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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:12 AM
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

and throw into the midst of all that, this little gem. hold on to your hat.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:16 AM

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

I don't think any Christian puts a cross ANYWHERE hoping that it will offend anyone or make anyone uncomfortable. But some would have others believe they do.

People can ignore the elephant in the room here, but ultimately (very few will understand this) what we should take a deep long look at and investigate fully by beginning to ask and attempt to answer one question...

Why are some people (in rapidly growing numbers) so deeply offended by something as benign as a cross that they are moved to seek legal actions against it?

Don't even try to answer that, you cant. But you can think of the deeper and more meaningful implications of where that particular answer may lead to, and what it actually has to say about the times we are living in now...

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:20 AM
This is their next target how dare Christians make a huge cross on that mountain . The government must spare no expense on removing that hideous symbol from that mountain

Mount of the Holy Cross Colorado

/ sarcasm off

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:23 AM
a reply to: ausername

I absolutely can. And that belief tells me that it's going to get much worse. I have started to say it myself many times in this thread, but I do not debate religion here. It is one thing that is unshakable and undebatable in my life. I have my convictions, others have their's and I leave it at that. It's pointless to debate religion for that reason alone. But I get your meaning loud and clear because it has been in my mind for quite a while.

a reply to: undo

That seems pretty interesting and I thank you for the link. I will have to finish it later though. I'm always up for some good new material.

a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

You have no idea what you have just unleashed...

edit on 6/22/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:38 AM
Look, I'm an Atheist, but that is not why I feel there should not be a cross involved in the memorial for 9/11. I don't have a problem with those of faith in general. Faith is a personal matter and at it's core every person will find their own spiritual groove and i respect that. I may dislike organized religion and most of what they try to do, but I will also fight for the right of the people who follow those religions to worship, or not worship, in whatever way they want.

The United States is a melting pot of race, religion, culture and anything else you can find world wide. It is not, and has never been officially a Christian nation. Just because the majority conform to one religion does not mean the nation follows that religion.

Having a cross at the memorial seems like a way for the Christian religion to stake a claim on the memorial, despite having nothing at all to do with it. From everything we know about the attack, it was done by people of the Muslim faith. Putting a cross up goes against what the United States stands, or should stand for. Plus, lets be honest, the towers were built with hundreds of "crosses". A cross, or lower case T is a very common configuration and anybody who reads this will be able to look around the room and see multiple cases of everyday items forming a cross. None of these crosses are religious and neither is the one, of many, that was chosen as this symbol.

I am a firm advocate for tolerance and neutrality when it comes to religious imagery in public places. If it is in any way a state or federal sponsored memorial, then there should be symbols of ALL religions, or none at all. Give people from every faith, or lack of, to feel comfortable visiting the memorial for an event that rocked the foundation of the country, the world, and every person regardless of faith.

It is not only Christians who were affected by 9/11 so the memorial should stay neutral, especially since it was funded by tax payers.


posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:52 AM
a reply to: xDeadcowx

If it is in any way a state or federal sponsored memorial, then there should be symbols of ALL religions, or none at all.

No one is saying that other religions can't put up a symbol of their own.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:55 AM
a reply to: xDeadcowx

Crosses have been used in grave markers since before Christ .

In Greece 1500 bc . Some places the cross was simply a sign of cross roads.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:08 AM
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

Interesting. I never knew that.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:21 AM
a reply to: Night Star

I recall the film where people were trying to escape atheist, communist soviet gulags, who went through Mongolia and Tibet (think it was called 'The Journey'). People died along the way (it was a couple of thousand miles) - they were buried in shallow graves in the middle of nowhere, and despite the people involved having no particular religious faiths, they marked each grave with a simple cross.

In our collective unconscious, the cross represents the best in us all, the levels of sacrifice to which we can raise ourselves to, in emulation of the story of Christ. It is a symbol of peace in these days, as it was when the religion was originally formed. In the middle ages corruption and crusading ruined the reputation of the church of Christ - that is not the case today. There are only a handful of idiots shaming the cross nowadays (think Westboro Baptist) - but aside from such minorities, the religion is peaceful and tolerant (if a little pushy in some quarters).

I believe that the cross should remain, and I can see no way in which it could possibly cause offence. America, like it or not, is a roughly hewn Christian nation, and it came under attack from Islamic extremists. Those guys weren't only offended by the cross, they were offended by everything that Christians and Freemasons collectively built throughout Western civilisation, and so in my mind, only Islamic extremists could be 'offended' by the cross.

Atheism, if it is to be believed, doesn't give a hoot about religion - therefore they should see the cross merely as a symbolic point of focus for those who do believe, and who grieve the loss of their loved ones. There is no offence involved, unless you're a Muslim hardliner - and nobody with any common sense will give them the time of day.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:24 AM
There are only a couple here that have seen through the web of deceit.

This is obviously a controlled attempt to manipulate the masses, and judging by the last 6 pages, it is working exactly as planned.

Divide and rule in action, c'mon people, look at the bigger picture, you are being played again by the unseen entities within the alphabet agencies.

They knew that they only had to throw the hook into the water to have all the christian and atheist infighting they could wish for, and it looks to me like a bumper catch.

I personally would welcome any of the original steel of the structure to left as evidence, hopefully in maybe 20 years time, science will be able to extract some form of memory from steel, and an accurate account of that day could then be reconstructed, I know that's a long shot, but given the properties of water memory being researched today, it is conceivable.

Now stop infighting, and get back to uncovering the truth ATS.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:25 AM
a reply to: Night Star

Exactly - the cross for Christians, and whatever other symbol the adherents of other faiths desire. Any such symbol is merely a point of focus for prayer and meditation, a place to remember, and a place to move forwards in the grieving process (which can take years upon years).

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:28 AM
a reply to: Watchfull

Only a brief point, but I don't personally see this as a fight between atheists and Christians (though it may be for some, and the intent could be as described). I see it rather as an opportunity for sane and rational discussion about how we want to remember the dead, and those affected by the tragedy. There is no place for vitriol, in true handling of such a topic - but you are right, if that was the intention, then it's working well.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 04:25 AM
The only common sense would to just simply refraining from any of the nonsensical partisan ideals that are related to a mythical being or a symbol that is supposed to identify it. C'mon folks what are we arguing about>!

a reply to: Metallicus

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

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 04:44 AM

originally posted by: Metallicus

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.

I don't care if crosses are in schools or not. See, I don't have a problem with religious people and their symbols. Its you and many others that do and I am still trying to figure out WHY. If you are made so uncomfortable by religious symbols you really have more problems than I can help you deal with here.

ETA: Maybe it reminds you that people of faith have something you don't? Or that you might be wrong? Or that you might die unprepared? I don't know why else something so beautiful to someone else could possibly offend someone to the point of needing to destroy it or censor the beliefs.

Are you afraid that religion is going to be catching? Kind of like some people think they might catch the 'gay' from homosexuals? Aren't we supposed to let gay people parade around in public and not be offended? Are you afraid of rainbows and unicorns too?

none of them will say that, that would be bigoted.

instead they use the separation of church and state argument or include every other religion too. it's like not keeping score on a elementary school baseball game and giving everyone a participation trophy.

why? heck if i know. they are like playing chess with a pigeon. they can't play chess so.....

also these people are claiming they are suffering from physical problems from looking at the cross, too.
shades of the exorcist! oh my!

the cross is a memorial, memorial = death. pretty much a universal meaning.(one of many) for me, anyway.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:06 AM

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SaturnFX

I get your point, I really do. I'm not Christian nor any religion... I just don't see the need to fight over this one. I'd like to see other religious symbols too. Personally I see it as a crossbar. But it's a crossbar that means something to a lot of people.

The reason to fight against it is the same reason beezer wants to fight for it
If you can decide to put a giant tax funded cross in the center of new York due to it being emotionally pleasing to some people, then that opens the door to religious symbols everywhere under the same guise.
and there isn't enough space to put a endlessly growing list of religious symbols...what if a pagan died in the towers whom held the ancient greek pantheon to heart in his/her ceremonial practices...should then the entire greek pantheon symbols be there somewhere also? what about the Satanist...the Taoist, etc.


I stand against the whole issue for the precedent that it would be deemed "offensive".

I even gave examples.

Now who is being disingenuous?

You are 100% emotion on this issue without any qualification as to the actual issues going on here
tax payer supported religious symbols.
It is offensive, not the cross itself, regardless of the wording, but of any religious symbol being used via tax dollars at work..especially something as important to the national (and international) psyche as ground zero.

yeah, it cost a lot of money to make that.
i wonder what they spent on it compared to the frivolous lawsuit the taxpayer will pay.
give us a breakdown.

i guess that doesn't matter to them.
it's a bs argument.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:15 AM
I wouldn't so much call it insensitive as inflammatory but that doesn't bother me either
really, if they want a cross for those who were religious that perished that's cool, but
they should also research an bit and honor the religions of the other faiths that died
that day as well. This is their holy war after all and they gotta fly the flags.

I just wish we could call it quits with the whole holy war thing, islam preaching hate
and murdering christians, christians in the US spread just plain vulgar pamphlets about
islam, until these psychopaths learn to use their brains we are so screwed.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:19 AM
Instead of a symbol of torture and death, shouldn't they instead, erect something life affirming? Maybe a beautiful sculpture of flowers?

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:19 AM
still haven't replaced this crappy mouse.
edit on 050000004205amb14America/Chicago by Hushabye because: double post

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:33 AM
a reply to: SaturnFX

heh yeah right, if there wasn't religion then such things would happen regardless because religion is just one of many different means to unite a group of people with like minded interests and thoughts together, whether it be race, nationality, culture, profession, or even music.

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 05:41 AM

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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'm really torn about this one. I really agree with what SaturnFX says here, but I also see how it can be meaningful, as it was naturally formed out of and found in the wreckage and has brought a lot of comfort to many people. That and I really don't mind seeing and respecting the good parts of religion and people, and there was a lot of that too on that particular day. Overall, I think I'd let this one slide and leave it.

I don't always agree with Lucidity,

but when i do, i give he/she a star.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in