"American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross"

[pcgeek11]

You are wrong. By allowing everyone equal access, it shows the ridiculousness of it all, discrediting it all. Surely I rather have no religion involved, but if it's allowed, justly or not, the government can't choose to allow one religion and not others. It's very fucking simple



You're just dumb, so I won't bother with you anymore

The feeling is mutual to be sure.

 

[shadow9d9]

I have doubts about your numbers here " Hundreds of millions "? Just how did you tally that up?
Millions have also been killed, oppressed and enslaved by atheist, so what is your point?

Our congress, senate and president cannot fairly govern either... AND?

As they said it is rubble & junk, why should it bother them so much.These assholes just like to cause problems.

Atheists are not a group. They are simply a lack of something. There is no doctrine being followed, no belief system.

It would be like saying that every bad human being in the history of man was a non unicorn believer.

How did he tally 100s of millions? Crusades, spanish inquisition, american revolution.

-take these-
the German Peasants' War (1524–1525)
the battle of Kappel in Switzerland (1531)
the Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547) in the Holy Roman Empire
the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) in the Low Countries
the French Wars of Religion (1562–1598)
the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), affecting the Holy Roman Empire including Habsburg Austria and Bohemia, France, Denmark and Sweden
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651), affecting England, Scotland and Ireland
Scottish Reformation and Civil Wars
English Reformation and Civil War
Irish Confederate Wars and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland
-And those were just in one 100 year period in one part of the world!

The current Iraqi occupation I would argue is a Christian/Jewish vs Islam conflict.

 

[slayer202]

Come on, have you seen their ad? It's ridiculous.

Which?

 

[WelshBloke]

So has anyone knocked up a massive star and crescent out of scrap metal yet?

 

[Kirby]

qq

 

[BeauJangles]

The inclusion of a religious artifact in a museum should not be a big deal, after all it sounds like this cross played an important part of the recovery effort and had / has a great deal of meaning to those involved. The people filing the suit are clueless.

"The Christian community found a piece of rubble that looked like an icon and they deified it. But really 9/11 had nothing to do with Christianity," said American Atheists president Dave Silverman. "They want a monopoly and we don't want that to happen."

Nobody besides those bringing the suit is saying the cross has anything to do with 9/11, outside of the fact that people found solace in an object they discovered.

"It just so happens that the WTC was made out of T-joints and they found a T-joint," Silverman said. "They put it in the church, kept in the church for years, prayed over it, blessed it. You don't get to do that just in the coincidence that your icon looks like a T-joint."

Again, this statement is lunacy. It has nothing to do with the fact that a T-joint is a common thing. American flags are common things, but we still put great stock in some of them. Take the image of the American flag being raised of Iwo Jima. There is nothing "special" about that photo beyond the symbolism we ascribe to it. The same logic applies here. People found comfort in this object and because of that, not because of what it is, it deserves to be a part of the recovery story, too.

The atheist group said that they have contacted the 9/11 Memorial and Museum requesting to display their own atheistic memorial next to the steel-shaped cross, possibly in the form of an atom or an American flag, to represent the "500 non-religious Americans" who were "among the victims of the 9/11 attack."

Nowhere did anyone say the cross represented any person. These people are morons.

Museums are about preserving and remembering events, people, and national sentiment, not about sterilizing them so that we don't dare even come close to establishing a state religion.

 

[D1gger]

Hey, can the imam of NY put a muslim prayer rug and a koran in the museum too?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Is it hurting you?

Yes it offends me... A cross is meaningless to me

Choosing to be offended doesn't mean it's caused any actual psychological harm.

Could you go into some detail regarding how you are being actually harmed? How can a cross be both meaningless to you and harm you?

... Is you a

you know...


um..




gay?

The inclusion of a religious artifact in a museum should not be a big deal, after all it sounds like this cross played an important part of the recovery effort and had / has a great deal of meaning to those involved. The people filing the suit are clueless.

/thread.

can the imam of NY put a muslim prayer rug and a koran in the museum too?

YES! It'll be an interactive exhibit where in people get to take a piss on the two.

 

[shadow9d9]

The inclusion of a religious artifact in a museum should not be a big deal, after all it sounds like this cross played an important part of the recovery effort and had / has a great deal of meaning to those involved. The people filing the suit are clueless.



Nobody besides those bringing the suit is saying the cross has anything to do with 9/11, outside of the fact that people found solace in an object they discovered.



Again, this statement is lunacy. It has nothing to do with the fact that a T-joint is a common thing. American flags are common things, but we still put great stock in some of them. Take the image of the American flag being raised of Iwo Jima. There is nothing "special" about that photo beyond the symbolism we ascribe to it. The same logic applies here. People found comfort in this object and because of that, not because of what it is, it deserves to be a part of the recovery story, too.



Nowhere did anyone say the cross represented any person. These people are morons.

Museums are about preserving and remembering events, people, and national sentiment, not about sterilizing them so that we don't dare even come close to establishing a state religion.

Great... if it has nothing to do with 9/11, then it is indeed more of the government pushing one religious preference over others.

All you need to do is have your religious nutjobs at the scene first to concoct another reason to throw religion into everything... Guess what caused 9/11? RELIGION!

 

[shadow9d9]

Choosing to be offended doesn't mean it's caused any actual psychological harm.

Could you go into some detail regarding how you are being actually harmed? How can a cross be both meaningless to you and harm you?

... Is you a

you know...


um..




gay?



/thread.


YES! It'll be an interactive exhibit where in people get to take a piss on the two.

And your true face is shown in the end. Thanks! Religion is shit, it is about my team vs your team. Don't worry... the christian country killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis.. Nothing to see here!

 

[slayer202]

This thread = Proof that the religious are incapable of reasoning intelligently. I've never seen such idiotic and oblivious comments and arguments

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why can't we just ban anything that offends anyone?

 

[shadow9d9]

Why can't we just ban anything that offends anyone?

Or we could have the government just stop promoting one specific religion over others.

 

[Vette73]

Damm how dare they they think every religious group be treated equal. Thats just silly.



:whiste:

 

[Aikouka]

The inclusion of a religious artifact in a museum should not be a big deal, after all it sounds like this cross played an important part of the recovery effort and had / has a great deal of meaning to those involved. The people filing the suit are clueless.

How did this play an "important part of the recovery effort"... that's what I don't get. The idea of "finding solace" in seeing something shaped like a cross seems completely inane.

Again, this statement is lunacy. It has nothing to do with the fact that a T-joint is a common thing. American flags are common things, but we still put great stock in some of them. Take the image of the American flag being raised of Iwo Jima. There is nothing "special" about that photo beyond the symbolism we ascribe to it. The same logic applies here. People found comfort in this object and because of that, not because of what it is, it deserves to be a part of the recovery story, too.

The American Flag was created as a symbol of the United States of America. The point that they're making is that the towers of the World Trade Center were made up of tons of these beam cross-sections... so what makes this one that happened to break off in the shape of a cross and remain intact any special?

It's the same bullshit as Jesus in a grilled cheese or a Wal-Mart receipt that everyone mocks on this forum.

Or we could have the government just stop promoting one specific religion over others.

My only care is that the government stops backing or promoting laws that are facades for religious laws. The fact that we can barely push through gay marriage is a fucking atrocity. You should have seen me try and explain to my (Christian) mother why gay marriage should be allowed as a law. The only retort I ever got back to my points was, "but it's against The Bible!" :|

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And your true face is shown in the end. Thanks!

No doubt your lack of sense of humor (or reality) about the world will lead to your untimely demise;

Enjoy!


What do you think this guy will do when he sees what he perceives as a "mooz-lem" victory flag setup at tWTC?

Clearly bigotry and hate doesn't come from a christian world view: simply from the world view of many who call themselves Christian.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Or we could have the government just stop promoting one specific religion over others.

Care to point to where in the Constitution it says that?

 

[slayer202]

Care to point to where in the Constitution it says that?

First amendment, more or less

 

[shadow9d9]

Care to point to where in the Constitution it says that?

It doesn't need to be in the constitution for the response I gave. You are changing the subject, nice try!

My response was to: "Why can't we just ban anything that offends anyone?"

And I responded that if they weren't so heavy handed with their government backed sponsorship of one religion, it wouldn't offend anyone.

Really good try at the change of subject though. Bravo!

I should try that.. "Government should be responsible!" "Where does it say that in the constitution!?"

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How is allowing the majority in a democracy to express themselves socially and culturally, in such a way as causes no one direct harm, "heavy handed sponsorship"?

 

[shadow9d9]

How is allowing the majority in a democracy to express themselves socially and culturally, in such a way as causes no one direct harm, "heavy handed sponsorship"?

Well, 1, we aren't a democracy.

Government sponsorship of one particular religion above others is promoting a religion, forbidden in the first amendment and written about extensively by Jefferson and other Founders.

3. No one is stopping the majority from expressing themselves... they come door to door "expressing" themselves... just don't do it in a government institution.

 

[Fear No Evil]

First amendment, more or less

Incorrect.

 

[slayer202]

How is allowing the majority in a democracy to express themselves socially and culturally, in such a way as causes no one direct harm, "heavy handed sponsorship"?

If tomorrow, the county becomes mostly muslim, or pastafatian, should we promote those religions because they are the majority? No. the founding fathers knew that religion is bullshit so they decided to keep it the fuck out of government

 

[Fear No Evil]

It doesn't need to be in the constitution for the response I gave. You are changing the subject, nice try!

My response was to: "Why can't we just ban anything that offends anyone?"

And I responded that if they weren't so heavy handed with their government backed sponsorship of one religion, it wouldn't offend anyone.

Really good try at the change of subject though. Bravo!

I should try that.. "Government should be responsible!" "Where does it say that in the constitution!?"

You do realize that other religious symbols are being represented there as well? Care to revise your inaccurate statement?

 

[Aikouka]

How is allowing the majority in a democracy to express themselves socially and culturally, in such a way as causes no one direct harm, "heavy handed sponsorship"?

Haven't you seen the usual uproar over government essentially sponsoring something with a single religion slant? There's usually at least one story every Christmas season about some group forcing a government entity to remove a nativity scene or whatever. This really isn't much different.