Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…3435373940…101

Comments

  • #1082
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    There have been many myths taught as fact down the years ... and they weren't all taught in religous schools.

    oscarBravo
    True. Would you agree that that's a bad thing, and that it's a practice that should be eliminated completely?
    Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief.

    For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this. It's all part of the cultural diversity of Mankind that also encompasses religion/irreligion.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you choose. I won't agree to your insistence that my taxes should fund the teaching of that nonsense to children.
    You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ... and you have it in relation to yours.
    If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...
    ... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ... and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.


  • #1083
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Sectarianism is religious/irreligious hatred ... and that certainly doesn't apply to a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other chidren attending the school.

    SW
    that's extreme sectarianism.

    Sectarianism is beliefs pertaining to a sect, e.g. Christianity. So you are a supporter of sectarian schools.
    ... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.

    Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
    ... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.

    That's not how things work guys!!!;)

    ... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.

    Like most things in life, people who insist on getting it all their own way ... very often end up getting nothing!!!


  • #1084
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    ... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.
    90% of parents in the State don't send their children to schools that teach religious/irreligious hatred. You seem to be confusing your own argument?
    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
    ... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.
    I think you're mistaken in assuming that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other children attending the school. The census didn't report that. It would be more accurate to assume that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a school where they will receive a good education in factual information, and would be happy for the school to ignore their religious beliefs entirely, safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.
    Firstly, banning the teaching of religious dogma is not the same as banning religious expression.
    Secondly, when the level of 'choice' is only increased by teaching additional non-factual information, there's no actual gain to students. Better to choose from a limited range of educational establishments than to have to select from a broad range of educational and non-educational establishments.


  • #1085
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    90% of parents in the State don't send their children to schools that teach religious/irreligious hatred. You seem to be confusing your own argument?
    I didn't say they did ... I said that they sent their children to religious ethos schools that taught children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. It was SW who deemed such an attitude to be 'extreme sectarianism' when it is actually 'extreme respect' for diversity of religion and none.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you're mistaken in assuming that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a a Christian School teaching the love of Jesus Christ to Christian children attending the school and respecting the faith or none of all other children attending the school. The census didn't report that. It would be more accurate to assume that 90% of our neighbors want their children to attend a school where they will receive a good education in factual information, and would be happy for the school to ignore their religious beliefs entirely, safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time.
    How can anybody be at all safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time ... if their children are in a school environment that is so hostile to their Christian beliefs that they dare not open their mouths to pray or speak of Jesus Christ and where their pastors are unwelcome ... which seems to be the type of 'secular' school model being advocated for the future, on this thread.

    Religious ethos schools already provide a very good factual education ... indeed, many of the very best schools in Ireland (in terms of exam results and entry to high point University courses) are religious ethos schools ... so please don't try the 'old chestnut' that religious ethos schools waste too much time on religion - or somehow perform poorer from an academic or exam point of view ... because this simply isn't true.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Firstly, banning the teaching of religious dogma is not the same as banning religious expression.
    Secondly, when the level of 'choice' is only increased by teaching additional non-factual information, there's no actual gain to students.
    Firstly, there is little practical difference between banning what you term religious dogma or religious expression ... and both would be banned if most of the contributors to this thread have their way.
    Secondly, there is considerable gain to students in studying the spiritual and theological dimensions to our existence (what you seem to be calling 'non-factual information') as well as 'ordinary' school subjects.
    ... and, like I have said, most of the very best and academically highest performing schools in Ireland have a religious ethos.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Better to choose from a limited range of educational establishments than to have to select from a broad range of educational and non-educational establishments.
    What do you mean by 'non-educational establishments'?
    ... some of the very best schools in Ireland have a religious ethos ... are you saying they are 'non-educational establishments' ... even though they are consistently within the top tenth percentile of schools in terms of exam results?

    ... but why am I surprised ... ye guys also 'rubbish' eminently and conventionally qualified scientists simply because they are Creationists.


  • #1086
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    I didn't say they did ... I said that they sent their children to religious ethos schools that taught children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. It was SW who deemed such an attitude to be 'extreme sectarianism' when it is actually 'extreme respect' for diversity of religion and none.
    Hmm. I would dispute that 90% of parents in the State send their children to religious ethos schools that teach children about the love of Jesus Christ and respect for the faith or none of other children attending those schools. You've provided no evidence that faith schools, or schools with a religious ethos, actually do any of that, even if that 90% specifically chose such a school, which frankly, they don't. Certainly my 13 years with the Christian brothers didn't include lessons in 'extreme respect' for any kind of diversity, quite the opposite.
    J C wrote: »
    How can anybody be at all safe in the knowledge they can handle religious instruction in family/church time ... if their children are in a school environment that is so hostile to their Christian beliefs that they dare not open their mouths to pray or speak of Jesus Christ and where their pastors are unwelcome ... which seems to be the type of 'secular' school model being advocated for the future, on this thread.
    If a religious parent isn't confident in their ability to pass on their faith without the assistance of a state education system then perhaps their faith isn't all that strong to begin with? No one has posited an education system that is hostile to religious belief, only one that doesn't include religion.
    J C wrote: »
    Religious ethos schools already provide a very good factual education ... indeed, many of the very best schools in Ireland (in terms of exam results and entry to high point University courses) are religious ethos schools ... so please don't try the 'old chestnut' that religious ethos schools waste too much time on religion - or somehow perform poorer from an academic or exam point of view ... because this simply isn't true.
    Yes the vast majority of schools in Ireland were founded with a religious ethos, even if that ethos has grown less prevalent. It's no surprise then that they're amongst the top performing schools; and no reflection on the religious ethos either. Nor is education about religions a waste of time; it's state sponsorship of education in religion that is at issue here. A secular state simply shouldn't pay for the advancement of any religious perspective.
    J C wrote: »
    Firstly, there is little practical difference between banning what you term religious dogma or religious expression ... and both would be banned if most of the contributors to this thread have their way.
    There is enormous practical difference. Encouraging and leading children in prayer in the context of educating them is a million miles from permitting children to pray whilst they are not being educated if they choose.
    J C wrote: »
    Secondly, there is considerable gain to students in studying the spiritual and theological dimensions to our existence (what you seem to be calling 'non-factual information') as well as 'ordinary' school subjects.
    There is an educational gain there; but philosophy is a factual subject and can be studied without resorting to a requirement of belief in the supernatural.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and, like I have said, most of the very best and academically highest performing schools in Ireland have a religious ethos.
    Like I said, their performance position doesn't necessarily correlate with their religious ethos.
    J C wrote: »
    What do you mean by 'non-educational establishments'?
    I mean that an establishment that presents non factual information in a fashion intended to convey the appearance of education is a 'non-educational establishment'. I may be coining an unwieldy term here, but I think you understand.
    J C wrote: »
    ... some of the very best schools in Ireland have a religious ethos ... are you saying they are 'non-educational establishments' ... even though they are consistently within the top tenth percentile of schools in terms of exam results?
    No. As above.
    J C wrote: »
    ... but why am I surprised ... ye guys also 'rubbish' eminently and conventionally qualified scientists simply because they are Creationists.
    Personally, I only rubbish their creationist claims, I have no quibble with their conventional qualifications, particularly when they're eminent.
    J C wrote: »
    Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief. For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this. It's all part of the cultural diversity of Mankind that also encompasses religion/irreligion.
    Indeed, and whilst myths and beliefs can be examined in an educational context, their content cannot be taught as facts.
    J C wrote: »
    You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ... and you have it in relation to yours. If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...
    As a taxpayer, I have every right to contribute an opinion on what the educational curriculum should be. And if the vaunted 90% flex their democratic muscle, we could have a religiously biased curriculum. Forgive me if I find that unlikely to happen.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ... and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.
    Nobody's suggesting children deny their faith, only that the state shouldn't pay, or act, to reinforce it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so 90% of parents in this state are now 'extremely sectarian' as well as 'child abusers' just because they choose to send their children to Christian ethos schools that teach the love of Jesus Christ ... and respect for all persons and their beliefs.
    I would appreciate if you could stop misrepresenting me, JC. I said that schools are sectarian if they divide along religious lines. I did not say it was extreme sectarianism. I also have never said that faith formation is child abuse.
    Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
    ... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.

    That's not how things work guys!!!;)
    I'm not in the business of advocating for faith schools. I want secular schools. I don't see how that is insulting anyone.
    ... and, if you keep insisting on banning religious expression and religious leaders from schools, ye are going to 'snatch defeat from the jaws of victory' when it comes to setting up schools that offer greater choice to parents and children ... including atheist parents and their children.
    Who is suggesting banning religion from schools? I have repeatedly said that religion classes are fine by me.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1088
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @JC you can't say faith schools are better or worse than secular schools in Ireland seeing as faith schools have a virtual monopoly and there are no secular public schools.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1089
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Like I have said, you guys seem to prefer to needlessly insult and bad-mouth 90% of your neighbours ... rather than presenting whatever positives that your belief system could offer them and their children.
    ... and instead of trying to convince Christians of the benefits of attending an irreligious school ... ye simply expect the state to force them to send their children to such schools.

    That's not how things work guys!!!

    I live in a nice cul de sac 8 of houses, I am not Christian, My friend across the road Malik is a Muslim and of the families on either side of me one is jewish and the other like me is an atheist. Not sure about the other 4 families but for sure 50% of my neighbours are not christian so your 90% comments (along with many others) are wrong.


  • #1090
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    but that is just my opinion - and I could be wrong.;)

    Finally, something is getting through to you after all this time.


  • #1091
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Myths are simply ways of people expalining their worldview to themselves and to others. One person's myth is often another person's deeply held belief.
    ...and no myths should be taught in school. Education should consist of the imparting of facts, as well as teaching children how to think in logical ways.

    If you believe that a school should teach children that the world was created a few thousand years ago in six literal twenty-four hour days, complete with talking snake and magic tree, fine. If someone else wants to teach children that the world and everything in it came from Lord Brahma's body, fine. But a secular state shouldn't be funding the teaching of either of those fairy tales. If you want to tell your children lies and claim they are unquestionable truths, do it in your own time and your own dime.
    For example, people are quite entitled to believe in the myth that abiogenesis / Spontaneous Evolution occurred ... and any other myths that flow from this.
    Yeah, and other myths like gravity and relativity.

    If your argument boils down to you calling science a myth and therefore no more valid than the nonsense in your holy book, that's fine with me, because it's an argument that ultimately can't win.
    You have no right to determine what is taught / not taught to my children. As a parent, I have that right in relation to my children ...
    Correct. I have no intention of telling you what not to teach your children. The point I keep making, and which you keep ignoring, is that I don't agree with my taxes being used to finance your mythology.
    If I choose a religous school for my chidren, because of the intolerance and disrespect shown to me and my beliefs on this thread ... then I'm quite entitled to do so ...
    ...and I'm entitled to expect you to pay for it yourself.
    ... and as a taxpayer, I'm quite entitled to expect a religion/irreligion neutral state to fund the education of my children to the very same extent as it funds the education of your children ...
    Stop making the teaching of religious dogma and the absence of the teaching of religious dogma equivalents. They're not.
    ...and it shouldn't be a condition of such education that me or my children must deny our faith just like you or your children shouldn't be forced to deny or suppress your atheism either.
    So far, you're the only person who has suggested that it should. You've had that straw man pointed out to you so many times that it's a wonder you haven't been struck down by your own god for lying.

    Oh wait, that's not a wonder at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    J C wrote: »
    I said no such thing ... but now that you mention it, I haven't seen anybody dissociating themselves from what SW had to say.

    I've had this out with you before. You cannot infer how someone thinks from what they don't put in a post. If everyone reading a post had to post if they did or didn't agree, boards would be unusable.
    J C wrote: »
    I directed my comments to SW and his/her supporters ... and if the cap fits you may wear it ... and if it doesn't you don't have to wear it. The choice is up to you.

    You have done this for anyone in disagreement with you, not just "SW and his/her supporters" (whoever they might be).
    J C wrote: »
    If state funding is to go towards the support of irreligion ... then equality demands that state support should also go to religion.

    What? Why is state funding going to the support of irreligion all of a sudden? It is going to schools. Schools where religion may be taught as a subject and may be brought up where relevant to the subject at hand (English, History, Geography, etc.), but should not be mandatory and should not replace other subjects at any time for any reason.
    J C wrote: »
    If schools are to be set up and supported by the state that are anti-religion to the point of banning religious expression within them ... then equality of treatment demands that religiously-tolerant schools should also be supported by any state that is truly neutral on matters of religion/irreligion.

    Nowhere did I so much as imply this. Religious expression should not be banned, but if a teacher is trying to teach maths and a child is interrupting her to say that Tommy is going to burn in hell because he's an atheist, that child should get the same punishment as any child would for wasting class time. You could say that that is suppressing religious expression, but I think it is fair to do in instances like this.
    J C wrote: »
    We live in a liberal secular democracy respectful and supportive of religious equality and diversity ... not some kind of anti-religious atheistic state (like North Korea or a latter-day version of Stalin's Russia) where religion and religious people are suppressed by the state.

    No we don't. We live in a conservative, Catholic-supportive, democratic repulic, tolerant of other religions and disrespectful to those holding minority views. I agree we don't live in an anti-religious state, but honestly think you've strayed mile off topic here.

    I think the problems we're having here J C is that you jump to the binary opposite instead of allowing for the grey areas that exist in life. When I say
    "People shouldn't be forced to eat toffee cake on Thursdays." You seem to think I'm saying
    "People shouldn't ever be allowed to eat cake." when in fact what I'm saying is
    "People should be free to eat whatever flavour cake they wish, whenever they want and be free to not eat cake at all."


  • #1093
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    There is no cake.


  • #1094
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Hmmmmmmmmm....cake

    maxresdefault.jpg


  • #1095
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    .. but why am I surprised ...
    JC - you've entirely failed to take part in a debate here -- ignoring repeated, pointed questions from oscarBravo, for example.

    This isn't the high standard of discussion that usually takes place in A+A, so at this point, your options are: (a) start discussing this topic like a mature adult; or (b) you will be restricted to posting here in the "specious nonsense" thread only; or (c) you may be carded at the moderators' discretion.

    This is not, as I must point out, silencing your views in any way, but simply a matter of doing something to keep the forum standard where it should be.


  • #1096
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    J C, where did you get your definition of "liberal secularism" from?

    Where the sun shineth not, probably.


  • #1097
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    He lied (by implication and omission) about the location of the cemetary. If he had pointed out that the cemetary was in Luxemburg, then his point would have fallen apart.
    Ardmacha asked the question as to who owned the cemetery? ... and it does turn out to be the US Government, all-be-it on Luxembourg soil.
    ... and as we have established since, that religious symbols, including Christian Crosses are allowed to be engraved on headstones in US Government Cemeteries on US soil as well as actual crosses, like the Cross of Sacrifice in Arlington ... it is your point (that religious symbols cannot be placed on US public / government property) that has actually fallen apart.

    In addition, could I also point out that even if Ardmacha was mistaken in a post (and he wasn't in that one), calling him a liar is going way beyond anything you would have evidence for ... and is un-parliamentary language, as has already been pointed out by Robin, as I recall, here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89512991&postcount=100


  • #1098
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ardmacha wrote: »
    I did not lie, nor imply that this was in the US. I searched for a US military cemetery, found a nice pic and asked who owned it and you provided the answer.

    There is a certain hypocrisy in the funding, whatever about the technicalities of ownership, of a particular style of memorial in one place and then losing the plot when a similar style of memorial is placed elsewhere. My point was the hypocrisy, not the legality.
    Two very fair points.
    ... your second point also raises the interesting question as to why the US Government pays for crosses to be used as headstones overseas and 'tombstones' back home??

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=CtWXDC5CMMaCXM%253A%3B3oCMKFyuti65KM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F1%252F1a%252FLuxembourg_American_Cemetery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FLuxembourg_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial%3B800%3B543

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=DFXOvfFC85PBOM%253A%3BcGyhQttWfEZ3PM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fe%252Fe6%252FManila_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FManila_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial%3B750%3B593

    ... even in Secular France
    https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=si22C-H4CLjsZM%253A%3B1m23brnPzVYUmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com%252FUScem01.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com%252Fnormandy_american_cemetery.htm%3B384%3B288

    https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ls_rACvIibfesM%253A%3BmR0rht_JVGU4NM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.d-daytoursnormandy.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F05%252FSt-James-US-Cemetery.-Memorial-Day-26-May-2013.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.d-daytoursnormandy.com%252Fcategory%252Fd-day-cemeteries%252F%3B960%3B720

    ... and here are the tombstones (all-be-it with religious symbols engraved) at home:-
    https://www.google.ie/search?q=us+cemeteries&client=firefox-a&hs=cjm&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PNItU5-rIuK47QbpsoCwBg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1338&bih=666&dpr=0.9#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=62zmNKOAgxgswM%253A%3BqBfZ7AKAgzrxQM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.interment.net%252Fdata%252Fus%252Fsd%252Fmeade%252Fblacknat%252Fcemetery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.interment.net%252Fdata%252Fus%252Fsd%252Fmeade%252Fblacknat%252Fcemetery.htm%3B600%3B450


  • #1099
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    Ardmacha asked the question as to who owned the cemetery?

    The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg owns the land. The American Battle Monuments Commision got a free lease of the land in perpetuity from the Luxemburgesch government (probably in gratitude for the US effort in liberating Luxemburg during two wars).

    Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.


  • #1100
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg owns the land. The American Battle Monuments Commision got a free lease of the land in perpetuity from the Luxemburgesch government (probably in gratitude for the US effort in liberating Luxemburg during two wars).

    Now JC will you please stop this nonsensical posturing, it is making you look even more stupid to be arguing another case which has been proven to be wrong. It is so bad that even the original poster of the picture can't even bring himself to defend his case, just pretend that he never meant to question the fact I pointed out.
    The free lease in perpetuity grants beneficial ownership of the lands to the The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government ... ... and they therefore have total control over what happens on the property ... and this agency of the US Government have not only allowed crosses to be erected, they have also paid for them as well ... which was the basic point being made by Ardmacha.

    As it turns out, Ardmacha was correct in his posting ... but whether or not he was correct, you shouldn't have called him a liar, as this is un-parliamentary language and 'name calling', that shouldn't be used in polite debate.


  • #1101
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    1966963_771609342926771_1257529950_n.jpg
    God didn't Create 'assholes' ... some Human Beings abuse their free-will ... to behave as 'assholes'!!!:)

    ... and it's not only Atheists who can sometimes be 'assholes' ... there are usually no shortage of candidates for that particular descriptor!!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    US government don't own the land however you try to spin it. The Grand Duchy are still the legal owners of the land. And that still doesn't alter the fact that the cemetary is located in a foreign country.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1103
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    US government don't own the land however you try to spin it. The Grand Duchy are still the legal owners of the land. And that still doesn't alter the fact that the cemetary is located in a foreign country.
    A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.

    The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of an agency of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
    ... and it has subsequently been shown that the use of religious symbols is also allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

    ... and to add insult to injury, Brian proceeded to call Ardmacha a liar ... when, at worst, he might have been mistaken ... and at best (as it turned out) Ardmacha was perfectly correct.

    ... why is 'sorry' the hardest word ... for you guys to say??


  • #1104
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    If we want to treat all religions and none equaly we will need a monument for everything, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, scientologists etc etc. How small do we make them so we can fit in the others while leaving room for any new religions?


  • #1105
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.

    The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
    ... and it has subsequently been shown that use of religious symbols is allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like, for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

    The Americans have similar control of Guantanamo bay, but they don't follow the letter of US law their either. American jurisprudence is limited to American soil.


  • #1106
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    The Americans have similar control of Guantanamo bay, but they don't follow the letter of US law their either. American jurisprudence is limited to American soil.
    That particular piece of arcane law doesn't justify calling Ardmacha a liar ... and Arlington Cemetary also allows religious symbols on gravestones ... and it's definitely on American soil.


  • #1107
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    If we want to treat all religions and none equaly we will need a monument for everything, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, scientologists etc etc. How small do we make them so we can fit in the others while leaving room for any new religions?
    Where there is a will, there is a way.
    In most situations, permanent monuments is not what is being looked for anyway ... just tolerance for religion (and none) being expressed in public ... which is something that true pluralism and freedom of religion (as distinct from freedom from religion) ... demands.:)


  • #1108
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    A Lease in Perpetuity grants beneficial ownership, and total control over the property to The American Battle Monuments Commision, which is an agency of the US Government.
    Which doesn't contradict the point that Luxembourg still own the land.
    The basic point being claimed was that the US government was constitutionally bound to not allow religious symbols on its property ... and Ardmacha posted a picture of a cemetery under the control of an agency of the US Goverment that completely contradicted the claim.
    ... and it has subsequently been shown that use of religious symbols is allowed on US public property on lands within the US itself as well, like, for example, in Arlington National Cemetery.

    ... and to add insult to injury, Brian proceeded to call Ardmacha a liar ... when, at worst, he might have been mistaken ... and at best (as it turned out) Ardmacha was perfectly correct.

    ... why is 'sorry' the hardest word ... for you guys to say??

    The discussion was about the separation of church and state as per the US Constitution. A document that applies to the United States of America, not Luxembourg. One can only presume that ardmacha posted the cemetary image in err or an attempt to mislead others about cemetary policy in state owned cemetaries in the US.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1109
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Which doesn't contradict the point that Luxembourg still own the land.


    The discussion was about the separation of church and state as per the US Constitution. A document that applies to the United States of America, not Luxembourg.
    The First amendmant to the US Constitution says nothing about the so-called 'separation of church and state' (which is, by definition, an anti-Christian idea designed to prevent churches ... and only churches, receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state) ... The First Amendment simply says the following:-

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    This is quite clearly a charter of rights for the free public expression of all kinds of ideas, and especially religious ones (as it mentions religion specifically).
    The requirement to make no law respecting an establishment of religion is immediately followed by the requirement to make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).
    Combined with the other rights of freedom of speech and the freedom to peacably assemble (in public) grants all of the rights required to freely and reasonably express one's religion in public in the US.
    The First Amendment is therefore fully supportive of freedom of religion (and its reasonable public expression).
    SW wrote: »
    One can only presume that ardmacha posted the cemetary image in err or an attempt to mislead others about cemetary policy in state owned cemetaries in the US.
    The presumption, where a posting is incorrect is that the poster is in error or they have an invalid interpretation of the facts (unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary).
    Ardmacha actually made a truthful and very supportive posting for his stated position ... that has been subsequently found to be substantively correct.

    If everybody calls everybody else a liar ... polite discussion becomes impossible.


  • #1110
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The First amendmant to the US Constitution says nothing about the so-called 'separation of church and state' (which is, by definition, an anti-Christian idea) ... it simply says the following:-

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    This is quite clearly a charter of rights for the free public expression of all kinds of ideas, and especially religious ones (as it mentions religion specifically).
    The requirement to make no law respecting an establishment of religion is immediately balance by the requirement to make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).
    Combined with the next rights of freedom of speech and the freedom to peacably assemble (in public) grants all of the rights required to freely and reasonably express one's religion in public in the US.
    The First Amendment is therefore fully supportive of freedom of relgion (and its public expression).

    The text you quoted clearly says the state (i.e. government) shall make no law respecting or prohibiting religion (this being 'church' that I referred to).

    This is a clearly the separation of church and state I referred to.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    The text you quoted clearly says the state (i.e. government) shall make no law respecting or prohibiting religion (this being 'church' that I referred to).

    This is a clearly the separation of church and state I referred to.
    Religion is a much wider concept than the Christian Church ... it certainly encompasses all of the other religions of the world and possibly the 'religion' of irreligion, for example, Atheistic Humanism, as well.

    ... and the text says that the state shall not favour (or dis-favour) any religion ... the doctrine of the separation of Church and State (especially where there isn't an Established State Church) implies the isolation of all Christian Churches for 'separation' from the state thereby implying that Christian Churches ... and only Christian Churches, should be prevented from receiving benefits enjoyed by all other private organisations from the state.

    The 'Separation of Church and State' may be relevant where there is a State Established Church in situ ... but this doesn't apply to America, where it is specifically banned under the First Amendment.


Advertisement