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

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: xDeadcowx

this is how it came about, most likely. since the country is 70% christian (or so they say), the bulk of the first responders and so on, were probably christians. particular parts of new york have a higher pop of roman catholics, as well. so you have this large group of roman catholic fire fighters and christians/non-christians and whatnot, who respond to the scene and continue to respond to the scene and this metal T sticking up from the ruins, suddenly gets attention. the idea passes around the group. it's a scene of a burial. it all just kinda fit.

i don't think it was meant as a dig against anyone.

Well said. It may upset hateful people, but in our society, a cross is indeed a universally recognized symbol for a memorial. That's what it is, a memorial. No more, no less.

say amen if you think the whole human sacrifice thing is unnecessary! according to everything i've read, the population of the planet is going to naturally decrease by huge amounts in the next 50 years. not just because of china's 1 child policy but also things like sex selective abortions in india, and the inability of this generation of males to find jobs by which they can support a family.

probably explains why atheists are growing more fundie as well. as time for financial collapse approaches, people are picking sides. :/

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, I know that this particular assortment of beams was pure happenstance in a demolished building composed of horizontal and vertical steel beams that was statistically probable to form after the collapse. There was no miracle, god did not send a sign. It was pure chance. However, those brave men and women--the firefighters, the paramedics, the doctors and nurses, and the average Joe volunteers found inspiration and solace in that chance symbol and it belongs at ground zero, not because Christianity is special, but because of them.

Point well taken.
Bit it's still a cross and not everyone is going to know what you claim this to be about right away. And maybe a lot of people will never make the connection and see only a cross.
Again, visually (at least) this admittance to the museum carries religion further down the road of our future.

And that's no good.

a reply to: FinalCountdown

you're hurting the atheist cause. they talk of sharing the planet with religious people. you just want them removed. lol

well if jesus is offering off planet excursions to interstellar locales of beauty i'm all for being temporarily evacuated but killing me is not an option for you. sorry about that! i mean you might be able to but i'm certainly not going to agree to it.

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, I know that this particular assortment of beams was pure happenstance in a demolished building composed of horizontal and vertical steel beams that was statistically probable to form after the collapse. There was no miracle, god did not send a sign. It was pure chance. However, those brave men and women--the firefighters, the paramedics, the doctors and nurses, and the average Joe volunteers found inspiration and solace in that chance symbol and it belongs at ground zero, not because Christianity is special, but because of them.

Point well taken.
Bit it's still a cross and not everyone is going to know what you claim this to be about right away. And maybe a lot of people will never make the connection and see only a cross.
Again, visually (at least) this admittance to the museum carries religion further down the road of our future.

And that's no good.

Well, religion has inspired bad things and it has inspired good things as well. Evil people have used it as an excuse to do bad things and good people (such as Mother Theresa) found inspiration in it to do good. To call it only a force of evil is not appropriate, IMHO. History shows that bad people have done horrible things in the name of atheism as well. Perhaps the real truth is that bad people will find any excuse to do bad things. To only point out religion as a bad influence is a bit short sighted, IMHO. The real answer is not to dictate belief systems but rather to have freedom of belief or not and hold people responsible for their actions, not what they believe.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I got a question for you Doc. How do you know there was no known atheist first responders?

Is that a little known fact I am unaware of. Were all the first responders polled and as for the ones who died that day were they well known religionists or were their families asked?


I am real curious because you said it like it was a fact that no atheists were first responders.

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
Again, visually (at least) this admittance to the museum carries religion further down the road of our future.

And that's no good.

I'm glad we've moved on from the legal debate and formed a perverse moral argument that it is what is best for the world. You, of course, being the arbiter of what is best for the rest of us. At least it's more honest.

a reply to: NavyDoc

oh and you left out the part where it inspired things like writing and literature. spelling and etymology. artforms and music. star gazing, planet gazing, recording of times and seasons. and so on. it's inspired the whole gamut of human behaviors including intellect and ability. originally, religion and the government were the same thing. laws were always given to people from their gods via their god's offspring on earth. quite religious.

i agree that religion can also be infuriating, bigoted, stifling, ignorant, abusive, and so on, but i'd say there's a real good chance we can find similar examples in the KGB's files of stalins reign of terror. that guy was a real piece of work.

a reply to: Grimpachi

how do i explain this.... when you die in a hospital, if you don't stipulate beforehand what your religion is or isn't, you are automatically given a christian burial and listed as a christian in their records. for all we know, the country could be more atheist than christian. but according to the view of DEMOCRACY that would make christianity a minority and minorities are supposedly protected by democracy. how, i dunno. craziest logic ever.

listen there are alot of non christians who have christian family members, who will not be happy if you try to hurt them in some way. not just that, there are people in the usa, who still believe in the original ideals of the country, as strange as that may seem.

a reply to: undo

I get that it was not and is not meant as an intentional dig, but intentional or not, people are put off by it.

The problem I have here is the idea that because the majority are Christian, that makes it OK. Being the majority does not mean you get to make all the rules and all the minorities have no say in the matter. Everybody else was affected just as much as the Christians were and are no less important. Everybody or every faith, or lack of faith, should feel comfortable at a memorial for an act that affected everybody of every faith, or lack of faith.

I am not saying the cross should be destroyed, i'm just saying this cross belongs at a place of worship like it was before it was moved. The 9/11 memorial is not a place of worship.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I am happy to hear that you and your loved ones are safe. That was the most horrible day I can remember and a lot of people had similar experiences and my heart goes out to you and everyone else.

I am in no way saying that people who find comfort in this cross should not able able to. They have every right to find solace in the cross and if they want to gather around it an pray, then more power to them. They could before the cross was moved, and they can now. I don't have a problem with any of that, the only problem I have is with where this cross is placed.

It was moved from a church to a public location that serves as a memorial for EVERYBODY who passed away, was injured, or lost loved ones in the attack. Not just Christians, but everybody.

Nobody should feel uncomfortable at a memorial for 9/11. Since people clearly are made uncomfortable by this cross, it is only fair for the cross to go back to the church. Christians can still visit it and take solace in the symbol and it will not be in an area that can make other people uncomfortable.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

because the majority are Christian, that makes it OK

well that's kinda my point. laws are passed by majority vote all the time. it's a democracy pretending its a constitutional republic. these laws effect everyone, and in some cases, religious people specifically or atheist people specifically. in a democracy, the mob rules. i agree, it is not okay. mob rule sucks. mob rule can be manipulated.

it can allow people to do things like vote workers into indentured servitude for people who don't work. it can also protect people who can't find jobs. i mean it's not all bad however, and this is the salient point, if its mob rule how come it never goes in favor of the actual mob? if the actual mob is atheist, you'd expect their laws to be more prevalent, but they already are more prevalent and they aren't the actual mob. it's mind boggling. i wish they'd just be honest up there in washington.

what concerns me is some really nasty world view is going to get ahold of it while its in its current democracy / tyranny form, and screw us all over, you included. we need our constitutional government back or kiss all our hind quarters goodbye.

a reply to: undo

I don't know why you said all of that or how it pertains to the question I asked of Doc about how he could possibly know that there were not any atheist first responders. Even if they did die in the collapse I am sure they had family and friends that survived which would know their beliefs or non beliefs.

But that is interesting that if someone with no one to speak for them dies they are just assumed to be Christian in the US. Seeing that they were in such a dangerous field of work I would think they would have had their beliefs on record.

I found it interesting that when I was in the military there wasn't an option for atheists the closest was no-preference. If I could I would have put throw a big party and make sure my ashes wind up in the ocean not the damn dump like it was found out they were doing with other soldiers ashes.

a reply to: undo

you're hurting the atheist cause

Well that too is my goal.
I see atheism as a religion since they "really believe" that there is no god.
It's no different than "really believing" that there is a god.
Both require faith in the unknown.
I prefer to not know or really know and not worry about or pretend to know about what is currently unknown.
Not knowing leads to finding out why?
Why? How?
Going through life thinking that it's all answered by a religion (even atheism) to me leads to not striving for real answers.

a reply to: Grimpachi

oh i said that cause the chances there were atheists in the group of first responders, etc, is just as likely as not. since we have no real idea how many atheists there really are. i don't know if the 70% is adjusted for those who didn't stipulate on their hospital or military records or not. some folks don't really follow a religion but are born into it, and will claim it on the records just because it might be important to a spouse or other family members. that kinda thing. the number might be higher but it's likely lower, and all it would take is a nudge by some wacko dictator to push them over the line into full out atheism. problem is, many are still going to want to support their families and other loved ones.

for example, even though i'm technically a christian (i'd define myself as more of a very ancient egyptian enki follower), i occasionally financially support a young gay friend of my daughter, who's family are abusing him. i thought that was awful. i would defend him if his life were at risk, even if i'm not gay. see how that works? and he's not even a family member.

i remember one of my bro in laws asking me to support a protest against gay ads on beer cans. i laughed. why would i want to do that. it was beer sold by a company of gay guys, for gays to drink. why would i care if it had gay ads on it? doh. you know that whole do unto others thing? i try to take that seriously.

a reply to: FinalCountdown

i can appreciate that approach. i would like to add, that knowing is not a bad thing. it only becomes a bad thing
when you try to make it a bad thing. and therein lies the entire argument in the garden of eden. different topic.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

And what if people are made uncomfortable without it?

You are like the ones who wouldn't let people decorate tiles for the Columbine kids that had crosses on them because other people might be offended, but what if it was appropriate to the memories of those kids?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: xDeadcowx

And what if people are made uncomfortable without it?

You are like the ones who wouldn't let people decorate tiles for the Columbine kids that had crosses on them because other people might be offended, but what if it was appropriate to the memories of those kids?

they wouldn't let the columbine ki........you're kidding me? that is why we have freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion. who came up with the idea that it was freedom FROM religion?

a reply to: Grimpachi

All right then, if there were atheist first responders (likely there were), can you prove that they had their own place of comfort that had its own similar bit of something they used as a focus to help them take solace and find some comfort before going back to the task at hand? Can you prove that there were similar such items for other religious groups even?

The only reason the cross is there is because it is a relic of the actual attack and became and item of significance to the first responders. Not because it is a particularly religious symbol of any one faith.

If Atheists had found a round bit of tire with an A on it that resembled their universal symbol in the rubble and used it in a place of quiet meditation, and it was not included despite having been found, being a piece of the rubble, and attaining significance as the cross, you would have some kind of exclusionary argument, but since there isn't one (or something like it for any other group) that I am aware of ... well, there is no there there.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: xDeadcowx

And what if people are made uncomfortable without it?

You are like the ones who wouldn't let people decorate tiles for the Columbine kids that had crosses on them because other people might be offended, but what if it was appropriate to the memories of those kids?

they wouldn't let the columbine ki........you're kidding me? that is why we have freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion. who came up with the idea that it was freedom FROM religion?

Someone in Columbine. Because it was in a school, the kid whose tile had a cross was not allowed have that tile placed in their memory. You know why. This is why we can't have nice things anywhere. My memorial offends them, so I can't have my memorial.