It's not what it actually is. It's this politically correct phrase we invented to hide what it actually is.
"It’s not what it actually is. It’s this politically correct phrase we invented to hide what it actually is."
If this were true, then pro-choice would not allow for a choice. They would be forced-abortion.
Strawman arguments are easy to burn, but it doesn't make them right.
@Locked If that's the case then being pro-anything is pro-force. Not only that, but, if it's a "woman's right to choose", then what is the choice? The answer "to carry her baby to term or not" dances around what the choice actually is. The answer "have the baby and out it up for adoption" is constantly shot down as "inhumane" and "cruel". To the pro-"choice"r, the better alternative to having the child is always abortion. Therefore, pro-choice = pro-abortion.
Also, here's a news flash, being "pro" doesn't mean you're advocating for anything to be "forced". Then again, many pro-choicers that buy into the scam of overpopulation think that people out to either be sterilized/forced to have abortions after a certain number of children.
Talk about strawman arguments being easy to burn. You just gave me enough combustibles to have a nice bonfire.
"If that’s the case then being pro-anything is pro-force. Not only that, but, if it’s a “woman’s right to choose”, then what is the choice? The answer “to carry her baby to term or not” dances around what the choice actually is."
Not at all. A woman can choose to carry the child to term or not. There's the choice, and no one pretends it's anything but. That's why you can't call "pro-choice" "pro-abortion" - because it doesn't say someone must have an abortion.
"The answer “have the baby and out it up for adoption” is constantly shot down as “inhumane” and “cruel”."
That is also a choice. But again - a woman should not be forced to take it if it is a choice.
"To the pro-”choice”r, the better alternative to having the child is always abortion."
Categorically 100% false. Again, a strawman argument. .
"Also, here’s a news flash, being “pro” doesn’t mean you’re advocating for anything to be “forced”."
Do you think that a pregnant woman should legally be forced to carry a child to term? Then you are very much forcing the issue.
"Then again, many pro-choicers that buy into the scam of overpopulation think that people out to either be sterilized/forced to have abortions after a certain number of children."
Doesn't change the fact that pro-choice is not forced abortion.
"You just gave me enough combustibles to have a nice bonfire."
And yet you set the same ones up to light on
September 28, 2013 at 9:31am
It gives the power to interfere when one group is taking away the constitutional rights of another group.
September 28, 2013 at 9:30am
You are an idiot. Your brain is clogged with dogma, and you can’t see how stupid you sound.
 September 28, 2013 at 9:22am
I’m sorry Joanofamerica that you feel that way. This is not a judeo-christian nation. It is a secular nation. We live under a constitution, not a christian bible. We are a nation of many religions, and many who do not follow religions. We don’t put your god in front of the right of others.
If you want to live in a religious nation, try moving to Iran.
Sorry edfcvg, you really do not know your American history at all. I'm sure you are a product of the same system that has 'turned' this country into what it is ' becoming'. In that case I see how you may believe what you have posted. You are either ignorant or a liar. This is not ment to be an insult, just the truth. Read a book! Yes the bible would be a good place to start, but I ment a history book!
March 22, 2013 at 9:20am
What if the monument had a half moon on top of it, would you all feel the same way? What if it were the star of David, how would you feel then? Open your eyes christian theist. You are wrong, and they are right.
How many servicemen died for this country yelling Allahu Akbar!
"What if the monument had a half moon on top of it, would you all feel the same way?"
Yes, but what religion uses a half-moon as their symbol?
"What if it were the star of David, how would you feel then?"
Unlike you, I don't give a crap what other people believe, as long as they believe peacefully.
If the monument had the half moon and it had been their since 1972, no christian would have cared less.
I would say the same thing that I say to this now: if it's such an issue, offer up an auction to sell the tiny 3 foot diameter it's on to a local church/temple/mosque (or better yet: donate it). Voila - now it's private land surrounded by public land, and the complaining atheists have no constitutional basis upon which to complain.
Is it a constitutional violation? Courts would probably find it so. Is this a good use a court's time? You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes so.
"How many servicemen died for this country yelling Allahu Akbar!"
I'm pretty sure you're just proving his point that this is an endorsement of religion.
"Yes, but what religion uses a half-moon as their symbol?"
What one does? If you're going to say "Islam," you need to accept that a cross also endorses the religion of Christianity. If you try and take the O-Reillyesque mental gymnastics that "Christianity isn't a religion!" then you have to do the same with Islam... is it Sunni? Shi'a? Sufi? Ahmadiyya? Same with Judaism... is a Star of David representing Orthodox? Kabbala? Reformed? Hasidic?
"If the monument had the half moon and it had been their since 1972, no christian would have cared less."
"Tradition" or "time it's been in place" has no effect on constitutionality. And stating that it's up to only Christians to accept something is both legally and constitutionally wrong.
Sorry if you misunderstood. The crescent moon is the symbol of Islam as you know, not a half moon as he stated. I was just trying to be a **** to the resident athiest.
If the monument had a star or cresent on it, Christians would move on. You should read the book the "Light and the Glory", by Marshal. The pastors in the colonies led the Revolution of 1776. So much so the units were referred to as the "Black Brigades" by the British. The Constitution does not require any faith to hide from your eyes, it requires that Congress make no law regarding the establishment of religion as the King tried to impose the Anglican Church on the colonists.
" The crescent moon is the symbol of Islam as you know, not a half moon as he stated. I was just trying to be a **** to the resident athiest."
I did misunderstand; thank you for the clarification.
Go to Arlington, EDFCVG. First, you will see a fraction of the price paid for your freedom. Second, you will notice there are plenty of monuments with the Star of David instead of a cross. You might even find a crescent or two.
Religion is part of our culture. People, even politicians sometimes adhere to the tenets of their religion, so to see public expressions of that religion is to be expected. The freedom of the exercise is precisely so we can display our religion in public.
Tyrants deny expression, not freedom-loving citizens.
I have to disagree. If this was about a proposal to erect a new monument of a religious nature I could easily see your point in not wanting your tax money being spent on something you do not believe. But this is about something that cost nothing present day, and they are wanting to spend tax payer money to have it removed. This is atheist demanding tax payer money be spent to further their belief which is against the 1st amendment just as much as a christian or any other religion asking for the government to spend money to further their belief.
As an agnostic/atheist, I couldn't care less that the cross or any other symbol is atop the monument.
The purpose of the monument is as a memorial to the fallen. To remember those who came before and fought for freedom. I've never walked past a memorial and thought "Damn endorsement of religion!" I simple say a silent thank you and move on. Remember our past, and those part of it, is not something that is strictly a religious ritual.
Then leave it there. Your hypothetical supposes the half moon or star was placed in 1972 to honor veterans and has not been an issue till now. Why not till now? Leave your hypothetical half moon or star alone. What a stupid question you ask.
Locked, you need to unlock your brain. The symbol of islam is the crescant moon not the half moon. The 1st amendment does not say no religious symbols can be on public property. It says congress cannot establish a religion for the country (like England, France, Spain, etc of that time) and the government can't interfere with a person pursuing their own religion. If FFRF wants a war memorial without any religious symbols on it, they can take up a collection and commission one to be built. The next step after they get rid of all religious themed items in parks WILL be to take them off of graves in national military cemeteries. That will be crossing a line that should not be crossed for 1st amendment reasons.
" The symbol of islam is the crescant moon not the half moon."
You're about three hours late on this one. I suggest reading the posts before you type up a rant next time.
"The 1st amendment does not say no religious symbols can be on public property."
No it doesn't. But the Supreme Court has a history of ruling that doing so is in violation of the Constitution's first amendment. Hence why this is an issue.
"The next step after they get rid of all religious themed items in parks WILL be to take them off of graves in national military cemeteries. That will be crossing a line that should not be crossed for 1st amendment reasons."
I agree; I think the best permanent solution would be an amendment stating that a memorial or gravestone marker with a recognized religious icon should be protected speech under the first amendment even when displayed on public grounds. That leaves no room for any complications. Barring that in the mean time, I offered a valid alternative: donate the monument and the land it's on to a religious organization.
Have you ever been to Omaha beach, Normandy France? There are plenty of Stars of David amongst the crosses. I'm pretty sure that if the soldier had identified himself as a Muslim on his tags there would be the appropriate symbol on his grave. That's the very least you can do for them for sacrificing their lives so that you can sit at your computer in your underwear and talk $h!t.
EDFCVG--- Generally when something's got a "Half moon on it" it's a place to go and take a dump... An Outhouse.
(I assume you meant CRESCENT moon as in "Islamic"-- and the international symbol used on outhouses throughout the world...not that there's much of a difference)
My tax money gets spent on shit I don't agree with on a daily basis. What is your point?
"What if the monument had a half moon on top of it, would you all feel the same way?"
The whole point of the LAW guaranteeing free expression is that it doesn't MATTER how you FEEL about it. We wouldn't need a law protecting our rights unless there were some who wanted to violate them now would we?
What you're really saying is that because you feel like breaking the law, the law is wrong. By that logic, all laws must be wrong because there are by definition some people (criminals) who feel like breaking them.
 March 22, 2013 at 9:18am
very christian of you.
 March 22, 2013 at 9:07am
that’s very christian of you.
 March 22, 2013 at 9:06am
The Atheist group feels the same way about god as they do bigfoot. I’m sure they don’t hate bigfoot, because they don’t believe in bigfoot either. Foolish comment IMMADOG
 March 22, 2013 at 9:04am
That is your belief, however the Atheist group is correct. They are defending the constitution and it does not matter how you feel about the cross our your religion.