Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ellapennella

Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

423 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ellapennella
On 2/26/2019 at 6:21 AM, DingoLingo said:

actually Ella, I will disagree, its because your government is filled with people catering to the religious side of things, think of how far more advanced America would be if you took religion out of the political equation.

Stem Cell research for one example.

Or throw in the senators that wish to turn back the clock and teach creationism in school rather then science.

Religion should not be a political crutch, it should be a individuals right to believe in what they want, be it God, Allah so on and so forth.

Personally I would love to see Atheists doing a door knock, like the Mormons and joho's do.. Or see a Priestess standing on the corner handing out leaflets on why we should pray to the old gods.

I can understand if your country is secular, only one religion, then fine, mix religion with politics, but when you have freedom of religion, then religion has to move away from politics

The World War I memorial known as Bladensburg's Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, is under attack from atheists and Muslims.

An atheist organizations argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a WORLD  WAR l MEMORIAin Bladensburg, Maryland, must be destroyed because it’s in the shape of a cross.

 

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I would like to think we might get secular humanism (or even just humanism) in a democratic governance.

That is basically what Australia  has now, despite attachments to religion in our constitution and customs  

As long as the majority of a democratic country want religion ( or religious values)  included in their government, they will get it, because the y will throw out any govt which tries to deprive them of it  

  

Mr. Walker, I don't think that  what you're suggesting about humanism  will work because all humans  do not hold  the same values.

 

Seven years ago, the American Humanist Association
filed a lawsuit claiming the memorial, on property later acquired by the government, favors one religion over others.

“It seemed likely that the cross will survive the challenge, even if the court’s ruling proves to be a relatively narrow one that allows the peace cross and other historical monuments to stand while making clear that new religious symbols may not pass muster in the future,” the blog said.

The memorial features the names of the 49 soldiers from the area killed in World War I.


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

The World War I memorial known as Bladensburg's Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, is under attack from atheists and Muslims.

An atheist organizations argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a WORLD  WAR l MEMORIAin Bladensburg, Maryland, must be destroyed because it’s in the shape of a cross.

 

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

I would be interested in seeing the statistics for how many people were atheists fighting and/or dieing in WW1, I reckon it would be a very very low figure. 

This type of crap makes me kind of sick. The cross may be a symbol of Christianity, however it's usage here is clearly not only to commemorate Christians, but all people who partook and died in WW1. 

There was a recent story in our news cycle here in Ireland, that focused on a number of hospitals being run by the Catholic Church being asked to remove all religious symbols and change the ward names from Saints to, whatever other names. That's all well and good if the church wasn't running the bloody hospital, if the state was running it I could understand and agree with it. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

The World War I memorial known as Bladensburg's Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, is under attack from atheists and Muslims.

An atheist organizations argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a WORLD  WAR l MEMORIAin Bladensburg, Maryland, must be destroyed because it’s in the shape of a cross.

 

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

Do you see this as something that reflects on all atheist or do you think it's representative of a select few atheists ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

This type of crap makes me kind of sick. The cross may be a symbol of Christianity, however it's usage here is clearly not only to commemorate Christians, but all people who partook and died in WW1. 

I don't disagree that objections to this may be petty, but I don't think the issue has to do with commemorating just Christians.  Would you understand objections to this if it was a crescent and star, or the Star of David?  Christians wouldn't have any kind of legitimate gripe if the name of a fallen Christian soldier was on a sculpture in the shape of the Islamic crescent, even if its usage was also purportedly to commemorate all people who died in that war?  I don't think the cross used as a generic symbol for the dead was something that occurred independently of Christianity, and in almost all other contexts, a cross in this shape is representative specifically of Christianity; it's not 'a' symbol, it is 'the' symbol of Christianity.

(the source of this article, WND, is about the worst also; note how 'remove' has been changed to 'destroy')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't disagree that objections to this may be petty, but I don't think the issue has to do with commemorating just Christians.

It's the pettyness I can't agree with. Instead of creating division between religious and irreligious/atheists a dialogue should be attempted! But it's not, and that's the sad part. 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Would you understand objections to this if it was a crescent and star, or the Star of David?

I understand the objections, I just disagree with the objectors interpretation of what message is and why it's being conveyed by the cross. It appears to me that the symbol is more important than the message. When it should not be. 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Christians wouldn't have any kind of legitimate gripe if the name of a fallen Christian soldier was on a sculpture in the shape of the Islamic crescent, even if its usage was also purportedly to commemorate all people who died in that war? 

I don't think so, but of course some Christians would have issues with this. 

We can suppose look at the use of the poppy as commemoration. You may or may not know the poppy has become a symbol of oppression and anti-catholic violence in Northern Ireland. So often up in the North and in England people decline to wear it, but they don't go around declaring others shouldn't wear either. Look up on Google the sort of crap James McClean gets for declining to wear it, he's an Irish football player from Derry.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think the cross used as a generic symbol for the dead was something that occurred independently of Christianity, and in almost all other contexts, a cross in this shape is representative specifically of Christianity; it's not 'a' symbol, it is 'the' symbol of Christianity.

(the source of this article, WND, is about the worst also; note how 'remove' has been changed to 'destroy')

Id say the crosses use as a generic symbol is soley due to it's association with Christianity. But is that a bad thing? I don't know.

I didn't read the link, I assumed it was one of them hype-media type things.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
13 hours ago, Podo said:

Historically I would say that Monarchy, Communism, Fascism are linked pretty spectacularly to totalitarianism, in practice. Democracy less so,

In fact you can add Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and many others.  Conceptually (or academically) they are all different but that is not what @Ellapennella was comparing (it’s not the words).  It is that they share that link.  It’s that link that is important.  It is far more important than their differences.  Arguing about the differences is like arguing if twix is smothered in chocolate or covered in chocolate?

 

though I will point out that democracies often fail, crumble, and become something ugly if given enough time and moisture.

Democracies usually start off waterlogged.

 

Oh boy, that's the question of the day, isn't it? I say this genuinely because it is my true opinion, and not at all an attempt to wiggle away: I do not think there is an easy answer. If I had to give a number, I'd put it much higher than yours, nearer to 60-70%.

One attribute I did not include for this spectrum is that every government no matter where it starts on the spectrum, has the tendency to drift toward the 100% end.  Some slide toward tyranny faster than others.  Your definition gives a very narrow band for tyranny.  Tyranny is much wider, it doesn’t take much for a government to become tyrannical.

 

That being said, I also think it would depend on how the government in question is using that percentage of control as to whether it was a positive or negative influence on the citizens.

The longer a government stays in power, the more power it takes.  When it takes power, the people lose freedom.  This is a basic axiom.  That is not a positive influence.  Our Founding Fathers understood this and went to great lengths to prevent that from happening.

 

If the society was happy and prosperous, I'd say it is a good thing. If everyone is unhappy, that's a bad thing.

A canary in a gilded cage still sings.  Is it truly happy?  But happy is not what matters.  Free peoples do not do happy.  The Founding Fathers emphasized three rights above all others as the most important, Life, Liberty, and the *Pursuit* of Happiness.  Note, that’s the pursuit of happiness, not just happiness.  Happiness provided by a government is not as satisfying as happiness acquired by the hands of the individual.  What the government can give, it can also take away.  That creates dependency and enslavement.  People do no become or stay prosperous, let alone happy.  It is these three rights that highlight a free people.  This also indicates that government must be limited, that’s where that 30% comes in.  I think that even 30% is too much, I’m just being as open as possible.  60-70% control gives government too much power.  It should never have that much power.

 

At the end of the day, the governing body should serve to reflect the will of the people, so if the people want X restriction or X regulation, that's not inherently a bad thing, provided that such restrictions can once more be removed should the majority deem it necessary.

The government only serves its own interests and the will of the people isn’t one of them.  You make it sound like a common place?  The thing is, is that the people do not require too many things to be restricted or regulated except for government itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It's the pettyness I can't agree with. Instead of creating division between religious and irreligious/atheists a dialogue should be attempted! But it's not, and that's the sad part.

This case has been working through the legal system for at least 4 years now. How do you know this dialogue hasn't already been attempted?

19 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It appears to me that the symbol is more important than the message. When it should not be. 

Then Christians shouldn't be all uptight about the request to move this cross (which is an inconspicuous 40 feet tall...) and replacing it with a more suitable marker, since as you say the symbol shouldn't be so important to them.  I've read that this monument is starting to deteriorate and is in need of repair, might be a good time to move it, although ultimately I think the Humanist association will likely lose this case.

25 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We can suppose look at the use of the poppy as commemoration. You may or may not know the poppy has become a symbol of oppression and anti-catholic violence in Northern Ireland. So often up in the North and in England people decline to wear it, but they don't go around declaring others shouldn't wear either. Look up on Google the sort of crap James McClean gets for declining to wear it, he's an Irish football player from Derry.

I'll have to look that up I've never heard of it, sounds similar to the loss of marbles that occurs here by some who are just a bit too preoccupied with what other people do when our national anthem is played at football games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Seems like selling or ceding the small plot of ground the cross occupies to a church or other private organization who would take over upkeep and maintenance, would render the point of the lawsuit moot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

In fact you can add Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and many others.  Conceptually (or academically) they are all different but that is not what @Ellapennella was comparing (it’s not the words).  It is that they share that link.  It’s that link that is important.  It is far more important than their differences.  Arguing about the differences is like arguing if twix is smothered in chocolate or covered in chocolate?

Well if you're going to get that granular, then as I and other posters have already said, any governing body can slip into totalitarianism if given enough time and resources. Everything is and has become totalitarian at some point of human history, and I doubt that'll change. It's human nature to be greedy and seek power, unfortunately.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Democracies usually start off waterlogged.

Yep, because few controlling bodies will willingly give up power and let people decide what's what.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

One attribute I did not include for this spectrum is that every government no matter where it starts on the spectrum, has the tendency to drift toward the 100% end.  Some slide toward tyranny faster than others.  Your definition gives a very narrow band for tyranny.  Tyranny is much wider, it doesn’t take much for a government to become tyrannical.

I agree, everything tries to eventually get more power. We can argue over the definition of tyranny but ultimately it is a matter of opinion, and it's clear that we differ in this, so let's skip that particular semantic shenanigan.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

A canary in a gilded cage still sings.  Is it truly happy?

A canary can't talk, humans can.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

But happy is not what matters.  Free peoples do not do happy. 

I'm free and I'm pretty happy. Lots of people are happy. What do you mean here?

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The Founding Fathers emphasized three rights above all others as the most important, Life, Liberty, and the *Pursuit* of Happiness.  Note, that’s the pursuit of happiness, not just happiness. 

Your founding fathers have no bearing on my life, so I'm unsure why they matter in this discussion.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Happiness provided by a government is not as satisfying as happiness acquired by the hands of the individual. 

That's your opinion. If a person is happy, has their needs met, and is content, that's a good thing. Suffering on your own terms in an unregulated society sounds rather miserable to me, but I guess I value a person's wellbeing more than you do.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

What the government can give, it can also take away.  That creates dependency and enslavement.

There is no way to be truly independent from other humans, though; not even ancient societies had true isolation, the family/tribe/city-state/etc was always the focus and the governing body of one's life. We are a tribal species that generally finds a way to create heirarchies when none exist. Furthermore, I would argue that the government should reflect the values of the people, so if the majority want something changed/taken away, then it should be. I recognize that in practice this is often not the case, but that's how it should work, in a proper democratic system. Governments are run by people for people, that's their purpose, and that purpose involves imposing rules and regulations on citizens. If a citizen does not like a country's rules, they have (or should have) the right to leave.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

People do no become or stay prosperous, let alone happy.

That entirely depends on your cultural definition of what prosperity is. If your only judge of prosperity is material wealth, you're a very sad individual.

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

This also indicates that government must be limited, that’s where that 30% comes in.  I think that even 30% is too much, I’m just being as open as possible.  60-70% control gives government too much power.  It should never have that much power.

I shrug heavily at this and simply disagree. Even if I cared what your founding fathers say, which I resoundingly do not, I'd still point out that this quote you're brandishing about can be interpreted in a million ways, since it's wholly unsubstantiated and suuuper vague. This vagueness would be why your country is in such a divided and sorry state, I suspect. Oh well. Once you guys sort it out, let me know how it goes ^_^

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The government only serves its own interests and the will of the people isn’t one of them.

In many places, yes. In others, no. In most, it's some shade of grey. The world isn't as black-and-white as you're trying to make it. But that's your opinion and you're welcome to it :)

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

he thing is, is that the people do not require too many things to be restricted or regulated except for government itself.

A cursory look at history shows that this is demonstrably untrue. Regulation gave us wildlife conservation, worker's rights, safety codes, healthcodes, building standards, sanitation rules, weekends, healthcare, scientific ethical guidelines, and a million other positive things. Before regulations the only difference was that the rich had even more power than they have now, which is too damn much. Human life is more peaceful and our quality of life is higher right now than it has been in any other point in human history. That doesn't mean that there aren't things that could be improved, because there certainly are, but don't pretend like the lawless past was some kind of utopia. The only people who think that are the ones who have convinced themselves that they'd be a main character in Mad Max, when in reality they'd be the poor starving peasant in the background, dying at the ripe old age of 30 from some preventable malady. Wholesale lack of regulation leads to might-makes-right tyranny, and we both know by now that you agree that tyrants are bad. 

Edited by Podo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
45 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 But happy is not what matters.  Free peoples do not do happy.

I'm afraid I don't know how you define happy ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

There is nothing whatever that says socialism has to be totalitarian.  It can easily be democratic.

I note that totalitarian regimes like to "collectivize" economic activity under government ownership/control.  That's communism, not socialism.

I also note that Ocasio-Cortez has not advocated converting the US to socialism.  She is proposing some changes that easily fit within the limits of capitalism.  I really don't see what all the conservative alarmism is about.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
3 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I'm afraid I don't know how you define happy ?

Happy is being content with what you have.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
39 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seems like selling or ceding the small plot of ground the cross occupies to a church or other private organization who would take over upkeep and maintenance, would render the point of the lawsuit moot.

That would work, although there's been so much development since it was put up in the 20's that it is now located on the median of a divided highway.  Not sure if they typically allow land in highway medians to be privately owned, not aware of any in Michigan at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is nothing whatever that says socialism has to be totalitarian.  It can easily be democratic.

I note that totalitarian regimes like to "collectivize" economic activity under government ownership/control.  That's communism, not socialism.

I also note that Ocasio-Cortez has not advocated converting the US to socialism.  She is proposing some changes that easily fit within the limits of capitalism.  I really don't see what all the conservative alarmism is about.

Doug

The alarmism is because they don't want any limits on the powers of the rich. Lack of regulation allows for unrestrained selfishness, which is basically the conservative mantra.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seems like selling or ceding the small plot of ground the cross occupies to a church or other private organization who would take over upkeep and maintenance, would render the point of the lawsuit moot.

I'm the first one to poop on Christians doing dumb stuff, but I agree with you entirely. If it is on private land, I see no issue with it. Now, if the issue is the HEIGHT of the monument, that might be a different argument, but as it stands (heh) I see nothing wrong with it remaining, despite my personal objections to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Do you see this as something that reflects on all atheist or do you think it's representative of a select few atheists ?

As an atheist, I personally have no problem with displays like this. Or if it were a Star of David, or a Muslim Crescent.

They are displays honouring the valiant dead. No harm is done.

And I actually consider those rabid atheists who protest nativity scenes to be a few cards short of a deck. I have no issues with people being proud of their faith by displaying it.

I do however, take notice when they try to impose their god beliefs on others lives, and try to dictate how others can live. Whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Hebrew.  If you (general pronoun) want to think that I'm going to hell, you are free to do so. Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me.

You (general pronoun) want prayer in school? Fine by me! Just make sure that EVERY religion is represented!

You (general pronoun) want to erect a monument to the 10 Commandments? Sure, you can put it right next to the Pagan Rede monument. :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Mr. Walker, I don't think that  what you're suggesting about humanism  will work because all humans  do not hold  the same values.

 

Seven years ago, the American Humanist Association
filed a lawsuit claiming the memorial, on property later acquired by the government, favors one religion over others.

“It seemed likely that the cross will survive the challenge, even if the court’s ruling proves to be a relatively narrow one that allows the peace cross and other historical monuments to stand while making clear that new religious symbols may not pass muster in the future,” the blog said.

The memorial features the names of the 49 soldiers from the area killed in World War I.


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

 

 It may not work perfectly, but it would provide a viable workable and constructive alternative to religious values, with  perhaps more consistency than found between religious beliefs.

  One flaw with radical humanists is an antagonism to religion which does not recognise it's value in human lives, as a psychological and physical tool for healing and empowerment.

A true humanist includes faith and belief as part of the human condition even where they dont require it for themsleves.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

As an atheist, I personally have no problem with displays like this. Or if it were a Star of David, or a Muslim Crescent.

Me neither. Sometimes people have to relax a bit and stop getting offended by things like this. 

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

They are displays honouring the valiant dead. No harm is done.

Excactly. The fighting in WW1 was horrifc in its brutality and the troops deserve some kind of monument for what they did.

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

And I actually consider those rabid atheists who protest nativity scenes to be a few cards short of a deck. I have no issues with people being proud of their faith by displaying it.

Atheists like that are not helping, quite the reverse.

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I do however, take notice when they try to impose their god beliefs on others lives, and try to dictate how others can live. Whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Hebrew. 

Agreed.

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

If you (general pronoun) want to think that I'm going to hell, you are free to do so.

I have never understood why some religious nutters think I should be afraid of being sent to a place I don't believe exists ? 

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me.

Religion should be a private matter. As long as you follow the law and don't impose on other people you can believe what you want. 

18 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You (general pronoun) want prayer in school? Fine by me! Just make sure that EVERY religion is represented!

Why not just do silent prayers ? That way people can pray to whatever they like without offending anyone. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
18 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This case has been working through the legal system for at least 4 years now. How do you know this dialogue hasn't already been attemptattempted?

just speaking in general!

Then Christians shouldn't be all uptight about the request to move this cross (which is an inconspicuous 40 feet tall...) and replacing it with a more suitable marker, since as you say the symbol shouldn't be so important to them.  I've read that this monument is starting to deteriorate and is in need of repair, might be a good time to move it, although ultimately I think the Humanist association will likely lose this case.

Yeah your correct about that, the symbol should not matter and if it doesn't then what's the hullabaloo about? 

I don't know anything about the case, as I said I haven't heard anything about it.

I'll have to look that up I've never heard of it, sounds similar to the loss of marbles that occurs here by some who are just a bit too preoccupied with what other people do when our national anthem is played at football games.

Some British newspapers have accused him of being a terrorist, he declines to wear it because of Bloody Sunday. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seems like selling or ceding the small plot of ground the cross occupies to a church or other private organization who would take over upkeep and maintenance, would render the point of the lawsuit moot.

We can't and shouldn't get rid of all crosses and other signs of religion in our communities.  They are part of our heritage, monuments to how we used to do things when we didn't know any better.

That the road was built after the cross was erected, is unfortunate, but the cross was part of the landscape at the time and should remain.

 

That being said, giant crosses are an eyesore.  Tacky done in the name of god is still tacky.  Examples:  the large cross along I-35 north of Oklahoma City and the giant one at Effingham, Illinois.  "My god's bigger than your god."  Really?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

We can't and shouldn't get rid of all crosses and other signs of religion in our communities.  They are part of our heritage, monuments to how we used to do things when we didn't know any better.

That the road was built after the cross was erected, is unfortunate, but the cross was part of the landscape at the time and should remain.

 

That being said, giant crosses are an eyesore.  Tacky done in the name of god is still tacky.  Examples:  the large cross along I-35 north of Oklahoma City and the giant one at Effingham, Illinois.  "My god's bigger than your god."  Really?

Doug

Not just a Christian thing.

fat+buddha+statue.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herr Falukorv
On 2019-02-27 at 11:57 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I'm a capitalist atheist. I think there should be some limits on capitalism, but as a basic economic system I think its the best we got. What we have in my neck of the woods seems about right to me.

I wonder if this could be the first time I agree with you :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
3 hours ago, Herr Falukorv said:

I wonder if this could be the first time I agree with you :D

I said my neck of the woods. Not the savages on the other side of the Øresund. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
On 2/28/2019 at 11:20 AM, Ellapennella said:

The World War I memorial known as Bladensburg's Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, is under attack from atheists and Muslims.

An atheist organizations argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a WORLD  WAR l MEMORIAin Bladensburg, Maryland, must be destroyed because it’s in the shape of a cross.

 

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/supremes-hear-atheists-demand-to-remove-wwi-memorial/#RzwYqmABEJSRCDK7.99

Well, that's nuts and very sad, and I'm an atheist. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.