Bible Verses Removed From Grand Canyon

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I'll begin with your second point. In this case the ACLU sent a letter, noting the complaints. Someone in the Department of the Interior read the letter, looked at a history of complaints and decided instead of wasting the already under-funded parks systems money on a legal battle over plaques, they took them down. This has gotten little press outside Arizona. I wonder if the Church group sued to have the plaques put back if you would think they were doing for the sheer pleasure of being difficult or to get the attention of a media trial?

That's a major issue- the fact that a court case would cost money and the government office decides rather than bother with one, they'll just roll over and agree to any complaint that might lead to a court case?

Hmmm...Maybe I SHOULD start that 'Church of the Grass Blade'

Seems if I have issues with things Christian, I can force people to do what I want by crying 'offensive and/or against the constitution"! but if I have issues with things not Christian, I am not politically correct and must be anti-diversity these days.

Back to your first point, I think it is the perception that counts. Of course these plaques don't represent our goverment's attempt to force religion on anyone. We are talking about Arizona, not Alabama. But it can be percieved as a something like that to some people, goverment favoritism of one religion, or of religion in particular over lets say atheism. Perception can be stronger than fact.

LOL, hope nobody from Alabama reads this! All I can say is, if someone is so bored, they have to go around finding reasons to make federal agencies take down plaques or statues, they need more than a perception boost! Of course that's just my opinion and my 'perception' of things! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

As for your third point, thats the whole problem...interpretation. You have yours, I have mine. We could back and forth all day, each presenting a case as to why our own respective interpretations are correct. I would rather just smile and let it be. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB]

Of course, because it suits your 'perceptions' of how it should be, but in my opinion it is counter to the spirit and the actual meaning of the constitution in that respect. I'd say vive le difference, but I don't really enjoy this particular one and the consequences I see in the news. Again, my opinion, but hey, I gotta have a few now and again!

[ 07-16-2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I saw your post saying that you would support a display of a variety of religious texts. I also saw this post you made before that... quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Hitler would be proud...sheesh. Thats a poorly chosen statement if I ever saw one, not to mention incorrect and over the top. The point is, these were bible verses, the religous text of christainity. Blame the supposed persecution of things christian or the fact that its just beautiful literature all you want, but it still a piece of religious text that has references to the Christian God. In case you didnt know, some Americans dont believe in God. Considering the Grand Canyon is considered sacred by native americans, who were forcibly christianized in mass for all intents and purposes, I consider these plaques not only unconstitutional but offensive as well. Good riddance I say, we have enough painful reminders of the past.

You can call my comment about your resentfulness towards Christianity a boat-load of crap if you want, but your own words seem to suggest otherwise. According to your last statement above, any public display of Christianity is a "painful reminder of the past" and the plaques were "offensive".

I'm not trying to flamebait you. I am merely drawing conclusions from statements you have made. I also said that I respect your viewpoint and beliefs and I have echoed that same sentiment in the past. [/QUOTE]Umm, look again at the context of my statement. You failed to highlight the part about how the Grand Canyon is considered sacred by people who were forced to convert to Christianity.

Walk in the shoes of someone who's recent ancestors were persecuted by a group, see how they would feel if that group had plaques put up in front of a holy site.

I have a deep affinity with Native American Culture and spirituality, though I can't claim to any gentic hertitage due to the fact that I dont know my genetic hertiage at all. Combine this affinity with the historical fact that Indian children were forced to convert and tell me how I should feel? Happy? Joyful?
Alright?

Your statement that I am resentful of Christianity is based on selective reasoning and words taken out of context. Do I 100% agree with Christianity? No, but not all christians agree with each other either. Has Christianity been a 100% pure force of good in the world in the last 2000 years? No. Were christians 100% tolerant of native American beliefs, culture, or religion? No.

This doesn't mean I resent christianity, nor does it mean I resent Christians. This means I refuse to let history be glossed over so the mistakes and atrocities of the past will never be repeated. This means I would be offend by solely christian literature publicly displayed at a native american holy site in light of historical fact. If stating the facts means I resent christianity in your eyes, fine. Your wrong though.

BTW- Check your facts about totem poles.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/...tc/totempoles/
http://members.aol.com/Art1234567/Totemart.html

[Chewbacca]

by Cloudbringer LOL, hope nobody from Alabama reads this!

Just so no feathers get ruffled, I am from Alabama, and I was joking. It was hard to resist considering how many court cases have come from Bama concerning this issue. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Considering the Grand Canyon is considered sacred by native americans, who were forcibly christianized in mass for all intents and purposes, I consider these plaques not only unconstitutional but offensive as well. Good riddance I say, we have enough painful reminders of the past.

You can call my comment about your resentfulness towards Christianity a boat-load of crap if you want, but your own words seem to suggest otherwise. According to your last statement above, any public display of Christianity is a "painful reminder of the past" and the plaques were "offensive".

I'm not trying to flamebait you. I am merely drawing conclusions from statements you have made. I also said that I respect your viewpoint and beliefs and I have echoed that same sentiment in the past.[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Umm, look again at the context of my statement. You failed to highlight the part about how the Grand Canyon is considered sacred by people who were forced to convert to Christianity. Walk in the shoes of someone who's recent ancestors were persecuted by a group, see how they would feel if that group had plaques put up in front of a holy site.

You're right, Chewbacca, I didn't highlight that part of your statement...because I was saving it for this response. I agree it is very important to realize that Native Americans consider the Grand Canyon a sacred site. That also leads back to the statement I made in my original post where I questioned how strongly you would defend the A.C.L.U. if the text on the plaques exalted the Native American gods. You didn't respond to that statement, but I believe your comments here answer that question well enough.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I have a deep affinity with Native American Culture and spirituality, though I can't claim to any gentic hertitage due to the fact that I dont know my genetic hertiage at all. Combine this affinity with the historical fact that Indian children were forced to convert and tell me how I should feel? Happy? Joyful? Alright?

No, Chewbacca, I would expect them to feel angry and resentful - and rightfully so. Which is exactly what I said in my original post. Since we're playing "pick the post apart" and demanding a "re-reading" of the posts, then I suggest you grant me the same courtesy. My original statement was that I understood your resentfulness towards Christianity. A sentiment you deny even though you have said "Good riddance" to these plaques that you considered "offensive" as well as unconstitutional. You say you don't resent Christianity, but your comments so far imply a different conclusion.

Whether you truly are resentful or not honostly makes no difference to me. You have made comments in the past that suggest you do feel resentment towards Christianity in general and I was merely stating that - given the history of how Native Americans were treated - I can understand why you would feel that way. That's all I was saying in my original post also.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Your statement that I am resentful of Christianity is based on selective reasoning and words taken out of context. Do I 100% agree with Christianity? No, but not all christians agree with each other either. Has Christianity been a 100% pure force of good in the world in the last 2000 years? No. Were christians 100% tolerant of native American beliefs, culture, or religion? No.

LOL [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I was talking to another member this afternoon and mentioned this thread. After telling them about my original post, I said "How much do you want to bet he will claim I took his words out of context?".

I'm sorry, Chewbacca, but I didn't take any of your words out of context. Even though I was only responding to the last paragraph, I deliberately quoted your entire post specifically to counter this very claim, which I knew would be made.

You're right that Christianity does not have a "spotless" history - far from it. It doesn't even have a spotless reputation in today's times. We have Rev. "God Hates Fags" Phelps going out of his way to cause misery to the bereaved families of gay people that have died. Eric Robert Rudolph and a handful of other fanatic Pro-Lifers have used lethal violence against abortion clinics and/or the doctors that work there, and Robertson, Falwell, and Oral Roberts continue to provide prime examples of over-the-top religious zealousness.

I've heard different accounts of the "forced conversion" of Native Americans. I live fairly close to the Cherokee reservation here in western NC and Murphy lies along the "Trail of Tears". The treatment of Native Americans is one of the most shameful blights on American history....there is no question about that.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: This doesn't mean I resent christianity, nor does it mean I resent Christians. This means I refuse to let history be glossed over so the mistakes and atrocities of the past will never be repeated. This means I would be offend by solely christian literature publicly displayed at a native american holy site in light of historical fact. If stating the facts means I resent christianity in your eyes, fine. Your wrong though.

And I have exhaustively listed exactly why your comments reflect an underlying resentment, but you say I am wrong. Very well. If that is the case, then I humbly apologize my misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: BTW- Check your facts about totem poles. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/...tc/totempoles/ http://members.aol.com/Art1234567/Totemart.html

Thanks. I will.

[ 07-16-2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Chewbacca]

I have already answered your question Cerek. No plaques or monuments neccessary in my opinion. I can enjoy the wonders of the Earth Mother in my own heart. The granduer of her beauty is all the monument I need.

Like I have consistently argued in this thread, it doesnt matter what religion the quotes or plaques come from. Its the principle of the matter.

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH RELIGION IT IS. IT SHOULD NOT BE ON GOVERMENT PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY OR EVEN AT ALL.

I understand that some christians have made this more difficult for others by trying to get christianity into our goverment with various degrees of success. But thats not my fault.

If you want to continue to pry into my psyche and reiterate my supposed resentment towards christianity, feel free. I still think it was out of line.

[edit] upon re-reading your last post, I can only humbly accept your apology. You would be suprised just how "christian" I am.

I spoke of one instance in context when scripture would be innappropriate and offensive to me outside the constitutional issue and you made the claim that I am resentful towards the whole religion. I think you read what you wanted too into what I write.

But I was wrong to call you out for it. I should have followed some great wisdom I believe in and turned the other cheek. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

[ 07-16-2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

To be more specific-

If a prayer exhalting the Great Spirit's creative prowess was posted at the grand canyon like these plaques and someone, anyone, wanted it removed because of the seperation of church and state. I would have no objections what so ever.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: We've been here before. They would certainly be allowed to post poetry from the Odyssey, but not from Psalms? What about a Dante's Inferno quote on public land. Is that religious -- or sacreligious? Dante would say it's both. Yet it would be fine to put "abandon hope all ye who enter here" at the gates of Alcatraz.

But Timber, there's a difference between poetry and poetry suggesting religious support from the government. Unless your Odyssey quote included something along the lines of 'praise be to Zeus for he made this great Canyon' then it's not comparable to the Psalms quote that was removed. For me at least, though I can't speak for whoever complained, it's the content of the poetry and what it implies, not the source. [/QUOTE]Excellent reasoning here Aelia. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: We've been here before. They would certainly be allowed to post poetry from the Odyssey, but not from Psalms? What about a Dante's Inferno quote on public land. Is that religious -- or sacreligious? Dante would say it's both. Yet it would be fine to put "abandon hope all ye who enter here" at the gates of Alcatraz.

But Timber, there's a difference between poetry and poetry suggesting religious support from the government. Unless your Odyssey quote included something along the lines of 'praise be to Zeus for he made this great Canyon' then it's not comparable to the Psalms quote that was removed. For me at least, though I can't speak for whoever complained, it's the content of the poetry and what it implies, not the source. [/QUOTE]Only in the eye of the beholder Miss Aelia Ma'am. There in lies the problem everbody wants to be the beholder with the say so over the matter. People rush to be the ofended, in the USA the ofended gets the most "press".
Personnaly I believe the ofended are the weak, for they don't have the conviction, or the courage of their convictions. Instead they would rather wall'er in their ofendedness (Harrisism)

[ 07-16-2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: We've been here before. They would certainly be allowed to post poetry from the Odyssey, but not from Psalms? What about a Dante's Inferno quote on public land. Is that religious -- or sacreligious? Dante would say it's both. Yet it would be fine to put "abandon hope all ye who enter here" at the gates of Alcatraz.

Grasshopper,"Haven't I learnt you" that there is only one side to the coin? That which only one see from their perpective, forget what other perpectives are out there. Now go cut me a switch, and you had better make it a good one or you'll have to cut another one.

Beside what were you thinking injecting logic and reasoning into an emomtional, reactionary discussion.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Beside what were you thinking injecting logic and reasoning into an emomtional, reactionary discussion.

All in the eye of the beholder, eh.