Amazon 7 #26 June 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt occurs to me that that having religious symbols on any government owned land constitutes the government promoting religion. A military cemetery is owned by the residents - they have Bought the Farm, and paid the price. The Government is merely the caretaker. An obelisk to Baal in a cemetery is fine, but a courthouse with an engraving extolling the merits of Sharia is not OK. I thought you guys got rid of all of those about 3000 years ago.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #27 June 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt occurs to me that that having religious symbols on any government owned land constitutes the government promoting religion. A military cemetery is owned by the residents - they have Bought the Farm, and paid the price. The Government is merely the caretaker. An obelisk to Baal in a cemetery is fine, but a courthouse with an engraving extolling the merits of Sharia is not OK. I thought you guys got rid of all of those about 3000 years ago.... Nah, there's still a few of them around. Hey, if that is what motivated someone to risk life and limb, whatever form the memorial takes is fine. On a trip to a 1,000 year old church in Germany, my stepmother freaked at a war memorial plaque that had "SS" symbols by many of the names. My feeling is that, while that is not my favorite credo, so long as they're dead I'm cool with it. If you're a fan, you can view the symbol as a memorial. If you're not, you can look at it as reassurance that there is one fewer of the bastards on the green side of the sod. Issues among the living matter. Dead issues are, well... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #28 June 29, 2011 As suspected, there is far more (and less) to this story than meets the eye. It appears it all starts with a particular pastor that wanted to give an invocation for a Memorial Day ceremony at that particular National Cemetery as he had done a couple of times in the past, but not non-denominationally, but instead specifically with regards to the Christian faith. Ok, that's your starting point. Arleen Ocasio said she wanted him to not do that and respect everyone's beliefs by being non-denominational. That's where the shit hits the fan and the smear campaign begins against her and "big government." Leave it to Fox News to only tell one side of the story.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 June 29, 2011 QuoteAs suspected, there is far more (and less) to this story than meets the eye. It appears it all starts with a particular pastor that wanted to give an invocation at that particular National Cemetery as he had done a couple of times in the past, but not non-demoninationally, but instead specifically with regards to the Christian faith. Ok, that's your starting point. Arleen Ocasio said she wanted him to not do that and respect everyone's beliefs by being non-demoninational. That's where the shit hits the fan and the smear campaign begins against her and "big government." Leave it to Fox News to only tell one side of the story. Oh.. I definitely want the non-demons at mine... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #30 June 29, 2011 Heh... Fixed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 June 29, 2011 QuoteIt occurs to me that that having religious symbols on any government owned land constitutes the government promoting religion. There's also the constitutional right to freedom of expression. And in this situation, we have a collision between the two, which is what makes it so interesting. I would argue that a cross on someone's grave in a National Cemetery is NOT the government itself promoting religion - it's simply the private wishes of an individual. And since the people buried in these cemeteries are largely veterans who served and/or fought to defend constitutional freedoms, they damned well ought to get the headstone they want. If some aethiests don't like that, tough shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #32 June 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt occurs to me that that having religious symbols on any government owned land constitutes the government promoting religion. There's also the constitutional right to freedom of expression. And in this situation, we have a collision between the two, which is what makes it so interesting. I would argue that a cross on someone's grave in a National Cemetery is NOT the government itself promoting religion - it's simply the private wishes of an individual. And since the people buried in these cemeteries are largely veterans who served and/or fought to defend constitutional freedoms, they damned well ought to get the headstone they want. If some aethiests don't like that, tough shit. Except . . . nobody relevant to the original article is suggesting otherwise. This is just in the minds of people that want to take something and blow it out of proportion for no damn good reason.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 June 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote It is not about atheism, it's about assholism. Coming from the tip of a douchenozzle. I can't keep up with your razor wit. How do you achieve such subtlety and nuance? this is quite the sophisticated banter from two guys relying on the phrase "douchenozzle" to make their point ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 30, 2011 QuoteAs suspected, there is far more (and less) to this story than meets the eye. It appears it all starts with a particular pastor that wanted to give an invocation for a Memorial Day ceremony at that particular National Cemetery as he had done a couple of times in the past, but not non-denominationally, but instead specifically with regards to the Christian faith. Ok, that's your starting point. Arleen Ocasio said she wanted him to not do that and respect everyone's beliefs by being non-denominational. That's where the shit hits the fan and the smear campaign begins against her and "big government." Leave it to Fox News to only tell one side of the story. And your source would be?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #35 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteAs suspected, there is far more (and less) to this story than meets the eye. It appears it all starts with a particular pastor that wanted to give an invocation for a Memorial Day ceremony at that particular National Cemetery as he had done a couple of times in the past, but not non-denominationally, but instead specifically with regards to the Christian faith. Ok, that's your starting point. Arleen Ocasio said she wanted him to not do that and respect everyone's beliefs by being non-denominational. That's where the shit hits the fan and the smear campaign begins against her and "big government." Leave it to Fox News to only tell one side of the story. And your source would be? Thank you for responding to that. It proves my point. And this is what I don't understand about readers and listeners of Fox News, they never seem to question the source but swallow it hook, line and sinker, but DEMAND the other side show the proof that what Fox News has covered is in anyway incomplete. So, I guess that leaves me to do the questioning. Ok, fine, I can use Google as well as the next guy. Probably better than a few. Let's look at a fairly early version of the smear campaign. http://www.harriscountygop.com/eblast/eb052611.asp Notice this is from a local member of the GOP. Further notice it has NO mention of Arleen Ocasio asking the pastor to remove the word "God" from anything, simply to be more inclusive. Even if the word was wrapped in "scare quotes," there's absolutely no mention of her attempting to restrict the use of "God," only to be more inclusive in doing so. An understandable situation considering, yes, there probably are members of other faiths that have served their country and are buried there. It's only a few days later that shit starts flying with accusations about Arleen Ocasio demanding "God" be removed. Why? Because it feeds the narrative. It "sounds good" to the people that want to believe the government is attempting to remove religion. THEN, just look at the total bullshit being slung in this thread with speculation by some that what's really at stake here is the "government" removing religious symbols from tombstones. Complete and utter bullshit. Why? Not because of anything having to do with the truth, but because it feeds the narrative.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs suspected, there is far more (and less) to this story than meets the eye. It appears it all starts with a particular pastor that wanted to give an invocation for a Memorial Day ceremony at that particular National Cemetery as he had done a couple of times in the past, but not non-denominationally, but instead specifically with regards to the Christian faith. Ok, that's your starting point. Arleen Ocasio said she wanted him to not do that and respect everyone's beliefs by being non-denominational. That's where the shit hits the fan and the smear campaign begins against her and "big government." Leave it to Fox News to only tell one side of the story. And your source would be? Thank you for responding to that. It proves my point. And this is what I don't understand about readers and listeners of Fox News, they never seem to question the source but swallow it hook, line and sinker, but DEMAND the other side show the proof that what Fox News has covered is in anyway incomplete. So, I guess that leaves me to do the questioning. Ok, fine, I can use Google as well as the next guy. Probably better than a few. Let's look at a fairly early version of the smear campaign. http://www.harriscountygop.com/eblast/eb052611.asp Notice this is from a local member of the GOP. Further notice it has NO mention of Arleen Ocasio asking the pastor to remove the word "God" from anything, simply to be more inclusive. It's only a few days later that shit starts flying with accusations about Arleen Ocasio demanding "God" be removed. Why? Because it feeds the narrative. It "sounds good" to the people that want to believe the government is attempting to remove religion. THEN, just look at the total bullshit being slung in this thread with speculation by some that what's really at stake here is the "government" removing religious symbols from tombstones. Complete and utter bullshit. Why? Not because of anything having to do with the truth, but because it feeds the narrative. The article in the OP was speaking of the National Memorial Ladies, not a pastor. The ladies where told they couldn't mention God at funerals, not Memorial Day invocations. Your post doesn't appear to have anything in common with the OP other than the location and the director.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #37 June 30, 2011 QuoteThe article in the OP was speaking of the National Memorial Ladies, not a pastor. The ladies where told they couldn't mention God at funerals, not Memorial Day invocations. Your post doesn't appear to have anything in common with the OP other than the location. I think you need to re-read the article. The "ladies" were one (hearsay) example of a larger document filed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe article in the OP was speaking of the National Memorial Ladies, not a pastor. The ladies where told they couldn't mention God at funerals, not Memorial Day invocations. Your post doesn't appear to have anything in common with the OP other than the location. I think you need to re-read the article. The "ladies" were one (hearsay) example of a larger document filed. The pastor's case was heard and decided prior to Memorial Day (link) - this is evidently a separate suit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #39 June 30, 2011 So you don't see it as simply dog piling on the other? Further, do you think it's appropriate for Fox News to only tell one side of the hearsay story? Is that fair? Is that balanced?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 June 30, 2011 QuoteSo you don't see it as simply dog piling on the other? Further, do you think it's appropriate for Fox News to only tell one side of the hearsay story? Is that fair? Is that balanced? Piling on? So, you're upset because the article is about the volunteer, and not the trials and tribulations of the valiant director? I suppose they could have written the article to state that the cemetary director was going to be a defendant in court for a freedom of speech issue and that a previous case had been resolved in favor of her opponent - would that have been better?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #41 June 30, 2011 What would have been better would have been if Fox News had shown even the slightest attempt to get the other side of the story. They didn't. They didn't even use the generic journalist cop out of "we tried contacting so-and-so, but refused to comment about on going litigation." Just from reading the article, it doesn't appear as if they made any attempt whatsoever. That's not "fair and balanced," that's lazy at best and certainly looks like it's agenda driven just to whip up their viewers. Judging from JR and other's posts; mission accomplished.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 June 30, 2011 QuoteWhat would have been better would have been if Fox News had shown even the slightest attempt to get the other side of the story. They didn't. They didn't even use the generic journalist cop out of "we tried contacting so-and-so, but refused to comment about on going litigation." Just from reading the article, it doesn't appear as if they made any attempt whatsoever. That's not "fair and balanced," that's lazy at best and certainly looks like it's agenda driven just to whip up their viewers. A few quotes from the Chron article linked to in the Fox blurb (you *did* see the link saying "Read the full story at Chron.com", yes?) : Mention of your pastor's case.... "The new allegations of "religious hostility" by VA and cemetery officials follow on the heels of a controversy over Pastor Scott Rainey's prayer in Jesus' name at a Memorial Day service in the cemetery." And a comment from the director's office... "Ocasio is on vacation and could not be reached for comment. Her assistant, Amanda Rhodes-Wharton, said she could not discuss the matter due to ongoing litigation."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #43 June 30, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote It is not about atheism, it's about assholism. Coming from the tip of a douchenozzle. I can't keep up with your razor wit. How do you achieve such subtlety and nuance? this is quite the sophisticated banter from two guys relying on the phrase "douchenozzle" to make their point I got that one from a 1974 National Lampoon. It was attributed to Pat Nixon, and it had a nice ring to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #44 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat would have been better would have been if Fox News had shown even the slightest attempt to get the other side of the story. They didn't. They didn't even use the generic journalist cop out of "we tried contacting so-and-so, but refused to comment about on going litigation." Just from reading the article, it doesn't appear as if they made any attempt whatsoever. That's not "fair and balanced," that's lazy at best and certainly looks like it's agenda driven just to whip up their viewers. A few quotes from the Chron article linked to in the Fox blurb (you *did* see the link saying "Read the full story at Chron.com", yes?) : Right, so don't get the full story at Fox News. Get it somewhere else.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #45 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat would have been better would have been if Fox News had shown even the slightest attempt to get the other side of the story. They didn't. They didn't even use the generic journalist cop out of "we tried contacting so-and-so, but refused to comment about on going litigation." Just from reading the article, it doesn't appear as if they made any attempt whatsoever. That's not "fair and balanced," that's lazy at best and certainly looks like it's agenda driven just to whip up their viewers. A few quotes from the Chron article linked to in the Fox blurb (you *did* see the link saying "Read the full story at Chron.com", yes?) : Right, so don't get the full story at Fox News. Get it somewhere else. I'm not entirely sure what your saying the full story is that they aren't giving since the incident you brought up appears to be separate, though related. And not getting any comments from someone who is currently being sued is pretty standard. Lawyers don't want their clients talking.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #46 June 30, 2011 Quote And since the people buried in these cemeteries are largely veterans who served and/or fought to defend constitutional freedoms, they damned well ought to get the headstone they want. If some aethiests don't like that, tough shit. Well said John.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #47 June 30, 2011 QuoteI would argue that a cross on someone's grave in a National Cemetery is NOT the government itself promoting religion - it's simply the private wishes of an individual. And since the people buried in these cemeteries are largely veterans who served and/or fought to defend constitutional freedoms, they damned well ought to get the headstone they want. If some aethiests don't like that, tough shit. I would argue that too. And I'm an atheist. On the other hand, if some Christian were offended by my not wanting a cross on my gravestone, tough shit for them. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #48 June 30, 2011 QuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites devildog 0 #49 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God. Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rick 67 #50 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God. Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose. Yeah my friend ended up conducting the funeral himself. I just thought it was interesting they had noone available.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
devildog 0 #49 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God. Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Rick 67 #50 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God. Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose. Yeah my friend ended up conducting the funeral himself. I just thought it was interesting they had noone available.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Rick 67 #50 June 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI said it before in a similar thread: religious people should be allowed to have religion at their funeral, but non-religious people should be allowed to have a religion-free funeral. Anyone attending a funeral (military or otherwise) should respect the wishes of the family of the departed.Quote Not directly related but something I found interesting. My busineess partner's father passed away several months ago. He already had a plot and had paid for the funeral. When my partner went to the funeral home to make the arrangements he asked if they could get a speaker that would not talk about religion during the memorial (his father was an atheist). He was told they did not have ANYONE that would conduct the funeral without talking about God. Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose. Yeah my friend ended up conducting the funeral himself. I just thought it was interesting they had noone available.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
