Posted on 02/04/2010 5:55:09 PM PST by ezfindit
A large wooden cross was placed at an Air Force Academy worship area for pagans and other Earth-centered religions, prompting an investigation by academy officials, though some caution that it’s hardly “destructive behavior.”
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said an Air Force Academy staffer spotted the cross — erected with railroad ties — lying against a rock at a worship area for pagan groups at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Jan. 17.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativedatingsite.com ...
Did you fence at the academy?
Some of the things the pagan groups do and have done throughout history are very disturbing. And some of things just plain weird. I don’t blame the early Christians for thinking they were savages when they came across them. I’m also very grateful to be an heir of a nation founded by Christians. VERY GRATEFUL!! I can’t stand that thought of what the world would like today had the Christians not started pushing back against the Islamic invasions and had they not prevailed in America. It would be a world I would not even want to live in. Imagine the oppression and savagery we would all be living under.
But all the Christmas trees, valentines, and Easter bunnies in the world have nothing to do with my religion. Those are secular aspect of American culture, not religious symbols. The Cross and Nativity scene are religious symbols. The bible has nothing to do with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Those are part of our culture but are separate from true Christianity. They can co-exist but they are not the same.
Yes... I did.
Bravo!! That was one of the best posts I’ve ever read in one of these debates. My sentiments exactly!! Hit the nail on the head using both brevity and humor. That is why I love this place.
So few do so as to be virtually zero.
I love good satire.
Thanks.
People should keep placing crosses there. What are they going to do about it?
That’s what you want to make of what I said, so be it! I’m talking about making a freakin federal case out of every single thing that happens! No where in our constitution does it say that you have a right to not be offended.
Life is hard, suck it up! That’s what I’m talkin’ about. If I was a little flippant about it, sorry!
mrs
no reason to make a federal case out of it. Laws and rules are already on the books. Find out who did it; discipline them according to the rules of the academy.
If you don’t like the 1st amendment then i suggest you elect officials that will repeal it. I know quite a few people who will fight that attempt with the 2nd amendment.
Ah, but my comment stated that the Muslim crescent symbol, by itself, afixed to a church pulpit is a non-violent thing. Just like your original post stating:
"An empty cross made of railroad ties and left lying across a rock is a passive, nonviolent and non-threatening symbol. This one could easily be removed without damage to the area or anyone."
By immediately associating the religion to the symbol, but asking others not to do so in regard to the cross and Christianity, you are in effect claiming;
"What is good for me is not for thee."
The shape of a longsword is also utilitarian as a weapon designed to be held by two hands and crush through mail. Possibly, the idea of a portable grave marker appealed to the soldiers, but then again, the fact that a Christian grave has a cross over it goes back to the same symbol of love and eternal life.
Nothing was “tainted” by the Holy Crusades, except maybe it would be fair to say that their failure to roll back the Turkish horde is a sad memory.
Yes, I stand corrected about the pagans. I should have checked with the article. You are right, paganism is not by itself against anything, although given the cultural disintegration in America chances are those pagans wouldn’t know the difference, especially if the self-description is “Earth-centered”.
It’s a shame you didn’t read the rest of that post:
“However, I would not be calling for “hate crimes.” Was there destruction of property? Was there breaking and entering? Were there actual **threats**?”
“However, I would not be calling for “hate crimes.””
Vlad the Impaler was defending Europe from Islam, you know.
Yes, Vlad Tepes (also known as Vlad Dracul, Vlad Dracula and Vlad the Dragon) selfishly refused to hand over a sum of money plus 500 young boys to serve Mehmed, the son of a Sultan, as catimites. Many understood the position of catamite would be a real pain in the butt and were relieved that Tepes turned down the demand for tribute.
Instead, he demonstrated his good will by nailing the turbans of the members of Mehmed's envoy to their heads, thus preventing their hats from being blown off by the wind during their journey home.
Mehmed learned Tepes formed an alliance with the Hungarian King and together they would soon control the wind resistant hat market. So he tried to capture Tepes so he might entice Tepes with his exciting new "butt strap" design.
Forewarned of the ambush, Tepes escaped the ambush and set a trap of his own. Tepes noticed the Turks he captured were foot-sore from their journey, so he impaled them. This removed a great amount of weight and pressure from their feet.
Reports indicate that the Turkish commander, Hamza Pasha, found his "seat" upon the highest stake (in difference to his rank) quite delightful and flattering.
After this event, both sides took turns attacking, burning and beheading each other until the Turks, unhappy over their loses, took their toys and went home.
The Turks may have been somewhat demoralized by Tepes' habit of dining beside the "impalement forests" as his enemies drew their dying breaths.
But, to answer your question, I would not particularly enjoy crucifixion or impalement.
He wrote "Rules for Radicals." Your arguments are amazingly like his. I would guess you and he would have been "kindred spirits."
So, you claim the "blood eagle" never existed. Do you also deny that pagan Romans tortured Christians?
Did Nero not wrap wax soaked cloths around captured Christians and use them as human candles for his festivals? Plenty of historical accounts by impartial sources say he did.
You haven't responded to the fact that the crusades occurred due to the muslim invasion of Europe. That was a matter of "if you don't start nuthin', there won't be nuthin'."
That's not completely true. Unfortunately the Crusaders, like any army, committed acts of cruelty and excess. The sinfull behavior of a few tainted the image of Christians and gave fuel to God's enemy.
However, the first thing one must do, to remain intellectually honest, is remember the crusades were not one war during one short point in time. They ran pretty much from the 11th century (when the muslims started acting up) until late in the 13th century.
When the crusaders captured Jerusalem (IIRC, during the first of nine crusades) the conquerors killed everyone in the city. Any reasonable Soldier would agree that was unchivalrous and repugnant to Christianity.
While I'll admit that wrongs were committed on both sides during the crusades (also know as the wars that liberated Europe from the Moorish invaders), I'm sure melkor would echo Michael Moore's beliefs that the peace loving muslims were happily dancing around with kites and rainbows and sunshine and unicorns until those evil rotten Christians showed up because Bush wanted their oil.
Yes, of course. There were other horrific episodes as well.
But it does not make the cross symbolize anything other that the Passion of Christ.
What a symbol represents is determined in the mind of the observer.
Often, the only Bible someone might see is the one a Christian carries in his or her heart.
It's up to us as Christians to let our behavior and love counter the despicable acts portrayed as Christian behavior or horrific atrocities committed under the guise of Christianity.
No, not in the case of well-chosen symbols. The Cross represents the instrument of torture that killed Jesus. That is as objective as 1 represents "one" and 5 represents "five".
I understand that to a medieval Muslim the cross represented something hostile. The crosses on Nazi tanks represented something dreadful to the Russians. But that is secondary: not the symbol but the people using the symbol. The meaning of the Cross does not change.
If a symbol is ambiguous it is not working very well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.