eym_sirius

I think that some of us are not religious because we see religion for what it is - a vehicle for social engineering. I disagree about our laws being based on "christianity", except as it was based on old jewish laws and customs, which was predated by Hammurabi's Code (Babylon's version of a nation of laws) and Zoroastrianism (the institutionalism of monotheism in recorded history and the concept of a "soul") The more tolerant thing is due to the Constitution, not the bible! The Crusades, in which non-christians were tortured until they converted or died is evidence of the lack of tol

While I think that it's saddening, it's also eye-opening! To think that people have such a dislike for whoever believes in a religion??? There's a dynamic hiding under a rock, though. Look - I'm turning over the rock! It's ultra-conservative media!! They don't seek to communicate the truth, but instead to be a force. And the sheeplike masses buy into it! Because who REALLY believes that muslims are out for blood? That they plan to do what -- christians did to them during the crusades - "Convert Or Die" ???- Who believes that this is the mission of muslims, the people of this

Good observation! All that you need to do to show these people as bigots is to shine a light on what they say. It's just rip n read, because there's no interpretation necessary. They don't mince words when it comes to their intolerance and prejudice about a religion.

Muslim massacre? An insane person went on a shooting rampage. You'd have said the same thing about any other shooting rampage if the person happened to be muslim. There are ten thousand shootings in the USA by christians. How is that not an indictment on christians as violent people who massacre others? The answer - You look on christians as individuals and you stereotype muslims, lumping them all together and drawing a broad conclusion based on individual acts. Custer? Look where his bigotry and prejudice got him! It's a good point that you make. Bigots and intolerant people can end u

Exactly!

The answer to the question about Islamaphobia seems to be a resounding "yes". At least around these parts. I submit that radical, fundamentalist muslims are analagous to the KKK here. Proclaiming to be devoutly christian, but espousing violence toward particular out-groups. I've known several muslims in my life. They've all been very gentle people, exact opposites of the STEREOTYPE. And that's where you can tell the depth of a phobia - the extent to which they're stereotyped. History review: Blacks, jews, mexicans homosexuals - Consider the stereotypes of these groups in

You're wrong. The DOT owns the land, not you. You pay taxes to buy property for the government, but that doesn't mean that YOU own it equally with everyone else. That's the way that a commune works. Everybody contributes equally, has equal use of all of the commune-owned facilities - they literally OWN it, equally. In our capitalistic society, you have absolutely NO ownership rights. But don't take my word for it, try it out yourself. Go out to the Sheffield or Pauding Forest WMA. You need firewood. Cut down a tree with a power saw. After all, it's YOUR land, government land, right? Or how

This is a good point that you bring up. And it's why I talk about the proper way to grieve. Parents should communicate to their children that although they are hurting now, they need to understand that their pain is only a small fraction of what the family is going through. It's the family of the accident victim in this case that needs all of the attention of the community, including the friends of the deceased. Family will be coming from out of town. They'll need a place to stay and food to eat. How many of these young people go to the parents, express their profound sadness, as well as wha

The proper way to grieve is in a way that honors the deceased, not disgraces him/her. It's easy to see that parents don't talk to their children about grief-expression, hence the roadside shrines. I think that it's a commune-istic approach to think that whatever the state owns, you own and have access to and can use according to your purposes. A capitalistic approach says that people should use what they own and not what belongs to others. A common sense approach says that you use things for their intended purpose. [Who are you to judge this?] This is my insight into what I perce

You make a really good suggestion, but consider this. When there are rules and regulations, there must be enforcement. $50 for a thirty day memorial will not pay for the enforcement of the codes. That means that the taxpayer is on the hook for making sure that people can put their shrines on DOT land instead of on their own property. This means higher taxes. Are you willing to up the millage rate for you and your neighbors so that this can happen? Maybe A Single Penny Tax increase? Another one? I disagree about dealing with death. I think that parents are so uncomfortable that they

It seems like he'd have a bunch of extra skin when the bump went down. You sure that's not one of those incomplete twins that sticks out of the other twin's body?

This thread isn't about a SPECIFIC shrine, but about them in general. So you feel a "tug at your heart". Would you not have that same feeling whether a shrine was there or not? If not, then why not? As I stated before, there's a reason that kids grieve differently. Their parents DON"T TALK TO THEM! They don't give kids instruction into how to PROPERLY display their sentiments. The way to properly express feelings is with the family of the deceased at a funeral or a memorial service. If you feel that strongly about this person, memorialize him ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY! Or how about the gravesite,

Too contrived and corny! And what's with the guilt trip thing? We're free, mostly because our country has an ocean on either side of us and our governing document enumerates our rights as citizens. Would we not be free if we hadn't entered ANY of the wars (except for WW2 against Japan)? I assert that wars might assist OTHER COUNTRIES with their freedoms, but if you think that we're any more or less free because of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan War --- OUR freedom wasn't/isn't at stake in these conflicts. If you disagree, see if you can list any freedoms that we

Okay - Please continue. Let's go with your premise, as long as it's not "huge and distracting". Who makes that determination? What dimensions would be "huge"? How would you qualify, "distracting"? How would the people erecting the shrine know where to draw the line? Assuming that they are already breaking an unenforced law, why would they care about boundaries? And I guess that's what concerns me - People seem to be losing the concept of boundaries. The easy solution - If it's yours, use it. If it's not, don't.

You obey laws based on how well they are enforced? Let's go with your premise, as long as it's not "huge and distracting". Who makes that determination? What dimensions would be "huge"? How would you qualify, "distracting"? How would the people erecting the shrine know where to draw the line? Assuming that they are already breaking an unenforced law, why would they care about boundaries? And I guess that's what concerns me - People seem to be losing the concept of boundaries. The easy solution - If it's yours, use it. If it's not, don't.

I'm a fast typer. The replies of mine aren't very time consuming to write, but perhaps the concepts are too advanced? Like private ownership? Doing what you want on your own property, but not on property that doesn't belong to you? Sorry that it takes you so long to get through my posts. I can type more slowly if that will increase your comprehension level!

Do you have a point of view? Or is your point of view to discover the rationale for the points of view of others? If your interest is diverting the discussion, I'm sure that we have nothing to talk about. It's okay to use a stretch of road for your own personal use? Since when???? If you own it, you can use it. Why is that a difficult concept?

It's not your property, yet you're (not you personally) using it for your purpose (in this case, erecting a shrine). It's fine for people to have somewhere to go, as long as that somewhere belongs to the people creating the shrine. Everybody knows someone with land that's not being used. That friend would be glad to host the building of a prayer garden or other place for remembering the deceased friend. How about if the person was sick? If he died at the hospital, why not erect shrines there? Usually the person is not pronounced dead at the scene, but at the hospital, where the M.E. is.

If you don't want to know somebody who doesn't agree with your ideology, I think that's an indictment of your integrity, not theirs.

On private property, I say that people should be able to do whatever they want to. On DOT property, on sidewalks, rights of way, the lawn of the governor's mansion, etc - It's not your land. Really, what's the difference between shrines and graffiti? I've yet to see a shrine that was maintained for more than a week. Why not just use spray paint on the road and put the guy's name and date of death right there on the road? A Cross? People put up this archaic christian symbol regardless of whether the person who died was religious or not. If you need a roadside shrine to assist you with remembe

I'm honored, Oscar. This is what I want people to remember me for! Just don't let the memorial get all moldy and stuff... edited to add: Not dead yet.

I agree that people need to have a proper outlet to deal with their grief or their concern. I think that it may be the parents who are missing the mark by not discussing the matter with their children. I would discourage my child from contributing to a roadside shrine. First, it's not a tribute to the positive aspects of this person's life. It would be more beneficial for these people to speak at a memorial service attended by the family. It's a better conveyance of sympathy for the friends to SAY to the family what the deceased meant to them. But parents don't talk to their kids about

I don't begrudge anyone a personal opinion. However, the personal opinion in question seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the Constitutional balance between "free exercise thereof" and the establishment clause. The statement was so simplistic in thought as to appear to be reflective of the teacher's lack of understanding of the Constitution. I think that the problem of kids not understanding the Constitution means that they grow up not being able to properly apply the principles on which this country was founded. Your "BFF" obviously KNOWS her subject matter, if she can take positions

Check out Stringbean's Dance!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFFT6YfX6jk&p=F94142E53DD24A22&playnext=1&index=29

How about Stringbean, a HEE-HAW regular? He was letting his pants sag way back in the 50's and 60's! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwfbjIYfrVo&feature=search I wonder what "SR. Samples" looked like???