It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'

page: 13
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Grimpachi




How about you stop throwing out red herrings and moving goal posts?


Why worked 'so well' for someone else saying the public has any rights to the materials at ground zero.

IE that cross.

Because THEY DON"T.

Because THEY NEVER PAID FOR IT.



That should mean I can put anything I want there as long as it doesn't belong to them. Right? Hell we can all put up monuments in any way shape or form then on public land. Right?

BTW that beam was donated by the fire department. You really should read links Neo.
edit on 22-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Typical americans.. Trying to steal something and call it there own. First it's apple pie, now it's the cross. Leave the cross to those who first gave it meaning. The Romans...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
We better get to work removing all of those state funded religious symbols at Arlington National Cemetery. That is the extreme thinking the atheist camp is demonstrating in their reasoning here. Any of you atheist or anti theist crowd care to explain why we should remove those religious symbols?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Here is something else to whine about..

www.npr.org...






A pear tree is another religious symbol . Druidic for fertility and Christians symbolized the church in old views.

When you all going to rid all parks of ornamental pear trees?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx

nope, the egyptians



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




That should mean I can put anything I want there as long as it doesn't belong to them


Well since this guy signed a 99 year lease:

en.wikipedia.org...

IT is his call to make, not the 'publics'.

As his RIGHTS say here:

en.wikipedia.org...



A leasehold estate is an ownership of a temporary right to hold land or property in which a lessee or a tenant holds rights of real property by some form of title from a lessor or landlord. Although a tenant does hold rights to real property, a leasehold estate is typically considered personal property.


Then for those who forgot about real property:

en.wikipedia.org...


Back to disparaging ATS members.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lostinthedarkness
You dont hear Christians Jews Hindus or Buddhists running around trying to get the letter A stricken from the alphabet because its a atheist symbol or banning all pyramids because it looks like a A or in drafting class forcing kids to use symbols of atheism the 30/60 triangle 45 triangle and in geometry also triangles.


and nor do atheists (or anyone) else campaign to remove the letter t from the alphabet.

Boo hoo......



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

eek a druid symbol hehe



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
We better get to work removing all of those state funded religious symbols at Arlington National Cemetery. That is the extreme thinking the atheist camp is demonstrating in their reasoning here. Any of you atheist or anti theist crowd care to explain why we should remove those religious symbols?


Why do we need to explain your hypothetical situation?
This is not about uprooting an already well established scene.
Also you don't get forced to get a cross, it allows for more then one symbol or just a simple head stone.
If they said the cross was the only option, then you would have seen the run on it.
edit on ndSun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:10 -0500America/Chicago620141080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Well since this guy signed a 99 year lease:

en.wikipedia.org...

IT is his call to make, not the 'publics'.


You didn't read the whole thing did you?




while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building.[4]


So can you guess where the monument sits? On which land? It is an easy question Neo.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

now we are just getting ridiculous, talking about the lower case t....
This is not about what can resemble a cross, this is about an object that is considered a cross and seen as a shrine or religious symbol and public/funding.
Stop with the crazy comparisons and stick to what is actually being discussed.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
We better get to work removing all of those state funded religious symbols at Arlington National Cemetery. That is the extreme thinking the atheist camp is demonstrating in their reasoning here. Any of you atheist or anti theist crowd care to explain why we should remove those religious symbols?


Why do we need to explain your hypothetical situation?
This is not about uprooting an already well established scene.
Also you don't get forced to get a cross, it allows for more then one symbol or just a simple head stone.
If they said the cross was the only option, then you would seen the run on it.



Yup because you don't see any crosses for the fallen Jewish there.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It is a relic of the disaster because a number of first responders knelt to pray before this because it bore a resemblance to something that brought them comfort while they tried to come to grips with everything that happened that day...

That makes it part of the narrative for the disaster, not just something some Christian decided to shove into the museum.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah someone truly did not READ THE WHOLE THING

As




During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of the 1987 stock market crash, which led to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became Governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs, including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding.[15]


As the PA tried to ditch the property LONG ago.

The only reason it wasn't is because it was 'too complex'.

And what the PA did was to make it someone elses problem.

Then decided OH NO !. 'We want it back'.

Then used 9-11 as an excuse .

WHAT THE HELL EVER.
edit on 22-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So what you are saying is that it is owned by the port authority. Correct?


If you go far enough back you will see it was once owned by American Indians. Where is you outrage?
edit on 22-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Geezus christ intentionally being obtuse ?

The LEASEE has the rights to the property.

The public DOESN'T.

Have NO CONCEPT of what property rights here are ?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: Char-Lee

Well this memorial is in America.

And to a lot of peoples represents every single human life that was "taken" that day.

Their countries can choose how they depict their memorials; we won't be offended. Scouts honor...


I am not sure what you are saying? All Americans are Christian? Or only the majority of belief systems should be represented and not by who was killed but by the country they died in?


No. I would have just said that.

What I said was pretty self-explanatory and delving into the issue microscopically serves no further purpose than to complicate the discussion.


Hummm so you are saying,



Well this memorial is in America.

And to a lot of peoples represents every single human life that was "taken" that day.

Their countries can choose how they depict their memorials; we won't be offended. Scouts honor...


Ok... thanks for clarifying that.


So your deluded comprehension hinders your ability to conceive and appropriate a legitimate response?

"Um so your saying".... What? Your countering me with my own statements?

Dang...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
It is a relic of the disaster because a number of first responders knelt to pray before this because it bore a resemblance to something that brought them comfort while they tried to come to grips with everything that happened that day...

That makes it part of the narrative for the disaster, not just something some Christian decided to shove into the museum.


Personally I don't mind the cross itself so much I just think they went way overboard with a tasteless display as the religious overlords.

I think if they had been modest and tried to capture the moment then very few would say anything against it.

A few pages back I posted some picks that show what I mean.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

All they have to do is avoid that part of the exhibit. I don't know why they would be bothered by something that according to them is just a hunk of steel. It would be so cool if we all learned to tolerate other people's beliefs without trying to negate them. And that goes for everyone, religious or not. Just let people choose what they choose to believe.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Your link says the port authority still owns property there it also says what he does have is leased as well as saying the port authority split the difference paying him half of 800 million.

Can you show me where he has leased the land and still holds the lease of the land where the monument is?

Oh wait I already posted this for you. Maybe you forgot.




The Port Authority owns the site's land (except for 7 World Trade Center). Developer Larry Silverstein holds the lease to retail and office space in four of the site's buildings.[2]en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is the monument retail and office space? Because that is what he does have a lease too.
edit on 22-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join