Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grand Canyon removes plaques with verse on them.

Comments Filter:
  • Dumb (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Sunday July 27, 2003 @09:17PM (#6548031) Journal
    Taken as poetry without the religious connotation, those verses are perfectly appropriate.

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

    Perhaps John 3:16 would be out of place, but these passages?
  • Another win for the liberal left.

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

    Ok, maybe that sounds a little odd... but isn't it right? Judeo-Christian views (aka Intolerance) is another
    • What's wrong with being intolerant?

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

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

      In the end, that "open mind" and "tolerance" is merely a way for people to not admit their own fear or making decisions that may limit themselves. When someone tells m
      • Toldja I'd be around. :)

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

        I'm not sure what you mean by this. And I wouldn't say that it "merely" is, I'd say that "in some cases". I think I'm open minded because I freely admit that I don't know everything. If you can convince me with proof or substantial discussion that your point is more valid or "correct" than mine, then I'll change my mind. If I can dispro

        • by Chacham (981) *
          Great to have you around! :)

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

          That's called being realistic. :P

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

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

            There's realism and there's pig-headedness. Your definition is somewhat looser than what I described after that.

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

            I'm interested in how you arrived to this conclusion, that I don't have an urge to think about it, the implication that I haven't thought about i

            • by Chacham (981) *
              that I don't have an urge to think about it, the implication that I haven't thought about it.

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

              Also, i sometimes learn things by choosing one way and "experiencing" it. Then i can decide on its merits. It is much better then not tryng it, where i may have been open-minded on the issue for the rest of my life. In a sense of arrogance, i figure if it worked for me, it ought to work for everyone e
              • Because it is my firm belief that anyone who thinks about it will come to a decision, even if it is changed later.

                How do you know that "I don't know" isn't my decision? Do I have to decide one way or the other? I just find it interesting that you're assuming that I haven't thought about it, or that I haven't tried anything.

                • by Chacham (981) *
                  How do you know that "I don't know" isn't my decision?

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

                  Do I have to decide one way or the other?

                  I think it important enough to demand it.

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

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

                  or that I haven't tried anything.

                  Or tried "enough".

                  I consider it an important issue. And, those who reach no answer, to me, are
                  • i consider that a wimpy way out, so i just plainly assume that it isn't.

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

                    At any rate, you "consider", "assume" and "think", but you don't know. And presume that your levels of thinking are adequate.

                    Hm.

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      I see you're still using the lower-case "i", but you begin sentences with capital "I".

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

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

                      True. But since nothing can ever be truly known, we each rely on certain assumpti
                    • But how are your assumptions more or less valid than mine? And can what you don't know be augmented?
                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      But how are your assumptions more or less valid than mine?

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

                      And can what you don't know be augmented?

                      Come to a decision, and see what happens. It works well for me.
                    • as i believe

                      But you do not know.

                      contemptable

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

                      It works well for me.

                      What does?

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      But you do not know.

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

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

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

                      What does?

                      Trying out something to see how it feels, even though when trying it i was not sure yet if it was correct.
                    • i give considerable weight to well thought out beliefs.

                      How do you know mine arent?

                      i don't believe it to be out of ignorance, since i have spent much time thinking about it in the past.

                      I mean your assumption about me comes from ignorance.

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      How do you know mine arent?

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

                      I mean your assumption about me comes from ignorance.

                      Yes. All assumptions are based on ignorance. Otheriwse, it wouldn't be an assumption. :)
                    • You don't sleep, do you. Are you a vampire?

                      It's not that I don't have conclusion, my conclusion is I don't know. [tap...tap...] Is this thing on?

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      "Sleep"? :)

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

                    • How does "a conclusion of no conclusion" result in insufficient effort? You have no idea what effort, past or present, has been put into it.
                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      True. But, i consider the matter of such importance, that one must always either have a definitive solution, or be working towards one.
                    • So, if the matter is of such importance, please detail the steps you have gone through and the conclusion you've reached.

                      Also, why cannot "I don't know" be the definitive solution? If the "facts" are inconclusive, what other conclusion is supposed to be reached? Would "there is no god" be a more acceptable answer, to you?

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      So, if the matter is of such importance, please detail the steps

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

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

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

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

                      Personal conviction, or re
                    • So, you feel you can criticise what you percieve to be my process without detailing your own? You're also assuming I wouldn't "appreciate" the steps, which actually goes back to the original point of open-mindedness. Who am I to judge your process?

                      And because a definitive solution can be reached for you, by you, how does that make my solution any less valid? We're talking about a belief system here, which is more or less opinion. And what would "the default" be?

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      So, you feel you can criticise what you percieve to be my process without detailing your own?

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

                      As i originally said

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

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

                      You're also assuming I w

                    • My stress was on the lack of process

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

                      I would never assume such a thing without more information.

                      Yet you assume I lack process.

                      This is not talking about judging. As an example, imagine Elddir tells a riddle that he thinks is enjoyable, and the person does nto appreciate it. Elddir will now think less of the riddle. The same is true with personal steps.

                      Why would Elddir care? Why would he think the riddle is less enjoyable? Why wouldn't

                    • by Chacham (981) *
                      You still don't know, however, and I don't see how you can judge.

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

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

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

                      ...'night....

                    • Sweet dreams. :)
    • Let's take a look at the verses in question:

      Psalms 68:4 - Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

      Psalms 66:4 - All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing [to] thy name. Selah.

      Psalms 104:24 - O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.

      As a "liberal" and someone who's not particularly religious, I'll speak to what I find relevant.

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

        IMHO, this is the crux of the "seperation of church and state" matter and is completely a moot question. That is like saying that a quote of e. e. cummings must be taken down because we didn't also quote Plato, Hemmingway and Dickinson. ALL viewpoints do not need to be expressed in ALL contexts, as that is just absurd. The article states that the 1st ammendment prohibits the governme
        • The article states that the 1st ammendment prohibits the government from supporting a certain religion, which is also BS, as the 1st amendment only prohibits the government from interfering with the people's freedom of religion. That is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

          Try reading the whole thing.

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacea
          • It would seem to me that this is where the study of documents and beliefs of the drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would come into play. Although, I'm not sure it would help all that much. I know someone who is very Christian and thinks it's absurd that the rest of the country doesn't recognise that the US was founded on Christian ideals and beliefs, and should recognise Christianity. Not make it an official religion, but just give up on all the "separation" stuff.

            I...I tend to disagree.

            An

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

          I don't find them particularly poetic, not lyrically poetic, but they could have a loose meter to them. But they are trying to express, well, the last one is exultation, but the first two are just "singing praise". So...Yes, we agree the third one should stay. :)

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

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

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

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


        Jesus spent time with poor, sick, etc., but I don't think that's a sign of being tolerant. Loving and merciful, yes. Tolerant.. no. Those people were the ones who were most receptive and most willing to listen. The ones who weren't (such as th
        • Anyone can say "That offends me! There goes my freedom of speech! It's time to Sue! I HAVE rights!"

          Yes, anyone can say that. That doesn't mean they know what they're saying. There is no right to not be offended - take a gay pride parade for example. There are almost always anti-gay protestors around them with their signs celebrating AIDS and such. They offend people in the parade - but nobody tells them they can't express their opinion. And the existence of the parade offends the people protesting.
          • Here is one example where student led prayer was banned at a football game in Texas [freedomforum.org]. Sure, others were at the football game that probably didn't believe that way... but on the same token, how is that any worse than if I witness a gay rights parade or someone kissing in public? I think the main point of difference is that it was allowed in an organized event at a state institution. Now that gets into the slippery slope of of "separation of church and state".

            Nobody's telling you that you can't talk about
            • not trying to pick a fight, but....
              if the park had ... quotes

              If I lived in Turkey.... Since America was founded on Christian principles and by many Christian men, I'd say it would seem a little odd to see something from another religion's holy book on such a great American landmark (again, going back to culture).

              It seems to me that you're transposing your values onto other people, which is kind of what this discussion has become. I don't think it would be odd at all to see other religious quotations. O

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


              The issue at the football games wasn't that they

Money is its own reward.

Working...