Not at all. Simply following a religious path does not make one blind. Closing one's eyes to truth is what makes us blind.

That can be said equally of the religious or the nonreligious, and it can even be said of some religions. But being close to God does not make one blind or shackled.

 

Good insight and I agree with you. I'm still a Christian but you won't find me lining up behind any denomination or system. They've all deviated from the original and while I'd normally say it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize it, their membership numbers say otherwise. Apparently you at least have to be an anesthesiologist to figure it out.

 

Does the fact the Cross was erected over 60 years ago influence your view? It surely influences mine.

This is not about the current day erection of a religious symbol. I can think of few instances where I would support the placement of a Cross, Star of David, etc. on government owned land. However, this was placed 60+ years ago when the the climate in the country allowed this type of display. I believe their is some level of historical significance to the Cross, and that should take precedent over the current church/state argument.

 

Historical significance is often called upon but often if you look at it not really valid.

For instance at one time slavery was legal. Since at one time it was legal in this country could someone argue that you could have slaves since the institution was there at when the country allowed this type of activity?

 

Would you condemn people in the USA in 1840 for having a slave? Chances are, you'd have one yourself, given your financial status (assuming it was similar then as now). The fact that you currently don't believe in it doesn't change the fact that back then, you'd have probably been fine with it.

Accordingly, applying your personal belief today against something that was built in the 1940s (in a much different religious and political climate) is a somewhat similar situation, if not quite so extreme.

 

Jon, my peeps weren't landowners in the US at that time. We'd have probably been slaves or workers. I think my peeps entered the US actually first as laborers in Cali to help build railroads.

That being said you and I are arguing two different points. Sure you'd agree with standards current to a time or place, but I'm saying in modern times you change old things to new standards.

 

It's driving the satanists crazy. And trust me folks...satanism is practiced all across America, and in the highest halls of power.

 

 

Again, I have to disagree. If they did things a certain way back then, our current view shouldn't change the acceptance of something that was done a certain way (when it was acceptable to have done it).

That means that an old home with slave quarters wouldn't have the slave quarters necessarily torn down or destroyed but a new home being built obviously wouldn't have slave quarters designed into it, either. Like it or not, slave quarters existed back then and they are often preserved as a means of remembering and showing how things used to be.

I don't think we need to change previous designs/intents/accepted forms to current standards. If we did, we'd practically be changing history or, at the very least, destroying some of it.

 

I see your point and it is a valid point. I guess it would be the interpretation then, because I have no good counterarguement.