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.
Originally posted by Peteos
. . .
I don't see why a non-religious memorial couldn't be commissioned;
. . .
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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;
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.