"American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross"

[Fear No Evil]

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

The founding fathers were against the establishment of a state religion. I don't see how displaying artifacts from a historical event from those religions is establishing a religion. Should school books be banned from showing the Christian and Muslim religious symbols in books discussing the Crusades?

What about museum exhibits displaying Egyptian kings who were worshiped as gods? Is that establishing RA as god of the United States? Grow up.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

It's the first part of the first sentence of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The interpretation taken by the Supreme Court through the 20th Century has been that the establishment clause not only prohibits the Federal government from establishing a state religion, but also prevents individual states from promoting religion in official state functions, documents or displays. As Souter famously wrote in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (which is a stupidly long case name by the way), "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." So the current interpretation of the establishment clause is that government does not have the right to promote one religion over all others.

That said, I think this is a pretty stupid debate. I'm agnostic (I don't believe in God, but if I saw irrefutable proof of the existence of the metaphysical, I would certainly change my mind), and I couldn't care less if they have some beams in the shape of a cross on display. Maybe some firefighters rushed in, saw the cross shining through the cloud of debris and it gave them some glimmer of hope in a time of utter devastation; who knows? I certainly can't conclude that this is somehow the state advocating Christianity.

 

[shadow9d9]

The founding fathers were against the establishment of a state religion. I don't see how displaying artifacts from a historical event from those religions is establishing a religion. Should school books be banned from showing the Christian and Muslim religious symbols in books discussing the Crusades?

What about museum exhibits displaying Egyptian kings who were worshiped as gods? Is that establishing RA as god of the United States? Grow up.

There is nothing christian related about the historical event of 9/11. The cross was a concoction of religious nutjobs and then the government endorsed it.

You would FLIP THE FREAK OUT if this was a huge muslim oriented piece with no christian pieces. This is only ok because it happens to be your team in charge.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

You do realize that reading the OP is important right? Reread what their gripe is.

Also, look at the size of one piece compared to the "others"...

Also consider the utter ridiculousness of the fabrication of a cross out of debris and how preposterous even considering putting it on display as if it has any meaning is.

 

[slayer202]

I'm agnostic (I don't believe in God, but if I saw irrefutable proof of the existence of the metaphysical, I would certainly change my mind)

Sorry to break it to you, but you're an atheist

 

[sao123]

It's the first part of the first sentence of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The interpretation taken by the Supreme Court through the 20th Century has been that the establishment clause not only prohibits the Federal government from establishing a state religion, but also prevents individual states from promoting religion in official state functions, documents or displays. As Souter famously wrote in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (which is a stupidly long case name by the way), "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." So the current interpretation of the establishment clause is that government does not have the right to promote one religion over all others.

That said, I think this is a pretty stupid debate. I'm agnostic (I don't believe in God, but if I saw irrefutable proof of the existence of the metaphysical, I would certainly change my mind), and I couldn't care less if they have some beams in the shape of a cross on display. Maybe some firefighters rushed in, saw the cross shining through the cloud of debris and it gave them some glimmer of hope in a time of utter devastation; who knows? I certainly can't conclude that this is somehow the state advocating Christianity.

well the judgement of the supreme court is amazing moronic.

taken literally, the law says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I have underlined for you the only 2 relevent words in this entire ammendment.

The overreaching and broadly anti-religiousness judgement of the court is disgusting and unconstitutional in itselt.


this has nothing to do with congress or laws... ammendment dismissed.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sorry to break it to you, but you're an atheist

I used to call myself an atheist and got chewed out by people who said "No, you're actually an agnostic." So I call myself an agnostic and get chewed out by people who say "No, you're actually an atheist." I don't care about the terminology any more. It's irrelevant. I'm an agnostic atheist, or an atheistic agnostic, or what the hell ever the current label is. That doesn't change the fact that A. I am not a Christian, and B. I do not care if there is a cross from the WTC on display at the 9/11 Museum. I think this whole issue has been blown completely out of proportion by people who share similar beliefs to me but can't accept that religion might have been a driving motivation for people dealing with the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

[slayer202]

well the judgement of the supreme court is amazing moronic.

taken literally, the law says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I have underlined for you the only 2 relevent words in this entire ammendment.

The overreaching and broadly anti-religiousness judgement of the court is disgusting and unconstitutional in itselt.


this has nothing to do with congress or laws... ammendment dismissed.

sorry buddy, we don't take the consitution or ammendment's at it's most basic and simple literal meaning.

and the so called atheists who don't have any problem with the cross are pathetically weak. It's not just about the cross, it's the principle

 

[Atomic Playboy]

and the so called atheists who don't have any problem with the cross are pathetically weak. It's not just about the cross, it's the principle

That's the same logic that's used to stop towns from putting up a Christmas Tree. Religious symbols can't be that big a threat to your beliefs, can they? I'm not advocating for government sponsored religion, but the people who get up in arms when they see ANYTHING religious are just as bad as the religious zealots who allow a 2,000 year old book to define their views on who should be allowed to marry. Public displays of religion don't pose a threat to my beliefs; are you sure I'm the weak one?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I used to call myself an atheist and got chewed out by people who said "No, you're actually an agnostic." So I call myself an agnostic and get chewed out by people who say "No, you're actually an atheist." I don't care about the terminology any more. It's irrelevant. I'm an agnostic atheist, or an atheistic agnostic, or what the hell ever the current label is. That doesn't change the fact that A. I am not a Christian, and B. I do not care if there is a cross from the WTC on display at the 9/11 Museum. I think this whole issue has been blown completely out of proportion by people who share similar beliefs to me but can't accept that religion might have been a driving motivation for people dealing with the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It's because they hate my sky wizard soo much that they want him defeated at every turn...

I certainly can't conclude that this is somehow the state advocating Christianity

But it is; it is sharing what others have said about their sky wizard and how their lives have been touched by the invisible man in the sky that will spank you...

So it's stupid, stupid, stupid; like believing in a processed wheat product living invisibly in the sky.

How dare people be so stupid! They make me feel bad for masturbating! I hate them and they can't go sharing with others what they've experienced from their invisible sky rapist!

Anything that shows a positive personal impact from having faith must, by definition, question my world view of only ignorant worthless sacks of shit being willing to believe in stupid fucking fairy stories that tell me not to fuck-around on my wife!


This is not about the state establishing religion; it's about people who violate society's mores and folkways not wanting to feel bad about themselves. All under the guise of 'tolerance' and intellectual superiority. (note: tolerance for people who are harming no one else is a good principle)


also they stress too much and will die early; which is sad, because they are going to go to surprise heaven (just like the Islamic, Jewish, Mormon and anyone else that even slightly disagrees with me)

If tomorrow, the county becomes mostly muslim, or pastafatian, should we promote those religions because they are the majority? No.

Um.. Apples-to-Apples? Yes; if some people gave their lives to try and save others and where inspired by His Noodly Appendage I would be happy to have a memorial to that placed at said location; Same with any other religion of a fire-fighter trying to save lives or anything else.

But you don't' get to put a fucking harry Krishna whatever the fuck there just because; it should have some fucking meaning connected to the memorial it self.

 

[slayer202]

That's the same logic that's used to stop towns from putting up a Christmas Tree. Religious symbols can't be that big a threat to your beliefs, can they? I'm not advocating for government sponsored religion, but the people who get up in arms when they see ANYTHING religious are just as bad as the religious zealots who allow a 2,000 year old book to define their views on who should be allowed to marry. Public displays of religion don't pose a threat to my beliefs; are you sure I'm the weak one?

public displays of religion may not pose a threat to your beliefs, but one day they might, especially if you let the little things go. It's also promoting religion to those who are at risk of being manipulated.

I have no problem with christmas trees. Christmas is barely a christian holiday at it's core, and it's a fun time for everyone as far as I'm concerned. However, this cross is not the same thing

and to be honest, someone who can't even take two minutes to look up the meaning of atheist and agnostic shouldn't even be in a discussion like this

 

[shadow9d9]

That's the same logic that's used to stop towns from putting up a Christmas Tree. Religious symbols can't be that big a threat to your beliefs, can they? I'm not advocating for government sponsored religion, but the people who get up in arms when they see ANYTHING religious are just as bad as the religious zealots who allow a 2,000 year old book to define their views on who should be allowed to marry. Public displays of religion don't pose a threat to my beliefs; are you sure I'm the weak one?

Having no religious symbols can't be that big a threat to your beliefs, can they?

 

[Fear No Evil]

You do realize that reading the OP is important right? Reread what their gripe is.

Also, look at the size of one piece compared to the "others"...

Also consider the utter ridiculousness of the fabrication of a cross out of debris and how preposterous even considering putting it on display as if it has any meaning is.

So now SIZE is a factor when determining fairness? Do we go by volume? Weight? Mass?

 

[Aikouka]

I'm an agnostic atheist, or an atheistic agnostic, or what the hell ever the current label is.

The terms are used so oddly today, that it's not hard to get confused. I didn't realize that agnostic wasn't a religious aspect until someone on here posted about it. It's actually more of a philosophy or a mindset than anything. So from what I can tell and what Wikipedia lists, you would be an "agnostic atheist."

 

[Ruptga]

Why can't we all just get along?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So now SIZE is a factor when determining fairness? Do we go by volume? Weight? Mass?

The assumption is that those who are in the majority are, by very fact of being in the majority, constantly repressing those in the minority. This, therefore, means that expression by a minority of his or her own social beliefs is very rarely repressive, those expressions of anything by the majority that disagrees in with a sympathetic minority. (some ACLU types even defend unsympathetic minorities like child fuckers) on the other hand, tends to be repressive.

Once you have your mind warped around this assumption a LOT of the liberal mind set makes sense.

And for the most part I agree with it too.

 

[DominionSeraph]

well the judgement of the supreme court is amazing moronic.

taken literally, the law says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I have underlined for you the only 2 relevent words in this entire ammendment.

The overreaching and broadly anti-religiousness judgement of the court is disgusting and unconstitutional in itselt.


this has nothing to do with congress or laws... ammendment dismissed.

Here's a hint: When you can't even capitalize properly you lack the position to call anyone else, "Moronic."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

When you can't even capitalize properly you lack the position to call anyone else

false. IQ/G is poorly correlated with one's use of capitalization in conversational messages.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Speaking of athiests, some guy marked one of my youtube videos as inappropriate because it has scenes from Passion of the Christ. There is much much worse things out there from a violence point of view, yet people are completely blind about it. Just makes me laugh.

 

[JDawg1536]

In general atheists shouldn't `t feel anything about religious objects since they represent nothing(in their view)

They still represent something, whether someone believes in it or not. It's annoying, and I don't want any part of that crap.

 

[Red Squirrel]

They still represent something, whether someone believes in it or not. It's annoying, and I don't want any part of that crap.

If (to the atheists) they still represent something, then that means they somewhat believe, but they're just in denial.

I don't believe in witchcraft or any type of cult that can cast spells. If someone started casting spells on me or I saw one of their symbols drawn on my lawn, I would not really be offended or scared. Well I'd be mad if they did something to my property, but not because of what it represents (to them).

So to me this should be the same. To them, it's just a chunk of metal, or at least it should be seen that way.

As a Christian I do not believe at all in the Muslim's (just using that as an example) lifestyle, but if they wanted to plant one of their symbols somewhere, I would not really care about it. Maybe I'd shake my head, or not agree with it, but I would not go out of my way to have it removed. Everyone has the right to believe what they want.

 

[JDawg1536]

If (to the atheists) they still represent something, then that means they somewhat believe, but they're just in denial.

A swastika means something to me. That doesn't make me a Nazi in denial.

 

[Red Squirrel]

A swastika means something to me. That doesn't make me a Nazi in denial.

No, but you believe that Hitler once existed and killed lot of people.

 

[Bignate603]

A swastika means something to me. That doesn't make me a Nazi in denial.

Godwin's law. Just let the thread die.

 

[JDawg1536]

No, but you believe that Hitler once existed and killed lot of people.

And I believe Christianity exists and killed lots of people.