It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:25 PM

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bally001

Thank you.

Someone else get's the point.


If an Islamic symbol was being debated, I'd stand with them in defense.
Same with a Wiccan symbol, ANY religious symbol.

It's not just Christianity under attack here.

What you seem to not understand is, the Irony of the word "Faith".

It is the total and complete acknowledgement that you are weak, powerless, useless to the Creator except in contemptual servitude disguised as knowledge, and freedom.

Should be called Greedom, really, and this goes for Atheists as well, it is amazing no one sees that none of what is believed in ANY circles of this PLANET actually has anything to do with REALITY, whether it be science, atheist, or religious or pretty much anything else.

Faith, disguised as hope, is the epitome of EVIL, IMO, and it shall be proven shortly.

The scum that make sure all forms of life in this Universe are held to these traps love how they have gotten everything to work wired backwards and inside out, FAITH, AGAIN, IS the total BELIEF, that you should be useless, and utterly POWERLESS to find out what is going on ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME, it is the BELIEF, that total lack of proof and only small truths will be your HOLY GRAIL,

FAITH, has been the utter ruin of the entire UNIVERSE, because it ensures that no one will actually look for truth, but view it through a pre-programmed beyond subconscious level, that continues onwards in an ever so-slowly descending unraveling spiral.

edit on 22-6-2014 by ParasuvO because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:29 PM
a reply to: ParasuvO

well that's not my interpretation of a god, so what now?

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:32 PM

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I think a religious symbol at the site of a religious atrocity is a bit over the top...I would be for a sort of coexist type plaque with all the religious symbols (and the atom for atheists) though...
But the cross is a Christian symbol, and the attack was by religious fanatics...If religion didn't exist (say it went out of fashion in 2000 globally and everyone just decided to be decent people and humanitarians), we would still have the towers...end of the day, no suicide flyers = no terrorist attacks.

That's one the best comments I read on here... Well said

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:44 PM
Regardless of what you atheists want some form of religion will exist!

Romans tried to exterminate Christians. Christians they resorted to elaborate codes one was one person draws a ( and another drew a ) to make a fish symbol to reference fisher of men .

Go ahead and get rid of one symbol Christians will find another .

What did the extremists Muslims do when they take over ? Remove all traces of other religions even destroying 3000 year old Buddha statues. Destruction of a religious symbol the whole world was pizz ed off . If this cross has become a religious symbol to remove or destroy it sounds like some other intolerant group .

Remove all traces of other religions ?

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:52 PM
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

I am not advocating taking away peoples religion or mandating they leave it. This is an issue of seperation of church and state is all.

Atheists are not trying to take away churches nor are they telling people they can't worship. Hell we are not even trying to take away religious tax exemptions. Maybe some are.

I know the only way to do away with religion is by affording higher education and improving peoples lives as long as unjust suffering exists then so will religion.

This evil atheist (ha ha)is for education and improving life for everyone. Oh that must seem so evil.
edit on 22-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

it's an odd thing. there are slippery slopes all over this question. and in all directions. for example, the slippery slope question was brought up when tv show producers said it was ridiculous that lucy and ricky couldn't be in the same bed on the show. it was quite a social bruhaha when they were finally depicted in the same bed together, not that they were doing anything other than arguing or talking.

the slippery slope argument was, public decency on television would suffer as a result. and that's exactly what happened. it just got worse and worse. and each time, they were met with the argument that the slippery slope was a phantom. society being what it is, and humans being what they are, slippery slopes tend to go the way of the guy with the most money to invest. if that guy doesn't think black people or white people or non-jews or non-christians or non-chinese or non-muslims, etc, are anything more than lower life forms, they would have no problems with treating them as uncivilized morons who's sole purpose on earth is to undress or appear in various states of undress in order to visually stimulate their betters. this was prevalent in kingdoms where the royals believed the young females of their kingdom were their personal rape factory.

there are hidden directions, some more apparent than others, in every question in this thread, on both sides of the issue.
edit on 22-6-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

I haven't looked at a thing when it comes to the museum or memorial because I figured it would be done wrong..

I can think of 1 memorial (outside of DC) that kept it simple and it has a serious impact on the people that see it because of the simplicity, and that's the OKC bombing memorial.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:17 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

I happen to disagree totally .

For 50+ years I have been tolerant of religious or no religion views. I tried to accept and respect other peoples views.I lost a heap of my tolerance this spring.

I was hospitalized for over a month . Was hanging on tooth and nail. I believe in a power greater than us. I had icons of faith and a inspirational painting on my night stand . Clergyman of my faith came to pray and bless me every few days since the possibilities of passing on were not in my favor.

This person who shared my room threw a fit it was a public hospital and he didn't want to be subjected to that crap! Pull the curtain don't look don't listen.

He got nurses or his visitors to put my painting away my icons of faith away . And put my bible in a drawer I couldn't get to . I went to sleep with a icon of faith around my wrist and in my hand woke up it was gone housekeeping found it in the trash can along with a medallion that had been on my neck. Having tubes and wires in almost every orifice of my body I couldn't put up much of a fight.

Some nurses would agree it shouldn't be out to be seen others agreed with me and let me have my stuff. Isnt that privacy curtains for? It still effected some people behind a curtain.

If you are on deaths doorstep if you believe in God isn't this when you need them the most? And why would some jerk try to deprive you of it. His freedom from religion was more important than my freedom of religion. Massive pile of bovine bio waste. Which leads back to this cross .

Freedom from religion is more important than my freedom of religion . That is basically what is being said.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:21 PM
a reply to: Char-Lee

I would fix the problem by adding the other colors.

^ This seems to be the common solution among most of the atheists posting in this thread. So, what's stopping anyone from adding those other "colors" ? Ok, add them! Why should it be up to the Christians to do it? Nah, I don't think that's the motive behind the "offended" here..They would still pick out the cross among the other "colors".

This isn't why this was taken to court though, was it? You're (the atheists) mad cause it costs "taxpayer dollars"? Well, so does your little lawsuit. I don't think this is why these things get blown out of proportion. I think it's a nice cover for the true intent here, which is pure hatred for Christianity, and some groups will cause a fight over any and all things Christian.

Our new "preachers" are ones who constantly shout "tolerance!", but they aren't very tolerant themselves, after all.
edit on 22-6-2014 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:28 PM
This is obvious. Not everyone who died on 9/11 was a Christian. It is not just and fair that only the Christians get represented, and not the people of other faith or no faith.

What if they put a giant cow there instead of a cross, for any Hindu's that died. Would people be happy with that? Of course they wouldn't. There would be uproar. The Christians would go crazy, "what about the Christians!" they'd all be shouting from the roof tops. Well what about the innocent Hindu's, Muslims et al who died?

You can't have one without the other, it's called being diplomatic. You either represent every faith of all of the people who died (which isn't fair on the non believers) or you represent none. Maybe just a nice shiny plaque or something non religious.

Or a great big bloody fountain that looks like a hole in the ground would do.

edit on 22-6-2014 by KudosMudos because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2014 by KudosMudos because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: Wookiep

you might find this interesting. every precessional age, there's an entire civilization, complete with tptb, religions, royals (politicians), scientists (surveyors, architects, doctors, etc). in ancient egypt, the religion was realized by the worship of the bull (among others). but the bull was the big one. when that age ended, the people who insisted on still worshipping the bull were slaughtered and all their wealth stolen. that age was the age of taurus the bull. we are just leaving the age of pisces the fish. they plan on slaughtering us and stealing anything we haven't bolted down.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

You are comparing an experience with one person and attributing that to everyone who doesn't believe. Is that about right? So by that standard can I attribute the behavior of a few rotten christens to your entire faith? For some reason I don't think you would agree with that.

Look you had a rotten guy next to you. I can't say what made him that way. Maybe he was once raped by a priest I don't know. I wonder did you ever bother to ask him what made him so hostile against the religion.

I have put up with plenty of religious stuff in my life and I always try to remain civil with people.

You said.

Freedom from religion is more important than my freedom of religion . That is basically what is being said.

I say they are both important. Don't act like religious people don't intrude on your life either I understand your frustration at not being able to enshrine your hospital room, but let me ask you this, have you ever had an atheist come ringing your doorbell on Saturday to hand out brochures on not believing or try to get you to non pray with them? When my father was dieing in the hospital I was interrupted several times by pastors and such trying to get me to pray with them. My dad was dying neither of us were religious and I was very polite in telling them this, but it didn't matter. I found it very intrusive yet I was still polite and put up with it.

It is a two way street you know if you want to judge a whole group of people by the actions of one then you should be prepared to receive the same.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:45 PM
a reply to: KudosMudos

The practice of a cross at a grave predates Christianity . If the Hindu want one fine a Buddha a tree a pentagram star of David fine...

I have came to the option if Christians chose to use a pine tree as its symbol . Atheists would be running around with chainsaws to make sure every one was cut down .

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:46 PM
religion is instituted and supported by government to keep people moral and therefore, not competitive with the gov. the gov by rights, always misbehaves the most and is therefore, the most immoral. if we were all misbehaving, they couldn't cheat us as easily. we would compete. they couldn't just declare that we be killed, made war upon and so on, without perhaps facing similar threat, which was where the founding fathers came up with the idea of the usa. each person, regardless of religion or lack thereof, was endowed from birth with the same value and rights as any royal, banker or politician on the planet.

then they dropped the ball.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:50 PM
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

You're missing the point entirely, but whatever.

As you were happy camper.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:51 PM
I've been thinking about something. Not so much on the level of individuals, but more so on the group level, or perhaps individuals but individuals in positions of power, I can think of examples of both Christian "tolerance" and "intolerance" But you know, I can't think of an example of atheists as being tolerant towards Christians.

Seems to me that they take what ever ground then can in their drive to marginalize, if not eliminate religion and Christianity in particular. They may say that they're only interested in the "separation of church and state" or such things, that they have no problem with people practicing their religion, that their intentions towards the negation of Christianity are limited, but I don't think so.

I think they'll do whatever they have within their power to negate/marginalize/ eliminate Christianity. I don't buy their claims to the contrary, rather I think they're strategic in nature. I think their progress towards negating/marginalizing/eliminating religion has only been limited by their power to do so, rather than any kind of "tolerance". (That's not to say that everyone that puts forward the "separation of church and state" is an atheist or does with some sort of malice towards Christians. I don't believe that to be the case at all and myself support a separation of church and state within the bounds of decency and common sense, as I believe the founding fathers did).

Can anyone think of a time in the United States when atheists held the power to strike a blow against Christian expression and didn't in the name of tolerance? Show me an example of actual tolerance on the part of atheists towards Christians. I think atheists "tolerate" it because they don't have a choice, at least for the moment, rather than seeing it as something worthy of tolerance. I suspect that a large portion of atheists would be perfectly content with both banning the public display of Christian symbols, even on private property; and the barring of Christians from political office and other positions such as teachers. The only reason it isn't so is because they're not capable of doing so at this time.

Clearly Christians, the most numerous group in this country and for much of our history the most powerful, have at some point in time been tolerant, or atheists wouldn't have been allowed to become so open and vocal about their views. The same can be said of other groups who now spend a significant part of their time and efforts in attacking Christianity, quite often on the grounds, or at least the stated the grounds, that it's "intolerant".

I'm confess that at times, I wonder if that "tolerance", however limited some might choose to view it, on the part of Christians was/is a mistake.
edit on 22-6-2014 by imwilliam because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:56 PM
a reply to: imwilliam

i have a theory that the vatican is actually behind this, much to the surprise and chagrin of atheists who think otherwise.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:00 PM
a reply to: undo

Hey Undo,

Ok, I'm curious. In what way do you suspect the Vatican is behind this?

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: imwilliam

I'm starting to feel similar sentiments as yours. In my post, a few above yours, I said basically the same in a nutshell. There's a motive, and it's not what they claim it is, I don't even think it's that hard to see. I mean, how can anyone expect a "memorial" to not contain religious symbolism? I do feel the "fight" is against Christianity itself more than religion as a whole. Would the Atheists be crying in the same fashion had a statue of Buddha been the first symbol of choice displayed? Something tells me, I don't think so..

edit on 22-6-2014 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: imwilliam

and the barring of Christians from political office and other positions such as teachers.

Do you mean like how there are still laws in states banning atheists from holding office or serving on juries?

Christians, the most numerous group in this country and for much of our history the most powerful, have at some point in time been tolerant, or atheists wouldn't have been allowed to become so open and vocal

Spoken like a true theocracy advocate. Your right at one time atheists were kept in their place. The names changed that they were called or labeled. The most recent witch trials were in the name of rooting out the communists and if you were an atheist you were labeled a communist.

Anyway I have news for you it wasn't that Christians became any more tolerant it was a combination of upholding the constitution and the various people of other faiths and nationalities that became US citizens that made it so we didn't have to hide in fear of those like you. It was the drive for true equality for all not just those of a certain color and faith.

But thanks for your thoughts.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in