[QUOTE=lekatt]
I know who you are Doc, who said secularists are atheists, not me. That is why I used the term secularist to better describe those opposed to religious symbols. Cool it.
[/QUOTE]
So what percentage of secularists do you suppose object to the original design.
Is there an echo in here?
“Those who are secularists will applaud it. Those who are religionists will condemn it.”
Like some others posting, I’m not sure who these “secularists” you keep bringing up are, exactly.
The “religionists” should probably be applauding the decision to drop the religious depiction anyway. Now, they won’t have to fight with all the other “religionists” about the myriad of religionist details that separate each group from the other so that no one group of them gets slighted by not having “their” bible be the one depicted.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
So what percentage of secularists do you suppose object to the original design.
[/QUOTE]
It must’ve been a decent percentage, because they got the state of Oklahoma to change the design it chose for the quarter.
Right?
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
My first take on the situation is that I find it amusing that you seem to be using the word “seculars” as a denigrating term. 
Second, you ask, “Is it always necessary to give-in on such trivial things?”
My answer is yes, it is. Give theists an inch, and they’ll take a mile. You may think this is trivial- but then, you’re part of the religion which is represented by that bible, no matter how small it is. Honestly, is it so hard for theists to maintain their belief that they have to be reminded of it, constantly?
[/QUOTE]
They really need their own flag.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
So what percentage of secularists do you suppose object to the original design.
Is there an echo in here?
[/QUOTE]
Just a guess – less than 10%.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Just a guess – less than 10%.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so who are these “less than 10%” of secularists that caused a problem? Let’s take a closer look…
In 1930, Ponca City Oklahoma receives, as a gift, and erects a statue entitled Pioneer Woman. The statue depicts “…a young, sun bonneted pioneer mother, leading her son by the hand, striding confidently, head held high—a woman of sturdy beauty and dignity, whose eyes are fixed on the far southwestern horizon.” In the other hand, the woman carries a bible. Nobody seems to complain.
For the Oklahoma state commemorative quarter to be released in 2008, “four of [Oklahoma’s] five proposed designs for the quarter had featured the image of the 17-foot bronze statue” - Bible and all. In accordance with the established procedure, all five candidates were sent to the US Mint where the designs were finalized. Following criteriapreviously established by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mint officials removed the Bible from the four designs where it had appeared.
Oklahomans voted for their preference among the five finalized designs. More than half of the 148,000 votes cast chose the one design that did not depict the statue at all. Instead, they chose one depicting the state bird and wildflower. (Did having four designs with the statue divide the pro-statue faction and lead to a non-statue victory? Dirty secular trick eh? Oh wait, that was Oklahoma’s decision.)
[Quote=lekatt]
Oklahoma’s design for its quarter was objected to by “seculars.”[sup]1[/sup] Oklahoma had chosen the pioneer woman for the quarter[sup]2[/sup], but she has a Bible tucked under her arm which[sup]3[/sup] was said to violate separation of church and state.[sup]4[/sup] If you look real hard you can see a thick book[sup]5[/sup], the title is not apparent.[sup]6[/sup] So, Oklahoma had to come up with another design to placate the complainers.[sup]7[/sup] Is it always necessary to give-in on such trivial things.[sup]8[/sup] I find this something like the argument of how many Angels can stand or dance on the point of a pin. You can find the images of the quarter http://aleroy.com/albums/thumbnails.php?album=8 [sup]9[/sup] here and an explanation of the Angels argument Religious Conflict Essay | Bartleby here.
Someone else’s opinion is http://9rules.com/politics/notes/3424/ here.
In my humble opinion I believe the seculars are hurting their cause not helping it.[sup]10[/sup]
What is your take?
[/quote]
Here’s my take…
[sup]1[/sup]Misleading if not completely inaccurate. Specifically, who objected?
[sup]2[/sup]Incorrect. Oklahoma chose to submit five candidate designs and only four depicted the statue.
[sup]3[/sup]Misleading in the given context.
[sup]4[/sup]Specifically, said by who? Only indirectly true, if that.
[sup]5[/sup]Look hard where? Your links don’t show a pre-finalized design.
[sup]6[/sup]Because there is no Bible there.
[sup]7[/sup]Incorrect. Oklahoma submitted five designs at once. Redesign by the state was not necessary and did not occur.
[sup]8[/sup]Who “gave in” to what in this case? What is the pattern here?
[sup]9[/sup]The labels in this photo album are incorrect and misleading. Compare with the five finalized designs in my link above.
[sup]10[/sup]Unnamed “seculars” (who are apparently less than 10% of secularists) are hurting “their cause”? Who are the “seculars” in this case? One of the last three Secretaries of the Treasury appointed by President Bush. The Secretary’s minions? Well I hope so. They’re all government employees. Don’t you want them to act in a secular manner?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I know who you are Doc, who said secularists are atheists, not me. That is why I used the term secularist to better describe those opposed to religious symbols. Cool it.
[/QUOTE]
Okay then, please define Secularist and Religionist.
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Okay, so who are these “less than 10%” of secularists that caused a problem? Let’s take a closer look…
In 1930, Ponca City Oklahoma receives, as a gift, and erects a statue entitled Pioneer Woman. The statue depicts “…a young, sun bonneted pioneer mother, leading her son by the hand, striding confidently, head held high—a woman of sturdy beauty and dignity, whose eyes are fixed on the far southwestern horizon.” In the other hand, the woman carries a bible. Nobody seems to complain.
For the Oklahoma state commemorative quarter to be released in 2008, “four of [Oklahoma’s] five proposed designs for the quarter had featured the image of the 17-foot bronze statue” - Bible and all. In accordance with the established procedure, all five candidates were sent to the US Mint where the designs were finalized. Following criteriapreviously established by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mint officials removed the Bible from the four designs where it had appeared.
Oklahomans voted for their preference among the five finalized designs. More than half of the 148,000 votes cast chose the one design that did not depict the statue at all. Instead, they chose one depicting the state bird and wildflower. (Did having four designs with the statue divide the pro-statue faction and lead to a non-statue victory? Dirty secular trick eh? Oh wait, that was Oklahoma’s decision.)
Here’s my take…
[sup]1[/sup]Misleading if not completely inaccurate. Specifically, who objected?
[sup]2[/sup]Incorrect. Oklahoma chose to submit five candidate designs and only four depicted the statue.
[sup]3[/sup]Misleading in the given context.
[sup]4[/sup]Specifically, said by who? Only indirectly true, if that.
[sup]5[/sup]Look hard where? Your links don’t show a pre-finalized design.
[sup]6[/sup]Because there is no Bible there.
[sup]7[/sup]Incorrect. Oklahoma submitted five designs at once. Redesign by the state was not necessary and did not occur.
[sup]8[/sup]Who “gave in” to what in this case? What is the pattern here?
[sup]9[/sup]The labels in this photo album are incorrect and misleading. Compare with the five finalized designs in my link above.
[sup]10[/sup]Unnamed “seculars” (who are apparently less than 10% of secularists) are hurting “their cause”? Who are the “seculars” in this case? One of the last three Secretaries of the Treasury appointed by President Bush. The Secretary’s minions? Well I hope so. They’re all government employees. Don’t you want them to act in a secular manner?
[/QUOTE]
Look down for “Bible: What Bible”
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
The Pioneer Woman meant a lot to Oklahomans, but I am sure you know more than anyone about it.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
One
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Quirks&article=UPI-1-20070427-14470800-bc-us-quarter.xml
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Neither of your links supports the notion that “seculars” objected to the Bible being on the quarter.
So, people point out all sorts of specifically false things lekatt has said in mischaracterizing the situation in his OP. Lekatt’s response? Two links that don’t say anything relevant to the issues being debated, and “The Pioneer Woman meant a lot to Oklahomans, but I am sure you know more than anyone about it.”
Simply put, that’s… insufficient.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
One
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Quirks&article=UPI-1-20070427-14470800-bc-us-quarter.xml
Look down for “Bible: What Bible”
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
The Pioneer Woman meant a lot to Oklahomans, but I am sure you know more than anyone about it.
[/QUOTE]
You’re going to have to do better than your already established habit of posting a link or two and insisting something there supports your claims. Please concisely quote whatever is you think supports your claims and/or rebuts mine?
[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
You’re going to have to do better than your already established habit of posting a link or two and insisting something there supports your claims. Please concisely quote whatever is you think supports your claims and/or rebuts mine?
[/QUOTE]
No sense in wasting my time, now is there. I know you have all the answers.
I give up. You win.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No sense in wasting my time, now is there. I know you have all the answers.
I give up. You win.
[/QUOTE]
That is so lame.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
No sense in wasting my time, now is there. I know you have all the answers.
I give up. You win.
[/QUOTE]
Expose your false claims and you run away every time. I’ll give you this - you’re consistent – dishonest, unwilling to debate, and incapable of admitting error but consistent.
Your royal papierness, actually this is the first time I’ve seen Lekatt give up. I don’t know what to say.
Wow. The PC Apeman really does win the thread. I thought that was just a cliche.
[QUOTE=Papermache Prince]
Expose your false claims and you run away every time. I’ll give you this - you’re consistent – dishonest, unwilling to debate, and incapable of admitting error but consistent.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t run away, and I thought you would be happy to win, put those Oklahomans in their place. If it is true what you say about me then your win doesn’t mean anything, sorry. I really don’t know how to handle all the anger, and misrepresentation of my words. So I have no recourse but to quit before I make you more angry.
Just forget I brought it up, ok.
Love
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I didn’t run away, and I thought you would be happy to win, put those Oklahomans in their place.
[/QUOTE]
Way to ascribe ugly motives to somebody without cause.
If your words are being misrepresented, you could clarify your meanings and cite posts.
And all the anger never made you flee a thread before. Why now?
As an aside, I’ve always resisted acknowledging that there are people who should be labeled “secularists” (let alone “seculars”) as opposed to non-secularists. “Secular” refers to all those aspects of life that are not religious, meaning most things. People shouldn’t lose sight of that and start acting like secularism is something being foisted upon society as a whole by “them”. We’re all secularists most of the time.
Government should be strictly secular because it regulates strictly the secular, reality-based aspects of life. You then plug in whichever religious authority you follow to regulate your religious life. People who support that contention might be labeled “secularists”, but little distinction is being made between these–who might be highly religious–and atheists, etc. Of course, no distinction is being made between government and the private sector when it comes to complaining about religious symbols being removed from the “public square”.
[QUOTE=Apos]
. Lekatt’s response? Two links that don’t say anything relevant to the issues being debated, and “The Pioneer Woman meant a lot to Oklahomans, but I am sure you know more than anyone about it.”
[/QUOTE]
Typical of Lekatt, though. He’s not quite sure of the difference between a really good nap and dying. Don’t stress out about it.
