Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense, but the cross may mean something to you, but there are billions of people on this planet for whom it means nothing...or even means violation, infringement of rights, suffering, bigotry, oppression...
While I think the condom on the crosses thing was in very poor taste, so was the display in the first place.
Your cross is precious to you and no one else. Try to wrap your head around that. People who are classy and tolerant and respectful and not threatened will leave you and your cross alone. People who feel you are using this symbol to oppress them will not.
Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
Murder: :the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
So, I've grabbed a dictionary. I've looked at the meaning of murder, and lo and behold, it states that murder is about killing a person (check) and with aforethought (check). Regardless of whether it is lawful or not, murder is murder. In many countries, abortion is illegal, and it was illegal prior to 1973. Thus, legality has nothing to do with it. Murder is about killing someone in a premeditated fashion. It's about the ending of a life. It's obvious that they've placed "unlawfully" in the discussion to defend the indefensible, the murder of unborn child, which they left likes to advocate under their insane banner of "choice".
You obviously don't know how the law works. Something must fit all legal criteria to constitute murder. By law, a fetus is not a person, abortion is not unlawful, and it's rarely done with malice. Therefore it by law, is not murder. It's the termination of a pregnancy.
Quote:
In the very least, you must admit that it is intentional killing.
Depends on what stage the pregnancy is in. Destroying a Zygote isn't what I'd call killing. By your logic, masturbation is the murder of hundreds of millions of potential children.
Quote:
Do you support killing unborn children?
I don't view an embryo or fetus as a child for starters. However, I don't agree with abortion except in cases of rape, incest, genetic disease/deformity, or health of the mother. And 3rd trimester abortions I completely oppose unless it will kill the mother.
However, I don't believe my views should be forced on women, especially since making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it merely makes things worse.
You also realize that 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions right? If God hates abortion even at the moment of conception, why does He himself destroy at least half of all conceived children, usually before the woman even knows she's pregnant?
Actually, this is where you're interpreting one scripture incorrectly. The Bible is clear that you should stand up for righteousness. The "turn the other cheek" argument relates to interpersonal conflicts between person to person, not the society as a whole.
When someone advocates something wrong, ungodly, or downright disrespectful, should I stand by and say, "you're right". Of course not. If I were having a personal conflict with someone, not related to the society as a whole, and that person treated me badly, Jesus calls us to not escalate it. That is where the whole "turn the other cheek" argument comes from.
Christians are supposed to be salt and light to the world. That means showing the world what is righteous and leading them to Christ. It doesn't mean not doing a thing.
Except, everyone disagrees on what's righteous, even Christians. Therefore, it's self-righteous and arrogant to assume whatever you believe and chastise others for, is obviously correct and virtuous. You can believe you're right, and make suggestions based on your beliefs, but to claim whatever someone does that you don't agree with is automatically ungodly, is being self-righteous and judgmental.
Your beliefs are identical to the Pharisees that Jesus' criticized.
There aren't any grounds for this being wrong/illegal unless you think the cross is holy. To place the cross on such a pedestal that vandalizing it in such a nonchalant way is illegal is tantamount to making Christianity the official state religion.
Sorry friends, but just because someone hurts your feelings doesn't mean you get to arrest them.
"Nonchalant"
Seeming to be coolly unconcerned or indifferent
It doesn't appear that they were indifferent. Obviously they didn't like the cross.
So saying that one shouldn't vandalize the cross is saying that Christianity is the "official state religion". Talk about illogical reasoning.
Is it interfering with property? Can you spray paint a building? After all, that is someone's property. Can you place posters on someone's property? No. People have been prosecuted for such actions, so why not this?
Is it interfering with property? Can you spray paint a building? After all, that is someone's property. Can you place posters on someone's property? No. People have been prosecuted for such actions, so why not this?
I have to agree with this.
My biggest problem with the condom thing is that you don't go messing with other people's stuff.
Saying it's extra bad because it was a cross is what I find off-putting and arrogant.
"Western Kentucky University officials said they are investigating allegations that campus police refused to stop students from placing condoms on hundreds of crosses that had been set up as part of a massive student pro-life display."
"As many as 4,000 crosses had been erected ... by Hilltoppers For Life, a student-led pro-life group. The students had applied for and had received permission from the university to create the display...And late Thursday night Sohl and his brother found two people dressed in black vandalizing the display."They were putting condoms on every single cross in our display,” Sohl told Fox News. “She said she was doing it for an art project. She was desecrating the crosses for class credit.”
"Sohl called campus police – but they refused to intervene – citing First Amendment concerns."
I think mandatory enrollment in a course on the Constitution and the real meaning of Free Speech is in line for the Campus Police. Although, judging by the reports of other members of the faculty here, I doubt you'd be able to find such a course on this campus.
Who says there isn't a war on religion?
Well lets look at the First Amendment here:
Quote:
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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The students who are pro-life got to exercise their religious beliefs by planting the crosses. The students who put the condoms on the crosses were expressing their right to free speech.
Looks like both groups got to exercise their rights under the constitution. No property was destroyed and nobody was hurt. I see no reason why for the police to take any action in this situation.
By "stand up for the unborn"...are you referring to forcing a political decision upon other people? Who don't happen to share your belief system? Then yes, I do find it offensive that a religious symbol and icon that is very meaningful to alot of people is used to make a simplistic political statement.
You're for the idea of forcing death on an unborn child. What is more important? Forcing a decision or forcing death? What's worse? Death, of course. Life supercedes your choices. That choice ends once the child is conceived. The choice was prior to the pregnancy.
There's nothing simplistic about speaking up for unborn babies.
I doubt that most of the people that you claim who are offended don't even acknowledge the cross, nor are most Christians. Most of those who are Christians have no problem with its dislay, I'm sure, as Jesus loves unborn children.
Quote:
I regard this as about as offsensive as tossing a cross in a bucket of pee and calling it art. People are using a religious icon, one which has deeply held meaning to a great many people, to make a political statement. To use the cross, or any other religous icon as a means to drive divisiveness and political conflict is simply wrong. Or at least very insensitive.
But I don't see any reason to be hostile, hope it wasn't taken that way.
Of course, speaking of such manner and doing such acts is hostility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
