."

Would you explain what you mean by this? Are you really saying that your prayers to destroy the Taliban were the reason for 9/11?

I have 2 things to say to that:
1. If you truly believe that, you have absolutely nothing to be proud of, and by viewing 9/11 as the answer to your prayers you only establish yourself as the worshipper and advocate of a being that's closer to Satan than to Christ. That's more than appalling- it's disgusting. And makes you a lot more like the Taliban than you think.

2. The Taliban are out of power but far from destroyed and in fact are regaining in power.

Religious people would label you a hypocrite of the highest order. Atheists would tell you you have just provided them with proof of why atheism is better than religion.

Hmm.... quiet. well I guess if I were Mr. Lockett I wouldn't want to answer those questions either.

Fate, I agree with most of your points about science. I would add that the "order and design" concept is rooted in the false assumption that order could only have been designed. Granted, the possibility of order having a natural cause seems counter-intuitive, because we as humans are designers. But intuition is not evidence.

Put up a plaque that says the cross reflects all the other crosses.
http://www.ericdunn.com/Pictures/2005-July-France/Normandy-Cemetery-2.JPG

There is no terror more terrifying than the terrorism of the horror of horror itself. Those who live in horror of horror itself, paint a big grin on it and call it gay. It is writ that when the nerd calls itself geek and the grind calls itself nerd the Tower of Babel will be rebuilt and ask the Big Question of the Turing Machine:

It's 3AM, who ya gonna call?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uxIo4t7xM

I've never really known a true athiest. Everyone I've ever met is struggling, in one way or another, to understand and establish meaning in their lives. While some people choose to not refer to that meaning as "God," it doesn't make their journey any more (or less!) valid than someone who chooses to use that term.

3 A.M.? A bunch of grunts with guns and Humvees ready to roll, the police, whoever is ready and already awake? The firemen?