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

a reply to: Grimpachi

okay. (whatdya think of that new warp drive they are working on? cool stuff no?)

back on topic so we don't get in trouble. hehe

probably best solution is to ask anybody who had loved ones who died there, if they had a different religion would they like it to be represented as well. since a cross is a standard way of marking a grave in the usa, i'm not sure how many will say, yeah i'd like to have (fill in the blank) _______ symbol there, but then not that many christians today, have crosses as their gravestone. they just have gravestones, sometimes with crosses carved in them.

originally posted by: [post=18065004]undo

since a cross is a standard way of marking a grave in the usa,

Really? You been watching too many westerns?

Here's all the official military markers.

www.cem.va.gov...

a reply to: undo

okay. (whatdya think of that new warp drive they are working on? cool stuff no?)

I think it is real cool stuff. They have been theorizing about it for several decades. I still think they are a long ways off from building a prototype. I know they have come up with some concept drawings. I will say I am pretty adventurous but that is one test flight I wouldn't want to be the first one on.

back on topic so we don't get in trouble. hehe

probably best solution is to ask anybody who had loved ones who died there, if they had a different religion would they like it to be represented as well. since a cross is a standard way of marking a grave in the usa, i'm not sure how many will say, yeah i'd like to have (fill in the blank) _______ symbol there, but then not that many christians today, have crosses as their gravestone. they just have gravestones, sometimes with crosses carved in them.

On topic. I don't know how they are going to deal with other religions. Was the base of the monument paid for by the state? If so then that would set a precedent for the state to pay for all the other religious monuments. I think they rally created a mess with this one.

I have said it several times that I do think it has its place there, but they went about it all wrong. They took something iconic that even atheists like me could endorse and turned it into a big honkin overbearing Christian symbol.

They took this and turned into this

If they had just saved the moment like this

Then even I would be defending it. What a waisted opportunity IMO.

a reply to: Grimpachi

i think what happened was, people saw that in the wreckage and thought "wow...." , sorta like finding jesus on a slice of bread, only better because in this case, it actually has a real meaning. if you were a christian, to you you might feel comforted that your loved one is not just a bag of bug eaten bones and blood but an eternal spirit currently hanging out with the big kahuna, awaiting your new eternal body.

don't get mad (get glad trash bags. ever see batteries not included? the black boxer guy who had been punched in the head too many times and could only communicate by using phrases from tv shows and tv commercials? i do that alot. far as i know, i haven't been punched in the head though. so "it's not my fault!" - han solo. )

a reply to: undo

Yeah I get how it got to the point it is at but I am sure there had to be at least a few sensible people that realized that the path they took was going to exclude. Now it is just another religious cross not much different from the millions of others that adorn the US. I bet some people feel that is a big win for their particular belief.

It could have been so much more to so many more but now it is just another of the same. I think that is a loss to everyone. Think about it could have united people but instead it divides. Sad IMO.

a reply to: Grimpachi

yeah, i see your point. dunno what can be done.

a reply to: undo

For me whatever the courts say I am fine with it. There really are more important issues however if the courts do decide to take it down I hope some sensible people will make it into a monument more befitting that can be put there. If they do that I may even be inclined to go up there with my pastafarian card to support it being there.

I do have a lot of free time and family near there. Whatever the decide it is up to them and the state will decide regardless of the debate here. It is interesting to debate though.

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.

I find it hilariously annoying when people try to say all our problems would be solved if only religion would vanish from existence... just like gun haters. Religion is not even an inanimate object like a gun, yet all these so called intelligent people blame it for things... instead of human beings who misuse it or take advantage of others and convince them to misuse it.

Anyway, this cross appeared at ground zero and gave people comfort. It already has a history with the people and location and event. It deserves a place in the museum. It was a part of the aftermath of the event. Why pretend this particular aspect of 9/11 didn't happen just because it's religious overtones? Why censor history?

a reply to: Grimpachi

So are you saying because we haven't gone after it means we can't?

I'm saying that you don't have the power yet to win that fight and you know it, but I think many of you would if you thought you did. It's not that hard to understand. I'm asking for an example of tolerance for Christianity on the part of atheists were they had the power to do otherwise. I can't find one and you don't seem to be able to either.

Everything else you wrote is chaff and I believe, an attempt to obfuscate your inability to provide an example.

a reply to: imwilliam


First lets agree on what the definition of tolerance is because if we are working from two different understandings then we will never see eye to eye.

I pulled this off of a religious site (Christian) I was working from a different understanding but I think they actually got it right.

Originally, tolerance meant to acknowledge that others have differing beliefs and accept that it is their right to do so.

Read more: www.compellingtruth.org...

Based on your previous posts I don't think that would be your definition of tolerance but that is why I am asking.

BTW everything else I wrote was directly responding to you so if you call it chaff then I am pretty sure you know what that makes of the rest of your post. There is a pot kettle comment somewhere in there.

a reply to: Metallicus

It's not a true cross, but an artifact that has the shape of a "cross." Just because many Christians have identified with this shape, does not make it anything more than a relic of the tragedy that day.

I agree, let this atheist state how they are specifically harmed by this relic being on display. No ideological mumbo jumbo, but how they are harmed on a personal level.

A lot of these minority groups have nothing better to do than find examples, such as this, to espouse their views, cause division, and generate publicity. Personally, I think they should STFU!

Funny how silent all the rabid constitutionalists out there are when it comes to separation of church and state. Public money is funding this monument. This is, without question, a monument of religious nature. It is unquestionably the christian cross. So where are you guys ?

Strange how you can all rally around the second amendement when you *feel* it's being attacked (like when you're not allowed to buy armor-piercing rounds anymore), but when confronted with a CLEAR UNDEBATABLE VIOLATION of the first amendment, suddenly it's just those pesky atheists undermining the christian roots of 'Murca.

I'm glad I don't live a country of such schizophrenic double standards, where what is revered when it's convienient, is trashed by the same people who internet rambo on all day about how they would die for their right to be able to shoot other people, but fail to extend that to equal treatment of all faiths by the State, ie, as par the constitution, "no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Don't worry "patriots", we get who you are. You don't care for the secular state described in the constitution, but a christian theocracy is pretty much "meh" as long as no-one "takes yer Gunz".

a reply to: Ismail

YES it is.

I have no problem with the cross itself and think erecting it at the nearby church was great.

However, erecting it in such an "in your face" way at the 911 memorial is definitely a statement, slap in the face, and endorsement of one religion being superior over the beliefs and non-belief of all others who died or were involved in 911.

Private property or not, it was a political attack, and receives government funding.

This fight will continue, just as the fights to remove 10 commandment monuments from public domain.

It's just wrong.

a reply to: Ismail

This is complete and utter BS.

Really? What makes it "unquestionably" the Christian cross? The approximate shape? Was someone crucified on it? Since you seem to be an expert on the subject, enlighten me.

You know what, I think I'll raise cain about the '+' symbol used in millions of mathematics equations. Heck, it's just a small cross right? Personally, I'm offended by this. I think we should start using the symbol formerly used by the singer Prince, who is now know again as Prince.

I really love people like you, because you make it sooo glaringly obvious the tighta** you are. You describe constitutionalists as "rabid" and refer to schizophrenic double standards. And, you relate this to gun rights!

God Bless the USA dude!

a reply to: SaturnFX

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.

It it wasn't religion it'd be something else considering, you know, every atrocity that's ever happened throughout history that did not have anything to do with religion.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

Its a cross because it is being treated as such. It was at a church before this...
It is/was being used as a shrine and being seen as a traditional religious symbol.

And you bringing up the "+" sign just shows how far your are reaching.
This is not about uprooting a symbol and changing it completely, that is crazy.

a reply to: Ismail

just for the record, are you muslim? i don't think putting a muslim symbol there would be such a good idea either. better to just put a non-descript, no religion involved, monument.

this is the problem. we would like our constitutional gov, but we instead have a democracy. a democracy is what islam promotes, as does catholicism, buddhism and judaism, and it's socialist in function - the mob rules and when one religion is predominant, that mob rules, thus sharia law or the holy roman empire, etc. however, in the usa, the democracy of mob rule is only being allowed to anybody who isn't religious or who lies and says they aren't so they can strangle the mob rule of groups they don't agree with.

socialists know that mob rule in a country that's 70% christian is going to result in christian laws and christian forms of finance, moral structures in public venues and so on -- a sort of christian sharia law. this is something the original constitutional government protected the country from by giving everyone equal religious voice not mob rule voice. socialists in the usa, to bypass that, have to pretend like mob rule doesn't apply to the majority in the country (even though it does in any other socialist country), as if it were still a constitutional gov but only in the case of the actual mob in the country.

so what you are saying is both true and false, ironically so.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I was being sarcastic with the "+" illustration. One thing I've learned over the years that I've been a member here, is that people are becoming more uptight and want to delve into fisticuffs if you disagree with them.

Lighten up Francis!

a reply to: Freenrgy2

Hard to catch sarcasm over the net
And yes your are right, if you make crazy,non sarcastic, claims people will call you out for it on this site.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: SaturnFX

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.

It it wasn't religion it'd be something else considering, you know, every atrocity that's ever happened throughout history that did not have anything to do with religion.

Just to be clear, it most often *is* "something else" - people *love* to trot that "Religion has killed more people" line out despite it being so obviously, absurdly wrong. Racism, greed, and "statism" (unless you consider that a religion) have been most responsible for wholesale death - let's just look at one short period of history: 1914-1945, which includes World War 1, World War 2, and the Great Terror / forced collectivization in the Soviet Union (leaving out the Chinese Civil War.)

That's roughly 100 million deaths not due to religion.

There was, however, the Armenian genocide during this time, which definitely took on religious aspects - 1.5 million mostly Christian Armenians were slaughtered by Muslim Turks - religion may not have been the compelling interest of the Turks, but it was used to inflame those who carried out the slaughter.

So, over 31 years, 100 million died due to statism, with some racism mixed in; and 1.5 million a combination of statism and religion. Looks like "religion" has a long way to go to catch up with "statism" in the category of "Pure Evil."

Never mind the fact that, without religion, it's unikely the Twin Towers would ever have been built in the first place - without religion, the Dark Ages may have never ended ...