"SC Police Hastily Scratch “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9” Off Monument...."

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But... freedom.!? What kind of freedom is it, if I don't get to freely force my beliefs onto others..?

Indeed.

 

[Revoltingest]

But... freedom.!? What kind of freedom is it, if I don't get to freely force my beliefs onto others..?

When I was in public elementary school, my teachers required Christian prayer.
What's your opinion on the legality of this/

 

[Cooky]

When I was in public elementary school, my teachers required Christian prayer.
What's your opinion on the legality of this/

The way I see it, is that God gives us the free will to either worship him or not.

So if God himself doesn’t force all people to worship him, including those against their will, then how could anyone else assume that responsibility above even God himself..?

 

[Revoltingest]

So if God himself doesn’t force all people to worship him, even against their will, then how could anyone else assume that responsibility above even God himself..?

How they justify it....you'd have to ask them.

 

[Cooky]

How they justify it....you'd have to ask them.

Yeah, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Whether or not they or I like it or dislike it doesn't mean ****. This is about a government entity abiding the Constitution.

The Constitution only matters insofar as the Second Amendment, all else is negotiable. What are you, new?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you're implying that humans only pretend to love and care for one another just because they believe that they'll be rewarded for it after death? That's that pretty pathetic concept of morality.

I didn't say humans only care for one another due to Heaven/Hell, after all, atheists care for people.

I asked, "It's far from bizarre to suggest a subjective basis for atheist morality and self-sacrifice. Are you claiming an objective basis instead?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

And my honest belief is that there is no intrinsic "purpose" except that which you give yourself, and a smattering of what your instincts dictate are the "best case" for survival after the many thousands of generations humans were in development to become the social creatures we are in modernity. Saving another's life could obviously be contemplated as part of the hope that someone else would be willing to save yours were you found in a similar situation. It's called "empathy," and is a huge part of our being a social species. So your claim of "no purpose" is rendered moot - at the very least it has the selfish component to it that I just mentioned.


There may be such a longing at first, but I, personally, have given up on such notions. I'm years and years into seeing people strive for things, claiming to feel that they are meant for "something greater," only to go in circles because they either aren't willing to put the work in to make it happen (due mostly to their expecting "Destiny" to have a hand in it) or they go down all the wrong rabbit holes to all the wrong opportunities, making themselves depressed, and ultimately doing poorly the one thing I feel our "consciousness" is charged with in the body/mind combo that comprises our entire "self" - and that is, to help the cause to survive and thrive. So, these people choose "destiny" over mental and emotional health. It's dumb, if you ask me. Do some people "make it?" Sure... but enough don't that the endeavor itself should rightly be questioned. It's the same reason parents ask their children to choose some backup plan if they say their dream is to become a professional athlete.


That's the funniest part - you have no way out of looking the fool here - because it necessarily points to my "principles" being a more "fundamental" part of me... even if they are based on delusions. Your claim is that you only have your principles "because God" - which means you don't even source your principles from within yourself. They are not "fundamental" - they are "God given". Which also means that, ultimately, not even God Himself could take my principles from me. Do you understand that? Now... let's ask Abraham what He might do were God to try and force his hand with respect to his principles... he'd kill his own child. See how that works? It isn't righteous, it isn't "good", it isn't pure. It's terrible, and you have enthusiastically subscribed.

I don't understand--I thought you believe the Bible is written by people, not a god. Are you sure my morality is "God said so"? Are you now going to tell me adultery, murder, etc. are not near-universal prohibitions?

 

[Shad]

.

And well they should have.

"Earlier this month, the Tega Cay Women’s Club in South Carolina gifted the local police department with a large stone that had the department’s logo painted on it.

Seems fine… until you realize the bottom of that design has the words “Matthew 5:9,” the Bible verse that includes the phrase “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

On the back of that stone is what’s known the “Police Officer’s Prayer,” which calls on the “Lord” to give officers courage, strength, and continued dedication to the job.

Bottom line: The police department installed a Christian monument outside the building. It’s absolutely illegal, and we know that because a similar monument referencing Islam or atheism or Satanism would never be permitted there.

Complaints flowed into the station as soon as that stone went up, and city officials agreed that this promotion of Christianity would lead to a lawsuit that they would inevitably lose.

“We talked to our attorney about it and he said they’re probably going to sue you,” said Mayor David O’Neal, also a campaign leader for U.S. Congressman Ralph Norman in past runs. “He said we’d have to hire a lawyer and it might cost $30,000 to $50,000 to fight it, or you can just move the offensive language.”​

But instead of just removing the monument, they handled this the worst possible way: by literally crossing out the words “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9.”

That move just angered conservatives even more.

S.C. State Rep. Bruce Bryant, R-York, was outraged the Biblical verse was removed. Bryant retired as York County Sheriff in 2017 after 20 years in office and 44 years in law enforcement.
“To say I am disappointed is an understatement,” Bryant said. “Law enforcement is a calling, a calling for men and women by God to protect the communities they serve. These principles of courage and faith are what this great state and nation were founded upon.”​

Notice how Bryant lied there. Courage is no doubt an important characteristic for law enforcement officials. But faith is not. Christianity is definitely not. Believing in the Jesus myth is not a prerequisite to being a cop. To pretend otherwise is an insult to all the men and women who aren’t Christians but risk their lives for the community anyway."
source

​

One has to marvel at just how clueless some people can be. Will they never learn? OR, is it they know, but "To hell with the law. Let's slip Christianity into secular society wherever we can on the off chance we'll get away with it."

.


.

Low effort by the police to try to walk the line. They are only fooling themselves if they think a little paint on engraved words makes the verse disappear. Easy fill in the blank question too.

I wonder if such an alteration of scripture is consider blasphemy by some denominations. General point. If anyone wants to answer the point feel free.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't understand--I thought you believe the Bible is written by people, not a god.

Yes, this is what I believe.

Are you sure my morality is "God said so"?

I think you know full well that I am speaking to how you must necessarily view it and understand it. But by all means, if you do not feel The Bible was inspired by God, or does not contain the words or commands of God, disclose that now. If you readily admit that The Bible was written by man, as I fully suspect, be sure to let me know.

If, however, you DO believe that God is the ultimate "author" behind The Bible, and you DO feel that there is no morality without God, then you must necessarily believe that any moral dictates that God set forth within The Bible are of utmost importance, and are actually one of the only tools you have to work with to come to correct moral decisions. Which means that in a tug-of-war between what God tells you to do and what you feel is "right" in any other capacity, "God" is going to win out, is He not? Such as in the moment God might ask you to kill your own child. Where a sensible person might tell God to go screw Himself, a full-on Bible believer should believe the act to be in service to God, and they should go through with it - as Abraham did. But there's the rub - if God expected you to do anything other than tell him to screw-off when He asked you to perform such a dastardly act, then I believe He is not "good," nor does He have your best interests in mind. Who would want to traumatize their child in such a way - even if you ultimately didn't have to go through with it? Who would allow their child to believe that they were capable of killing them? And since you should decidedly not want those things to be in play in your relationship with your child, God asking you to put them there, just for His own edification (especially considering He already supposedly knows your heart) is cruel and unjust. There's really no way around this one for people who believe that anything God dictates is automatically "right."

Are you now going to tell me adultery, murder, etc. are not near-universal prohibitions?

Near universal within human society and codes of conduct (unspoken or otherwise), sure. But not "universal" in some grander sense. There is no "law"/"rule"/"prescription" against harming/killing/maiming a human being that any other creature in this world (or any other, if there are any out there) adheres to or recognizes. You understand that, right? That if harming a human being were "universally" a "bad" thing, there would be no bear attacks, no people chewed up by sharks, etc. If it were truly universal, then everything would necessarily be geared toward protecting the interests of human beings. But that isn't, at all, the situation we have on our hands, is it? Any other creature is completely able to attack a human being in any fashion they choose. Just because we select another human being instead, do you think it AUTOMATICALLY becomes a different situation? Seriously? Then why exactly do we still have murder? We, as a society, must expect our fellow man to approach us, and approach each other, with some amount of respect for the livelihood of the other. We have to act accordingly when people show they are unwilling to do this, and lock them up, or even kill them. To not do this is to put us all at risk, do a disservice to ourselves and our children, etc. This seems incredibly obvious to me. But again... no "authority" is handing down this as a set of "rules" everyone must follow - and the proof is in the pudding. Who has to deal out punishment, and admonish acts here on Earth when someone breaks one of these rules we're discussing? Is it God? Does God come down and reprimand the rule-breaker and tell them what they did wrong so they can learn from their mistake, and dole out punishment according to the crime, etc.? No. No God doesn't. We humans have to take care of all of that ourselves. We're the ones, not God. God is nowhere in it, except as maybe a side-mention being invoked from someone's imagination to try and take the responsibility for having to execute punishment off the shoulders of the one actually doing the punishing. "It's not me... it's God. God says you can't murder people. Oh... but wait... you already did. Oopsie... now God is making me punish you." Like many things religion gets people to do, this is a cowardly act and stance. Better to show solidarity as a human being, and that you intrinsically have the betterment of other human beings in mind.

 

[Father Heathen]

I didn't say humans only care for one another due to Heaven/Hell, after all, atheists care for people.

I asked, "It's far from bizarre to suggest a subjective basis for atheist morality and self-sacrifice. Are you claiming an objective basis instead?"

But that wasn't your original question, which implied that service and sacrifice required a magical component.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not being broken.

Yes, it is.

The govt is not endorsing religion.

No govt funds were spent on the monument. It was donated by private citizens.

Placing it on public land is enough for endorsement, regardless of who paid for it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, this is what I believe.

I think you know full well that I am speaking to how you must necessarily view it and understand it. But by all means, if you do not feel The Bible was inspired by God, or does not contain the words or commands of God, disclose that now. If you readily admit that The Bible was written by man, as I fully suspect, be sure to let me know.

If, however, you DO believe that God is the ultimate "author" behind The Bible, and you DO feel that there is no morality without God, then you must necessarily believe that any moral dictates that God set forth within The Bible are of utmost importance, and are actually one of the only tools you have to work with to come to correct moral decisions. Which means that in a tug-of-war between what God tells you to do and what you feel is "right" in any other capacity, "God" is going to win out, is He not? Such as in the moment God might ask you to kill your own child. Where a sensible person might tell God to go screw Himself, a full-on Bible believer should believe the act to be in service to God, and they should go through with it - as Abraham did. But there's the rub - if God expected you to do anything other than tell him to screw-off when He asked you to perform such a dastardly act, then I believe He is not "good," nor does He have your best interests in mind. Who would want to traumatize their child in such a way - even if you ultimately didn't have to go through with it? Who would allow their child to believe that they were capable of killing them? And since you should decidedly not want those things to be in play in your relationship with your child, God asking you to put them there, just for His own edification (especially considering He already supposedly knows your heart) is cruel and unjust. There's really no way around this one for people who believe that anything God dictates is automatically "right."

Near universal within human society and codes of conduct (unspoken or otherwise), sure. But not "universal" in some grander sense. There is no "law"/"rule"/"prescription" against harming/killing/maiming a human being that any other creature in this world (or any other, if there are any out there) adheres to or recognizes. You understand that, right? That if harming a human being were "universally" a "bad" thing, there would be no bear attacks, no people chewed up by sharks, etc. If it were truly universal, then everything would necessarily be geared toward protecting the interests of human beings. But that isn't, at all, the situation we have on our hands, is it? Any other creature is completely able to attack a human being in any fashion they choose. Just because we select another human being instead, do you think it AUTOMATICALLY becomes a different situation? Seriously? Then why exactly do we still have murder? We, as a society, must expect our fellow man to approach us, and approach each other, with some amount of respect for the livelihood of the other. We have to act accordingly when people show they are unwilling to do this, and lock them up, or even kill them. To not do this is to put us all at risk, do a disservice to ourselves and our children, etc. This seems incredibly obvious to me. But again... no "authority" is handing down this as a set of "rules" everyone must follow - and the proof is in the pudding. Who has to deal out punishment, and admonish acts here on Earth when someone breaks one of these rules we're discussing? Is it God? Does God come down and reprimand the rule-breaker and tell them what they did wrong so they can learn from their mistake, and dole out punishment according to the crime, etc.? No. No God doesn't. We humans have to take care of all of that ourselves. We're the ones, not God. God is nowhere in it, except as maybe a side-mention being invoked from someone's imagination to try and take the responsibility for having to execute punishment off the shoulders of the one actually doing the punishing. "It's not me... it's God. God says you can't murder people. Oh... but wait... you already did. Oopsie... now God is making me punish you." Like many things religion gets people to do, this is a cowardly act and stance. Better to show solidarity as a human being, and that you intrinsically have the betterment of other human beings in mind.

God is not the sole tool I use for morality, I have God's Bible but tend to always contrast/compare with the morality I was raised in, societal norms, natural law, etc.

What is true is God's laws work very well--abstinence = STD/pregnancy/heartbreak protection, etc. that is--the Bible's morality isn't subjective but objectively is the best/superior to all other moral codes I've encountered--this is not circular reasoning, because demonstrably, the morals/laws of the Bible are most excellent.

Additionally in your last paragraph, you ask certain probing but ineffable questions then rhetorically answer them--because you won't believe that killing a plant is of different weight than killing a human. One bears God's emotional, intelligence and creative image! One received all Jesus had to give!

 

[BilliardsBall]

But that wasn't your original question, which implied that service and sacrifice required a magical component.

I know you disbelieve in the supernatural, which means you have special knowledge to contravene 99% of humanity--but I'm asking whether you consider your morals subjective or objective.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God is not the sole tool I use for morality, I have God's Bible but tend to always contrast/compare with the morality I was raised in, societal norms, natural law, etc.

I am quite glad to hear it. Not that I didn't already expect this. I don't believe even the most adamant of believers when they say that they prescribe to no other moral code than that laid forth by God. God didn't cover all the bases in The Bible, nor does He seem to be willing to address further concerns or things that come up in modern society. So obviously we have to be on our toes, and utilize our own moral discernment, regardless the "basis" upon which we claim to rest our principles.

What is true is God's laws work very well--abstinence = STD/pregnancy/heartbreak protection, etc. that is--the Bible's morality isn't subjective but objectively is the best/superior to all other moral codes I've encountered--this is not circular reasoning, because demonstrably, the morals/laws of the Bible are most excellent.

Some things work fairly well, yes. I don't deny this. But by no means would I ever use the word "best" to describe it. For one, the 10 commandments contain an awful lot of self-aggrandizing on the part of God. How does making sure you love God first and foremost affect one's behavior toward his fellow man? If anything, it puts a huge obstacle in the way of truly proving to anyone that you love them to the greatest degree that you are able, because you will obviously always have to inform them that you "love God more." Whereas I, as a non-believer, can honestly inform my family that I love them more than anything else in this universe or any other, the believer is automatically restricted in their ability to make such a statement. And this "love of God" will ONLY be understood by other believers in your same religion. So if, for an example, you were to tell a nonbeliever - one of your own children who ends up being "atheist" let's say - that you love them second only to God, you're basically telling that person that you love something they can't even be sure exists (and probably don't think YOU can be sure of yourself) more than you love them. That's like a slap in the face. It would be like you and I being best friends, except that I profess that "Spongebob Squarepants" is my first best friend, but you're a close second!

Additionally in your last paragraph, you ask certain probing but ineffable questions then rhetorically answer them--because you won't believe that killing a plant is of different weight than killing a human. One bears God's emotional, intelligence and creative image! One received all Jesus had to give!

Killing a plant is of different weight than killing a human FROM THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, and not necessarily any other. This is so easy to express/demonstrate/prove that it is ridiculous. Let's think about a milk-weed, upon which a monarch butterfly has just laid its only egg. Just after the egg-laying event, a human being comes by, chops down the plant and as this human goes to throw it into a wood-chipper, the person trips and themselves head headlong into the wood-chipper, right behind the milk-weed in their hand. The human and the butterfly's potential offspring both die. Assuming the butterfly could understand all that had transpired, which of the 3 dead beings would the butterfly mourn the most? And in what ranked order of importance is each death to the butterfly? I would venture to guess that it would go something like this, easily:

1. Mourn the loss of its egg/pupa
2. Mourn the loss of the milk-weed
3. Mourn the death of the human, if it wasn't instead, intent on cursing the human's name repeatedly

Or, we can go a completely different route to show how perspective effects this kinds of situations to a MASSIVE degree. Let's say we find the cure for cancer in a variation of a plant that only grows in one particular region/area/climate. A doomsday cult, who believes that the world is overpopulated, begins a dastardly campaign to destroy all samples of this plant in the region within which it grows, and raid the labs where it has been harvested to destroy those samples also. It somehow comes down to a movie-moment where one of the cult members is running away from an agent of the law with the very last plant of this variety in their hand toward a pit of lava in an active volcano. The cult member is wearing a full suit of body armor and the only vulnerable spot that is visible to the agent if where the helmet meets the back of the suit. So - to stop the cult member, the agent has to fire a bullet into the spine or back of the head of the cult member, most likely killing them. This is the last chance to save the cure for cancer. Should the agent take the shot? Wouldn't that be prizing the life of a plant over the life of a human being? Oh no! How could this be?! We can't possibly do that, can we??!? What has this world come to?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!??!!1

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, it is.



Placing it on public land is enough for endorsement, regardless of who paid for it.

Incorrect, I present to you https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/#/.

Now go sic that highly litigious butt hurt atheist group on Arlington. See how well they fair.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know you disbelieve in the supernatural, which means you have special knowledge to contravene 99% of humanity-

Refusing to make unsubstantiated presumptions about the universe has nothing to do with possessing "special knowledge".

-but I'm asking whether you consider your morals subjective or objective.

The best form of morality is based on both reason and compassion. Subjective in the sense that it grows and evolves alongside human knowledge and understanding, and objective in the sense that's it's measured by real world cause and effect. Practical, purposeful, and proportionate rather than irrational and arbitrary.

 

[Father Heathen]

Incorrect, I present to you Arlington National Cemetery - Home.

Now go sic that highly litigious butt hurt atheist group on Arlington. See how well they fair.

But Arlington allows grave markers for all faiths, thus doesn't violate the first amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

But Arlington allows grave markers for all faiths, thus doesn't violate the first amendment.

What!
No Revoltifarian symbol?

 

[Father Heathen]

What!
No Revoltifarian symbol?

To be fair they're not known to grace the field of battle.