Christians Desecrate Wiccan Religious Site at Air Force Academy

[Swede]

Idiots.


Evangelical Christians are at it again. The proselytizing only-through-Christ bunch have now taken up desecration of non-Christian religious sites: Not Jews this time but Wiccans. What the hell goes through the minds of these evangelicals who think they can tell other religions—at a military academy no less—what to believe? At their core, evangelicals who despise pluralism are infantile

In a statement, Gould said, ‘We absolutely will not stand for this type of destructive behavior. I consider this no different than someone writing graffiti on the Cadet Chapel.’ In 2004, an academy survey found that many cadets felt that evangelical Christians were imposing their views and harassing non-Christians at the school.

The following year, an Air Force task force determined that there was no overt discrimination but the academy had failed to accommodate the religious needs of some cadets. Since then, the academy has worked to change that, Van Winkle said.

“It boils down to the key issue of respect — respect for everyone’s right to practice their faith as they choose,’ he said.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/03/christians-desecrate-wiccan-religious-site-at-air-force-academy/

[guitar man]

1. this should be treated as a hate crime

Nip this shit in the bud right now. :grr:

[T Wolf]

3. Rape and religious bigotry - hallmarks of the AFA. Will any discipline (expulsion) follow?

I doubt it? The AF brass supports these actions, regardless of the platitudes they mouth.

[BennyD]

5. I don't believe

in criminally prosecuting people for thoughts in their heads. It's when they carry out actions that are against the law that they should be prosecuted.

[Vincardog]

18. desecration of non-Christian religious sites is not an action?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Obamanaut]

21. I actually laughed out loud at this one. No one knows what was going

through the minds of the vandals - the point is, they carried out vandalism, and I think we can well imagine what their thought processes were.

It was mean spirited, inconsiderate, and down right hateful.

Your post was in jest, wasn't it?

[BennyD]

35. Post #31 applies to you also. In addition, would

you be in favor of prosecuting people for thoughts that they have even if they DON'T carry them out? If you answer NO, then that makes you a hypocrite because you have already admitted that you're in favor of not only prosecuting people for their actions - which I am in favor of as well - but you also want to prosecute them for what they think.

Following this line of thinking to a logical conclusion, our right to freedom of speech would have to be the first right to fall in order for us to then criminalize what someone thinks. You my friend are dangerous!

[Ikonoklast]

45. Go back to lurking.

You created a strawman.


The OP was about specific criminal actions, and you go off on a tangent that had no bearing on the article.

[BennyD]

52. I responded to someone who said

it should be treated as a "hate-crime." OBVIOUSLY, he was talking about prosecuting them for their THOUGHTS as well. It was this part that I disagree with. Of course if they broke the law they should be prosecuted but its not against the law to THINK certain things even if what is in the mind is reprehensible.

[Jazzgirl]

55. It was a hate crime.

They desecrated a site because they don't like their religion (thoughts). Their actions were despicable and they should be prosecuted.

[Ignis]

59. So what would YOU charge them with--littering?

:crazy:

[BennyD]

62. I would charge them with vandalism - an actual CRIME!

[Ignis]

63. If you don't factor in intent, how is leaving a cross there vandalism?

:shrug:

[BennyD]

65. Altering property that one doesn't have permission to alter is "vandalism," which is a crime.

That's how. It's really quite simple. Millions and millions of people have been prosecuted successfully over the centuries without trying to figure out what was in their "mind" at the time they did it.

[Ignis]

72. "Oh, is THAT where I left my cross?"

"Sorry, officer. I was carrying it around all day, and I must have misplaced it."

[BennyD]

huh??? n/t

[Ignis]

76. That's my defense against your vandalism charge.

If I leave a piece of trash--let's say a used paper cup--in a church pew, am I vandalizing that church?

[onenote]

86. if you left it there and you didn't like christians, would that make it a hate crime

[BennyD]

96. It would make it "vandalism" with possible charges of "trespassing." n/t

[Ignis]

101. So anyone who enters a church while not liking Christians...

Is guilty of trespassing? :crazy:

[northofdenali]

137. Damn, I hope not!!

If so, "they" will prosecute me for attending my daughter's wedding.......... :rofl::P

[Ignis]

158. Heh, good point. Of course, it's not really the case.

I'm making a point about the absurdity of the claims made by the poster above who denies the existence of hate crimes.

[onenote]

111. in most jurisdictions, "vandalism" also known as criminal mischief requires damage to property

Leaving a paper clip in a church doesn't cause "damage" to the church. Whether leaving a cross at the Wiccan site damaged that site is a closer question, but still a question. Under Colorado law, even if it could be found to constitute criminal mischief, it almost certainly would be considered a very low level misdemenor given the de minimis amount of damage caused.

[liberation]

201. ...basically, you're not really interested in actually prosecuting the crime under any approach

which may damage the PR of your favorite superstition. Regardless of whether or not said approach is necessary to properly capture the context of the crime.

Got it.


I love the tortured logic of those who can't "grasp" the concept that the justice system does not only consider just the outcome, removing the intent out of the judging of a crime is a fairly intellectually dishonest proposition. I am now of the opinion that these people who campaign against hate crimes, they want to remove intent for that would completely undermine their silly attempts at making the actual criminals the victims. Since the people making the case against hate crimes, tend to do so because at a basic level they share some commonality (ideologically) with the perpetrators of the crime. Of course they are too chickenshit to admit that, so they have to veil their "concern" for the "unfairness" (which is funny, because I always thought a crime was unfair only for the victims not the perpetrators) of the whole hate crime legislation. Apparently there is nothing more "unfair" than calling a spade a spade, good grief.


In the end the argument boils down at the bigots feeling discriminated against, because they can no longer actively discriminate against others freely.

[Ignis]

228. Well stated.

I find the idea that intent is something we've "suddenly" started factoring into crime and punishment to be either ignorant or disingenuous.

[Ignis]

102. Is the act of leaving a cup there inherently anti-Christian?

But we've gone far off the rails with this tortured example anyway.

[KonaKane]

147. No, since the Graal (Grail) is a pagan concept anyway

not Christian. Nice try.

[Ignis]

157. Kindly explain what you mean by "Nice try."

If you're confused about the degree of absurdity to which I'm reducing the above poster's claim that there's no such thing as a hate crime, you might want to read the entire sub-thread before assuming I have some sort of pro-Christian agenda.

[skepticscott]

169. The point is not

that there is no such thing as a "hate crime", as it is usually perceived. Clearly people carry out criminal acts motivated by racial or ethnic or sectarian hatred, and clearly our legislators have made acts so motivated more severely punishable that the same acts carried out with more "noble" motivations. The poster's point was that the law should punish people criminally only for their actions, and not for their attitudes or motivations, regardless of how offensive we may find them. To do so sets a very bad precedent.

[Ignis]

225. That might be YOUR point, but...

The poster to whom I was originally replying in this subthread has indeed stated downthread that there is no such thing as a hate crime.

And if you don't think intent is a factor in crime and punishment...well, I guess I'm at a loss for words, because it certainly is and has been for thousands of years.

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

252. Intent is a factor

but motive is not, when it comes to the written criminal statutes, and motive is what we're talking about here, so everyone's obsession with intent on this thread is just a red herring.

When you boil it all down, hate crimes are thought crimes.

[skyounkin]

218. Bah- my apologies-

Got confused with who was typing what and went off on a rant against the wrong person.

[Ignis]

227. I missed it before your edit, so no apology necessary.

But I love a good rant, so be sure to repost it in the right place. ;)

[onenote]

112. can you cite to a statute that defines vandalism that way?

[onenote]

113. delete dupe

[billh58]

192. Then please explain

why "motive" is a large part of any criminal prosecution? Isn't premeditation synonymous with what is "in a person's mind," or what they were thinking before committing a crime?

premeditation (noun): the act of thinking about and planning a crime beforehand, rather than acting on impulse in a moment of passion or mindlessness

Your argument that a criminal's thoughts don't factor into successful prosecutions flies in the face of our legal system, and is illogical.

[dysfunctional press]

297. so- if someone discards a beer can onto my property- i can charge them with vandalism?

if not- at what point do you contend that it becomes vandalism?

[winyanstaz]

71. would it be vandalism if someone put a pentagon

on the Christian's alters?

[BennyD]

73. Christians don't have "alters," but if they did, putting a "pentagon" on them would crush it. n/t

[Ignis]

75. The Intarwebz are there for your edjumakashun.

A pentagon is a five-sided polygon.

[KonaKane]

152. Ever been to a mass?

What's that thing upon which rests the Eucharist and the Sacrificial Wine cup?

[Obamanaut]

173. altar? edited to add

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altar

1. An elevated place or structure before which religious ceremonies may be enacted or upon which sacrifices may be offered.
2. A structure, typically a table, before which the divine offices are recited and upon which the Eucharist is celebrated in Christian churches.

[winyanstaz]

168. oops :) pentagram :P is what I ment....

and yes some Christians do have alters.

[Obamanaut]

175. Alter is a verb IIRC. n/t

[winyanstaz]

263. thanks :) now can I give you some lessons in Lakota?

English is not easy :)
Namaste Mitakuye Oyasin :)

[Obamanaut]

267. No thank you. I just thought you might be interested in correcting

the error that you seemed to insist was correct. This is what you posted to the earlier correction.

And I don't know what the namaste business is, but you probably knew that.

168. oops :) pentagram :P is what I ment....
and yes some Christians do have alters.


BTW, it is 'meant'

[winyanstaz]

299. yes you caught me. I tend to misspell words and sometimes use

the wrong ones....especially if I am tired or in a hurry.
Now I have a question for you. :)
Who the hell died and made you the spelling nazi of the www?
And since you are giving me english lessons..let me give you one on manners.
Correcting someone publicly once for a mistake can be forgiven and just chalked up to bad manners.
Doing it twice is not only pushing the limits but just shows you have absolutely no manners.
Doing it the third time means you are on my iggy list. And that its past time for you to fuck off.
Have a nice day. :)

[Ignis]

74. I dunno, I guess we'd have to look at intent.

QED ;)

[D23MIURG23]

144. Very good point- I actually think it was more like an offering of firewood.

If I were the pagans I would go ahead and accept the act of good will and use it in my next bonfire.

:evilgrin:

[Ignis]

159. But if they did, they'd be accused of being insensitive to Christian symbols.

Can't win either way when you're Pagan sometimes. :shrug:

[pundaint]

219. In the same way that writing swastikas on a synagogue door in chalk would be, or throwing a chalice

full of consecrated hosts on the floor. And at an Air Force facility that is the baddest gang doing a drive bye. The Air Force does have a committee investigating, but there is no return date for their work, and the Public Information Director asserts that requests for information have been circulated, and there is still a code of honor at the academy, but the trail is cold. The Air Force doesn't understand that there is no code of honor if only some of the cadets adhere.

[Ignis]

229. I think we agree, but you're missing my point.

If we entirely factor intent out of the equation, then hate crimes become meaningless.

To wit: What is the difference between "throwing" a consecrated host onto the floor and "dropping" the same?

[dysfunctional press]

298. it's not at all like painting a swastika on a synagogue...

a swastika represents a specific and horrifying chapter in jewish history/culture, and has VERY significant meaning. it's also defacing property, in a way that leaving a couple pieces of wood laying around isn;t.
and to a wiccan, a cross holds no significance, good or bad.
the people who left it were hoping to get a rise out of the group, and they eagerly complied. ignoring it and using it for firewood would have been a better response.

[Tailormyst]

304. The cross does indeed represent a specific and horrifying chapter in Western European history

YOU have just decided that Wiccans don't really count.

[dysfunctional press]

308. what horrifying chapter of WICCAN history does the cross represent...?

[Tailormyst]

310. The death of hundreds of thousands of European Pagans

And the continued demonization of us here. I am going to be quite frank and tell you that you are behaving like a complete jack-ass in this thread. And along with the others like you from this thread I am going to put you on ignore now. You are a mean and hurtful person.

[dysfunctional press]

311. aaawwwww.....

:eyes:

[Ignis]

316. Oh, this little thing called The Burning Times. Try a history book. (nt)

[rd_kent]

81. SO what you are saying, is that there is no such thing as a "hate crime"

and only the actual criminal behavior should be prosecuted?

[BennyD]

89. That's right. To prosecute "thought" instead of action is ludicrous. n/t

[lazarus]

129. Why you're wrong

It's very simple. We already use "thoughts" and "intent" in deciding crimes. Witness the various types of prosecution for taking someone's life: Murder first degree, murder second degree, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

[skepticscott]

170. You're confusing

intent with motive. Hate crimes legislation specifically punishes people more severely because we don't like their motivation, not because of their intent. Back to law school with you.

[snake in the grass]

212. It wouldn't be prosecuting them for their thoughts...

...if they were charged with a hate crime. It is, unfortunately, a persistent myth that hate crimes legislation punishes thought. It doesn't. One is free to think all kinds of nonsense. The problem with this act is that it was intended to intimidate and terrorize an entire group of people, and therein lies the hate crime. When someone depicts a penis with the words, 'eat me' on a subway wall, that's vandalism. A swastika on the doors of a synagogue or a noose hanging from a tree are entirely different things.

[Ignis]

230. "intended to intimidate and terrorize an entire group of people"

And we have a winner! :yourock:

Thanks for making this point much, much clearer than I've been able to do in this subthread.

[EOTE]

242. Do you believe that INTENT should have anything to do with sentencing?

Because if you don't, then there shouldn't be any difference between manslaughter and first degree murder, right? Intent very well should have a place in our legal system.

[Obamanaut]

56. I went to Lowe's and got back too late to read post 31. But read what

you typed.

You are aware, maybe, that people cannot read the thoughts of others. One can see actions, which in all likelihood are the result of some thought or other.

When one penalizes actions, if those actions have been repeated multiple times, or if prior to the actual activity one has spoken of that particular activity multiple times then it is not a stretch to imagine the thought process behind it. But the action is penalized, not the flawed (usually) thinking.

I did not type that a person's thinking should be a crime. I did say that it is not hard to imagine what that thinking included, and the action itself was hateful.

Edited to add this: From my earlier post "It (that is, the act of vandalism) was mean spirited, inconsiderate, and down right hateful." This doesn't suggest punishing thinking, merely describes the act of vandalism.

Consider the phrase "You have a bad attitude." One cannot see an attitude, so the attitude cannot be judged. One can, however, see the behavior that is indicative of that attitude. Same thing.

It was not really that hard, now was it.

[skepticscott]

171. The point is not

whether attitudes and motivations of criminals can be determined with confidence. Clearly they can, in many cases. The point is whether people should be punished for having certain attitudes when they commit a crime.

[fishwax]

140. that's ridiculous.

"Following this line of thinking to a logical conclusion, our right to freedom of speech would have to be the first right to fall in order for us to then criminalize what someone thinks. You my friend are dangerous!"

That's not a logical conclusion, just a silly straw man. Nobody claimed that thinking something should be a crime, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

[Ignis]

43. And the KKK just burns crosses for warmth, right?

Pull the other one. :crazy:

[Vincardog]

46. be careful you may be told how you should read more carefully like I should

[Ignis]

51. Next time I intentionally murder someone...

I'll be sure to claim that it was an accident and ask to be tried as manslaughter. After all, intentions don't matter one whit, right?

:crazy:

Someone hasn't been paying attention to the past millenium of Anglo-Saxon law, methinks. ;)

Hang in there, Vincardog. :hi:

[BennyD]

64. Next time you THINK about going over the speed limit, you deserve a ticket. n/t

[Ignis]

66. You're very confused: Without action, there is no crime.

I've no more love for Big Brother than the next progressive, but you're hopelessly blurring the issue in order to advance your own argument.

I suggest you look up the word "disingenuous."

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

80. Shall we compare my total hours in logic courses vs. yours?

Here's a hint: My number is greater than zero.

ETA: Ignoring your ham-fisted personal attack for a moment, please point me to any US law that involves a pure thought crime.

[BennyD]

90. You won't find one. Because to prosecute "thought" doesn't make sense. n/t

[Ignis]

100. Right, so please explain this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7631778&mesg_id=7633368

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

103. This was not a thought crime. Definition of desecration

is the ACT of depriving something of its sacred character—or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecration

[skepticscott]

172. You are also confusing motive

with intent. You're the one who needs a little refresher on the law.

[Ignis]

231. When speaking to a child, why bother speaking Latin? (nt)

[skepticscott]

253. In this case, the distinction between motive and intent is a vital one

to the discussion, and if you don't understand the difference, your arguments fall pretty flat to anyone who does.

[Ignis]

255. Understand? Yes, but I worked within the framework given upthread.

So snark away if you must. :shrug: I don't bother arguing with those who are convinced they're the Smartest Guys in the Room.

[skepticscott]

270. The framework given upthread

was also incomplete, and missed the point somewhat as well, in ways that you didn't seem to grasp well enough to point out right from the start.

And yes, I get the feeling you'd rather argue with people who don't quite get it..

[Ignis]

271. Specifics, please.

I get the feeling that you've decided to pick on my posts because you don't agree with my views on hate crime legislation. Hey, fair enough, if that's what gives you a thrill--but let's not pretend that it's been you and I discussing this point rationally and in the context of current legislation all along in this sub-thread, shall we?

:spank:

I've pointed out the absurdity of the "no such thing as hate crimes" position as voiced by the creator of this sub-thread numerous times, and I've done so in a manner that deliberately draws attention to that very absurdity. When dealing with those who "don't quite get it," it's often instructive to reframe their fallacious arguments in a way that reveals the absurdity, ignorance, and/or double standard inherent to those arguments.

IANAL, but I understand the specific meaning of "motive" in criminal justice. Segueing into a sidebar on that subject--when it was obvious that the person with whom I was debating did not--was not something that I considered a constructive way to move this discussion forward.

Why? Because I'm a progressive, not a pedant.

[liberal_at_heart]

95. +1

[rd_kent]

79. So vandalizing property is not against the law? WTF?

[BennyD]

88. Where in the world did you ever get that idea??? What are you smoking?? n/t

[rd_kent]

91. Nothing right now, which would explain why I do not understand your line of reasoning.

[BennyD]

93. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[rd_kent]

94. I don't know, why are you not surprised?

[rd_kent]

105. Ran away, did you? Why ARE you not surprised?

[Hippo_Tron]

124. So should we not distinguish between murder and manslaughter?

Because the difference is entirely predicated on what is going on in someone's head.

[me b zola]

312. People should be prosecuted for their actions

...and prosecutors usually take motive into consideration when prosecuting. A hate crime is a form of terrorism, and its a damned shame that it needs to be explained on a progressive message board.

[olegramps]

346. The military is dominated by right-wing fundamentalists in the officers corps.

[CanonRay]

2. I hope they had surveillance cameras

and nail the bastards.

[Tailormyst]

4. They should be wary of their Karma

Especially when there is a good chance they will soon be in a place where THEY are the minority.

[BennyD]

7. They don't believe in "karma." n/t

[Flying Dream Blues]

11. well, karma believes in them, and will be coming to get them at some point. nt

[gorfle]

19. I doubt it.

Karma is just another word for a belief in some magical force that will make sure that others "get what is coming to them."

I don't believe in magic.

I think it's dangerous to believe in such magic because it encourages people to do nothing and just trust that "karma" will take care of things.

You leave this kind of stuff up to karma and you're going to continue to get shit on.

[Ignis]

27. You misunderstand the concept of karma.

Hint: The way the term is used by Hollywood is not how it's used by the cultural/religious groups from whom Hollywood stole it.

Good luck in your research. :hi:

[gorfle]

87. I have no idea how Hollywood uses it.

I have no idea how Hollywood uses it; I can't recall any films I've watched that mention Karma.

Rather, I am thinking of how karma is used colloquially, and how it is used as a rating system on Slashdot.

Basically, my cultural understanding of karma is that good is rewarded with good, and bad is rewarded with bad.

Thus when Flying Dream Blues says, "when well, karma believes in them, and will be coming to get them at some point. nt", I infer that by karma "coming to get them" Flying Dream Blues believes karma means that something bad will happen to the people who vandalized the pagan worship place.

The wikipedia article on karma leads me to believe that my understanding is essentially correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

[Ignis]

109. The wiki for most Eastern religions is overly simplistic.

Please re-read the "Western interpretation" section of the Wiki article. That's the new-agey, "Hollywood" view of karma of which I speak.

If you want my humble (psychology- and Zen-influenced) opinion on the matter: Karma, at the core, is the idea that YOU are the master who makes the grass green, and the ultimate responsibility for how you perceive reality lies with YOU. We are the sum of our past actions, because those past actions inform our current world-view.

Want to change the way you perceive the world? Change the way you act in the world.

No reincarnation, gods, or religion required. :hi:

[gorfle]

116. My impression is that that is a narrow interpretation of karma.

My impression of your definition of karma, that your actions change your perceptions, is that that is a very narrow interpretation.

Nearly everyone I have ever heard speak of karma speaks of it as a magical, tangible response that happens as a consequence of your actions, as outlined in most of the wikipedia article I cited, including the Western Interpretation.

If you wish to say that karma is merely your perception of the world, shaped by your actions in the world, that's fine by me, but you are the first person I've ever heard define it that way.

Everyone else I've ever heard speak of karma basically imply it is magic.

[Ignis]

117. Are these average Americans or clerics of Eastern religions? (+Edit)

ETA: I should note that I'm using extreme shorthand here on a complex philosophical issue.

In most Eastern philosophy, the self is not completely separate from the environment, and thus the results of karma upon perception translate very directly into reality, because one's world-view is reality. Thus, when I say that karma changes your perception of reality due to past events, I'm assuming that you understand that the phrase "perception of reality" carries more weight than it does in Western thought.

Hope that helps.

[gorfle]

123. What is the vehicle that does this?

This sounds to me like you are skating back into mysticism.

What is the mechanism by which my actions in the past affect my observations of the future? Are you implying some magical force does this? Or are you simply applying philosophy to Schrodinger's Cat?

Quite obviously the self is not separate from the environment. We inhale and exhale air. We give off heat and sound. Our mere existence alters our environment. In this regard, I agree the self is not separate from the environment. If you are are, however, trying to ascribe some kind of Star Wars-like "force", or magic, to this, then I will disagree.

[Ignis]

160. Well, my answer would be one based in Western psycology.

But the answer from a practitioner of an Eastern religion would likely be steeped in mysticism...of course!

I can't really fault this sort of answer, however, because the end result (and the suggested course of action proposed) mirrors the answers that a Western humanistic psychologist, cultural anthropologist, or evolutionary biologist would arrive at: Acting in an altruistic fashion makes us feel good and contains a positive feedback loop. Acting in a selfish fashion makes us feel bitter and contains a negative feedback loop.

...And they figured it out 6000 years ago, even if they didn't understand the science behind it.

[gorfle]

248. Sounds good to me.

As long as you aren't espousing magic.

[trotsky]

176. +1

Believers in karma don't like it put out there so simply (and accurately), because then even they can't justify such a silly belief.

[kenfrequed]

183. Karma isn't really magic

In Hinduism it is more a law of consequence. That all actions have consequences. The idea that it is a good-bad thing or a punishment-reward system is a poor western transcognition of the idea.

[Tempest]

12. You don't have to believe in karma to get smacked down by it

They just call it something else, like bad luck.

[BennyD]

36. Can anyone prove that "karma" isn't coincidence? Who is it that

directs the "karma" back to the one who deserves it? If "karma" is real, then there must be a doctrine which defines how it works.

[Tempest]

40. No more than anyone can prove God exists

According to the Karma doctrine the course of life of every living being here and hereafter is determined by his Karma or his deeds and a pious life leads to comforts, contentment and general well-being in the present life and re-birth in higher and better forms of existence. Evil actions result in birth in lower forms of existence in future life and unhappiness or misery,, in the present existence. In short Karmavada may summarised as the "theory of inevitable consequences of one's actions." This doctrine seems to have developed along with other doctrines about the course of events or creation. These include Kalvad or doctrine of time (treating time as a determining agent), Svabhav-vad or doctrine of Nature (which held the nature of things as sole determinant), theory of pre-destination (holding destiny as the prime factor) etc. These are proposed to be discussed separately in this book. Here it will be sufficient to mention that in Jain thought, true to its non-one-sided (Anekantvadi) approach, due importance is given to all these factors as agents determining the course of life along with the doctrine of Karma. However, prime place is given to Karma doctrines as it involves elements of freedom of will of the individual, accountability for one's acts or deeds (Karma) and is living or active as against the inert and passive nature of other factors like time, nature and others.

http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/dkarma-1.htm

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Jainism

[BennyD]

50. I'm not so sure...

I don't believe in Karma, which has its roots in reincarnation. If reincarnation were true, then why is the global population increasing? Several thousand years ago, the world population was probably around 10 to 50 million. Today, the the United States alone has 300 million and the world population is 5.8 BILLION. If people were exiting out of this world into a higher plane of consciousness - as the Buddhists' believe - then where are all of these additional souls coming from???? As I said, the world population has only grown incredibly larger, not smaller. So if reincarnation were true and people are simply reborn to live in this life again - until the "get it right" - then where are all of these extra people coming from???

[Sans Culottes]

57. Spent a long time mulling that over, did you?

:rofl:

[BennyD]

67. Actually, I looked at it and in not time at all said, "this is hog-wash." haha n/t

[Sans Culottes]

83. Good for you!

:applause:

[DaveinJapan]

279. No more "hogwash" than any other superstition/religion/cult

So thousands of years ago there were far less human beings, that's your argument?

How much LIFE was present then compared to now?

I believe the whole reincarnation mythos is not generally exclusive to human type monkeys.

[Ignis]

61. Ugh, this misconception is still around? It's 2010, FFS!

Please don't let Hollywood define karma for you.

There are many, many humans who believe in karma without believing in the physical reality of reincarnation.

If people were exiting out of this world into a higher plane of consciousness - as the Buddhists' believe

Wrong again.

Please do a little research on these 6000-year-old concepts before you make sweeping statements.

[BennyD]

68. I have done research. n/t

[Ignis]

78. Oh, well, that settles it then.

:eyes:

[Marr]

156. This really sounds like the modern Christian tendency to

say things like, 'oh, the stories are just stories... it's the lessons they teach that are important'.

They kind of rationalize these mystical ideas, as the world becomes more and more obviously non-magical. If that makes any sense.

[Ignis]

161. Perhaps my explanation in post 160 will help.

If not, I recommend reading any of the fine papers that explore the intersection between humanistic psychology and Eastern thought that have been published in the past ~30 years. I'm neither enlightened nor patient enough to plumb the depths of the subject in another off-topic post in this thread. ;)

[Marr]

202. That was the post that spurred my own.

I have some familiarity with the concept of Karma, and what I've read just doesn't jibe with your explanation. Your explanation sounds like modern pseudo-scientific rationalization, that's all I'm saying.

[Ignis]

224. I you don't believe that psychology is scientifically supportable...

Then I'm not sure that we can find common ground to discuss this subject. :shrug:

I've said several times in this thread that my own understanding of karma is influenced by own interdisciplinary studies, but I stand by my claim that the idea that karma can be boiled down to the trite Western/Hollywood concept of "do bad things and god/gods/universe will smite you" is faulty.

I'm a results-oriented person. If acupuncture works but the underlying TCM foundation isn't scientifically supportable, I'm willing to focus on the end result until Western medicine can explain why it works.

[Marr]

238. It sounds like we don't actually disagree much.

I think your argument is sort of a modern, scientific rationalization of a mystical concept, and you seem to be agreeing with me. You're saying there's psychological research that supports your personal view of karma, and I suspect you're correct. What I'm disagreeing with is that your personal view of karma is the traditional one.

[Ignis]

243. Ah! I think we do agree, sorry I didn't see your point before.

My point is that of course I'm going to put a modern, rational, scientific, psychological spin on my understanding of karma, because that's my world-view.

But I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because a concept has been traditionally framed in a mystical or religious context. We've only had a rational alternative to those sort of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" explanations for how or why our minds work the way they do for a few hundred years--and in the case of Eastern philosophy, there has been a lot of prejudice that Western academic/scientific establishments have had to work through.

But I'm not an apologist, and I'm not trying to claim that any of the various Eastern religions that employ the concept of karma are scientifically sound. I'm just saying that tools/concepts like meditation, karma, etc. are valuable to anyone and not inherently mystical.

:hi:

[Marr]

246. I hear ya.

I think I see where you're coming from. You might say a lot of these things have their roots in scientifically sound concepts, but earlier people described them in the only terms they had, which were mystical. That's an interesting thought.

[Ignis]

234. Er...and another thing: I posted #160 AFTER your post above.

So I don't see how it could have spurred you to respond. :shrug:

[Marr]

237. You're right-- I misread. It was your post #109 that spurred my response.

My apologies.

[Ignis]

245. Yeah, well, I *did* wax a bit poetic there.

But no apology necessary; I was just confused. :hi:

[Tempest]

108. Reincarnation is not the only birth method

It's just one believed by certain religions.

And there's no guarantee you'll be reincarnated as a person as my post before explained. Unless you consider people to be "lower life forms".


You're taking all this way too seriously.

[AlienGirl]

166. There are not more people alive now than have ever existed

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/dead.asp

[Ignis]

121. OT re: Jainism.

I think this is the first time on DU I've seen someone mention Jainism in regards to karma, so I'm curious. :) Are you a Jain, student thereof, or just a fellow traveler?

Feel free to respond by PM if you think the environment here is not conducive to this discussion. :hi:

[Tempest]

130. Ex-girlfriend was a researcher

She wrote papers on different religions and I remembered it was one the last she researched when we were together.

I'm an atheist but have no problem with religion as long as it's not brought into politics or social issues.

[Ignis]

165. Neat, thanks for the answer.

I've taken a few religious studies courses, but the bulk of my exposure to various religions has been through anthropological studies.

:hi:

[Marr]

155. Karma is an excuse for not acting.

It's really as simple as that.

[Lilith Velkor]

133. Bush and Cheney didn't

Does that mean they have really good karma, or were they just lucky?

You have to believe in karma very intensely to not notice that sometimes, crime pays.

[trotsky]

177. And it pays exceedingly well. n/t

[undergroundpanther]

153. who's the karma keeper

who says who deserves what kind of'smackdown'?
I don't believe in karma,or the karma keeper,satan or santa or jesus.

Nature is a bloody clawed monster too. Naturally we are born we struggle , we eat the living,plant or animal, and die anyway and everything we ever loved also dies eventually.Nothing in the world or universe is sacred or worth bowing down to IMO.


I hate this world. It's sick ,perverse,sad and so violent to life. Jesus isn't all that much kinder than karma or nature or any other god, really.

I hate religion too, it always excuses bad gods,bad people and rationalizes suffering and psychopathy and plenty of other wrong shit as if it's ok. The planet is shit, it's fucked up, humanity is messed up and none of it makes sense to me.It is painful to exist.

What happens after life? I d Ion't know.And no one has come back from being really rotted out and dead to tell me what happens after the body decays. I just hope I don't come back HERE again. Hell or heaven? I don't care and I stopped worrying about that issue long ago,because one day I'll die and it is inevitable.I had no control over my birth circumstances and by previous experinces with that I won't have control over my death circumstances or what happens after my death either. And neither will christians..Nobody knows.

There is not a single example in the New Testament where the non-Christian was instructed to pray for salvation.
So Christians wrecking pagan shrines are just being assholes and hiding behind the bible.

[Krashkopf]

25. I hope somebody's Karma runs over their Dogma.

[glinda]

141. that is a good one... harsh, but good.

[Democrats_win]

6. More of the same from the AFA. At least they've stopped raping people!

We've seen it all from these characters at the AFA.

[Mari333]

8. well that was quick

put them in the BRIG

[jtuck004]

9. Where are the lions when you need them? n/t

[Ignis]

28. I really, really shouldn't have laughed at that.

So one for you: :spank:
And one for me: :spank:

[jtuck004]

307. I know, but my fingers were not under my control n/t

[LibertyLover]

10. That is beyond disgusting

Had an area set aside for evangelical Christian groups' worship been "decorated" with a pentagram you can bet that the Colorado Springs groups would be howling in concert about "persecution" and "evil devil worshippers attacking poor Christians". If I were one of the Wiccans or other earth religions groups for whom this circle was intended as a worship area, the first thing I'd do is do a heavy-duty purification and reclaimation ritual. I doubt that whomever was responsible for the cross just left it and didn't do other ritual work to try and "claim the area for Christ" or some such other drivel. I'm also sure that sooner or later some good Christians will tell their faith community how they 'stuck it to the witches' and 'reconsecrated the land for the Lord'. And when they do, I hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Soylent Brice]

13. wow. that didn't take long.

fuckers.

[Fumesucker]

14. A cross made of railroad ties?

Could it have been more blatantly disrespectful?

On the weekend of Jan. 17, Weinstein said a client of his organization who is based at the academy spotted a cross, constructed of railroad ties, propped against a rock at the center. The client reported it, and the Office of Special Investigations began an inquiry.

And..

The dean of faculty, Brig. Gen. Dana Born, discussed the incident at a Jan. 27 staff meeting, Weinstein said.

<snip>

One faculty member, who attended and asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, supported Weinstein’s characterization of the meeting.

The reaction would have been stronger, Weinstein said, if another worship center had been involved. Had a swastika been placed in the Jewish center, ‘heads would be rolling,’ he said.Van Winkle said he saw video of Born’s address: ‘She downplayed nothing. She addressed the expectations, the issue and moved on.

[gorfle]

20. LOL The wicans should burn the cross.

The wicans should send an open, public thank-you note to whoever was responsible, thanking them for providing the wood for their next bonfire.

Then they should burn that cross in the center of their ring of stones.

[dysfunctional press]

264. that was my thought as well...

why are they making a big fuss about it? they're just playing into the vandal's hand.
they should have just busted it up for firewood and been done with it. :shrug:

[winyanstaz]

302. naw.....add a circle and stamp on a bit of celtic knotwork...

and carry it around in their processions as a 4-directions symbol....like it was originally.

and yes...send a thank you note :)

[Froward69]

15. This is why

when I go south I am sure to not stop in the springs. the fundies on "baptist" boulevard are sure to string me up.

I sure wish they would wear their Hoods and sheets so I can avoid them all together.

[madrchsod]

16. most christian holidays and such are based on pagan practices.

pagan/earth based religions is the first belief system and the oldest. the one god belief started in persia not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

[Jennicut]

30. Yeah, if these fundies really new that it would blow their minds.

I am a Christian but realize that many of the traditions in that religion come from Pagans.

[krabigirl]

17. WTF!!!! Typical!

I can't stand these people...they are a scourge.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. "Desecration"? I was expecting something a little less disposable.

This is more like litter. Disrespectful? Sure. Spray paint would be desecration, imho.

[Tailormyst]

38. Yes it is desecration- That cross represents oppression and death to Pagans

To have it placed in our sacred space is not tolerable.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. ... and blacks and Jews and Muslims and native peoples and... Okay. Don't tolerate it. Take it away.

I know I'm not rending my garments and gnashing my teeth sufficiently, but it's partly because I think doing so is counterproductive for everyone.

[Tailormyst]

41. Thank you for the delightful conversation.

Have a wonderful afternoon Jeff.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. People are entitled to disagree.

It is my intent to disagree without being disagreeable.

I hope they catch the person(s) involved. I simply think that making a bigger deal about it than necessary is counterproductive.

[Tailormyst]

47. That is why I tried to leave things on a pleasant note :)

I also hope they catch the people responsible and use their actions as a reason to educate the Academy on respect for others.

[Zebedeo]

122. That made me spit out my coffee

"That cross represents oppression and death to Pagans" Do you even see the irony in that statement?

OK, I'll explain it for you. The cross was actually used by pagans to crucify Jesus Christ, as well as other Christians. So, yes, it does represent oppression and death - only not the way you think it does. It's the pagans that did the oppressing and the killing, and it was Jesus Christ and his followers - Christians - who were oppressed and killed.

[Tailormyst]

126. On second thought: Self delete

Hopefully this thread will get cleaned out by the mods. For the first time I am going to use the ignore function.

[Zebedeo]

131. You still fail to understand

The cross is an instrument of death-by-torture, INVENTED by pagans and USED by pagans to torture and murder Christians, including Jesus Christ Himself.

Your belief that it is a symbol of oppression and death BY Christians TOWARD pagans is getting it backwards. Hint: The Romans were pagans.

[Lilith Velkor]

134. Then they converted to Christianity, and started killing pagans.

After they ran out of pagans to kill, they started slaughtering each other for not being Christian enough. I don't see how you could have missed that part, but there it is.

Oh, by the way - Jesus Christ and his disciples weren't Christian. They were Jewish. Christianity didn't come along until several decades later.

[wickerwoman]

339. Pagan is not the same as Wiccan.

And Jesus wasn't crucified by Wiccans (who mostly practice Celtic/Welsh nature worship not Greco-Roman pantheism).

[undergroundpanther]

154. actually it was the roman STATE doing the killing

for POLITICAL reasons.And it wasen't christians dying there they were GNOSTICS.
Christianity came after Rome destroyed the Gnostics and edited and banned and burned thier writings, after that there became a "christianity". Christ ( means simply,annointed) and was a GNOSTIC.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_types.html

[Ignis]

162. Er...any links to support that claim?

The cross wasn't specifically designed as a Christian-killing device. That would make it rather odd for Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth to have been crucified--given that he was a Jew, not a Christian.

Yes, it's true: Jesus wasn't a Christian! :wow:

[Zebedeo]

322. Jesus was a Jewish Christian

You are correct that he lived on Earth as a Jew, but of course he was also a Christian, as he preached the Christian message of redemption through Christ. So you are incorrect in your assertion that Jesus wasn't a Christian. For reference, read John 3:16. it should be readily available on the net.

And, as you well know, I never said that the cross was "specifically designed as a Christian-killing device." I said it was invented by pagans and used to torture and kill Christians. Care to refute what I actually said, or would you prefer to continue knocking down strawmen that you build yourself?

[Ignis]

327. Sorry, Jesus wasn't a Christian. Google "circular reasoning." (nt)

[Toasterlad]

290. THANK You. It's Amazing How Many People Forget That Christians Have Never Persecuted Non-Christians

SO sick of having to remind everyone that christians have always lived in perfect harmony with non-Christians, and that they are constantly persecuted in this country where they represent the overwhelming majority.

I AM confused, though...aren't we supposed to blame the jews for killing christ? I'm sure that was in all the literature. The jews are bad, right? The Romans were just tools of the jews, right? So who killed christ, the jews or the pagans?

Being a christian is hard! So many enemies to keep track of!

[Ignis]

317. Damn it, Toasterlad.

I can't finish reading one of your posts without doing this: :spray:

My monitor hates you.

[unapatriciated]

292. The cross was used to punish non-romans and criminals by the roman empire.

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/5235/crucifixion.html
It was not used solely on Christians and had been in use long before Christ and the Roman Empire.
I was taught (by Jesuits) that Pilot was reluctant to use this form of punishment because he (Christ) had not committed a crime against the state.
Rome did persecute christians but it was more political than religious for some of the emperors.

this is a very good and well researched article.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/persecution-russell.html

[Zebedeo]

323. I never said it was "used solely on Christians."

I said it was invented by pagans and used to torture and kill Christians, including Christ. It was.

[unapatriciated]

326. It's main use in the beginning was against political opponents and had little to do with religion

The earliest historical record of crucifixion was made in 519 BC when Darius I, the Persian King of Kings, crucified 3000 political opponents in Babylon.

Alexander the Great is reputed to have executed 2000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre, as well as the doctor who unsuccessfully treated Alexander's friend Hephaestion.

In Carthage, crucifixion was an established mode of execution, which could even be imposed on a general for suffering a major defeat

http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/5235/crucifixion.html

[Ignis]

328. You can't argue with a deep-set persecution complex.

But good on you for trying to bring historical facts into the argument. :thumbsup:

[winyanstaz]

301. I shall explain it to you :)

The cross used by Christians today is an ancient pagan symbol that was around long before the Christians stole it to use as one of their symbols.

It is the four directions ..usually shown with a circle in the middle but not always.

The lower stem was added so it could be carried in processions.

The "cross" used by the Romans was a "T" shape.

However..after the Christians stole that symbol, just as they stole many of the other Pagan rituals and symbols (incense, candles, Blessings, incantations/chants, processions with the cross, etc)along with the Pagan Holidays (Yule/Christmas, Ostara/Easter)..they then used that symbol as they systematically murdered hundreds of thousands of "Witches", natives, and anyone else they wanted to steal from across the span of several centuries as well as several countries.

As to who were the "victims/persecuted".....just look at the body count.

[spanone]

23. ah, the first to hide behind the constitution are the first to piss on it

[Kievan Rus]

24. I kind of got the feeling this was only a matter of time

[Posteritatis]

26. That took longer than I expected, anyway. Ugh. (nt)

[FourScore]

29. I hate to say it, but I saw this one coming.

The right-wing Christian nuts never pass up an opportunity to prove that they are too dumb to understand Christianity.

What a hateful bunch.

[kbuster]

32. Exactly.

Colorado Springs? It's a hotbed of fervent evangelism.
But really, Christian fundamentalists are doing themselves in with these displays of intolerance; what they view as some sort of benign message really comes across as petty to the majority of the public.

[slutticus]

33. Hey, it's made of wood. That's "earthy" right?

[seeinfweggos]

34. WWJV. nt

[Ignis]

53. Funny! ...And why a cross?

When the KKK or fundies do this sort of hate crime involving a cross, I'm always reminded of the following quote from Saint Hicks:

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he's gonna want to see a cross? That's kinda like going up to Jackie Kennedy Onassis with a rifle pendant on.

[Karenina]

37. Please connect the dots between this cadet action and

DADT.

[ddeclue]

42. Expulsion followed by courts-martial is the only way to handle this.

[Tailormyst]

49. I would rather have those people responsible taught the wrongness of what they did

And perhaps use the opportunity to change some hearts and minds. The last thing I want is to make a martyr out of these young people and create more animosity towards my faith. Punished yes, but only to an extent.

[ddeclue]

114. Expulsion and courts martial WOULD teach them to respect other people's religions

they won't learn by "sensitivity traing" - they'll learn by harsh punishment.

[Starry Messenger]

48. RW Christians think freedom of religion only applies to their faith. n/t

[TokenQueer]

139. Sadly, not just RW christians have this train of thought.

"You must respect my irrational belief in a mystical 'Dear Abby' that solves all my problems for me and prevents my teenagers from wanting to engage in sex."

[mb7588a]

54. rape, bigotry, assault, harassment, hazing...

The AFA has a very long and difficult past regarding religious issues. It is VERY evangelical. They target their recruiting and admissions to it. They foster it. They let it go unpunished.

[AngryAmish]

58. poop

[arthritisR_US]

60. I don't think respect is in their vocabulary :( n/t

[Festivito]

69. Whoever did this is an idiot and needs a lesson. /nt

[Quantess]

70. That didn't take long!

That Wiccan site hadn't been up very long at all...

[rd_kent]

82. More of those "christian values" at work again.

[glinda]

142. DADT. That is what that is all about.

[Fire1]

84. I knew this would happen sooner or later. n/t

[deaniac21]

85. OH, THE HORROR! How long will this detestable hate be

allowed to linger. This was a THREAT to their LIVES!

[rd_kent]

92. You don't see the bigger issue here?

[Ignis]

104. Spoken like someone who's never had a brick thrown through their window...

Merely for their (or a family member's) religious affiliation.

[Nye Bevan]

106. If a Wiccan threw a brick through my window that *would* be vandalism,

destructive behavior, etc.

However if a Wiccan left a magic wand propped up against my fence, I wouldn't really care, I would just throw it away.

Propping a wooden cross is not comparable to a brick through a window.

[Ignis]

110. Strawman: I never claimed the appropriate charge is vandalism. (nt)

[apocalypsehow]

115. Semantics Games: you brought up throwing a brick through someone's window, implying that what

occurred in the OP was the functional equivalent.

You really don't do this debate, give-and-take thingy very well, know it? :shrug:

[JerseygirlCT]

119. It was a stupid, hurtful, disrespectful act

Not murder, but it should not be tolerated and it should be prosecuted.

[deaniac21]

257. You got that right! When I was a kid someone gave me a

wiccan basket to use on easter morning. I am scarred to this day!

[Ignis]

329. Well, the truth of your final sentence is certainly obvious. (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

97. They *propped up a wooden cross* against a rock

Calling this "desecration", "vandalism", "destructive behavior" and a "hate crime" is obviously a huge overreaction. And I suspect you realize this, or you would have mentioned in your OP what this horrific "crime" actually consisted of.

Instead of throwing such a hissyfit, why not just toss the cross into the nearest dumpster?

[apocalypsehow]

98. Stand by: there are, apparently, unnamed "bigger issues" here. I have yet to see them elucidated,

but patience is a virtue.

[Nye Bevan]

99. What if these "Christians" escalate this kind of thing

to something like leaving Bibles in hotel rooms where Wiccans might stay? The horror!

[conscious evolution]

314. A hotel/motel is not a holy space.

If you can't tell the difference.....:eyes:

[Tailormyst]

127. If a cross were burned in an African American families front yard, would you say:

Just put the fire out and suck it up?

[Nye Bevan]

135. No

But I think you understand the difference between a burning cross in a black family's front yard and a wooden cross left propped up against a rock in an Air Force base.

[Tailormyst]

138. Both mean "go away, you are not welcome" and both have a history of violence.

[Ignis]

163. What, precisely, is the difference?

Waving your hand and saying "I think you understand" doesn't cut it here. Please spell it out for us.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

239. "a threat of..... nothing"--Ah, so it's not bigotry if you say it's not? Whee!

Spoken like yet another person who's never had a brick thrown through their window for being Pagan or having a Pagan family member.

Please post a list of acceptable bigotry, and I'll be sure to avoid standing up for the rights of those afflicted...since you apparently make up the rules on which flavors of hate are acceptable.

:banghead:

[Nye Bevan]

247. Please don't be deliberately obtuse.

A burning cross in a black family's front yard = Implied threat of lynching and violence.

A wooden cross propped up against a rock in an air force base = Implied threat of nothing.

But I think you already knew that.

[Ignis]

274. You don't think Pagans deserve equal protection under the law.

Oh, I get it, but I disagree.

And I'll continue to disagree now matter how disingenuously you frame the two circumstances by saying "a rock" rather than "a Pagan shrine at an AF academy that has a long tradition of evangelical/fundamentalist/Dominionist Christian dominance."

Sorry, I don't support bigotry of any stripe. YMMV.

[Nye Bevan]

283. I was just quoting from the actual story.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-wicca3-2010feb03,0,3367750.story


On the weekend of Jan. 17, Weinstein said a client of his organization who is based at the academy spotted a cross, constructed of railroad ties, propped against a rock at the center. The client reported it, and the Office of Special Investigations began an inquiry.


The word "shrine" did not appear in the article.

[Name removed]

315. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

318. No, I'm not ignorant. I'm asking people to support their arguments.

If they're not willing to do the heavy lifting, they don't get to swan in and make baseless claims.

ETA: I think you might have replied to the wrong post, though, as you appear to agree with me.

:hi:

[conscious evolution]

313. It is not just a rock on an air farce base.

To a pagan this is exactly equivalent to burning a cross in an AA front yard.

[Sans Culottes]

343. No difference,

both actions are symbolic of hatred and repression.

Burning cross = "We hate black people and will terrorize you until you go."

Propped cross = "We hate Wiccans and will terrorize you until you convert."


The apologists for this act of oppression and desecration are very glib, especially for a whiny sect that bewails the "War on Christmas".

Like apologists everywhere, they are merely liars.

[KonaKane]

150. It all depends on the intent

And anyone with a speck of historical knowledge or honesty would see such an act as an intent to slur and intimidate Pagans in the Air Force. Go look up the "irminsul" and the bas-reliefs of ancient Christian Germany in which the priests are shown bending the pagan symbol over with their feet.

Educate yourself.

[fascisthunter]

107. fighting over religion is like fighting over D&D

fucking goofey... I knew this shit would happen. Fundies in this country are the most intolerant human beings I have met yet.

There should be no symbols of religion in the military... problem resolved. You want to practice your religious faith, then go for it, on your own.

[howard112211]

178. +1

and lol, yeah the D&D comparison fits.

[Lorien]

210. Agreed. nt

[Ignis]

235. Yeah, but my Druid can still beat up your Cleric.

:D

[Toasterlad]

251. Druid Is the Dumbest Character Class In D&D

Yeah, I said it. You want some???

[Ignis]

254. I see that and raise you: Bard.

:D

[Toasterlad]

256. Touche

Goddamn it.

[Toasterlad]

250. Fighting Over D&D Is More Valid

The rules are much clearer, and they apply to everyone equally.

[fascisthunter]

259. ironic, and true

[Ignis]

275. What kind of warped GM doesn't play favorites?

How the hell else are you supposed to deal with rules lawyers? :evilgrin:

[JerseygirlCT]

118. Idiots is right

Any way you look at it, this is disgusting behavior.

[liberal_at_heart]

120. This should not be tolerated

[RedCloud]

125. those comical Christians: Crusades, Inquisitions, Genocide. Laugh it up guys.

Ghengis Khan would be envious of the numbers they slaughtered and enslaved.

[JFN1]

128. If their brand of Christianity is THE truth

then why are they so threatened by other religions?

[Arugula Latte]

146. They're very touchy, aren't they?

It's almost as if they know deep down they "believe" a big crock o' crap.

[liberation]

204. ... it must be a bunch of crap, or their god is some useless and weak deity

I mean, he or she can't even smite properly a pagan site, that he or she needs human helpers to carry it out.


I never understood all the hoopla around the Christian god, and I was raised Catholic BTW: it seems to be a guy with a very short fuse, who feels very insecure and can't do anything directly (always needing someone to actually do the work for him), and is always asking for more money. I never understood how that made him an omnipotent, omnipresent entity. Seem like an unreliable deadbeat to me.


What I find amazing, is that the ones ALWAYS crying bloody murder about how "prosecuted" they are... are these fundies. When in reality, they are the first ones who jump at the slightest opportunity to discriminate and attack others. Just like everyone in the conservative collective, these fundies tend to operate mostly under runaway projection.

[Arugula Latte]

226. Yes indeed

Their god is schizo -- an angry, smiting, punishing deity who sends plagues and wars and pestilence and disease and horrors. Oh, but, by the way, God is "love." :rofl:

And they definitely squeal that they are being oppressed when in fact they are doing the lion's share of the oppressing. Denying gay people rights, for example, is part of their "Faith," and if you don't agree you are trampling THEIR liberties and persecuting THEM, the poor fucking put-upon fundie Xtians. :eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

333. Heh. I think the "touchy" ones are the people throwing a huge whining hissyfit

because someone left something on a rock in an air force base.

[pleah]

132. Religious Taliban. n/t

[dugaresa]

136. The movie/documentarty Constantine's Sword touched on the role of evangelicals at the AF Academy

and it wasn't pretty. Apparently Jewish students were harassed, so it does not surprise me that if the same groups are around that they hate the idea of a Wiccan area of worship.

[D23MIURG23]

143. Who's surprised? n/t

[KitSileya]

145. If this isn't a big deal,

as some claim on this thread, I say, let's go put a cross by the Mekka arch in the mosque, pentagrams on the altars of the diverse churches, a swastika in the synagogue, a crescent by the Hindu altar, and so on in the other religious places of worship at the Air force Academy, and see if we get a similar reaction.

[Ignis]

164. +1

Equal enforcement of the law/regulations is required in a just society.

[undergroundpanther]

148. Christians want to evangelize the world

and a large part of the world heard it all before and does not want to be christian.Christianity encourages people that believe in it to be like a salesmen except the commissions and perks come in"heavenly rewards".
http://www.georgetownprc.org/bible_verses.htm

I will not be assimilated by any belief system, I have my own , evangelize to yourselves christians,and accept it the world hates you
http://bible.cc/john/15-18.htm
Part of why is because your god commands you to be his obnoxious absolutist,other religion hating salesmen.

Unlike a person's sexual orientation,
what religion you believe in is a CHOICE you made.

People leave or switch their churches, temples and whatever else, belief systems all the time.That is reality.

Why? Because sometimes the christian god is not believable,and some do not like an oppressive or manipulating churches. Some do not like peddling religion to strangers who have heard it all before.
Some are sick of religion all together and want freedom from religion.Some see sacredness outside of your church and it is their choice and right to refuse christianity.
Being free means having the right to say NO,even to evangelists and to your church,beliefs, bible and your god.Being free also means I can despise your god,and yes I do,despise christian god the bible and all it's beliefs. I can do this because we are not a religion dominated state like say Israel or Iran..I do not want to live under the opressive domination of other people's belief systems.

[Lars39]

149. They call that the Great Commission.

[undergroundpanther]

151. Great commission?

More like the great commission of crimes against humanity , given the historical record christianity has towards others that do not accept their 'christ'.

[spoony]

167. "accept it the world hates you"

Well that's a rational post, lol. You know, for all the railing against mean people you do, you certainly are a nasty piece of work.

[undergroundpanther]

258. jesus said that

it's in the bible. this is one of the reasons christianity is toxic to me.

[Tailormyst]

174. After reading this thread again, I am very sad

The threat and desecration are not taken seriously because it is a Wiccan circle. If this were the desecration of a Temple, a Church or a Mosque the response would be very different. It hurts to see our faith not given the respect other faiths would have had. No one tells Jews to just suck it up, toughen up, just wash it off, its no big deal, no one was hurt, blah blah blah, when someone spray paints a nazi sign on their door.

I had hoped it would get cleaned up over night, but it hasn't. It hurts to see this is allowed here.

[DaveinJapan]

281. Not given the respect other faiths would have had? I'm not so sure.

In particular, I've read and heard some awful comments (not here in particular, but elsewhere definitely) about Mosques and Islamic people. It's perfectly fine in many circles to ridicule them and their customs.

A Church would be an outrage to all, of course. What else would you expect from a hyper-Christian nation?

As for a Temple (and I assume you're talking something Nazi related as in your example), they get a pass on pretty much ANY of this sort of discussion due to the horrors of WWII.

So my point is I don't think it's a matter of "we respect all of THESE over here, cause they're major and important...but we don't respect THAT one". Underneath it all, there's a fundamental loathing of each other on all fronts, although YOU'RE worse because your religion is small and unknown, and I'M worse even still cause I dare to be an agnostic.

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

[howard112211]

179. Just toss religious symbolism out of government owned facilities already...

Petty bickering over petty bullshit

[progressoid]

181. No we can't do that.

That makes too much sense.

[pleah]

265. +1

[howard112211]

180. When I was in high school a few buddies and I snuck into a catholic church...

... and rolled a doobie on the altar :smoke:

I guess that was a hate crime too :evilgrin:

[Tailormyst]

182. Would you say the same about a nazi symbol in a Jewish Temple?

Would you laugh and make light, comparing it to smoking a joint?

[howard112211]

184. No, because while there are historic parallels between naziism and christianity...

... I would not go as far as equate them.

edit: Let's assume someone put a Koran on display somewhere and some sneaky person put a Menorah on top of it. I would tell the Muslims to just remove it and get over it.

[Tailormyst]

193. Ah so the mass murders of one religion is not equal to the mass murders of another.

Yeah- this thread has made it quite clear that even in a Democratic forum, my faith is not accepted, welcomed or even treated with the dignity afforded others.

I'm going to hide this thread and all the nastiness that goes along with it and seriously consider whether this is the right place for me.

[howard112211]

200. Don't worry, other "faiths" are not treated with "dignity" either here.

So your faith actually is very well accepted, in the sense that it gets ridiculed the same way as Christianity, Islam or Judaism ;)

[liberal_at_heart]

185. I can't believe how many on here don't see this as desecration

Had this been any other religion desecrating a Christian site there would be outrage even if it was something that could simply be moved. With that kind of logic as someone has already mentioned, I guess it was not desecration for the KKK to burn crosses on a black person's lawn.

[howard112211]

186. I don't see it as desecration because I don't believe in "sacred" things. If anything its vandalism.

And it is not the same as burning a cross on a black person's lawn
because:

1) The stupid prank in the OP does not imply a threat. The cross burning does.
2) Race and Religion are not equal things. Actually far from so.

I add as I did in my other post: If some moron had placed a menorah on top of a Koran, I would be telling the Muslims to get over it and just take the thing off.

[liberal_at_heart]

188. oh so religious people or sites don't deserve protection because you're not a religious person?

So what is sacred to you? What is special enough to you that if someone was trying to send you a message not to bring that kind of thinking around here it would offend you? I don't know if you believe in evolution but I just bet if a Christian put a Christian symbol at a site that celebrated evolution, alot of evolutionists would be pissed. If a nazi put a swastika at a Jewish site it not only would be considered a desecration it would be considered a hate crime. Just because it is not important to you doesn't mean it wasn't important to someone else.

[howard112211]

191. I doubt that "evolutionists" will care if one placed a christian symbol on such a site you describe.

Furthermore a swastika implies a threat. A cross does not necessarily do so. Furthermore, no property was destroyed. They can just toss the cross away (or chop it up and burn it if they want to piss off the christians).

I like the way Buddhists dealt with the destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan: They didn't comment on it at all. Makes me think they might be on to something.

[liberal_at_heart]

196. are you kidding? People like Richard Dawkins would tear into them if they did that.

I agree that Buddhist monks don't let themselves become offended because they do not pollute their bodies and minds with negative thoughts such as offense and anger, but even the Dalai Lama still fights peacefully for social justice.

[rd_kent]

195. I think what you are calling "desecration", others see as plain old vandalism.

Different words for the same things. There is, however, a law against vandalism. Is there one against desecration?

[Tailormyst]

197. Yes its called a hate crime

Vandalism intended to bully and intimidate a certain group of people due to their religion. The cross being placed on the WIccan Alter was placed there to intimidate and to tell the Wiccans in no certain terms that they are not welcome and will not be tolerated at the Academy.

[liberal_at_heart]

199. +1

[rd_kent]

205. So "hate crime" legslation coveres "desecration"?

I missed that part. I do see your point, and it is quite valid, but I hardly think anyone will be charged with a hate crime here. I want these assholes publicly punished, but charging them with a hate crime , IMO, just will not fly. Vandalism, OTOH, will get them convicted.

[liberal_at_heart]

214. It think TailorMyst has a good definition there

It is the intimidation based on religion that makes it a hate crime.

[DaveinJapan]

282. Desecration is unrelated to whether something is a hate crime or not.

Is a Swastika spray painted onto the door of a Jewish house of worship dealt with any differently than one spray painted onto a Jewish person's car?

Is the car in question considered "desecrated"?

[liberal_at_heart]

198. How about when a church gets burned down?

Sure it is arson but in the minds of the people it is more than that. Maybe it's just an intangible thing, but it is still there none the less.

[rd_kent]

208. You are right.

But ARSON will be the charge, maybe with hate crime tacked on. See my response to taylormyst above.

[Tailormyst]

194. I'm heartbroken by the reaction of both DUers and the DU staff

[fascisthunter]

260. well, not everyone believes as you do, and so by extension, they don't see it as sacrilidge...

but instead view it as an act of vandalism, maybe even a hate crime.

[kenfrequed]

187. This needs to be dealt with

A minority of evangelicals have become increasingly demanding and obnoxious in the military as of late. Something must change with regards to the culture that exists there. I think the problem stems from the gradual takeover of the Chaplain corps by fundamentalist evangelicals and the gradual diminishment of other Christian sects and other religious faiths.


Of more temporal and equally irritating concern is the takeover of this thread by a series of trollish posts decrying the horrors of 'hate-crime' prosecution. To this I say two things.

A: The Military is not about freedom to hate whomever you like, if you don't like someone you better keep that shit to yourself or pack your bags cause if you act on it you are gone.

B: There shouldn't be a lot of question about the motives of desecrating a temple or sacred site. There wouldn't be as much hand wringing or doubt if someone burned down a church.

[lonestarnot]

189. How crusadie of them.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

240. Yes, "desecration" implies destruction, permanent damage, and spray-painting

I wonder why the OP did not spell out the nature of this "crime" more clearly?

[Toasterlad]

306. Um...No.

You're describing vandalism. Desecration is nothing more or less than de-sanctifying a sanctified area. You don't have to destroy anything to do that.

[Sans Culottes]

344. Wiktionary:

"desecration (plural desecrations)

1. An act of disrespect or impiety towards something considered sacred."



You are just spouting opinions, with out any basis in fact. You only want to support your own agenda, with no regard for the truth.

In fact, you are just wasting everyone's time with fabricated definitions and wishful thinking.


If it's determined that Academy personnel are involved in this crime, dishonorable discharges are in order, less they be loosed in an occupied country whilst suffering the delusion that they are involved in a Crusade.

[kestrel91316]

203. In reading this thread I see the local christofascist apologist team has

turned out in force.

What part of freedom of religion do people NOT get??? If Wiccans vandalized the Academy Chapel with pentagrams, there would be no end to the outrage, and media would be camped there, and Faux christian TV would have 24 hour coverage.

[liberal_at_heart]

216. I completely agree

[Ignis]

232. We agree on the double standard. It's disheartening. (nt)

[newtothegame]

241. What's wrong with the thread is not the responses, but the misleading OP. See #190/240. n/t

[Ignis]

244. How is the OP misleading? It's just copypasta with "Idiots" added.

Color me confused. :shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

285. Because it refers to *desecration* and *destructive behavior*,

and in 4 paragraphs never mentioned that all that happened was that someone left a wood cross propped against a rock.

[Ignis]

320. So contact the news source from which the OP quoted.

It's fascinating to see that you're still being utterly dismissive of the rights of Pagans, though.

"all that happened"

And if "all that happens" is that someone "leaves" a swastika "propped" against a synagogue, would you be equally dismissive?

Of course not, because you don't believe in equal protection under the law for Pagans.

Round here, we call that uneven approach to justice "bigotry."

[PatrynXX]

206. kinda pushing it here

it's just a wooden cross, if they damaged the site in anyway then I'd have a problem with it. Like spraypainting a cross on the rocks

[Tailormyst]

215. It is not "just a cross" it was a symbol clearly placed there to intimidate

[Ignis]

233. "It's JUST a chalk swastika, what's the big deal?"

C'mon, you can't be serious. :banghead:

[twitomy]

273. So a cross is a symbol of hatred

like the swastika?

Wow must be a lot of hate goin on at Arlington....

[Ignis]

278. Find a dictionary, look up "context."

If we follow your tortured logic, the swastika is NOT a symbol of hatred when chalked on a synagogue because it's used everyday in good faith by Tibetan Buddhists.

Is that really what you're trying to say? :shrug:

[twitomy]

330. Uh no.

Someone leaving an ordinary cross at a wiccan site that can be easily removed does not constitute a "hate crime" or "intimidation" IMHO. If it was on fire, or had a noose hanging from it perhaps.
Actually, if they REALLY wanted to intimidate, they should of set up a stake with all kinds of kindling at the base... Your right, it is context. And in this case I dont think the context was for intimidation or hate. Seems to me it was put there by someone who disagrees with Wiccan-ism. Perhaps its a in-your-face way of doing it, but not a crime. If someone placed a menorah or a hexagram pendent on the altar at my Church, I would probably just roll my eyes before removing it. Now if they spray painted it or otherwise did physical damage, Id be kinda pissed for the vandalism, but still, not initmidated.

But thats just me.

[twitomy]

331. No, I agree it is context

Your right, it is context. And in this case I dont think the context was for intimidation or hate. Seems to me it was put there by someone who disagrees with Wiccan-ism and wanted to show disapproval. Disapproval is not hate or intimidation. The simple placing of a cross in a non-threating way (not on fire, no noose, not spraypainted, etc )seemed kinda like making a statement WITHOUT trying to intimidate. Perhaps its a in-your-face way of doing it, but not a crime. If they REALLY wanted to intimidate,the cross should have been on fire, or better yet they should of set up a stake with all kinds of kindling at the base... If someone placed a menorah or a hexagram pendent on the altar at my Church, I would probably just roll my eyes before removing it. Now if they spray painted it or otherwise did physical damage, Id be kinda pissed for the vandalism, but still, not initmidated.

But thats just me.

[Toasterlad]

288. I Know! It's Not Like There's a HISTORY of Christians Killing Pagans, Right?

Some people just need to FIND something to bitch about. Crosses are pretty! Those pagans should have been delighted to find one in their place of worship!

[twitomy]

332. Yep right after the Pagans had their turn kiling Christians....NT

[Tailormyst]

289. Used in this manner, YES

Just like a cross burning in someone front yard is a fucking symbol of hate.

[ooglymoogly]

207. The US Air force is the evangelical flying army.

With "nu-cu-lar" weapons no less. When Armageddon arrives, it will be from these arrested development folks who are maniacal in their bigotry, hatred and zealotry. They parade in the drag of Christianity and as the army of same, but are no less than the army of the powerful few dark, soulless shadows that run this country and are running it off a cliff. They are the force of those we perceive as the devil and the purest evil. They are the same all over the world, from the extremes of the many forms of Islam to the extremes of the many forms of Christianity; They just wear different masks. Beware false prophets is vital advice. When folks profess to follow "Christianity", but follow none of its concepts,(the teachings of Christ), they have erected a false prophet as a cover for the evil things they do); And that my friends is all too obvious for those brave enough to see.

[PacerLJ35]

269. Anyone in the USAF = arrested development folks...right. Got it.

The holy-rollers in the USAF are a minority. A vocal one, but a minority nonetheless. That's my view, and I'm in the USAF.

[ooglymoogly]

209. The US Air force is the evangelical flying army.

With "nu-cu-lar" weapons no less. When Armageddon arrives, it will be from these arrested development folks who are maniacal in their bigotry, hatred and zealotry. They parade in the drag of Christianity and as the army of same, but are no less than the army of the powerful few dark, soulless shadows that run this country and are running it off a cliff. They are the force of those we perceive as the devil and the purest evil. They are the same all over the world, from the extremes of the many forms of Islam to the extremes of the many forms of Christianity; They just wear different masks. Beware false prophets is vital advice. When folks profess to follow "Christianity", but follow none of its concepts,(the teachings of Christ), they have erected a false prophet as a cover for the evil things they do); And that my friends is all too obvious for those brave enough to see.

[old mark]

211. Another example of christian love and understanding. nt

[KansDem]

213. I agree, it was very Christian of them...

And I'm not being sarcastic!

[husky92]

217. Not Surprised

Why am I not surprised by this behavior? It seems that there is a segment of Christians who are totally intolerant of any views other than their other. Looks at all these people you see on TV who are so far out of it, it scares you. Once again, religion is a personal matter and I don't need someone else telling me what religion is right and which one is wrong. I'm tired of those on the right coming to the defense at every chance they get to support these nut jobs. Pray in your house of worship or in your home, but PLEASE, do it among those with similar interests. Don't push your views on me and don't rip into someone else's beliefs. It's called tolerance. We need a lot more of it. Maybe these AFA cadets need a lesson in that.

[radhika]

220. Where is Nero when we need him? n/t

[lakercub]

221. Being a Colorado Springs resident

we get to here plenty of the news about this stuff...and I am going to give credit where credit is due. Gould, while christian himself, has at least been putting forth an effort to make people of other religions feel as though they have a place. Since he took over, he has had Mikey Weinstein, the AFA grad who went after the proselytizing a few years ago, on campus to talk and he is the one who gave the Wiccans a place of their own. There is much left to do, but at least I finally see some steps in the right direction as far as AFA leadership is concerned.

As for the Christians showing disrespect...par for the course. Northern Colorado Springs (the location of the AFA) is also home to Focus on the Family, New Life Church (CS megachurch of Ted Haggard fame), and the International Bible Society among others. They are VERY aggressive and have been heavily influencing what goes on with Cristian groups on that campus. I'm sure they are not directly responsible for this, but their complete lack of respect for anyone but themselves is surely a root cause.

[Zomby Woof]

222. A Lakers fan in Colorado Springs

This resident of Los Angeles thanks you for evangelizing the Gospel of The Triangle Offense in your part of Lakers Nation. :D

[lakercub]

261. hehe

I grew up evangelizing the Gospel of Showtime.

[Zomby Woof]

272. Verily, Showtime was the Holy of Holies

All hail Kareem, and Magic be praised! We're not Worthy! ;-)

[valerief]

223. They think 'turn the other cheek' means using the bottom end to drop something. nt

[Toasterlad]

249. Vandalizing Shit Is Totally In Line With What Christ Taught

Remember him knocking over the tables and beating the shit out of the moneylenders? Jesus was not big on sharing the spotlight.

[Nye Bevan]

284. Propping a wood cross against a rock = "Vandalizing Shit"?

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

286. You're Right. It Was Totally Cool Of Those Nice Christians To Leave Their Symbol At Another Place

of worship. If only those skinheads would make those swastikas they like to leave in synagogues out of wood, so they could be easily removed, I'll bet no one would give a shit. After all, as long as you can just pick it up and move it, the symbol's in no way religious intimidation, right?

But you're right again, that's an unfair analogy. After all, it's not like christians have a history of exterminating pagans, right?

[BrklynLiberal]

262. Well, isn't that soooo Christian of them?

[dysfunctional press]

266. the 'Idiots' are the ones who made a big deal out of it.

that's exactly what the vandal wanted.

they should have just used it for firewood, and acted like it was no big deal.

[Toasterlad]

287. Seriously! Religious Intimidation Is Nothing More Than a High School Prank!

How dare those stupid wiccans take offense at those christians leaving their symbol in what was supposed to be a protected place of worship? What a bunch of geeks!

[dysfunctional press]

293. exactly.

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

294. You Have GOT To Be a Christian

No other Americans are as dismissive of the beliefs of others. I think both wiccans AND christians are self-deluded fools, but I still don't think it's okay for people to go around desecrating their places of worship.

Jesus must LOVE you.

[dysfunctional press]

296. nope.

full-on atheist. i don't think that leaving a cross made out of railroad ties laying there to be a 'desecration'. a cross should be pretty much meaningless to the wiccans- so they shouldn't have made a big deal out of it...they should have just dissasembled it and either burned it, or use it to make a bench for sitting on.

[Toasterlad]

303. Do Yourself a Favor And Google "Religious Intimidation"

I guess you're okay with wooden swastikas, too?

[dysfunctional press]

309. swastikas have a specific history when it comes to jews....

what specific event in wiccan history does the cross evoke?

[Toasterlad]

319. And Crosses Have a Specific History When It Comes to Pagans

If you'd googled "religious intimidation" like I told you, you'd probably have found it.

[Ignis]

321. Nah, the Inquisition was only a myth, right? (nt)

[wickerwoman]

340. What on earth makes you think you're entitled

to tell "the Wiccans" how they should feel and what they should think about something, particularly when you haven't bothered to learn the first thing about them or their history?

I think this story and this thread gets to two seriously poisonous strands at the heart of American life:

1.) People who can't leave other people the fuck alone and

2.) People who feel entitled to tell other people what they can and can't be offended by.

Here's a clue: if you're not a member of a certain minority, telling members of that minority not to get their panties in a bunch over something you know absolutely nothing about is just friggin' breathtakingly arrogant and obnoxious. Do you also walk around telling black people when to get offended by the n-word or gay people that not being able to get married isn't really that big of a deal?

[Hepburn]

268. I am a Wiccan and the amount of hostility I see?

Unreal.

[Ignis]

277. No kidding.

It would serve some of the posters above well to walk a mile in your shoes before dismissing or trivializing the chilling effect of this sort of action against Pagans.

Hang in there. :hug:

[madrchsod]

280. standard lack of respect for those who believe in the spirit world

i usually ignore their childish behavior

[underpants]

276. They have had a big problem with Christians at that school for about a decade

it isn't about "respect" it is about "equality" which the Federal government HAS to enforce in its own operations. That is why the right hates government so much.

[Ilsa]

291. I have a question: Do we need the Air Force any more? What about the Academy? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

295. Someone has to fly the Predators.

[KonaKane]

337. Since they will be replaced by drones,

why not just get teen boys to fly them, like a video game?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

338. The predator is a drone.

[howard112211]

300. If this is a hate crime then so is rearranging a church sign to say "Jesus blows"

and also if this is a hate crime one could reasonably argue that the Mohammed cartoons are hate crimes too.

I'm against establishing special laws protecting the sensitivities of religious people.

What should happen is that the people who did this should be charged with trespassing and vandalism,
just as if they had altered a church sign. A stiff fine, of say, 300 dollars to the Wiccan community,
should be sufficient. If it happens again they can raise the fine to 500 dollars.

No need to get all "bible thumping" about it.

And these Christianity=Nazi comparisons here: Are you friggin kidding me?

My understanding is that neo-paganism is a rather recent development of people
who chose to re-invent something that existed centuries ago.

Sure, the catholic church stomped out ancient paganism, but it is NOT as relevant
to todays politics as, say, the holocaust BECAUSE it happened centuries ago,
and no one who has any personal connection whatsoever to the victims or the murderers exists today.
All there is are people who make the choice to arbitrarily associate themselves with it.
Unlike the holocaust where ACTUAL victims and their direct relatives are alive today.

edit: can't believe I'm actually posting something here that may be viewed by someone as pro-christian...

[Toasterlad]

305. If Christianity Were Not the Norm, Rearranging a Church Sign WOULD Be a Hate Crime

In fact, if the motive behind rearranging the sign was to intimidate christians, it IS a hate crime.

Hate crimes laws are in place to protect the minority from an intolerant majority. Therefore, high school punks in an overwhelmingly christian town getting a douchey thrill out of changing a sign to read "Jesus blows" is a different matter entirely than adults attending a military institution with a very strong history of intolerance toward other religions indulging in religious intimdation of a small non-christian group.

[Zebedeo]

324. I think there is a freedom of expression issue here.

What if instead of a cross made of railroad ties, it was a pamphlet promoting Christianity? What if it was a Bible? What about a small cross made from toothpicks? What if it was a Christian cadet wearing a small cross around her neck? Does it make any difference? Can the government constitutionally prohibit Christians from expressing their faith?

What if it had been a Wiccan's broomstick (or whatever is a symbol of their religion - please excuse my ignorance) found leaning against the exterior wall of a chapel? Would it be a "hate crime" deserving of courts martial and criminal prosecution?

[twitomy]

341. Well said...

The act done here was very innocuos. yeah, maybe a little rude, but hardly criminal

[Toasterlad]

345. They Weren't Handing Out Little Crosses On a Neutral Street Corner

They placed a christian symbol in an area devoted specifically to another faith.

This is not at all a freedom of expression issue. This is a religious intimidation issue.

Why people feel the need to defend asshole christians no matter what they do or how clearly in the wrong they are is baffling.

[Dorian Gray]

325. Wow.....

there are intolerant idiots everywhere. They should be brought up on charges for desecrating the Wiccan site.

[twitomy]

334. Hmm maybe trespassing, or littering..

but to charge someone of religious "desecration" sounds like something the Iranians would do...I dont think we need theocratic laws, thanks.

[Dorian Gray]

335. I think it can and should be considered hate speech

which has it's own penalties. It's not theocratic law to protect the property of a religious organization.

And why would you ignore vandalism as one of the charges that could be used against the people who did this.

[twitomy]

336. Becasue I dont think any property was "damaged"

A cross was left. Pick up the cross and throw it in the trash. No harm done to the property. Market value is the same. If there is a crime its littering. Vandalism is damage to the property. Leaving a cross behind is no more "vandalism" then me flicking a cigarette butt onto it. If anythings its littering. If a tangible piece of property was damaged, then yes its vandalism.

BTW hate speech is protected speech too.

[JNelson6563]

342. Dear bible-God,

Please protect me from your people. And if you can figure out a way to make them less fearful and hateful, that would be a bonus.

Thanks,
Julie