Chacham's Journal: Grand Canyon removes plaques with verse on them.

Here's a story about the Grand Canyon removing three plaques with verses from Psalms on them. Why this is worse than poetry is anyone's guess.

Dumb

[Dancin_Santa]

Taken as poetry without the religious connotation, those verses are perfectly appropriate.

They are no more offensive than any other poetry that celebrates natural beauty by praising a diety. American Indian poetry is rife with this type of symbolism, and it is embraced. Appropriate passages from Psalms ought to be embraced as well.

Perhaps John 3:16 would be out of place, but these passages?

Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[glh]

Another win for the liberal left.

They chant "tolerance" as their mantra, but they are quite intolerant when it comes to Judeo-Christian views. And the reason being, in my mind, is because it is the one world view that has authority. It demands that it is the true one and only the true one, and thus the difference.
However, if the leftists were truly tolerant, they should tolerate this "intolerance".

Ok, maybe that sounds a little odd... but isn't it right? Judeo-Christian views (aka Intolerance) is another

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Chacham]

What's wrong with being intolerant?

Nothing. Or as my brother puts it, "Why can't you be open-minded to my close mindedness?" :)

Of course he then points out that he is the open-mninded one, since it is *he* that will at least give the other point of view *some* thought, whereas the supposed open-minded ones rejects everything else outright.

In the end, that "open mind" and "tolerance" is merely a way for people to not admit their own fear or making decisions that may limit themselves. When someone tells m

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

Great to have you around! :)

I think I'm open minded because I freely admit that I don't know everything.

That's called being realistic. :P

Being open-minded, means giving credence to other people's views and not making up one's mind in deference to those views.

This is why I'm "agnostic" (m-w.com-"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"). I don't know what's out there. I can't make up my mind just yet, and I don't know that I ever will. But I kn

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

that I don't have an urge to think about it, the implication that I haven't thought about it.

Because it is my firm belief that anyone who thinks about it will come to a decision, even if it is changed later.

Also, i sometimes learn things by choosing one way and "experiencing" it. Then i can decide on its merits. It is much better then not tryng it, where i may have been open-minded on the issue for the rest of my life. In a sense of arrogance, i figure if it worked for me, it ought to work for everyone e

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

How do you know that "I don't know" isn't my decision?

I don't. But i consider that a wimpy way out, so i just plainly assume that it isn't.

Do I have to decide one way or the other?

I think it important enough to demand it.

I just find it interesting that you're assuming that I haven't thought about it,

I don't assume that you *never* thought about it. Just not "enough".

or that I haven't tried anything.

Or tried "enough".

I consider it an important issue. And, those who reach no answer, to me, are

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

I see you're still using the lower-case "i", but you begin sentences with capital "I".

Yeah. I think we went through it once before, and recognized that the capital letter mat the beginning of a sentence helps denote a new sentence. I have not yet seen a good reason for a capital "i" in mid-sentence, however. So, i decided to try it out to experience it.

At any rate, you "consider", "assume" and "think", but you don't know.

True. But since nothing can ever be truly known, we each rely on certain assumpti

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

But how are your assumptions more or less valid than mine?

To me, mine are certainly more valid. Anyway, it seems that you have not made a decision at all, or, as i believe, have not tried enough. As such, i consider my assumptions commendable (even if they are disagreeable) and what i perceive as inaction to be contemptable.

And can what you don't know be augmented?

Come to a decision, and see what happens. It works well for me.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

But you do not know.

True. But i give considerable weight to well thought out beliefs.

Strong word. Especially for an assumption that comes from a position of ignorance.

Yeah, because i fell strongly on the matter. And i don't believe it to be out of ignorance, since i have spent much time thinking about it in the past.

What does?

Trying out something to see how it feels, even though when trying it i was not sure yet if it was correct.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

How do you know mine arent?

I don't. As i said before. It is my belief that anyone who thinks about it long enough will come to a conclusion. So, being you don't have a conclusion, i *assume* that you haven't thought about it enough.

I mean your assumption about me comes from ignorance.

Yes. All assumptions are based on ignorance. Otheriwse, it wouldn't be an assumption. :)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oom

[Chacham]

"Sleep"? :)

Well, again, it's my opinion in this matter, that a conclusion of no conclusion means not enough effort has been put into it. Perhaps, if you were still actively working on it, i wouldn't think of it so badly.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oom

[Chacham]

True. But, i consider the matter of such importance, that one must always either have a definitive solution, or be working towards one.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oom

[Chacham]

So, if the matter is of such importance, please detail the steps

No. Since you probably wouldn't appreciate my steps (which are somewhat personal) i'd end up thinking less of them myself. So, i won't share them, unless i feel it appropriate.

Also, why cannot "I don't know" be the definitive solution?

Becuase when a definitive solution can be reached, "I dont know" is necessarily not definitive.

If the "facts" are inconclusive, what other conclusion is supposed to be reached?

Personal conviction, or re

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Moy

[Chacham]

So, you feel you can criticise what you percieve to be my process without detailing your own?

Not really. I was criticizing your lack of process (which is a result of my assumption).

As i originally said

Also, you don't feel an urge to spend enough time thinking about it. For if you did, you probably would have a strong opinion on it. It's good to change when more facts come in, but relying on ignorance is no excuse.

My stress was on the lack of process, not what your process was.

You're also assuming I w

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Mohel

[Chacham]

You still don't know, however, and I don't see how you can judge.

As i said. I assumed a lack of process. That is because i believe it so important that everyone would come to a conclusion one way or the other.

Why would Elddir care? Why would he think the riddle is less enjoyable? Why wouldn't he just pass it on as a difference of opinion and still enjoy the riddle?

Because that's simply how it works. I know it works by me that way, and i've seen it in others too. It's just how the pysche works. I would

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:zxywvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba

[Chacham]

Sweet dreams. :)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Procyon101]

but then the question arises "Do we need to cover all religions? What happens if we leave one out?" and becomes unwieldly.

IMHO, this is the crux of the "seperation of church and state" matter and is completely a moot question. That is like saying that a quote of e. e. cummings must be taken down because we didn't also quote Plato, Hemmingway and Dickinson. ALL viewpoints do not need to be expressed in ALL contexts, as that is just absurd. The article states that the 1st ammendment prohibits the governme

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Saige]

The article states that the 1st ammendment prohibits the government from supporting a certain religion, which is also BS, as the 1st amendment only prohibits the government from interfering with the people's freedom of religion. That is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Try reading the whole thing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacea

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Chacham]

Yeah, the verses are somewhat religous, and i would have chosen others. But if you just look at it as poetry, that somewhat thought the sight of the natural wonders moved him so much as to praise his Creator, and expressed that feeling with a verse, the verse is poetry. Personally, though, i like the third one the best here. It is an expression of awe, no matter what one believes.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Saige]

They chant "tolerance" as their mantra, but they are quite intolerant when it comes to Judeo-Christian views.

Wow, you mean every liberal is openly hostile toward Judiasm and Christianity? Not in this reality.

There is a world of difference between being intolerant of an entire group of religions, like you claim is occuring, and being intolerant of perceived violations of the free exercise/establishment clauses of the first amendment. This is not a case of a violation of free exercise of religion in any

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[glh]

Besides, wasn't Jesus the prime example of a tolerant person? He spent so much time helping out the poor, the sick, and others on the fringes of society, the same people that were ignored by society at the time, and that today many of his "followers" still ignore.

Jesus spent time with poor, sick, etc., but I don't think that's a sign of being tolerant. Loving and merciful, yes. Tolerant.. no. Those people were the ones who were most receptive and most willing to listen. The ones who weren't (such as th

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Saige]

Anyone can say "That offends me! There goes my freedom of speech! It's time to Sue! I HAVE rights!"

Yes, anyone can say that. That doesn't mean they know what they're saying. There is no right to not be offended - take a gay pride parade for example. There are almost always anti-gay protestors around them with their signs celebrating AIDS and such. They offend people in the parade - but nobody tells them they can't express their opinion. And the existence of the parade offends the people protesting.

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[glh]

Here is one example where student led prayer was banned at a football game in Texas [freedomforum.org]. Sure, others were at the football game that probably didn't believe that way... but on the same token, how is that any worse than if I witness a gay rights parade or someone kissing in public? I think the main point of difference is that it was allowed in an organized event at a state institution. Now that gets into the slippery slope of of "separation of church and state".

Nobody's telling you that you can't talk about

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Tolerate anything but Interolerance

[Saige]

Here is one example where student led prayer was banned at a football game in Texas . Sure, others were at the football game that probably didn't believe that way... but on the same token, how is that any worse than if I witness a gay rights parade or someone kissing in public? I think the main point of difference is that it was allowed in an organized event at a state institution. Now that gets into the slippery slope of "separation of church and state".


The issue at the football games wasn't that they