Shenonymous, when I think of you, I think of you as a happy warrior and meticulous researcher—the ingredients of a formidable, persistent yet engaging debater. You’ve been on TD much longer than DaveZx3 and me, and I think it’s worth mentioning that the longer one is on TD, the more we find ourselves called names and excoriated to an extent neither imaginable nor helpful and definitely polarizing, far beyond anything seen on this particular thread. Somntimes it’s enough to drive you (well me, anyway) nearly crazy, or into an aversion to posting on threads where some of the worst name-callers and smear-mongers appear and, often dominate (in the schoolyard they would be among the bully class)—a disinclination I have to fight. Often I find myself thinking, of a given topic, “Well, that’s going to be haunted by X or Y or Z, their minds are made up, nothing that I or anyone can say will even be considered by them, so why bother?” (Most of us have biases and perspectives but that’s different than hard-core ideologue.) But unless non-ideologues DO bother, TD will become not worth reading. So I hope you, Shenon, and you, Dave, will continue commenting.

Shenonymous, November 11 at 12:38 pm

“Ultimately everything is neither provable nor not provable”

Wrong.  Truth exists, it is absolute, and it is provable. 

“Being agnostic means that the essential nature of things cannot be known”.

Wrong.  It means that the agnostic does not know the essential nature of things.  Agnosticism is not so arrogant as to say no one can know the essential nature of things. 

“Being atheistic, however, means to me, and other atheists, that there is no evidence that justifies a belief in a supernatural being.  Hence for me, belief in a god is nonsense”.

I am glad you put in the words “means to me and other atheists”  otherwise you would be erroneously speaking for a growing group of people who state “there is evidence to justify a belief in a supernatural being on a logical, rational, coherent and scientific basis”  In addition to the millions who believe based on faith alone, which can be considered evidence itself when literally millions upon millions of people have it. 

The atheist is on a side of the debate which will be losing ground in coming years.  I have no need or desire to change their mind, only to encourage people who do believe based on faith, and to tell them that their faith is not in vain. 

It is not totally irrational to not believe something you have not experienced.  It is a little arrogant to deny that other people have experienced it just because you have not.  Atheists have no business making judgements about God and for them to do so shows an agenda which goes far beyond belief or non-belief.  But that is for another time and another story.

Admittedly I take exception when called names or opinions denigrated rather
than argued against.  For my part in the disintegration of this forum into a
nasty duel, I apologize.  I am well known not to shirk from a battle on TD. 
Streetfighting reaction, physical or verbal, is difficult to exorcise once learned,
it is perceived to be a survival skill, it is not genetic.  Well maybe is it for hot-
headed Italians with some Greek genes too.  Never mind. 

It is not merely a crucifix on a wall in Italian schools.  It is many walls decorated
with crucifixes on all walls in Italian public schools.  An image of a crucifix is a
symbol so it is part of the established religion, it represents that religion.  Any
reasoning that it is not is faulty.  Because if it is not, then why is it an issue at
all?  Why the defense by the indoctrinated?

It isn’t pictures, it is crucifixes. Is it not understood that crucifixes are not
pictures?  Recurrent careless and arrogant comments and illogical reasonings
are what drives petty forum criticisms. 

The agnostic argument that anything is possible is irrefutable.  It is a given. 
Ultimately everything is neither provable nor not provable.  Atheists may also
be agnostic just as Christians, Jews and Muslims maybe agnostic.  Being
agnostic means that the essential nature of things cannot be known.  Most
scientists rationally believe that and leave the possibility of new knowledge
shedding light on their theories and hence open to revision.  Being atheistic,
however, means to me, and other atheists, that there is no evidence that
justifies a belief in a supernatural being.  Hence for me, belief in a god is
nonsense.  Being atheistic means being self-reliant and being responsible for
one’s own behavior in this life for it is the only life one has.  Atheism means
being moral because it is self-evident that is how people and their societies
interact peacefully which more effectively insures a better life.  Having a good
life is the goal of all life.

Sepharad, November 11 at 3:10 am

“Anything is possible, so why close our minds”?

You are a very bright person Sepharad. 

You can say to your husband that science itself points to the probability of God.  In the sense of “a supreme being or group of beings”.

Science accepts evolution as fact, and as such cannot be blind to the possibility of life evolving elsewhere.  And who could be arrogant enough to believe that man is the most intelligent of the life forms that have “evolved”  (possibly the least intelligent)  There could be extremely powerful, intelligent beings right here in our own universe.  And if they had a leader, the leader would be the Supreme Being. 

Science has also taught me that as soon as I think we have explored into the smallest possible particles, one comes out smaller.  As soon as we think we know the vastness of the universe, it proves even more vast.  It is very possible that more than one universe exists.  Multiverses as numerous as galaxies in our own universe.  We have no idea of what is out there, nor the nature of the beings that inhabit it.

It is a totally untenable position to state, while sitting on a tiny rock revolving around a tiny star in the middle of a tiny solar system, in the middle of a medium-sized galaxy in the far reaches of a vast universe, that we are it, and no super intelligent, super powerful beings exist. 

That super beings could exist, capable of understanding and initiating the “big bang”; that mankind could not comprehend it, but wrote about it to the best of his ability, and started religions to deal with it as best he could, does not alter the possibility and probability of it being true.  I say probability because I do not think man invents institutions, such as religion, just to get himself ridiculed and murdered.  There has to be some basis for the beliefs of billions of people. 

I for one, am lucky enough to have had a great experience which has convinced me that there is a benevolent God, who I can discuss and describe coherently.  I do not feel it necessary to push my knowledge, but I am not afraid to state it, even though it is a threat to the atheist mindset, and they like to attack with vigor, which is an insight into the weakness of their position.

Science is close to unfolding evidence which will make it a lot easier to have a belief in a Creator and benevolent God.  I think we will all be on the same page in less than 25 years, and that will enable great progress, peace and rest from this constant war and bickering which we find ourselves in. 

I see a future where all peoples will have abundant life and prosperity on earth. 

But in the meantime, let the peoples have their religions and their cultures.  Be tolerant of them,  But do not let them become violent.  If religions and cultures were not constantly threatened, I think there would be a lot less war, violence and terror.  When war, violence and terror break out, they must be squashed immediately.

DaveZx3, You make a very important point: avoiding the state-sponsored religion is the ideal, just as (some may remember), state-sponsored atheism is equally capable of destroying the individual’s freedom of choosing his own god or religion or other spiritual path. When I speak of the desirability of the secular state, I’m thinking of it as Ataturk did, in that religion can not govern politics just as politics should not determine religion. I myself am an agnostic because it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god. My husband is an atheist because he believes scientific advances have proven there is no need to posit the existence of a god. It irritates him that I don’t think merely proving there is no need for something can be said to prove that it isn’t there. And it irritates me that such a normally rational and bright man can not see the sense of my position, but on the other hand if he didn’t see some merit to it, why would we still be discussing it? There are deeply religious people in my family whose tradition and culture are based on ethical standards written by men of faith—but one of those men, Moses Maimonides, wrote his “Guide for the Perplexed” for uncertain ones such as me. He was also a physician, a man of science and politics, a believer in moderation and pragmatism in all things and his closest friend was a Kurdish warrior, the conqueror Salah-ah-Din. From Maimonides’ writings and the way he lived his life, it seems likely that the principles of humanism and science are equally valid whether there is a god or not. “Guide…” was an attempt to reconcile the physical and spiritual world, but in the end was not quite convincing, so I think even Maimonides remained in doubt as to the existence of a god, but certainly never dismissed the possibility. Anything is possible, so why close our minds?

For anyone still following this thread, I am sorry it has degenerated into such a bad scene.

I have been merely saying that people are allowed to have their culture and their God.  It is not God that is removed from public, but state sponsored religion.  It is separation of church and state, not separation of God and state.  If you do not know the distinction, I will explain it to you.

In having this opinion, I don’t get rational, insightful reasons why it may be wrong, but I get called names, personally attacked, and belittled by an arrogant, intolerant faction that apparently has no real case. 

A crucifix on the wall is not an establishment of religion.  Religion exists in the minds and hearts of a people, not an image on the wall. 

The image on the wall cannot be religion, because the object of their religion forbids them to make images and hang them on the wall.  So how can it be religon? 

Leave the Italians alone with their pictures, and leave me alone, unless you have a rational input to the subject at hand.

Shegoddess is unconcerned that daviezee does not have any pretty sights to
behold.  Shegoddess is known for self-proclamations about Her swollen head and
insecurities.  Your snipe misses the target.  Shegoddess won’t bother saying
anything intellectual to a cretin.  Calling you a cretin casts aspersions on cretins
and Shegoddess apologizes to all other cretins.

Dave, In two years when I get into the 7th grade, you won’t think your are such a smarty pants, how many personalities do you have with your problem? If comments are not ones opinion what are they? Are you aloud to drive a car and do you live in a cave? Do you believe anything you write. Are you the unwanted comic?
Dave I did not read your post, I had an important appointment to get my toe nails done.

If you want to look intellectual, try to cease and desist with the bitter, demeaning attitude and come up with something smart to say, if possible. 

You insecurity is not a pretty sight to behold.

Gee daviezee, we are all wondering why you have so many brain farts?

Damn, I forgot to put “self-proclaimed” in front of shegoddess.  Now the head is even more swollen.

I don’t need any classes, thanks.  I have already been fully trained in bullshit discernment.  Besides, one does not actually have to read bullshit, only smell it and quickly flush it down the toilet before it stinks up the house. 

What are you quoting some dead French guy for?  His idea was dead before it even got out of his brain.  It started out with a false assumption and went into a tailspin from there.  Or are you just trying to look intellectual? 

If you want to look intellectual, try to cease and desist with the bitter, demeaning attitude and come up with something smart to say, if possible. 

My experience is that the atheist doesn’t start the belittling and demeaning until they begin to lose the argument.  You just start right in as though you ralize that you have no case. Or you realize your case has already been argued, and you have lost and it ruined your day.  Is that why you act like you do?  Just asking.

Isn’t it FORT Hood?  When your head is up Uranus, Davey, we understand that it is
difficult to get things right.  “Shegoddess!”  I like that!  That is the proper form of
respect.  I can see you are on your knees.  At least you finally got that title right! 
Now, I command that you be about pulling your head out of you know where. 
Some divine advice:  If you don’t care for Sunday School maybe you should take a
how-to-read correctly class so that you are able to read my and all the others’
posts accurately, then take a logic and fallacies class so you can see how full of
crap you are.  There is an entire curriculum you could take to become a better
person, but those two are good,  and in that order, for a start.

FYI:  Pascal’s Wager is faulty.  But not having the skill of logic, oh, and your head
where it is, you are not able to see it.

Leefeller, November 10 at 1:52 pm

“Dave, you seem to actually prove my premise! If the roles were reversed, every argument used by Dave, could well be transferred to my belief of choice, for my ditty of choice is the one and only Princess of perception, the most mighty and over weight Great Ynyun! If you accept my belief of Unyun, I will accept yours, seems sort of like show and tell!”

Of course I believe in the Great Unyum.  What is not to believe.  If you say it is so, who am I to deny it.  I thought you were an atheist. 

Actually I only wrote all that drivel to enflame the Shegoddess into showing that she still reads my posts after she swore she was not going to do so. 

Feel free to cancel the drivel post, and I will update sometime in the future my real thoughts of the wonderful world of atheism. 

Also, be careful, shegoddess, no where did I claim the religion of Christianity.  You do read things in, don’t you?  And don’t forget, you can’t admit that because you are not reading my posts.  You were the one who took your ball and went home whining because someone posted something you did not approve of.  And it was someone who was a lightweight, who everyone is supposed to ignore, defering only to the pseudo-enlightened self-proclaimed duchess of do-do. 

Never been to Sunday school, so would no absolutely nothing of Sunday school larnin’.  I have much less to lose by being struck dead than you do.  I have a 50/50 chance, remember?

Hypocrisy as a belief seems profound, when one perceives what is and what is preferred by others. 

Concept of believing that which does not exist in ones mind, seems important a threat to a believer seems far fetched and a fantisy unto it self, one only need refer to history as to how far fantasy may go. 

Dost the delusions become evermore deluded? Emotions can bludgeon logic, with a crassness only known to man.

It is also curious, Leefeller that those who would smother atheists,
suppress and oppress their free-thinking voices, would also want them dead
since it is soooo Xian of them, not Christian, not as a real Christian, not a genuine
Christian who would want no harm to others, but Xians do.  They are the fake
Christiains.  Methinks they ought to get some revisionist Sunday School larnin’
very fast or be struck dead by that long beard in the sky throwing one of his
thunderbolts at the hypocrite.

“May it be friar to say most people who find the need to believe, also believe religions and religious beliefs should be kept to oneself, unless it is their own”

Is it possible Dave supports my premise if not actually makes my case?

If one is told to believe something exists, of which they do not believe exists or want to, why should they? 

As I believe, is not pushed on anyone else, why is it so important others seem to push on others, of what they believe as proclaimed absolute?

See as one sees, believe as one believes. otherwise one is bad, not nice naughty, not happy, empty, one must understand for otherwise they shall go to a most unpleasant place, so acceptance is mandatory or else one will regret it! So one must accept an others beliefs?

Seems emotions drive the deluded to drivel, not reason!

Dave, you seem to actually prove my premise! If the roles were reversed, every argument used by Dave, could well be transferred to my belief of choice, for my ditty of choice is the one and only Princess of perception, the most mighty and over weight Great Ynyun! If you accept my belief of Unyun, I will accept yours, seems sort of like show and tell!

Leefeller, November 10 at 11:47 am #

“May it be friar to say most people who find the need to believe, also believe religions and religious beliefs should be kept to oneself, unless it is their own”

I see, only people like you with “special beliefs” approved by the state, can express them in public.

Separation of “Church” and State may be a reality in your atheistic mind, but in your haste to eliminate beliefs that you do not agree with, you forgot to eliminate God from State, and you forgot to fully examine the concept of “Church”. 

God, Church and religion are three entirely different concepts.  You would not understand them completely, because they are beyond you. 

God was never separated from State, and as such, congress is free to pray to him, and people are free to pray to him, whenever and wherever they choose. 
God was written into founding language, but religion was not. 

Wherever free speech is allowed, people are free to express God, without some atheist saying it is something that must be kept to oneself. 

Atheism is a death concept, started by dead people and proclaimed by dead people.  There is no hope for an atheist.  He is dead if there is no God.  He is dead if there is a God.  He is a dead man, walking around on a tiny rock in the middle of deep dark space, proclaiming that nothing exists except him.  He is a deluded midget-mind without hope, who spends his time trying to steal the hope of others. 

If anyone should keep their thoughts to themselves, it should be the atheist.  But, unfortunately, he also has free speech.  His time is getting short, though.  Science itself will soon proclaim his position absurd.

When in Rome, etc,etc, as the saying goes, could the same be said for Baghdad, but more importantly, do they call themselves Baghdonyons?

May it be friar to say most people who find the need to believe, also believe religions and religious beliefs should be kept to oneself, unless it is their own?

As one who appreciates the balance and fullness of odd numbers and since I did not have a third sentence to write, this is it.

84% of Italians live in a Catholic indoctrinated country, johannes.  It is not
surprising they would be pro, that is, for keeping crucifixes in schools.  As a
wise man once said, all of the people can be wrong some of the time.  Public
schools, whether in Italy or America, are secular.  Catholic schools have the
absolute right to decorate their schools as they choose.  The parents of the
children who are taught in Catholic schools pay for their children to become
indoctrinated.  Public schools have children whose parents do not want their
children to be religiously conditioned.  Shall their wishes be subordinated to
the indoctrinated? 

Some of what you describe of the Muslims sanctimonious insistence about the
art in government buildings that has been in the western culture for hundreds
of years and represents the culture of the west is as hypocritical as you think. 
The Muslims still damage women in the way you describe.  From the occasional
news reports, there is a glimmer of hope that Muslim women are waking up to
their own intrinsic worth and are beginning to protest.

The Muslim influence in Holland is a political problem.  Either Holland wants it
culture to be changed radically and permanently or it wants to preserve its own
history.  Holland will have to decide.

Oriana Fallaci died in 2006 of cancer.  She was a uniquely brave and outspoken
journalist and the Italians supported her by buying a million of her books.  She
was a strong critic of Islam and was involved in numerous lawsuits over her
more than candid views.  Being an atheist and critic of all religion, the Iranis
despised her as did most Muslims in Europe as she gave voice to the tyrannical
oppressiveness of Islam.  Besides several prizes for journalism, she also won a
gold medal in Italy the same year as one of the major lawsuits filed against her. 
She died before any suit was adjudicated.

johannes, I see your point. As I said, I’m not in the midst of European society and therefore don’t think I understand the magnitude of the cultural threat from Islamic immigrants as well as you do. I have read Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci’s books on the subject, though most of the TDers consider her an over-the-top racist. Her books are certainly clearly critical of Islam in non-Islamic societies and its push to change those societies, and I’ve read and respected much of her earlier work as a journalist fighting fascism wherever she found it, but not being a European I have to admit I’m not in her or your shoes.

Isn’t Coke a religious symbol of the god of capitalism?  I am sorry, no coke machines, they offend me.  Mountain Dew is o.k.

To Sepharad,

First 84% from the Italiê citizen are pro to keep the Cross in the schools.

In Holland the Moslims want all art with nude woman out of the governement buildings.

They are still mutilating their little girls, and some are sending home their girls to geth wedded in a very young age wath is not allowed in Holland.

From their side is an ongoing demonisation against our values, people need an as the Frans say an repère, to compare things in their mind.

We in our country had much more newcomers in our country and much much earliar, to name Purtugées Jews, Hugenotes, East Europeén Jews, and lots of other people from out of our kolonies, no problem happely to gether, all kinds of religions no problem, their where sometimes some small difficulties but they where overcome.

This time it don’t work at all, they think they are bether people, their religion is superieur, they can’t stand it, our woman are equal and sometimes bether as men, our woman like to show of, and we are no hyphocrits, their woman are like domestic animals, most do not speek Dutch, the only TV they look at is Alzeèra, no its no good.

We have open frontiers now in Europe so all thiefs and criminals out of the old Easteren bloc, can come and do as they like, we never had so much criminalety in our country as on te moment, people are starting to go thinking more for them selfs and want securety, this is started and will go a long way, and fast.

From the points I am seeing here, instead of taking the Crucifixes out of the classrooms in Italy, maybe they should let the cows in. Or maybe as in the US,  Coke machines?

johannes, November 8 at 7:26 am #

I agree with you.  India is allowed to have their cows and no one can tell them otherwise.  It is a religious symbol and a cultural symbol. 

I am arguing that no one has the right to strip the symbols and laws out of a culture or religion.  If a culture or religion offends someone, then they should move to somewhere else.

You say that Muslims are overrunning your culture.  That is not right.  I have always held to “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”  At least in public.

For the EU to take crosses out of Italian schools is wrong.  It is a matter for Italians and Italian culture and religion, no one else.

To Dave Zx3,

Try and find a book who clears you up on Zaraoustra, his thinking says every living creature has the same rights on this planet, so your flying taxidriver has to live with that.

A little warning from Zaraoustra says, if the humans start to make from animals numbers, than is the end of live on earth near, well their are on a dayly base sloutherd 700 000 animals to feed the other animals the humans.

Root Jensen, it’s obvious you aren’t a Nazi. You, like johannes, are just seeing things that most of us in the U.S. don’t see because the U.S. is such a huge place and full of so many different kinds of people—including our large Arab and other ethnic groups who follow Islam. Most of them are fine with the basic culture here, though of course a small minority are radicals with violence on their minds as radicals with no particular plan but a sense of being aggrieved, then there are also Moslems in the middle who prefer Islamic values but have no intention of forcing them on anyone and are content to live by the laws of this land and worshipping as they choose. (The ability to have freedom of religion within the context of a secular political framework is the whole reason for the existence of the U.S. in the first place.)

johannes, the slow-moving cultural genocide you speak of is indeed a real threat, particularly on your side of the Atlantic, but it’s also possible that mingling of ethnicities can produce more mother-country-cultural assimilation. My own extended family is so ethnically mixed that it’s almost funny, and we all have our religion of choice or like me a non-religious preference, but as far as I know all of us are very, very American no matter what color or country of origin, no matter what faith or lack of any. But I do see that this is not as likely to happen in a much smaller numerically homogenuous country being invaded by a large, rapidly growing non-Western culture. Being so far out of the circumstances you face, there’s really no useful suggestion I can make other than to keep in mind that there is as much variety among the Moslem population as there is among the Christians or Jews or Hindu. Not all of them are your enemies, and many could be very agreeable and useful friends who are as eager to avoid the radical traditions as you are. But as I say, it is complex and different everywhere. I wish you good luck, and hope you’ll keep letting us know how your thoughts evolve.

DavewZx3—you understand Folktruther and Samuel Huntington very well.

Shenonymous, November 7 at 5:33 pm

“Your rhetorical waxing about the cows of India is irrelevant”

You denounce and ridicule everything that does not fit your own opinionated world view, as if you are qualified to pass judgment on all things. 

I find most of your judgments and proclamations as absurd as you apparently find mine. 

As for the religious significance of the cows of India, some are offended by the fact that people attach such significance to an animal.  My son, who is a pilot for Continental airlines, told me of the trouble a fellow pilot got into over a cow in India.  He was offended. 

My question was, should a resident of India, who does not share the sacred cow syndrome, expect to have the cows removed from wandering the streets (a public place) because they are offended over it?

It is relevant to a discussion over whether an offended individual should expect removal of the crucifix from public schools in Italy.  It is a simple discussion point. 

Your ranting over my perceived lack of understanding, especially contrasted to your own self-proclaimed and absolute understanding of every subject ever discussed, is indicative of a mentality more deranged than that you attack unmercifully.

You will eventuallly realize that there are many, many facts which do not fit your world view.  Get used to it.  You are not quite as smart as you think you are.

“This is only your opinion, which is like religion, it is your idea of what is
good and bad.  Who died and left you in charge?”  You must feel,
DaveZx3,  I am in charge of something!  Yes, I am in charge of my own
mind.  Obviously you are not but are still an opinionated ass.  How’d that
happen?  You have an odd and esoteric idea of religion.  Permission to have a
culture is not the point!  You don’t show that you even know what culture is. 
Your rhetorical waxing about the cows of India is irrelevant.  You could however
take your head out of that place Leefeller rightfully notes where it is,
Uranus.  Do you feel better after the “Can I” rant?  Is it off your chest now?  Your
perceptions need a little unclouding up.  Please have someone breathe on them
and wipe them for more clarity in seeing.

How exactly, for instance, does the God of the Jews and the King of the Jews
(Christ) offend even .01% of the time?  Seems like confused humans are the
only offenders and offended.  So yes, your reasoning is strange.

Folktruther, November 5 at 11:55 pm #

As Samuel Huntington put it:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.  Westerners often forget this fact.  Non-Westerns never do.”

You and Samuel Huntington are both full of fertilizer.  The West has no history any more barbaric or warmongering than the far east and the mid east.  The west won the world because they were the first to industrialize and became rich.  The world loves riches, and they flocked west for the cash. 

Is there greed, Yes.  Is there violence that emanates from greed? Yes.  But the west is no more no less guilty than every other culture.  Read history, is is evident.  Man is universally violent, hateful and war mongering.  It is evident throughout history.

Shenonymous, November 5 at 9:46 pm

“I do not think you or they need religion to be good human beings.  And symbols of that goodness are even less needed.  The crucifix or cross are not symbols of a good spirit.  They are symbols of death, the death of the man called Jesus taken by some to be the Christ”.

This is only your opinion, which is like religion, it is your idea of what is good and bad.  Who died and left you in charge? 

The point is that people are allowed to have their culture.  It is the Italian culture, not your culture.  As an outsider, you have no right to make judgements.  It is a harmless thing, and they are allowed to do it. 

Can we take all the cows out of India because they offend us?  Can we take the totem poles from native Americans?  Can I take the crescent moon and star off of the flag of Irag, (or whatever flag it is on over there, symbol of early paganism) Can I destroy all the Buddah statues?  Can I delete all inverted pentagrams?  Go tell the Iranian Madman that you want to take all his symbolisms to his God. 

Are you trying to rid the world of every single symbol or reference to religion or God?  I don’t see anyone trying to do that.  Only one God offends. 

FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, IT IS THE GOD OF THE JEWS AND THE KING OF THE JEWS (CHRIST) WHICH IS 99% OF THE TIME THE OFFENDER.

To Shenonymus,

I am well aware of all the malevolence done on the humans by so called religions, but some times you have to shoose between 2 bad thinkings, for the moment I choose the Cross, the feeling is that in Europe their is an power play going, its playing around the Christian religion, we know that it has a very bad press, but it is still an part of our culture and past.

They are calling every day harder for the Sharia law
and if we leth fall completely our old religions, we make place for an other one, and we want not to replace something bad with something even worst.

Further more I think as you do, that people writing
on this site are good people, or the good kind of people.

The people in Europe, the people in the street, who have problems with the dayly realitè, and can not distinguish the bad from the good things, the medias who are feeding on an dayly base the to follow way of thinking, and creating enemys and friends, its real a hopeless situation, and the middle people are slowly growing apathies, they are no longer interested in anything, no religion no nothing, sex drinking and football, plus they are afraid of what is happening in their seroundings, they feel not save anymore.

Well thank you for your nice and human way of responding, Salutation.

I am in favor of undermining the spiritual culture of the West.  I think its violent and barbaric.  the cross is not merely a cultural symbol, it gives legitimacy to the Vatican and its perverted values.  Just as the Israeli star now signifies oppression and war.  the West is the culture of the White Man, currently in decay.  It has legitmated capitalist Democracy the past few centures, and the power delusions that symbolize it, as well as the homicidal racism of the White Man.

The demial of Western violence is simply a denial of history.  As Samuel Huntington put it:

  “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.  Westerners often forget this fact.  Non-Westerns never do.”

johannes,
While I cannot know it in any absolute sense because we only know each other
via the electronic medium, I think you are basically a good human being.  I
think the people on Truthdig are basically good human beings.  In reality, I can
only hope so.  I do not think you or they need religion to be good human
beings.  And symbols of that goodness are even less needed.  The crucifix or
cross are not symbols of a good spirit.  They are symbols of death, the death of
the man called Jesus taken by some to be the Christ.  What is the Christ to
you?  If you are good in your religion, you do not need symbols to remind you
to be good in your religion, good in your heart.  I agree that there is much in
this world that is contaminated thinking.  Defiling the human being by other
human beings.  Thousands of years of gods has not reduced human beings’
bad treatment of each other or increased their morality.  Morality is something
one comes to know is the best way to live in a society.  Morality is only needed
within a society that recognizes the frailties of the human spirit.  Symbols do
not create morality.  It is a moral world we are seeking where we can live as
radiant human beings.  Having a free mind and being conscious of others’ right
to achieve their humanhood, whatever it means to be human, and respecting
their humanity is what will bring nobility to individuals.

to Shenonymus,

I think an very old symbol of an essential good spirit, can do no harm to people even atheîsts who are on a dayly base surrounded by dirty an filthy thinking of our society with all their symbols.

It says much of globalization, if the Italians are taking the crucifixes off their school house walls, next they will ban smoking in public.

It seems the offense is in the eyes of the beholder, if one is not Christian, maybe they can place symbols of all religions on the school house walls then the only people who may be offended would be Atheists and Sarah Palin?

Yes, crucifixes are all over Italy, therefore they do not need to be in secular
schools.  I too am of Italian/Greek descent and was raised in a Catholic Italian
household, but to my secular, free-thinking mind, schools cannot teach with
counterintuitive symbols all around to distract teaching dogmatic religion-free
thinking. 

Italian schools are bravely leaping into the 21st century where, yes, it is time to
rethink the entire religious enterprise.  I have no problem with people hanging
onto their beliefs in their own home, on their own person, and around their
designated places of worship and I have no intention to influence or convince
them or anyone else to abandon their primitive impulses, but I do have a problem
with symbols of indoctrination displayed in common places.

To Root Jensen

Belief me this bearded men where not looking for the nice places loved by William Wordsworth.

The most Eu policianc are looking blind, they see wath they want to see, and most of them are cheap swindlers, who do everything for money, even cheat their voters.

In the EU is an underground 5 collene working, in France where I live, they have even heavy arms, but nobody seems to care, in France they make out 12% of the population very quick growing, much of the woman are like Queen bees, children and children with the money paid they live.

Johannes, I understand it isn’t so simple as that,
shame though we’d all be pretty sorted if it was

Nature is beautiful, I feel privileged to have been
shown the beauty of Britain from top to bottom, the
diversity of life in such a small piece of land is
amazing. Yet it is worrying when you visit say the
Lake District and you see a group of muslim men, all
well built with huge beards training amongst the
crags, fells and forests. When we have gym’s in
almost every town and village why do they need to go
hide in the woods? Do you witness any activities like
that in Holland, where you think that is a little too
odd of a behaviour to think nothing of it?
I agree with you that it is tough not to sound like a
damn nazi at times, our labour government has been
that though under the guise of the opposite.
Makes you wonder at Tony Blairs thinking, our prime
minister isn’t meant to be catholic so i’m lead to
believe (someone correct me if i’m misguided there),
so why did he convert as soon as he left office?

To Root Jensen,

Its not simple as that, their is an very slow genocide happening, on our people on our values, I am not a Nazi, but I think this mixing of all kinds of people will become in the end a dissaster, the white population is only 2% of the population of the earth, if you reed Darwin, and ask Attenborough, you will come to the same conclusion that the natuur is beautyful, and one of this beauty’s is all the different species animals as well human.

Sepharad,
....and for awhile I think we should be prepared for
a lot of strange actions and reactions among the
Europeans because they are facing a huge identity
crisis and it’s just beginning to manifest.
Big nail, huge hammer and driven home in one I’d say.

Johannes, I also think the rabbit politic is
something to do with the birth/death rates from their
countries of origin and some form of world population
education is needed. I agree with the many
intellectuals who admit we need less people on the
planet. If anything the humanitarians of the world
should realise it will make humanity and earth much
healthier.
If David Attenborough is worried about it that is
saying something him being the kind of man he is.

To Sepharad,

Thank you for your understanding from our real big problem.

The incoming emigrands have or crèate big famelies on this way they kill our sociale children funds, the Dutch has learned that in our full small country 1 or 2 children is the best, but they keep going for the rabbit politic, so they think they can overwhelming us with their numbers.

All the subsidies they geth, go practicalle all to their countrys of origine, where they build nice houses and rent them out to tourists from the EU,
So they live practical from the EU and of course the EU citizen, no integration their.

We thinking that their woman where opprest bij the system, no the woman like it,you see all the time more in burka’s, maby the woman are even more fanatic as their men, some time we are to naîf, its the media who are making and building some thing just on the site of real live.

Well I can tel you that most of us have our nose full of this kind of people, they come make an nice nest for them selfs and start living as at home, nice living without working living from the others.

Their are some who understant that this behavior is going nowhere, and they try to do something to change the tide of nonthinking, but the power behind this fanatic non respectful behavior against our values and culture is real very ugly and big.

They say well we are born here thats to say in Holland, we have the same rights as you, but we think thats tru but it makes you not an Hollander, if you do not love your country and his folks, and this love comes with generation, not only as in the States you live some where make money are a part of the esteblisment, don’t give a shit about the country you live in, no I have seen it in New York, in their naburhood, in their small circle with their own way’s and languages some more as 5 generations, well you can call them Americans, but they are not Americans.

Verena, I don’t think that Christians have been any more violent than any of the other religions’ followers at least at some point in time. Sure, the Christians had the Crusades, Reconquista and Inquisitions. But the ancient Hebrew warriors were also noted for their ferocity, and I expect the Israelis will defend themselves pretty well when their backs are to the sea again; Mohammed himself was an Islamic Crusader and the Moslems have fought many wars of conquest and are still doing so, as nations in some places and as a religion in others;
Hindu Nationalists are pretty radical; the Chinese and Japanese and residents of all the ‘stans have fought fiercely; the Native American Indians, both hemisphere, fought and destroyed their predecessors, warred among each other and fought the invading Europeans as long as they could ... Not one religion, any more than one country, can claim to be innocent and passive for its entire history.

But that’s not the point. DaveZx3 is asking why the EU thinks it’s OK to discriminate against expressions of Christianity while it’s generally more tolerant of other religions—and the answer is not because Christians have been known to behave beyond badly.

I think it’s not just a coincidence that johannes, as a European, puts his finger on it. For many reasons, people in Europe who, like johannes don’t much care about religion per se, but worried about the possible undermining and eventual destruction of their culture and its values, feeling slightly pressured by the growing number of Moslems in their countries and seem to be having two conflicting reactions, as reflected in the political parties and state actions: 1) trying to keep the personal expressions of religions—such as wearing scarves and veils—to a minimum so as to not upset the indigenous mainly Christian populations and 2) trying to restrain from offending in any way their Moslem populations lest it lead to violent confrontations with non-Moslems. Some Europeans feel pressure more than others and the European Union is bound to reflect all of the conflict that flows from that. Just now, some Europeans are seriously annoyed because they don’t think the U.S. is taking the Iranian threat seriously enough. The EU Parliament also has a special section investigating the rising anti-Semitism in Europe. All of these are interlocking forces and fears, and for awhile I think we should be prepared for a lot of strange actions and reactions among the Europeans because they are facing a huge identity crisis and it’s just beginning to manifest.

It’s easier to be an American because we’re separated by two oceans from most of the non-Christian world, while Europe is sitting right at the edge and above the most volatile regions and religions in the world. They are closer to unstable countries and consequently are taking in many more non-Euro immigrants per capita than America does.

Really, all we can do is watch and listen, and when we think the EU is doing or exhorting Europeans to do something ridiculous or radical, we can say so—but shouldn’t be surprised if no one listens to us anymore than the Europeans should expect Americans to be awed by their judgments and pronouncements. We’re allies, not clones. And in this case our problem is not as overwhelming as theirs.

Sepharad, November 4 at 1:53 am

“How hard can it be to be reasonable about personal expressions of religion, as long as a country retains its own culturally developed law without alteration to fit some completely different sort of country”

EXACTLY,  How hard can it be? 

This is what no one seems to get.  If you live in a community that has certain cultural values, including religious values, you are not unilaterally allowed to deny the expression of those values without seriously underming personal freedom.

When the Jesus Manger scene goes out in front of town hall on Christmas, that is not establishment of religion, but expression of rights of the citizens within that town to display that which is important to them.  If you happen to be the only (other religion) in that town, it is not for you to be offended, it is for you to go display the symbols of your religion at the appropriate time.  If you are denied, then you have a case, but to bring a case because you are offended that your neighbors think different than you is absolutely insane,  We have gone completely mad in the effort to rid the world of God or Jesus or something. 

I see no equal effort to rid the world of Allah, Buddha, whatever, and I do not understand that.  There seems to be mostly one God that offends, JESUS CHRIST.  My experience is that there is probably a very good reason for that.  I wonder what it could be?

This shows how absurd the world is getting.  Crucifixs are all over Italy, displayed everywhere, transcending religion into everyday culture.

When I go to India, I have to move over for the cows.  When I go to Italy, I get to see Crucifixs.
When I go to China, I have to put up with Red Dragons all over, a Christian symbol for Satan.  Every culture has their symbols.

For one mom to complain that her precious kids were being brainwashed by Italian culture and religion, is stupid, to bring it to court is insane, but to award her money for her pain and anguish, and the pain and anguish of her children is a sign of the total crumbling of human values. 

It is bad enough that in a pure democracy, 51% can take away the rights of 49%, but for one to take away the rights of all is an ominous sign.  It is also a sign of the true nature of the EU.

Get ready America, it is coming to your neighborhood very soon, if not there already. 

If every decent citizen of the world does not stand up and denounce this decision, then all that shows is that their desperate attempts to rid the world of God overrides all sense of human rights and values. 

There will be a backlash from these types of actions that will be worse than the world has ever seen.  Mark my word.  People are only willing to be pushed so far before they strike back, and the time is getting real close.

Whats happening all over the original Christian world, is the infighting of other religions, and we leth this happen while we dont give a shite about our values or culturel heritage.

I am not an real church men, but I think we do not feel or see the constant eating on our values, they are their and they say they came to stay, and to conquer the white countrys, so think about that, well I myself do not like it and will fight them all the way.

Holy shit. I never thought I’d ever live to see the day. I am of Italian heritage. I live in a community of same. This is crazy. I expect Italy to secede from the EU. The EU has gone way too far. I am by no means a defender of the Catholic Church, but I know how Italians are, and how they feel about the Church. This is a disgrace.

Welcome to the last decade of British way of life!!
The rise of the BNP amongst everyday people is
partially down to these actions happening all over
our country, a sad moment for the nation as they are
only helping to break down society all the more.
(probably a government hidden agenda, wouldn’t
suprise me, if you heard of the recent Question Time
programme on the BBC then take a good look at the
audience, I do not agree with the BNP but they were
mobbed by a wholly biased audience. For me that is
hiding from the true matter at hand and avoiding a
much needed debate, are we ostriches?).
We celebrate other cultures, patrons and festivals
but our own like St. Georges day has become such a
low key affair, if not stopped completely, because it
MAY OFFEND.
As a ‘multi-cultural society’ we are not allowed to
have nativity plays because IT MAY OFFEND.
We are not allowed to fly our national flag because
IT MAY OFFEND
Oh the list could go on and on.
SEPHARAD, I do not have enough information regarding
some aspects of this, but if we look at Cromwell and
bringing Jewish peoples back into England. When it
comes to law, I understand that there is a Jewish
court to deal with lets say fraud. Once the case has
been looked at under Jewish laws(?) the case then
gets taken to the English law courts to give final
decision to the laws of the land. Islam seems to be
trying to gain their own independent Sharia law
courts with little acceptance to English Law.
Tony Blair pushed this crusade of equality and
fairness for all, yet you will find that there is a
massive imbalance and probably designed to be that
way.
Our schools were split into single sex schools only
to have introduced Islamic schools a few years later
all funded by our government. Like you say, the
religious centres can deal with such specialised
teaching, why segregate us all the more from each
other?
Our social housing no longer goes to the peoples
established here (wherever they may have originally
come from) most is given to the fresh faced migrants
with a hoard of social benefits to boot.
Locally our white Labour mp was overthrown by a sunni
muslim mp within the same party (in West Yorkshire
Islam is rather dominant, yes I grew up alongside our
7/7 bombers). Now the change of leader could be for a
good reason, I believe not, more the fact that it
strengthens the Islamic power base over better
policies and a fairer administration (what because he
is a muslim? I’ve always believed it doesn’t matter,
as long as your the right person for the job).
Now a local opposing party, the Liberal Democrats,
are looking at changing their leader to a Shia muslim
, why? Because, as the man explain to me himself, he
is the uncle of the current in-office mp so the
hierarchical position in the family automatically
puts him above and his sway with people is more than
his nephew. A simple game of my man is bigger than
yours.
My disagreement with this really is the fact that the
Lib Dems are going to be taking on board a man who’s
religious ideology is based around divine rule. Is
this a sensible thing for politics in 21st century
England, a nation built around christian values being
altered towards Islamic values?
You would think in England in the 21st century after
all our years of historical madness there would be a
reasonable understanding and respect for each others
cultures.
Religion is an archaic subject which needs a re-
evaluation in itself. but then the whole world needs
a re-evaluation of itself.
It is a rather farcical affair in this the 21st
century.

Banning displayed crosses seems to be different from banning the wearing of crosses, or Hamsa hands or Stars of David or headscarves: to officially display is a public declaration of an institution’s religion, but to wear is a private declaration.

I’m not familiar with the Italian school system; it has been such a Catholic country for so long that perhaps there has been no need for parochial schools taught by nuns. If so they may need some fundamental changes: daily schools that are secular but after-school religiously-oriented choices—madrasses, Hebrew schools, Protestant and Catholic schools, if religious groups feel that standard history and cultural studies neglect them. If there are comparative religious classes, and adequate history, in the public schools, then there is no need for religious schools. Churches, temples and mosques can handle special training.

I’ve never seen the point in objecting to religious displays in public places on religious holidays. It’s meaningful to some, and interesting to people of other faiths. In our (very secular) high school in St. Louis, our senior choir dutifully sang seasonal concerts in Lutheran Altenheims, Catholic Old People’s homes, and Jewish Old Folk’s Homes. There were also a number of Baptist homes whose residents, black and white, were fond of spirituals and gospel music, and we sang those with gusto and enjoyment. (There were no Moslems in St. Louis in those days.) Our choir was made up of people of many faiths, and I don’t think it did any of us any harm to be exposed to another religion’s music of choice.
When we performed in public, with the Civic Choir, religious songs (except for Handel’s Messiah) were restricted to religious venues. At Kiel Auditorium, though, the closest to religious music we got was Schiller’s “Ode to Joy”, Beethoven’s 9th, which clearly alluded to “some kind father” without specifying exactly what denomination.

How hard can it be to be reasonable about personal expressions of religion, as long as a country retains its own culturally developed law without alteration to fit some completely different sort of country
There are much better things to do with money than to pay lawyers to sue for such matters. That is silly, not secular.