Post: #1

Seen this trending on Twitter:



Reason, tolerance and compassion strike once again in Southern California.

Another outlet:

Quote:The American Humanist Association – whose masthead slogan reads “Good Without A God” – had previously and successfully fought plans for a veterans monument depicting a kneeling soldier flanked by multiple images of crosses and the Star of David.

I used to live by an incredibly dangerous intersection just outside of town, not more than a half mile from town. Every year, there were multiple accidents and a fatality every other year or so. One year, a man slid on ice, hit another car and his wife and two daughters were killed on impact.

Crosses were erected -- along with other small monuments -- for the deceased. Only the most militant of atheistic assholes disparaged the practice. I was driving with a group of friends and I had a friend who smugly and sniffily remarked that only fools and those with low IQ's need religion to cope with death. It was incredibly awkward -- and, no, I am not taking this as indicative of atheists, as my wider family is either atheist or strict, conservative Christian -- but indicative of the posture of American atheism taken to its extremes.

First off, losing a child has to be one of life's most psychologically painful experiences, if not the most painful. We all will see our parents perish from this Earth, we are more likely to see a beloved spouse take the dirt nap. Yet, to lose a child -- a person expected to send you off into mysterious world of death -- has to strike at the deepest heart strings of any individual.

Leave aside Constitutionality - that is truly a sideshow in this situation. An individual, with much support, spent their free time (and professional time, to be sure) to demand government remove a simple cross at spot where a parent lost their son. Who the fuck does that? This isn't posting some angry response on an Internet article, these motherfuckers pursued this disrespectful legal action with aplomb and vigor. Like that fool who got his panties in an uproar over his kid having to reference God in the "I Pledge Alliance" speech in public schools, why was he so upset? Was he worried sick that his child might be so insecure in his atheism that he might get converted? Interesting, but not true. That man was all about using his child as a vehicle to port out his political beliefs. Just like whatever loser used this mother's grieving.

The chode that drove by the memorial did a little research and found out the property the cross was on was government property. He knew he could push this forward in federal court. And, he succeeded. I can't imagine how good it must feel to force a mother to remove a cross she placed where her son was killed. Facts and reason, baby!



This is why I strenuously oppose political atheism and have an upcoming ROK post that puts political atheists (Atheism+) on blast. Look, separation of Church and state is a far more complicated matter than any atheist would tell you. America -- at its roots -- wasn't anything that approached a theocracy, but a libertarian society with incredibly strong Christian roots. Christians -- until the Moral Majority -- weren't politically active. It wasn't until "God died" (a religious society turned into a therapeutic one) and was replaced by government that Christians were spurred into political action. The US government's increasingly authoritarian posture vis-a-vie their citizens caused Christians to become interested as Christians in the political arena.

That being said, what this parent experienced was a couple things. First, is my point illustrated above. They need to trust government, not religious doctrine. The state exists as the salve to the problems in your life, not the Church. Why place a cross at the scene of your son's death? Petition the local government, they know what's best for you. If you are denied the "right" to place a cross there, you should know they know what's best for you, no? I mean, come on, they rule America.

The other thing a parent would realize is that more than a few atheists are interested in forcing their god down Christian throats - the government. I will leave aside a lengthy discussion of class and ethnic provincialism that has long been attendant when the upper classes regard the lower classes. However, it pops up in atheists when regarding Christians. They assume the posture of the superior citizen, the more intelligent and erudite citizen to the slovenly, knuckledragger of lower social status.

Atheists often advance arguments of their superior intelligence and social conditioning and this is reflective of older arguments that the rich and privileged have what they have because of God. This mentality hijacked science and sometimes uses biology as an explanation for their superiority to the unwashed masses who attend mass. For other progressives, they use social conditioning theories to displace distasteful genetic approaches - "I had the luck of having a highly progressive, anti-racist and feminist upbringing. So lucky to have such an enlightened and forward-thinking mindset, huh Gregor?"

I will end this part with this observation: if these atheists are so much better than the unintelligent and uncultured Christians, why do you feel the need to feel superior to them? There is a reason Tariq Nasheed said his number one rule in the game is to not talk down another player. Be careful who you feel the need to feel superior towards, as they offer insights into how you see yourself.



All the being said, the actual humans in the story are cast aside. I linked to conservative sites, do you really think they care about this woman and her dead son? Conservatives, generally, display more real compassion and empathy, but that seems to track a generation back. Compassion and empathy are stickers on a liberal's progressive badge of honor - but it's just a sticker. Conservatives may be more hardass out front, but when you win their respect and the like, they are more accepting, forgiving and all that. Maybe modern liberalism and conservatism tracks male and female dispositions?

Regardless, the liberals involved in this didn't give two squirts of Obama's piss that this woman would be forced to remove a memorial for her dead son. It was all power + reason to them.

Apparently, I need to state I am not a fan of theocracy and the union of church and state, as per my life experiences and ventures into Internet discussions of this issue. Society has backslided into nihilism - religion is *not* nihilism. To allow a parent to place a cross on government property is not indicative of a vast, right wing Christian conspiracy. There is no slippery slope here.

Like I said in my ROK post on the absolutely sheer inequity visited on Stefan Kiszko, the real personal experiences of the people involved get drowned out in the wider political discussion.

Quote:While AnnMarie Devaney pledged to remove the cross by 3 p.m. Thursday, she told reporters she still didn’t understand why the group so vehemently opposed the memorial.

Think about that. Less than two years ago, she lost her son who was killed by another driver. Now, under the studious guidance of the state, she must dismantle a monument she erected in her grief to mourn the passing her son.

There are a few things you don't fuck with if you don't have to, one of them is death. This isn't like she demanded a church to be built on state land, nor she demand to have the right to have nightly gatherings on government land to talk about the Gospel. No, all she wanted was to erect a cross to signify the love she had for her son, a loss no parent should have to endure. You think she gave a shit about whether it was government land?

The more I think about this, the sadder it is. A fleetingly inconsequential "victory" in the battle over Church and state separation has resulted in a parent having to dismantle a tribute to their lost child. Think about it. Who gained what? Plaintiff wins, defendant loses. Defendant cries her eyes out, what does the plaintiff gain? A fist bump? Let me guess: "I feel so much better without that Christian nonsense on my god's property!" I will tell you this: the strongest of liberals/atheists have narcissism coded into their ideological bones. Mark my words.

If ever I lose a child to the danger that is driving, I hold out hope that he or she dies next to private property. Only because I might have the hope of mourning their loss properly without some self-assured atheist looking to score political points in his or her death.

What a reasonable society we are becoming: in the horrible event our children are killed, we need to hope that it happens near private property so we can erect monuments to signify our mourning and love for them? If its government property, you have to erect something that reflects what a governmental figure thinks you should erect. I mean, isn't the Constitution god? Or is it just progressive interpretation?

Imagine being forced by government to remove that cross from where your only son died. Maybe you relive his death, maybe you feel his pain when he collided with that other car.

Regardless, you mourned where you shouldn't mourn. Maybe he died where he shouldn't. You pull the stake up, the raw earth springing up around the cross. You hold it in your hands, realizing it was the thing you created for your son. Maybe you think of that Lego set he forced you to complete, maybe it was a homework assignment you basically did for him. You always did it out of love, never out of compulsion.

The last thing you were forced to do for him never came from him. It came from a faceless atheist who was offended that you constructed a cross and placed it where your only son died. You had to confront his death again, in a very real sense. Seeing a person go from a bloody, slimy infant into adulthood has to be one of the greatest experiences in life.

Now, your government says you have to unearth that symbol, that offensive cross. I would imagine that there is hole where that cross used to sit. A hole that reason and atheism could never fill.

We are one, but we are not the same.

Post: #2

Don't call them atheists. Speak English. They are godless.

Post: #3

This is all true, but let's be honest and point out that the religious have a much greater history of enforcing their beliefs on everybody else than do the non-religious. In DC, you can't even by a bottle of liquor on a Sunday. NY wa the same way until somewhat recently.

Also, religion is a choice. If it's your choice, more power to you. I don't have any desire to go around tearing down other people's symbols, but the idea that everyone needs religion is absurd.

Post: #4

(03-12-2014 06:03 AM)j r Wrote:  This is all true, but let's be honest and point out that the religious have a much greater history of enforcing their beliefs on everybody else than do the non-religious. In DC, you can't even by a bottle of liquor on a Sunday. NY wa the same way until somewhat recently.

Also, religion is a choice. If it's your choice, more power to you. I don't have any desire to go around tearing down other people's symbols, but the idea that everyone needs religion is absurd.

Religions are just codes of social behavior so that people who do not have their own moral codes would adopt a common one.

If you are a smart red pill guy - you don't need religion, you will find out how the world woks and devise your own beliefs and code, but masses (especially women) absolutely need religion of some sorts to keep their sexuality, drinking, emotions and other stuff in check.

All this talk about religions enforcing their beliefs is really just lazy and slutty liberals complaining about the oppression of patriarchy and stuff.

The truth is that violence is the tool of power and whoever has power will enforce their beliefs, whether religious and conservative or godless and liberal. Only difference is that whether the enforced beliefs are good for society or destructive. Violence is part of life, deal with it. Is there something more blue bill then to complain about the party in power using it's power?

Post: #5

(03-12-2014 06:17 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 06:03 AM)j r Wrote:  This is all true, but let's be honest and point out that the religious have a much greater history of enforcing their beliefs on everybody else than do the non-religious. In DC, you can't even by a bottle of liquor on a Sunday. NY wa the same way until somewhat recently.

Also, religion is a choice. If it's your choice, more power to you. I don't have any desire to go around tearing down other people's symbols, but the idea that everyone needs religion is absurd.

Religions are just codes of social behavior so that people who do not have their own moral codes would adopt a common one.

If you are a smart red pill guy - you don't need religion, you will find out how the world woks and devise your own beliefs and code, but masses (especially women) absolutely need religion of some sorts to keep their sexuality, drinking, emotions and other stuff in check.

All this talk about religions enforcing their beliefs is really just lazy and slutty liberals complaining about the oppression of patriarchy and stuff.

The truth is that violence is the tool of power and whoever has power will enforce their beliefs, whether religious and conservative or godless and liberal. Only difference is that whether the enforced beliefs are good for society or destructive. Violence is part of life, deal with it. Is there something more blue bill then to complain about the party in power using it's power?

That's fine, but you can't have it both ways. If religion is just a means of controlling the masses, don't complain when some of the masses push back and try to assert their own form of control.

It doesn't have to be like that. Humans beings are evolved enough that we can set some basic ground rules and then let people do whatever they hell they want after that.

Post: #6

I hope someone stomps his face in.

Regardless of beliefs, the one thing everyone can agree upon is that this mother has been through enough. She really didn't need to deal with this petty bullshit that some faggot decided to stir up.

The guy is a straight punk, on par with the Westboro Baptist Church shitheads.

Post: #7

I fully support the removal of the cross, and find the argument "think of the mother's feeeelings" especially non-persuasive.

Post: #8

Quote:Why place a cross at the scene of your son's death?

I disagree with the practice of setting up shrines by the road side to mark the location of someone's death, that is what graveyards are for.

Post: #9

(03-12-2014 07:11 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  I fully support the removal of the cross, and find the argument "think of the mother's feeeelings" especially non-persuasive.

Why should it be removed?

Post: #10

(03-12-2014 07:16 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 07:11 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  I fully support the removal of the cross, and find the argument "think of the mother's feeeelings" especially non-persuasive.

Why should it be removed?

Because it torments the eyes of those poor atheists.. ohh the horror for them to have to look at something that looks like a 't' on their way to work

Post: #11

(03-12-2014 06:03 AM)j r Wrote:  This is all true, but let's be honest and point out that the religious have a much greater history of enforcing their beliefs on everybody else than do the non-religious. In DC, you can't even by a bottle of liquor on a Sunday. NY wa the same way until somewhat recently.

Also, religion is a choice. If it's your choice, more power to you. I don't have any desire to go around tearing down other people's symbols, but the idea that everyone needs religion is absurd.

I'm usually with mage on the religious items but in the case of the government I like a total separation of church and state. That way someone following religious morals is doing so out of choice instead of through some backhanded legal move.

This cross removal thing is an example of people just being assholes though, it was an easy target or someone who doesn't have any influence. Why not spend their time doing something meaningful in terms of church/state separation like removing "sunday" bans on things. I think Kosko put it well as 'westboro baptist' type trolling. Like those folks, they could be doing many more positive and meaningful things than protesting at funerals if they want to advance what they believe in.

Post: #12

(03-12-2014 06:51 AM)j r Wrote:  Humans beings are evolved enough...

These words, this kind of thinking, betray a blue piller.

Post: #13

It's not atheists v.s. theists here, it's a bitter radical fighting over something that doesn't matter. Dr. Howard understands, and shares a similar belief to me. He just goes "hey man I can be a huge tool about this" and goes ahead and does it simply because our laws allow him to do so. Maybe (Most likely) he's got a shitty life and has a burning desire to take any scrap of power and influence he can scrounge for.
I can understand disliking religion, OP makes a good point about elitism between the two parties as I was that way before red pilling.
Radicals on either side are worth punching in the throat most times.

Post: #14

In my once Christian country of Latvia we have a lot of crosses in roadsides in rural areas. They are cultural landmarks. People erected crosses in road sides long before cars started moving across on these roads. Some crosses are centuries old, some others are quite new and have been erected a few years ago, some are wrecks and some are well maintained and some still have local old ladies bringing flowers to these crosses. Some of these crosses even come with a small fence and a bench to sit. Travelers used to stop by them and pray. Pilgrims going to our catholic Holy site of Aglona where they believe Mary has performed miracles, still stop by these crosses to pray.

I am no longer fallowing a prescribed religion since my revelation that all contemporary religions are corrupted by feminine imperative, but I find it nice to drive past these crosses and to do what is called "momento mori" to remember in the rush that you will die once and therefore you must live your life consciously.

I find crosses at roadsides a beautiful tradition. If crosses that remind us of our limited time are removed, but advertisements that remind us to buy and consume and spend recklessly like there is no tomorrow are erected more and more, then what does it says about us and the message that is delivered to us? Where are we going?

I don't believe not for a second that a human can have no God, whether he is aware of it or not. If your God is not on the cross then chances are that he is on that McDonalds advertisement on the same roadside. Or on that shiny BMW advertisement. We have many gods today to choose from but they all want us to forget about our mortality and that we have an obligation before death to truly live, not merely consume. You see this is a religious war as it has always been.

Post: #15

Animals as calling these clowns humans is an insult to the term human, like these who have no respect for the pain and hard times others go through just for their own immoral, selfish and pettiness deserve nothing but a good old fashioned beating. This is not about religion, but about DECENCY!

People like these are totally bankrupt morally and as an individual. They are a waste of space. Notice how you only encounter extremes like that in the so called developed first world...tells you all you need to know about the "health" of this western society, which is totally rotten.

What a sad and fucked up state has the western world become!

Post: #16

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

Only completely boring people leading utterly vapid lives would even consider something along these lines. Those people that have nothing interesting in their lives are the ones that push unimportant matters in a zealous manner.

Anytime you see an activist on a soapbox over some trivial little matter, you can be sure that said person has such an empty life that they are trying to fill it any way shape of form.

Most of the time they do no real harm as the issues they rally around target some sort of government/business entity. However, sometimes their issues directly affect and hurt individual people.

This guy was happy to cause even more pain and grief to a woman that has been through enough already. He hides behind atheism and uses separation of church and state as a logical excuse for his actions. But in reality, all he wanted was something to entertain his time after work. He could have used that time to do something constructive for himself or humanity, but that require hard work and not being a coward.

Its a damn shame when that happens; When a person hurts another for no reason other than an ill-informed attempt to fill a hole in their existence.

Post: #17

people like this should be harrassed and shamed out of their community.

Post: #18

I'm an atheist (sort of) myself but I have a very passionate dislike for atheists that make a big deal of their atheism and wear it as some sort of badge.

All this stuff is just more of the victim mentality. It allows people who likely (or are likelier) to believe in Cultural Marxist "privilege" theories (wherein they are often the "privileged") to assert that they too are victims of something, and need to therefore be coddled like special snowflakes.

This sort of backlash is somewhat understandable given the propensities of many prominent Christian groups to push the teaching of Creationism in schools and other such nonsense in recent years, but stuff like this is totally off-balance.

My favorite quote from the post is this:

Quote:Compassion and empathy are stickers on a liberal's progressive badge of honor - but it's just a sticker.

Exactly. They are compassionate when it fits their ideology, but it isn't part of who they really are. They do it when it's cool and flashy. When it's not, it goes away fast.

Post: #19

So, leftists believe that:

-Crosses are a torment to the eyes of enlightened atheists™ so they must hijack the US constitution forcing them to be removed from sight.

-However barbaric images of homosexuality (men kissing on billboards, propaganda images of men adopting young boys), of feminism (barren cougars, fat acceptance, FEMEN vandalising churches), slut culture (Miley Cyrus, skrillex haircuts, slutwalks, twerking) are not only perfectly fine to remain in sight but increasingly government funds are needed to further promote such barbarism.

It's little wonder millions of people across the west are barracking for Vladimir Putin as he defends Russian culture from the barbarians, and are wishing that our own feminist/manboob leaders would do the same. The silent majority is sick to death of cultural marxism, but the big question is, how do normal people who have every day responsibilities stand up against the significant minority of cultural marxists who like parasite have embedded themselves into every level of church, government, media and society? 2Wycked, when you write your article this could be a question you ponder.

Post: #20

If you are going to write an article about how you think political atheism is lame, you'd be better be writing one on how political theism is as well.

Taking down someone's memorial sign, whether it be a cross, or a white bicycle, or whatever.. that's lame. Usually, those things get taken down after a good amount of time anyway.

It's also not the best way to decry religion.

I don't believe in god, but I also don't believe that trying to directly change people's minds by removing a cross by the side of the road is going to work.

I think that most of the problems our world faces could be dealt with if we raised the level of eduction for everybody on the planet, even by a tiny percent.

If people were more educated in schools about religion- where it comes from, how it evolved etc. then they would see the bullshit it in it.

Post: #21

(03-12-2014 09:49 AM)soup Wrote:  I think that most of the problems our world faces could be dealt with if we raised the level of eduction for everybody on the planet, even by a tiny percent.

Feminists also share that sentiment.

(03-12-2014 09:49 AM)soup Wrote:  If people were more educated in schools about religion- where it comes from, how it evolved etc. then they would see the bullshit it in it.

If people were more educated in church about religion- where it comes from, how it evolved etc. then they would see the natural law in it, remove the dogmatic stuff and we would have a healthier society.

Post: #22

Religion is blue pill enough said.

Post: #23

(03-12-2014 09:55 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 09:49 AM)soup Wrote:  I think that most of the problems our world faces could be dealt with if we raised the level of eduction for everybody on the planet, even by a tiny percent.

Feminists also share that sentiment.

Whats your deal Mage?

You've been attacking a lot of people lately with snarky little remarks along the theme of "Feminists would say that" or "Betas would do that" or "Blue pillers would think that way"?

You actually contradict yourself. "Feminists also share that sentiment" is attempt to shame Soup without offering any valuable counter argument. That is exactly what feminists do.

You got a bit of cabin fever? Have a regular leave the rotation? Something else bothering you?

Post: #24

Perhaps I'm misreading it but I thought he meant that feminism would be cured with an increase in education.

Post: #25

Possibly but it sure as hell reads like it was a blatant attack. Along the lines of this one in the same thread.

(03-12-2014 08:30 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 06:51 AM)j r Wrote:  Humans beings are evolved enough...

These words, this kind of thinking, betray a blue piller.

And others recently posted.

But maybe I'm just being a blue pill beta feminist.