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.

 

Atheist Group Sues NYC, Bloomberg in Protest of WTC Memorial Cross

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peteos


. . .

I don't see why a non-religious memorial couldn't be commissioned;

. . .


But then you have the government supporting Atheism.

Furthermore, some would say that removing symbols is violating the free exercise of their religion.




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So it’s not about promoting your beliefs (since yes, a belief in nothing is still a belief). It’s about gaining equal treatment from the state. In other words, “Cut us in, and we’ll shut up”. That’s a good strategy.

Just curious, if granted a status of religion, with your own holidays and such, would you still recognize other religious holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah, or Easter?


I recognise religious holidays already...sort of have to since they exist.

and no, not believing in something is not a belief in itself...its a lack of belief..like, I don't believe in unicorns does not mean I believe there are no unicorns, there could be...I simply seen no evidence to support one, however, if evidence comes, I will accept it.

Belief requires knowledge in order to substantiate the belief...I have no knowledge of a deity through proof, therefore, I do not believe...I can speculate, I can hope, I can even desire with every part of my core, but I have no proof, or even solid evidence, therefore, I do not believe...

Its a subtle difference, but also very profound. the theist minds cannot understand going without belief, so it is difficult for them to understand the difference...they write it off as competition verses trying to understand it...its simplier for them.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Peteos


. . .

I don't see why a non-religious memorial couldn't be commissioned;

. . .


But then you have the government supporting Atheism.

Furthermore, some would say that removing symbols is violating the free exercise of their religion.


The government cannot support atheism
not like,. they shouldn't...but rather, they are incapable of it because that is the default stance. atheism can be applied by doing things like paving roads verses just sticking a cross in the ground and asking god to magic roads...
atheism is supported by allowing the free press, or building a space program...atheism doesn't have a set of beliefs to be supported beyond not pushing religion into the tax payers area..thats for private institutions.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Considering who controlled the property the wtc was built on....

Perhaps a Star of David would be appropriate.

coto2.wordpress.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So you don't believe in an entity because there is no proof but because there is no proof you can't deny the possibility of an entity? But either way, you don't hold any beliefs. Sounds logical.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


then your agnostic? and either way you athiests are just becoming like christians, i was athiestic in my views back in 2007 and watched all of the debates, from venomfangX to thunderf00t to the amazing athiest, while i do agree that this is a stupid thing for the city to do, and that the gov't has no right relating religious symbols to 9/11 athiests need to stop whining so much, yea your a religion too, big whup, i don't see hindu's or buddhists going around argueing every single thing that christians do. btw im not christian or associated with any paticular religion.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Peteos


. . .

I don't see why a non-religious memorial couldn't be commissioned;

. . .


But then you have the government supporting Atheism.

Furthermore, some would say that removing symbols is violating the free exercise of their religion.


The government cannot support atheism


Sure it can, by removing religious symbols that go against Atheism.


not like,. they shouldn't...but rather, they are incapable of it because that is the default stance.


That is all well and good, but it is still supporting that view.


atheism can be applied by doing things like paving roads verses just sticking a cross in the ground and asking god to magic roads...


Agree.


atheism is supported by allowing the free press, or building a space program...atheism doesn't have a set of beliefs to be supported beyond not pushing religion into the tax payers area..thats for private institutions.


But again, in forcing the government to take a certain view, you are taking away the view of others. It is simple logic.

If people would just follow the damn first amendment, everything would be peachy. The whole point of our country is live and let live.
edit on 7/28/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The only thing that keeps me from crying foul is this from the arti cle posted in the OP.


The WTC cross was initially found amid the rubble in the immediate aftermath of the attacks -- two intersecting beams from one of the towers were found intact and unmanipulated, closely resembling the Christian crucifix. The cross was previously displayed at a church, but was moved to the 9/11 memorial on July 23.


While it may have been previously displayed at a church, it was found in the rubble as it is displayed. As long as it doesn't have a plaque on it saying that a bunch of Christians died there and will be remembered, I don't have a problem with it.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I think a good symbol would be 3 or 4 (or 5 to make a sort of star) hands holding each others wrists in a circular pattern would be a perfect symbol...each hand being made of a different material and color, silver, bronze, onyx, etc...
That is ultimately all that would be needed there...working together, multinational, united, etc etc etc...and give no religious message, rather, just a message to work together type thing...which is also what the buildings themselves represented.


I really like the multicultural idea
You could extend it from just the hands, to having a statue of a ring of people of all nationalities holding hands, around where the base of each tower would have been; or you could form a figure of 8 / infinity symbol around both by linking the two rings together.

There's plenty of options available; it helps if you have no religious bias.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So you don't believe in an entity because there is no proof but because there is no proof you can't deny the possibility of an entity? But either way, you don't hold any beliefs. Sounds logical.


I do not deny the possibility of a deity running things, or gandalf, or unicorns, or etc....all things are possible.

I simply reserve my system of beliefs based on a certain amount of good evidence leading to that alone...and since there is no logical reason for a deity, then I require a lot more evidence than just someone saying they seen one once.

But no, I do not deny the possibility.

Yes, its logical...being illogical is saying things do not exist catagorically without evidence to back it up, now that is a religion...and its not an offical atheist stance.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Exactly! If an atheist group demands the removal of a religious symbol from government property, and the government complies, the governemt therefore support atheisim. (Grant it, the symbol should have never been placed there to begin with).

And in the interest of this particular story, I would challenge other religious groups to find remnants of the original buildings in the shape of their respective religious symbols to display along side this one and call the whole thing art.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by stoptheinsanity2012
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


then your agnostic? and either way you athiests are just becoming like christians, i was athiestic in my views back in 2007 and watched all of the debates, from venomfangX to thunderf00t to the amazing athiest, while i do agree that this is a stupid thing for the city to do, and that the gov't has no right relating religious symbols to 9/11 athiests need to stop whining so much, yea your a religion too, big whup, i don't see hindu's or buddhists going around argueing every single thing that christians do. btw im not christian or associated with any paticular religion.


I am (for the full title) an agnostic atheist spiritualist.

As far as atheists becoming like christians...not seeing it. Atheists are starting to chime in now and becoming more organized to hold back the endless streams of theism being pushed on society...and it can be argued that its because they see the rise in islam...its bad enough living in a super christian society, but islam may indeed take over the west soon enough, and ya, we have issues with that...so, best to attack the slightly more reasonable ones to make good laws and precidence before we have to deal with the muslims trying to install a call to prayer amplifier on every street corner...

Its all about the future, where things are going...it is important to seperate very strongly any role of government in religion...not just because we don't like christians, but because christianity may also not be the top dog in the west...
I really hate breaking down arguments like that, but it seems to be the only thing that resonates with theist...hey, if you push for religion, it may not be your religion that is then pushed on you by tax dollars...so, you should stand with the atheists on these matters frankly.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For the record, I was actually agreeing with your logic. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. I perosnally don't care one way or another. I am all for individual expression and the right to one's opinion. Like I said, I'd rather see none than all.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Peteos


. . .

I don't see why a non-religious memorial couldn't be commissioned;

. . .


But then you have the government supporting Atheism.

Furthermore, some would say that removing symbols is violating the free exercise of their religion.


The government cannot support atheism


Sure it can, by removing religious symbols that go against Atheism.


not like,. they shouldn't...but rather, they are incapable of it because that is the default stance.


That is all well and good, but it is still supporting that view.


atheism can be applied by doing things like paving roads verses just sticking a cross in the ground and asking god to magic roads...


Agree.


atheism is supported by allowing the free press, or building a space program...atheism doesn't have a set of beliefs to be supported beyond not pushing religion into the tax payers area..thats for private institutions.


But again, in forcing the government to take a certain view, you are taking away the view of others. It is simple logic.

If people would just follow the damn first amendment, everything would be peachy. The whole point of our country is live and let live.
edit on 7/28/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



We're heading into a right mess here. The removal of religious symbols does not inherently translate to the support of atheism; it's more of (in this case) an acceptance of the fact that people of many different religions died or have been effected by it, so to show bias of any kind will make one or more groups feel displaced / discounted. It's a simple case of showing respect; it is being placed to commemorate those that died in the attack - to use a religious icon is bordering on insulting to the memory of those killed.

edit on 28/7/11 by Peteos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
By not putting a symbol up, it doesn't mean the government is supporting atheism, it just means that they are not putting a symbol up. Since atheism doesn't have a symbol, that doesn't our symbol is no symbol. Putting the cross up completley violates almost every aspect of the seperation of church and state. I wouldn't be surprised if someone climbs up and destroys the cross. And if someone put a cross over my grave, i would change my beliefs somehow to believe in ghosts and haunt the a**hole that put it there until he/she takes it down.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
But again, in forcing the government to take a certain view, you are taking away the view of others. It is simple logic.

If people would just follow the damn first amendment, everything would be peachy. The whole point of our country is live and let live.
edit on 7/28/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)


We are telling the government to take no view...do not put any religious symbols up whatsoever...stay out of religion.
that is not a view being pushed, that is saying "do not have a view on my tax dollar in regards to religion..just ignore the whole thing completely".

alternatively, they could try to be equal and put up several hundreds of religious symbols...but its much cheaper and more sane to put none up whatsoever.

Its unnecessary, and a clear violation...this is not a live and let live...its a live and live by what I believe in, and don't bitch about it...thats bull...live and let live is, put up nothing to show religion, but don't stop people from praying there and holding their own religious symbols...if a person wants to hold a cross, or a goat head emblem and chant, thats their right and I would argue that they should be able to do that...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


For the record, I was actually agreeing with your logic. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. I perosnally don't care one way or another. I am all for individual expression and the right to one's opinion. Like I said, I'd rather see none than all.


Its all good, the discussion needs to be had anyhow, there is a understandable wonder why atheists care..hopefully this discussion is shedding light and understanding on the topic.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peteos


. . .

We're heading into a right mess here. The removal of religious symbols does not inherently translate to the support of atheism;


The same could be said of any symbol or lack thereof.


it's more of (in this case) an acceptance of the fact that people of many different religions died or have been effected by it, so to show bias of any kind will make one or more groups feel displaced / discounted.


So it is fine if Christian's get displace by the lack of a symbol?

It is indeed, quite hairy. Someone gets shafted either way. Which is why I say live and let live. I wish everyone could just chill out.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Why not just have a smoking crater and a the symbol for islam right in the center

that way future generations know which religion to blame?



Bad taste is bad taste no matter what...yes, best to leave religion out of it all together



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Did anyone else see the episode of Penn and Tellers Bull**** that covered the WTC memorial? I really liked their final idea; just rebuild the towers. 'Business as usual'.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join