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

From the OP's source.

A federal appeals court said this week that an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the National September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights.

Bold is mine.

If they just said it violates people's Constitutional rights, it'd be a weak case at best. But they didn't say that.

They also said it was offensive.

What you folks don't understand is that I'm not just trying to ply the cross all over the place, but I am also protecting the Islamic symbol, The Star of David and any other religious symbol.

Because once legal precedent has been set that a religious symbol is offensive, then any and every religious symbol is fair game.

Imagine town X in 2015.

Some Dirtbag says the city's ordinance for offensive display is being violated by a mosque, temple, church (pick your poison). There would be legal precedent set because they can say, "Oh! In 2014, in the case of Butt-munch vs The 9/11 Cross, a religious symbol was deemed as offensive."

Just like free speech, really. If you are okay with some group banning words that you don't like, then it opens the door to another group banning words that you MAY like!

a reply to: undo

I believe there is a possibility that the more we fight with each other the less we see what else is going on. And are certain groups fostering the animosity between people most definitely .

Respect each other has turned to beat the other out of existence attitude. Its not enough to be equal it is being pushed to totally remove the other.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

well for my part, i don't want to force my beliefs on atheists, nor do i want their ideologies forced on me, i don't want to die, i also don't want atheists to die, i don't want to be dumbed down, poisoned, irradiated, electronically harassed or electronically sickened and i also don't want that to happen to atheists. i think the difference here is, when you don't have a real humanitarian reason to spare those you disagree with, anybody who disagrees with you, can be seen as the enemy, even people who you have worked with, been fed by, doctored by, i mean think about what happened to the russians who worked in the factories and whatnot in russia during the bolshevik revolution. the bolsheviks shot any who wouldn't join them. how do you get people into such a mindset?

you're witnessing it.

a reply to: undo

We are definitely witnessing it. I am old enough to remember the "Live And Let Live" (as long as nobody got hurt) attitude which allowed for much wider acceptance of differences. Somewhere along the way that mindset has died. Really. It's almost like people hunt and search for things to get pissed off about, ruin for someone else, etc. Differences are not celebrated. They are sought out and destroyed. It's "My Way Or The Highway" now.

It's a mindset that I will never understand and I can't figure out a particular point when it started downhill.

beezer,

maybe if it was a giant metal bunny, it would be okay (shhhh, we won't tell them that bunnies are easter symbols and that easter is actually a pagan holiday. i guess what the atheists are really protesting is paganism. they don't know that though. isn't that weird? i find that so ironic. we christians must suffer so pagans everywhere may live free with atheists. wait, that can't be right? i swear, and they say we don't know much. mwahahaha)

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.

The thing about the Atheist Atom is that they are basically saying, "We aren't interested in religion....so we are going to interject ourselves into religion as much as possible."

The atom is like a guy who hates football making a jersey for a team that doesn't exist and is only "created' to poke fun at his hate of football.

Atheism is opting out of religion. So why, once opted out, do they work so hard to disrupt that which they have no part in by their own proclamation?

"I don't wanna grow grass in my yard. So, naturally, i need to try to dig yours up even if you ask me not to". It just doesn't make sense to me.

a reply to: undo
Yes the assault began during the 1st pariah Clinton the other two have just continued the issue.

a reply to: undo

What many closed-minded folks can't understand is that I'm trying to voice my concern for ALL religions.

Because once you win a case (set precedent) against one type of religious display, then you open the door to ban/silence/inhibit any other type of religious display.

And though I may be a Christian, my bunny is all 100% celtic Pooka.

i'm beezer's stand in for whenever he misbehaves. hehe.

a reply to: beezzer

oh i know. i starred ya on that. legal precedents are how we got all these fine laws we have today.

originally posted by: Lostinthedarkness
a reply to: Metallicus

I was raised to respect another,s religion be it native Catholic Jew Buddhist or lack there of . I feel the constant crusade against anything religious by these groups is very disrespectful to people of any faith .

It's worthwhile tracing the funding of these groups; usually they all lead to the same political group of people.

a reply to: undo

You know, it's funny. I had a couple people replying, but now? Crickets.

Either I'm an idiot to be ignored, or else I made an actual point.

I'm going with-. . . . oooh! Something shiny, be right back!

a reply to: Sremmos80

I think it's significant because some of the recovery workers found it and used it as a make shift shrine to pray at during they ghastly task of recovering mangled corpses.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: undo
Yes the assault began during the 1st pariah Clinton the other two have just continued the issue.

oh man, you are so right. i did an indepth study on waco. i read the coroner's reports and saw the photographs. it was .....i just. the women and children were huddled into the ammunition room. they were melted together in a big blob of goop. nothing human recognizable in it at all.

a reply to: beezzer

Well, well, well, the 'cross' is offensive to some, albeit atheists and others. So, I see here that if the cross is deemed offensive and the 'a's have way then it's open to interpret that all symbols that are offensive to any group of like minded citz's shouid be removed from anywhere.

What a win for the 'a's that would be. Love to see them take on the other religions. \

Gee, a nations flag and symbols will be next.

Bally

a reply to: Metallicus

SO why can't we use crosses in school again if this is what the federal judge is saying. Hypocrisy.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: undo

You know, it's funny. I had a couple people replying, but now? Crickets.

Either I'm an idiot to be ignored, or else I made an actual point.

I'm going with-. . . . oooh! Something shiny, be right back!

a reply to: bally001

Thank you.

Someone else get's the point.

*applause*

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.

"Faith" is under attack.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I am old enough to remember the "Live And Let Live" (as long as nobody got hurt) attitude which allowed for much wider acceptance of differences.

I'm with you reux! I am 56 and through the years have seen crosses, the manger, Christmas trees, Menorahs, The Star of David, Chinese New Years celebrations, Kwanza, May Day celebrations etc. No one was offended by any of those things. No protesters, no one being offended

My question is...Why the hell would any symbol of goodness be considered offensive???? That is sick. Something is seriously wrong with this.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Metallicus

SO why can't we use crosses in school again if this is what the federal judge is saying. Hypocrisy.

well i think that's the point. they don't have crosses in school. they don't have religion in public schools till college. the history text books all talk about how evil religion is, well specifically certain religions. and the science books don't include any view of any religion except atheism's view of creation er, evolution.

the noose is tightening slowly. soon they will demand 100 year old crosses in cemetaries be removed from the graves of actual christians who died, just so they don't have to see them when they visit their own deceased. it's like EGADS, I'VE SEEN INTERSECTING LINES!