Fundie retards to ruin Tulsa Zoo with creationism display

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 8, 2005, 5:03 am

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanlui ... 844867.htm

TULSA, Okla. - The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue.

The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God's creation of the world in six days and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

The vote came after more than two hours of public comment from a standing-room-only crowd.

Zoo employees, religious leaders and others spoke in opposition, saying religion shouldn't be part of the taxpayer-funded scientific institution.

But those who favored the creationist exhibit, including Mayor Bill LaFortune, argued that the zoo already displayed religious items, including the statue of the Hindu god, Ganesh, outside the elephant exhibit and a marble globe inscribed with an American Indian saying: "The earth is our mother. The sky is our father."

"I see this as a big victory," said Dan Hicks, the Tulsa resident who approached the zoo with the idea. "It's a matter of fairness. To not include the creationist view would be discrimination."

Hundreds of people signed a petition supporting the exhibit.

The new display will include a disclaimer that says it represents one view. City attorneys also advised it be placed alongside other cultures' views of creation.

Tulsa Zoo exhibit curator Kathleen Buck-Miser estimated it would take about six months to research and organize the exhibit. She expressed qualms about the zoo delving into theological debate.

"I'm afraid we are going in the wrong direction," she said.

Board member Dale McNamara, who voted against the proposal, agreed.

"I do not like the idea of scripture at the zoo," she said.

Zoo officials had argued that the zoo does not advocate religion and that displays like the elephant statue are meant to show the animal's image among cultures. The same exhibit includes the Republican Party's elephant symbol.

I'd say "way to miss the fucking point" but I think saying that to a southern baptist at this point in time would be kind of redundant.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 8, 2005, 8:09 am

So where are they going to put this? In front of the human cage?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 8, 2005, 10:04 am

That pretty much is on par for those goofy bastards.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » July 8, 2005, 10:13 am

If theyre gonna force them to put up a christian icon, I'd rather see a depiction of Noahs Ark. That would be a much more topical item. A boat with a bunch of animals on it seems more relevant than, "And then there was light".

In any case, its stupid to turn a Zoo into a religious battleground. They should just remove Hishnu and the Native American sculpture and tell the fundies to fuck off.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 8, 2005, 10:13 am

Kyoukan, Canelek please explain where it says they are fundamentalist, looks to me like the mayor wanted this and religious folks were in opposition.

Way to miss the fucking point, but saying that to a mental midget and a redneck miscreant is pointless at this stage of your evolution.

On a side note, lets remove the Hindu Elephant statue if it has religious overtones ok??

Jack asses

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 8, 2005, 10:15 am

okay i now see there logic... whenever there is any depiction of something that could be considered related to a non-christian religion, the crispies get jealous and force the government to spend taxpayer dollars to create a christian monument to overshadow that of any possible heathen religious icons.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 8, 2005, 10:38 am

Xzion wrote:okay i now see there logic... whenever there is any depiction of something that could be considered related to a non-christian religion, the crispies get jealous and force the government to spend taxpayer dollars to create a christian monument to overshadow that of any possible heathen religious icons.

While I feel the entire thing is stupid, I would just like to point out that I would like to see Xzion nailed to a burning cross at that zoo.
that is all.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 8, 2005, 10:44 am

On a side note, lets remove the Hindu Elephant statue if it has religious overtones ok??

Duh, it's not there as a religious symbol.
If you had actually read the article it was at the elephant display as an example of the animal's image in different cultures.

It also goes on to say that the republican elephant is also displayed.... should that be removed as well, lest the zoo be accused of partisan political support?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 8, 2005, 11:15 am

miir wrote:
On a side note, lets remove the Hindu Elephant statue if it has religious overtones ok??
Duh, it's not there as a religious symbol.
If you had actually read the article it was at the elephant display as an example of the animal's image in different cultures.

It also goes on to say that the republican elephant is also displayed.... should that be removed as well, lest the zoo be accused of partisan political support?

Miir, I used to credit you with some intelligence and reading capabilities obviously I overestimated you on both counts, READ:

But those who favored the creationist exhibit, including Mayor Bill LaFortune, argued that the zoo already displayed religious items, including the statue of the Hindu god, Ganesh, outside the elephant exhibit and a marble globe inscribed with an American Indian saying: "The earth is our mother. The sky is our father."

And the same could be argued that the Creationist story could be there as an example of Christianity and the "creation" of life in different cultures.

The point here my young padwan is simply remove all religious symbols or include all religious symbols. Dots connected my job is done here.

PS agree with Sylvos statement.

[/b][/quote]

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 8, 2005, 11:28 am

Sylvos wrote:
Xzion wrote:okay i now see there logic... whenever there is any depiction of something that could be considered related to a non-christian religion, the crispies get jealous and force the government to spend taxpayer dollars to create a christian monument to overshadow that of any possible heathen religious icons.
While I feel the entire thing is stupid, I would just like to point out that I would like to see Xzion nailed to a burning cross at that zoo.
that is all.

just don’t forget to wash your white sheets before you pick up that cross though, it also looks like you have atokal on your side

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 8, 2005, 11:33 am

For Atokal who likes to criticize other people's reading skills

Zoo officials had argued that the zoo does not advocate religion and that displays like the elephant statue are meant to show the animal's image among cultures.

Yes it is a religous item but it is meant to show how animals are portrayed in the world. In this case, one as a God.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 8, 2005, 11:35 am

The same exhibit includes the Republican Party's elephant symbol

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 8, 2005, 11:59 am

Xzion wrote:
Sylvos wrote:
Xzion wrote:okay i now see there logic... whenever there is any depiction of something that could be considered related to a non-christian religion, the crispies get jealous and force the government to spend taxpayer dollars to create a christian monument to overshadow that of any possible heathen religious icons.
While I feel the entire thing is stupid, I would just like to point out that I would like to see Xzion nailed to a burning cross at that zoo.
that is all.
just don’t forget to wash your white sheets before you pick up that cross though, it also looks like you have atokal on your side

at least Atokal doesn't fuck up spelling "KKK".

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » July 8, 2005, 12:11 pm

It also goes on to say that the republican elephant is also displayed....

The zoo could very well be portraying the Democratic Donkey at the petting zoo. The article does not specify one way or the other.

Yes it is a religous item but it is meant to show how animals are portrayed in the world. In this case, one as a God.

This is why Noahs Ark would have been a better choice than this creationist crap. After all, Noah was the very first zookeepper.

I would have no problem at all with a Noah display.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 8, 2005, 12:17 pm

a lot of zoos have Noah's Ark displays. It is completely appropriate to display imagery like that if the point is just to show the manner in which animals have been incorporated into various cultural mythology over the years.

We all know why the Tulsa ZOo is putting this creationist thing in. THe Religious Right in the United States wants Evangelical Protestant Christianity to be installed as the State Religion.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 8, 2005, 1:08 pm

In the grand scheme of things is this really hurting anyone? Has it become so Evil and Awful to display things dealing with religion? I think most of the people here could use a bit of religion.

If the big concern is that the tax payers money is going to pay for this display then make it a Donations thing instead. They said they got hundreds of signers for the petition so I am sure they could come up with the money to pay for it. Oh yes but wait, the tax payers paid for the elephant stuff so what can you do?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 8, 2005, 1:20 pm

A better project, in my opinion, that would better fit in with the theme of the zoo would be the snake in Adam and Eve and what it symbolizes. Not how God created the world in 7 days because its not very specific to animals, its just a small piece of it.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 8, 2005, 1:21 pm

That actually makes sense, Lynks.

No one ever accused creationists of being intelligent though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 8, 2005, 3:09 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:In the grand scheme of things is this really hurting anyone? Has it become so Evil and Awful to display things dealing with religion? I think most of the people here could use a bit of religion.

If the big concern is that the tax payers money is going to pay for this display then make it a Donations thing instead. They said they got hundreds of signers for the petition so I am sure they could come up with the money to pay for it. Oh yes but wait, the tax payers paid for the elephant stuff so what can you do?

The point (that atokal of course has entirely missed along with every other retarded fundie in the US) is that it is not appropriate and utterly not relevant to put a creationist display up in a zoo. The christian fundies are using a fucking statue of ganesh as an excuse to force their religion on other people. it is subversive and dishonest, but they don't care.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 8, 2005, 3:20 pm

Bubba, have you ever heard the old saying:

"I don't mind if people are religious, just as long as they don't push it onto me".

This statement is pretty much the accepted viewpoint of rational people, some irrational people still don't appreciate having to accept their imaginary friend isn't the bestest or most relevant and want to continue forcing it onto everyone.

This is not fair, or right.

That is, as usual when dealing with ridiculous American fundamentlaist christians, the crux of the issue.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 8, 2005, 4:04 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:In the grand scheme of things is this really hurting anyone? Has it become so Evil and Awful to display things dealing with religion? I think most of the people here could use a bit of religion.

If the big concern is that the tax payers money is going to pay for this display then make it a Donations thing instead. They said they got hundreds of signers for the petition so I am sure they could come up with the money to pay for it. Oh yes but wait, the tax payers paid for the elephant stuff so what can you do?
The point (that atokal of course has entirely missed along with every other retarded fundie in the US) is that it is not appropriate and utterly not relevant to put a creationist display up in a zoo. The christian fundies are using a fucking statue of ganesh as an excuse to force their religion on other people. it is subversive and dishonest, but they don't care.

Ok, I can buy that. Grok if you will. I know that I don't want people knocking on my door trying to make me change religions. I agree that what they are trying to display is way out of whack with the reason they fought this battle.

I agree with what you are saying too Nick. I guess I am a bit less, I don't think offended is the word, upset by seeing these things no matter where I see them. I take it for what it is but maintain my personal views.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 8, 2005, 7:48 pm

I think a relevant christian display would be the weekly "run through the lion's den"...hell that would actually save the city money too...I mean, god would save the real christians...but the lions would eat well and at no cost to the city...

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 8, 2005, 10:25 pm

Arborealus wrote:I think a relevant christian display would be the weekly "run through the lion's den"...hell that would actually save the city money too...I mean, god would save the real christians...but the lions would eat well and at no cost to the city...

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 9, 2005, 1:20 am

Arbor for mayor of Tulsa!!!

Love it!!!

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 9, 2005, 7:51 pm

Does this mean that every government building that have a cross on it will now also have to get religious symbols for the other main religions, just in case?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 9, 2005, 11:59 pm

If you don't like my religious displays you can merely avoid looking. Turn the channel if you will. That's what you're always advising us when we complain about smut on the tube or movies.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » July 10, 2005, 1:15 am

Religion...smut...same difference?

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » July 10, 2005, 2:52 pm

Metanis is the opium of the masses, we wouldn't survive without his healing touch in our topics.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 11, 2005, 9:27 am

Metanis wrote:If you don't like my religious displays you can merely avoid looking. Turn the channel if you will. That's what you're always advising us when we complain about smut on the tube or movies.

the "smut" (whatever the fuck that subjective term means) in movies is not paid for by taxpayer dollars and placed on government buildings, there’s no problem with putting as many christian programs on the TV and radio as you want, as long as im not paying for them

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 11, 2005, 12:53 pm

Xzion wrote:
Metanis wrote:If you don't like my religious displays you can merely avoid looking. Turn the channel if you will. That's what you're always advising us when we complain about smut on the tube or movies.
the "smut" (whatever the fuck that subjective term means) in movies is not paid for by taxpayer dollars and placed on government buildings, there’s no problem with putting as many christian programs on the TV and radio as you want, as long as im not paying for them

Are you even old enough to pay taxes? I thought the 0 in your age was a typo.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2005, 2:34 pm

Everytime someone mentions "the creationist view," rational thought dies a little more. Yes, the fossil record is a lie of Satan, put in the ground by God to test the faithful.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 11, 2005, 2:54 pm

If christianity had prominent symbolism that represented a specific animal, I doubt that anyone would be opposed to or offended by it being included in a display at any zoo.

The statue of Ganesh at the Tulsa zoo is not accompanied by any hindu scripture nor does it openly promote any hindu beliefs or ideals.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2005, 3:05 pm

When your platform is as weak as "the creationist view," anything is a threat.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 11, 2005, 4:33 pm

Nick wrote:Bubba, have you ever heard the old saying:

"I don't mind if people are religious, just as long as they don't push it onto me".

This statement is pretty much the accepted viewpoint of rational people, some irrational people still don't appreciate having to accept their imaginary friend isn't the bestest or most relevant and want to continue forcing it onto everyone.

This is not fair, or right.

That is, as usual when dealing with ridiculous American fundamentlaist christians, the crux of the issue.

Your insulting comments, are hilarious in that they show a lack of respect for another's beliefs. And yet you want the religious folks to shaddap in public and respect your views.

Have you heard of the other old saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Your comments are not fair, or right as you put a whole group of "christians" into one category and paint them with your brush of ignorance.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 11, 2005, 4:52 pm

Atokal wrote:
Nick wrote:Bubba, have you ever heard the old saying:

"I don't mind if people are religious, just as long as they don't push it onto me".

This statement is pretty much the accepted viewpoint of rational people, some irrational people still don't appreciate having to accept their imaginary friend isn't the bestest or most relevant and want to continue forcing it onto everyone.

This is not fair, or right.

That is, as usual when dealing with ridiculous American fundamentlaist christians, the crux of the issue.
Your insulting comments, are hilarious in that they show a lack of respect for another's beliefs. And yet you want the religious folks to shaddap in public and respect your views.

Have you heard of the other old saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Your comments are not fair, or right as you put a whole group of "christians" into one category and paint them with your brush of ignorance.

His comment in directed towards the irrational people that are trying to force there religion upon taxpayers (not all christians)…way to purposely misinterpret

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2005, 5:21 pm

Dude, he is one of those type of Christians; even if he doesn't do the pushing himself, he approves of the concept.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 11, 2005, 5:35 pm

masteen wrote:Dude, he is one of those type of Christians; even if he doesn't do the pushing himself, he approves of the concept.

Yeah, I suppose freedom of speech is a foreign concept to you.

Also my post on this thread stated that if you are going to make an exception for one religion you need to make concessions for others. If not then remove all religious symbols etc from public places.

Xion or whatever the hell yer name is, Nick flat out called them ...

ridiculous American fundamentlaist christians, the crux of the issue.

Not all Fundamentalist Christians are ridiculous and when you call the focus of their worship "an imaginary friend" you are insulting ALL Christians around the world.

No misinterpretation here.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2005, 6:28 pm

How the fuck can you even turn this issue back to one of freedom of speech? Trying to call a small pic of the elephant god on a plaque about ELEPHANTS "a religious symbol" is as fucking ridiculous as thinking that "the creationist view" is actually a legitimate world view instead of dogmatic bullshit.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 12, 2005, 11:01 am

masteen wrote:How the fuck can you even turn this issue back to one of freedom of speech? Trying to call a small pic of the elephant god on a plaque about ELEPHANTS "a religious symbol" is as fucking ridiculous as thinking that "the creationist view" is actually a legitimate world view instead of dogmatic bullshit.

Best Spicoli Voice: "YOU DICK"

You would have a literal meltdown if that "little plaque" was about the creationist view, so kindly fuck off. The view of many here is that as long as it has nothing to do with Christianity it is fine, but whenever those damn fundy retards speak up for what they believe in we should grab our pitch forks, torches and all the villagers and kill them.

Ha. You are still missing the point, you cannot make exceptions for one regardless of how small and exclude other groups. Perhaps a museum on religion where each one has equal billing would be appropriate. With you as the neanderthal behind glass for the evolutionist exhibit.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » July 12, 2005, 11:15 am

erhaps a museum on religion where each one has equal billing would be appropriate. With you as the neanderthal behind glass for the evolutionist exhibit.

Why would a religious museum have a display on evolution? I think this is where you lose some of your perspective. Youre clumping evolution and religion into the same category. they are not. they should be studied seperate and independant of each other. Evolution is based on science. Religion is based on faith.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 12, 2005, 11:32 am

That is not entirely true. Even creationists can believe in some evolution of creatures. They may not believe that everything evolved from the exact same goo, but they can conceive of the fact that some species evolve or adapt to the surroundings.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 12, 2005, 11:39 am

Atokal, can you please explain the relation of "God's creation of Earth" and animals image among cultures?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2005, 11:50 am

You would have a literal meltdown if that "little plaque" was about the creationist view, so kindly fuck off.

What does 'creationist theory' have to do with elephants?

You're the one who's missing the point, Atokal.
There is no Hindu scripture or religious ideology accompanying the statue of Ganesh. It's purpose there is not to promote or teach people about any aspects of Hinduism... Do you think the zoo is actively promoting the republican party by showing the republican elephant?

Putting some horseshit christian fantasy of creationist theory on display at a institution based on science is a fucking farce. They are only doing it to appease the fundamentalist christian psychopaths wailing about being repressed by society.
Can you show me any examples of Hindu fundamentalists trying to get their scriptures and icons displayed next to the christian icons that are commonly found on public/government property? Even american currency is repressing the Hindus.... it should read 'In gods we trust'!!!!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 12, 2005, 12:18 pm

Don't get me wrong here Atokal, people can believe whatever they want to believe. Just because I think he is your imaginary friend doesn't mean I think less of you for believing in him. Not to mention, the ignorant people I was referring to are not christians in general, more the fascist christians that are probably going to go to hell for asking for stupid things like this

I just don't think a vocal minority should get away with as much the christian right does in the US, unless they have a really valid point.

Which they really really really really really really don't.

Dalmoth_IO · Post by **Dalmoth_IO** » July 12, 2005, 2:30 pm

Nick wrote: I just don't think a vocal minority should get away with as much the christian right does in the US, unless they have a really valid point.

This is the status quo in the US any vocal majority can/will/and does tend to get its way due to our discrimination laws. Furthermore, I don't live in Oklahoma so I don't feel that I have any right whatsoever to be telling the people that make their home there what they should or shouldn't be doing. The people in that city/state/country have a right to make their own laws and live how they see fit. In case you forgot why the orginal pilgrams came here to settle it was over religious persecution.

This country was founded on live your life how you see fit until it infringes on the rights of someone else. The fact that there is or isn't a relgious display in the Tulsa zoo doesn't infringe upon my rights whatsoever. Its for the people of that city and state to decide what is right for them, not anyone else.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 12, 2005, 2:58 pm

Tax money is being spent to build a religious display at a zoo and you don't see anything wrong with that?

The people in that city/state/country have a right to make their own laws and live how they see fit.

So if they passed a law making it legal for them to hunt and kill toddlers you would that be ok with that? Since you don't live there and you're not a toddler, it wouldn't affect you or infringe on your rights... so that would make it ok with you? Right?

In case you forgot why the orginal pilgrams came here to settle it was over religious persecution.

Your government is (and has been throughout it's history) dominated by white male christians. While other races, religious groups and genders have gone through periods of heinous and outrageous discrimination and persecution, the moment some loudmouth christian perceives some other group might be getting preferential treatment over them, they go on the offensive and do ridiculous shit like this.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » July 12, 2005, 4:58 pm

You are still missing the point, you cannot make exceptions for one regardless of how small and exclude other groups.

Taking what you said right there with what the point of that image of Ganesh is in the exhibit, then Christians and other religious groups should be represented in the exhibit with images and such of elephants as they appear in each religion. Oh wait, there are no elephants in the Christian imagery/dogma/etc. So it is balanced. Christians aren't being excluded, they just ain't got no Mr. Snuffleufagesses to represent. The point of the exhibit is Elephants you dunderhead.

One picture of Ganesh will not be the final straw in allowing Hinduism to get the foothold it has been so desperately looking for in the US for so long.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 12, 2005, 6:22 pm

miir wrote:If christianity had prominent symbolism that represented a specific animal, I doubt that anyone would be opposed to or offended by it being included in a display at any zoo.

Strike back at the aquarium ye Christian Soldiers!!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 13, 2005, 6:06 pm

miir wrote:
You would have a literal meltdown if that "little plaque" was about the creationist view, so kindly fuck off.
What does 'creationist theory' have to do with elephants?

My God created the fucking elephant, hows that for creationist theory??

miir wrote:You're the one who's missing the point, Atokal.
There is no Hindu scripture or religious ideology accompanying the statue of Ganesh. It's purpose there is not to promote or teach people about any aspects of Hinduism... Do you think the zoo is actively promoting the republican party by showing the republican elephant?

No you are missing the point, how does the creationist story offend you sooo much when you admittedly say it is a fairy tale? If in fact it is a fairy tale much like the small amusement park you folks have exported to the world "Disney" why do you get so bent out of shape. I am sure that somewhere someone like you has turned Peter Pan and tinker bell into Gods to be worshipped. Does that make Disney offensive to you?

For fuck sakes lighten the hell up no one is making you look at, kneel to, offer money or sacrifice at an alter against your will. So if it is merely a passionate hatred for all things Christian or an overwhelming distaste for how your tax dollars are being spent.... try focusing on issues that are really distasteful like the billions of dollars being spent on war etc.

Point is you have a religious symbol in a public place, The republican elephant is not religious. Having said all of the above my simple minded friend, I am of the opinion that if you have one set of rules they apply to everyone, a concept that is hard to grasp I am sure.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 13, 2005, 6:34 pm

Point is you have a religious symbol in a public place

Tit for tat.
So if some nutjob hindu fundamentalists wanted american currency changed to read 'In Gods We Trust', they should be accomodated?

Or perhaps every public place that contains even a vague reference to christianity should also contain references to all fifty thousand hindu gods?

I am of the opinion that if you have one set of rules they apply to everyone, a concept that is hard to grasp I am sure.

Ah so in payback, all american schools should require their students to perform a daily chant of 'Praise be to Allah!' for the next 50 some-odd years.

You crack me up, Atokal.
You'll only be happy when the poor repressed white christians finally start getting equal treatment in amrican society.