- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Atheists See World Trade Center Cross as Battle Over Equal Rights
As of Monday, August 13, 2012, the attorneys representing The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation (WTCMF) said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that the 20-foot-tall beam will be displayed as a historical object because it tells part of the story of the rescue and recovery effort after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to news reports, the judge in this case is poised to throw the case out.
American Atheists filed suit against the WTCMF last year. The complaint stated, “Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to require those responsible for the September 11 Memorial and Museum to remove a 20-foot cross from the Memorial and Museum or to provide equal space to memorials from other beliefs. That either the cross be removed from the museum, or symbols representing all religious and nonreligious groups be displayed alongside the cross.” Both options were rejected.
HISTORY:
Islamic militants attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. That attack included the destruction of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, New York City, where 2,792 individuals lost their lives.
Two days after the attack, construction workers found a steel girder joint approximately 10 feet across and 20 feet high and weighing 10 tons amid the rubble. By October 2001, Franciscan (Catholic) Friar, Brian Jordan ‘blessed’ this piece of building debris and began holding religious services at the site.
Eventually, the girder set was removed to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church on 22 Barclay Street in Manhattan. While there, the girder set was further modified and trimmed to look more like the Latin cross of Christian tradition.
In 2002, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was established, with a $10 billion grant from the U.S. government, to rebuild downtown Manhattan. Soon thereafter, the WTCMF was established to begin designing a permanent memorial for those who died in the 9/11 attacks.
At about that same time, various groups began lobbying the WTCMF to include the girder set in the final design of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. American Atheists spoke out against that suggestion, making numerous appeals and appearances to civic and governmental groups, as well as on national media denouncing the suggestion as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and exclusionary to non-Christian Americans. American Atheists also offered to provide its own memorial artifact to be displayed next to the girder set to honor all other people who died in the 9/11 attacks. American Atheists never received any response to its complaints or its offer of an additional memorial artifact.
David Silverman, American Atheists President, said, “What we seek is any remedy that honors everyone equally, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist. This can either be done with a totally neutral memorial that concentrates on the tragedy and not religion, or one that allows everyone to put up a display of equal size and prominence. In the latter case, we have offered to pay for a display ourselves. If everyone is provided equal treatment, we will drop our lawsuit because fair is fair.”
The WTCMF completed the construction of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in July 2011. On July 23, 2011, the WTCMF arranged to have the girder set transported from St. Peter’s Roman Catholic Church and lowered in through the roof of the museum. The cross was placed on a special mounting designed to highlight the girder set as the museum’s centerpiece. In a private religious ceremony, Friar Brian Jordan consecrated the girder set. No other religious or secular representatives were invited to the event.
Shortly after the girder set was placed in the WTCMF, reports began to emerge calling the girder set a ‘miracle cross’. Some Ground Zero workers claim that, as they worked inside the debris, they found a girder cross-section that resembled a Christian cross. One of the rescue workers said, “It was an unmistakable cross made of twisted metal placed there at Ground Zero as if it had been intentionally planted.” This story spread like wildfire, eventually spawning a movie entitled, “The Cross and the Towers”. Producer Scott Perkins said, “It was like a cavern that became a place of worship for the weary and for those working rescue and recovery heroes at Ground Zero. It was as if God was holding out his hand and saying, ‘I am with you, I am here, come find peace in me.’ It was God’s house, a place for anyone to come and be ministered to.”
Kenneth Bronstein, New York City Atheists President, said, “The so-called miracle cross that now dominates Ground Zero discriminates against all the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and others who died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The cross is not a miracle. It is just a couple of rusty girders, one of hundreds just like it that were found after the Twin Towers fell. After all, the Twin Towers were built with thousands of such T-shaped girders. That a worker resurrected one of these girders and dubbed it a Christian cross is an affront to all of us who believe in our constitutionally based right to have public places free of religious propaganda and religious coercion.”
Mr. Silverman said, “The one thing we won’t tolerate is Christianity getting special treatment not afforded to us or anyone else. Christians can love and rally around whatever they wish, and if they wish to deify a piece of rubble, that’s up to them, but that doesn’t mean they get sole representation in the WTC memorial.”
The cross is scheduled to be displayed in the museum as the singular representation of all people groups who lost their lives on 9/11. Teresa MacBain, American Atheists Public Relations Director and Former Pastor, said, “We cannot allow this travesty to occur in our country. This is an injustice that affects thousands of people. We will stand. We will fight. We will not back down. The memories of all those who perished is worth the price, no matter how high.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Ladies and gentlemen,
Ladies and gentlemen, atheists and theists, I present to you Fr. Mychal Judge, Franciscan/Catholic/Priest, first official victim of 9/11. The cross stands and no whiny atheist will overcome it. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/09/140293993/slain-priest-bury-his-heart-but-not-his-love
This matter is far from
This matter is far from settled. More than likely, it will come down.
That cross is not going
That cross is not going anywhere. I guarantee it. There was nothing to settle in the first place.
Please educate yourself on
Please educate yourself on Supreme Court case law. Religious symbols are not allowed on public property unless they are part of a larger social or historical display. This is well established case law for the first amendment. This is why the ten commandments cannot be displayed in court rooms, crosses are not allowed in the classroom, and nativity displays are not allowed without accompanying non-religious displays (the reindeer test). Consequently, unless the display also includes the star of David, the crescent, and symbols of all the religions of all the victims of 9/11, it doesn't pass muster.
Your wishful thinking aside, the LAW is on the side of the people protesting this cross. The cross can stay up if the display is expanded. However, these selfish christians want it their way and no way else.
In case your forgot, the financial industry is not run solely by christians. Victims included jews, muslims, buddhists and atheists.
CRW: Why don't you take a
CRW: Why don't you take a look at one of the articles on Opposing Views?
Poll: 57 percent of Republicans Don't Like Muslims
The Liberal sheep have always defended Islam, it is in your DNA. Let me let you know a secret about Islam that most people who have been around it know. “The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.”
So once again, we have Opposing Views expressing their liberal agenda. Christopher Hitchens was one of the few atheists who didn't follow the liberals. An organized effort is underway worldwide orchestrated by a powerful Islamic political body to criminalize speech that "offends" Muslims. Muslim leaders broadcast their group's every move on their website—yet America's liberal ruling elites refuse to listen.
The threat that Muslims will self-radicalize and kill is at the very heart of the OIC campaign to squelch free speech regarding Islam. Issues such as the proposed Koran burning are manipulated for that purpose. Western cultural “elites” are targeted to deem the free speech inappropriate thereby facilitating a cultural dilution of our commitment to free-speech principles over time.
OIC “slander” campaigns are calibrated against issues like Koran burning or the Muhammad cartoons to dupe liberal elites in the West into support for Islamic standards of “free speech” against their own interests. CRW: you're wrong as usual
57 percent of republicans are
57 percent of republicans are bigoted slime... that's the right conclusion (29 percent of democrats too). I prefer to judge people individually rather than putting them in buckets like you do.
Having actually worked with muslims, I know they are individuals. Some are wonderful, some are okay, some are jerks, and some belong in prison. In most cases, religion was not a factor in my individual judgment unless the other person made it an issue.
That is the point... treat people as individuals.
Racist hate mongers like you will always exist, and you have the constitutional right to express your incorrect and hateful opinions. However, I have the right to tell you exactly what I think of your statements.
The real problem is fundamentalism of all types. Fundamentalist christians are just as dangerous, hateful, and bigoted as fundamentalist muslims or jews. Extremism of all sorts is our biggest enemy. It allows for all sorts of hateful and flawed conclusions, such as what you post almost constantly.
Ok, since this is still the
Ok, since this is still the most commented thread on this site, for the moment I'll lend an objective view and not let my feelings get in the way.
First, the Atheists offered to pay for a religious neutral symbol, would you seriously turn that down for a simple matter of not having the funding?
Second, since your allowing this religious sect to put up a religious symbol in the 9/11 memorial, then me if I wasn't an Atheist/Humanist, if I wanted to put up say...a muslim symbol? Or even another symbol like the virgin mary, do I have that right?
Possibly but if anybody didn't like it I could also cry "inequality" could say that YOUR violating my beliefs by not allowing me to put up more religious symbols in the 9/11 memorial, plain and simple. What if my religion wasn't a mainsteam religion? What if I worshipped a blue and green alien named Farty, could I be allowed to put up a statue of an alien?
I mean after all it's MY religion and MY right to put up whatever I please right? That's what your saying when you say Atheists have no right to fight it, because YOUR fighting for ALL religions rights to put their symbols and bless them how they see fit in a public area, this isn't about intolerence to Christians or Catholics, it's because of the fact that if Religion is able to get away with inserting religious symbols in public, well then I have the right no matter my religion to do the same, be it Catholic, Mormon, Christian, Muslim, or worshipping my little blue and green alien.
We mind as well allow our government to become a theocracy then.
Once again... Roy is babbling
Once again... Roy is babbling his paranoid distortions of reality. If you look, atheist are opposed to ALL religious symbols displayed on public property. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Some of the most vocal critics of Islam have been atheists. Google Christopher Hitchens if you need a few examples.
Atheists sound like Muslims? What the hell?
People like Roy are more interested in shifting the US toward a theocracy rather than recognizing that 25% of the US population is not christian, and this number is growing every year.
Read the supreme court cases around religious imagery on public property. It is very clear that this cross violates the first amendment. The end.
Do the Liberal (Progressives)
Do the Liberal (Progressives) sheep of America know what "The Cordoba Initiative is? Of course they don't.
Remember this news story?
The plan is to build a 13-story Muslim mosque and cultural center literally only a few hundred feet from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. The leader of the project, Imam Abdul Rauf, says that the mosque is intended as a gesture to build "bridges between faiths." Another proponent claims that the mosque, which will occupy the site of a 152-year old building that suffered damage in the 9/11 attack, is really a "celebration of America's religious tolerance." Why would a religion founded on fealty to one law, one leader, and one god -- a religion whose modern defining characteristic is its intolerance of all other faiths and traditions -- actually "celebrate" America's religious diversity. That's the very thing Islam HATES about us. How could a religion that reduces women and girls to mere chattel and considers all non-Muslims to be second-class citizens conceivably "celebrate" a non-Muslim society that believes all humans are created equal in God's sight? It's laughable. Yet our leaders and the media-types have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. Are they that stupid or have they been intimidated into acquiescence? New York City already has more than 100 mosques. We've already proven that we really are an open, tolerant society. To say with a straight face that this is Islam's celebration of America's religious tolerance would be like the Southern Baptists building a church in Amsterdam's infamous Red Light District to "celebrate" Holland's sexual promiscuity. It doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. I'll tell you why the Muslims insist on putting a 13-story mega-mosque (which, by the way, will eerily resemble a World Trade Center tower) within earshot of Ground Zero. It will be nothing less than a traditional act of Islamic triumphalism. It's a symbol of conquest. Although the Muslims have changed the name of the proposed structure to "Park 51 Mosque," the campaign to build it is still called "The Cordoba Initiative." For all of you I'm going to share with you a short history lesson about the symbolism of "Cordoba" in the Islamic mind. And trust me, the Muslims are big on symbolism. The world should know that the ‘Cordoba Initiative,’ the New York City based organization desiring to construct a massive Islamic house of prayer at ‘Ground Zero,’ has posted on its website, a peculiar and disingenuous statement indicating the desire to bring back the atmosphere of, “interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.” I point this out because contemporary scholarship has clearly demonstrated that there was no ‘harmony’ or ‘prosperity’ for non-Muslims in Islamic Spain. The Cordoba Initiative is attempting to revisit some sort of mythical “tolerance and respect” which never existed. What is irrefutable is that living under Islam, the non-Muslim population was always mandated to submit to Islam, accept discriminatory laws, and make payment of a mandatory Quranic tax imposed upon every non-Muslim. For a period of about 800 years, most of Spain was ruled by Muslims and this area was known as ‘Al-Andalus.’ Islamic rule ended in 1492, when the city of Granada, the last Muslim kingdom in Western Europe, capitulated to the Spanish Catholics. The Cordoba Initiative is an organization whose very name makes reference to what was, 1,000 years ago, one of the world’s most advanced cities, Cordoba, Al-Andalus (Spain). This was a city that was politically and religiously dominated by Islam, and a city that was conquered by jihad (holy war). Today, there are Islamic groups such as Al-Qaeda that have a dream of seeing a pan-Islamic world that would extend from old Al-Andalus (Spain). This is based upon Islam’s principle of dar-al-Islam, which means a world where Islamic sovereignty prevails over the citizenry. Dar-al-Islam is attained through jihad and the media is replete with Al- Qaeda’s calls for jihad and their claims to Al-Andalus and its major cities such as Cordoba.
Clearly, Islamic Cordoba was once a city where a number of intellectual Muslims such as Averroes (Ibn-Rushd), influenced European thought with Arab philosophy related to the scientific teachings of Aristotle. In mathematics, the Arabs built upon the foundations of Greek mathematicians. At one point there were dozens of free schools in Cordoba for the education of poor Arabs and at some point there existed some 600 mosques. However, even with all of this scholastic and societal grandeur, the route to get to such a point of magnificence was through violent warfare.
Not only were successive battles for Spanish cities bloody, but desiring more than Spain--the Arabs declared a jihad against France, then crossed the Pyrenees, and in successive swarms spread over the southern regions of the French countryside, slaughtering the Christians by thousands, and burning their churches to the ground before being halted. We must remember that a practice associated with conquering Islamic armies was the construction of a mosque at the location where their triumphant battle was won. Thus, this modern Islamic organization is seeking to build a mosque at the site of 9/11 attack—an attack which was carried out by 19 Muslim hijackers who considered their mission holy war.
Insomuch, it is this man's opinion that a Muslim house of prayer that would be cemented in the ashes of catastrophe at the foot of New York's lost Twin Towers would be a symbolic victory flag for Muslims who seek the destruction of America. Further, it is my honest opinion that no matter how the construction of a mosque at ‘Ground Zero’ may be perceived by well-meaning Americans, the construction of a mosque on the spot where Al-Qaeda brought jihad to the United States will unquestionably represent victory to the worldwide forces of Radical Islam. What bothers me, though, is the double standard. Diners at a senior citizens center in Georgia can't publicly say grace over a federally-subsidized meal. The Left says that amounts to a government endorsement of religion. But the President can make a pronouncement defining Islamic theology at a Ramadan dinner in the White House, and that ISN'T a government endorsement of religion?
So, in other words, Liberals, Progressives, and MSNBC Pravda worshippers, if the Big Bad Wolf tells you that he won't eat you?
Why do the aetheists sound just like the Islamic Muslims?
I can see the light of Jesus
I can see the light of Jesus shining from your words. It's as if he spoke the words through you. You love like Jesus loved all. You are the epitome of what it is to be like Christ a true Christian.
..."Why would a religion
..."Why would a religion founded on fealty to one law, one leader, and one god -- a religion whose modern defining characteristic is its intolerance of all other faiths and traditions"....
Like the Christians?
Do you want to go into the
Do you want to go into the history of christian behavior ? I mean seriously, picking and choosing like that would never point out Christians engaging in the slaughter of non christian men women, and children, by the millions.
I mean, just look at Richard "the Lionhearted" at Acre for an example (or perhaps the behavior of Christians toward indigenous peoples in the Americas or throughout the world).
I would like to point out that the site in question was already in use as a site for Muslim worship at the time of the attack. In fact there were Muslim worship facilities at the World Trade Center itself.
On of the most Un-American things I have ever seen is people arguing against property owners practicing their faith on their private property. It sounds as if those opposed to the project are more in line with the sorts of religious extremism that led to the bombing of the WTC than anyone else. I mean if you are arguing against the constitution and everything it stands for, then you are against what America stands for.
Why can't we be inclusive
Why can't we be inclusive rather than exclusive? I am so tired of people trying to use past bad behavior (much of which is distorted or exagerrated at that) to justify suppressing Christian expression today. And I am tired of people seeking to redefine the 1st Amendment in order to make it mean the opposite of what it was intended. Anyone with the least ability to read and think clearly cannot miss that all of the founding fathers were at least respectful of religious freedom, if not openly religious themselves. They clearly and constantly practiced and welcomed public expressions of religion, which were everywhere in those days, though they did see the problem with the state endorsing one faith over another. Religious freedom was, in fact, the primary reason that many came to America.
I support public expressions of all religious faiths along with Atheism. Let's allow the WTC cross, which gave hope to millions in the aftermath of a massive loss. And let's also allow other religious and Atheistic responses on this site (including Muslim, since there were Muslim victims). This is truly the American way.
Interesting that you would
Interesting that you would express that you are tired only of people commenting on past Christian misbehavior when such only came into this discussion in response to Christian commentary on past Muslim behavior....and yet you dont seem to have any problem with that.
Also of note in your post is:
"though they (the founding fathers) did see the problem with the state endorsing one faith over another."
Since that is exactly the problem here. The government is taking tax dollars from everyone to pay for a religious symbol of one sect of one religion. An item taken to a Catholic Church and altered to fit their branch of Christianity's symbolism for display.
By putting this up you're
By putting this up you're favoring one religion and forcing others to come put up their billboards. Put up an nice plaque with no religion and a nice passage. Put the cross on a church near the site on PRIVATE land.
This cross is not something
This cross is not something that was brought in to the site, but was found on the site and became a part of its history. It is simply intolerant for non-Christians to want to banish all Christian symbolism from the public sphere. You who are offended by this need to get over it! There is plenty that we are offended by but tolerate. Again, I have no absolutely problem with other religious expression being included in the memorial. But to ban all of it means that the anti-religious people are illegitimately imposing their view on the rest of us.
I'm not offended by the
I'm not offended by the symbol or the religion. If Christians want to advertise their "business" on public land then remove their tax exempt status and I'll be fine with it. Pay to play otherwise remove the free advertising. It was a part of history till they shaped it into advertisement.
The item was taken to a
The item was taken to a Catholic Church where it was altered to more closely resemble symbols specific to their faith. Had they left it in its original condition there would be no justification for excluding it as far as I am concerned.
I do agree that if all faiths were being included in the allocation of government funds at the memorial the situation would be fine. But, of course, money has only been allocated for a religious symbol created and blessed by the Catholic Church.
I highly doubt that the piece
I highly doubt that the piece in question was altered, as I remember seeing it when it was first uncovered. It was probably simply cleaned up. After all, the significance of the piece is that it was something found on the site, not something created from the wreckage.
Amendment I Congress shall
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Some of you need to read this again along with the Supreme Court Cases since it was written.
The Catholic Heretic
This is yet another example
This is yet another example of the mean-spiritedness, narrow-mindedness and intolerance of some Atheists. I have no problem with a form of Atheist expression at the WTC site, as all relevant faiths and belief-systems should be welcome. Regardless of how the SCOTUS has twisted the 1st Amendment over the years, allowing a religious symbol on public land in no way amounts to an establishment of religion. You people who think that it does need to study a little history. Establishment of religion is when the state makes a particular religion the official religion (with the attending advantages of this), pure and simple.
Nothing could be further from the intent of the founding fathers than the modern notion that religion expression does not belong in the public sphere. Anyone with the slightest ability to think and read their writings can easily see this. You who want to exclude all religious expression from the public sphere are freedom-denying and history-denying fascists who have no respect for the free exercise of religion (that part of the 1st Amendment that most people conveniently forget today). That is, except for their own "religion" (whether you call it Secular Humanism or Science or anything else), since everyone has their own set of unknowable beliefs that constitute a de facto religion.
This is especially true of the Atheist belief that no God exists. This is truly blind faith because this cannot possibly be known. In fact, we assert that everyone already knows that The One True God does exist, but we are also naturally-inclined to suppress this knowledge and rebel against our Maker and Sustainer. But God calls us to turn from this and to seek, listen to and give this God the glory due His Name.
We are not speaking of,
We are not speaking of, "allowing a religious symbol on public land," here. We are speaking of the government using public funds to display a religious symbol for one sect of one faith.
When you say, "the attending advantages," of an established religion, do you mean such things as exclusive access to government funding for display of religious symbols at an historic site with importance to many faiths, as well as those without religious affiliation ?
Because that is what is going on here. The government is paying exclusively for the display of a symbol created and blessed by the Catholic church. Money is not being allocated to display the symbols of any other faith.
How much more, "established," can it be than limiting public funding to only one specific chosen faith ?
I hate to burst your bubble
I hate to burst your bubble on one of your points, but ALL Christian sects use the same symbol as each other, just as all Jewish sects use the same symbol as other Jewish sects, just as ALL Muslim sects use the same symbol as each other.
This is a clear and blatant support, using federal funds, of a SINGLE religion over all other religions and philosophies practiced and (according to the US Constitution) supposed to be respected equally.
This cross is NOT in compliance as it is a memorial established with government (secular) funds, not sectarian (religious) funds.
As you said, "How much more 'establishment' can it be than limiting public funding to only one, specific, chosen faith?"
The evidence of this violation of the separation clause is about as damning as it gets.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Here's a quick one for you.
Here's a quick one for you. If the government may not establish a state religion and Atheism is not a religion then where do they get standing to make themselves superior to religion of the state?
There is no "religion of the
There is no "religion of the state." With respect to objecting, this is an action any citizen can take irrespective of their beliefs or lack thereof.
Americans for the Separation of Church and State has several christians and people from other religions as members who recognize that government should never have a role supporting or interfering with the religious practices of private citizens.
This is not a question of "superiority." It is one of neutrality. You keep assuming that neutrality means atheism. If government supported atheism, they would be directly acting against religious groups, which is also unconstitutional.
I was fine with the use as a
I was fine with the use as a centerpiece, until I read what all had been done to it to "religify" it. I was under the impression it was debris in the form of a cross (not crucifix, mind you). I haven't seen it, but apparently they placed it like a crucifix, similar to a capital "T". I wonder how the Christians would have reacted if it was placed catecorner, leaning on one of the short arms. I can imagine the outcry.
I hope the idiot from Media
I hope the idiot from Media Matters (who called the Navy seals "gutless") shows up at these demonstrations. I know there have been Navy seals there and I would love to see him call the Navy seals "gutless to their faces.
Media Matters won't matter too much longer.
Yes, nothing shows how gutsy
Yes, nothing shows how gutsy they are quite like beating up a journalist who points out their lies and hypocrisy.
Great irrelevant comment...
Great irrelevant comment... as usual Roy.
I see your point, Stockball.
I see your point, Stockball. How does one "bless" an inanimate object? It's not as though one can unexpectedly remember it's birthday, and thus make it's day, is it? Perhaps they held a little ceremony to bless God, i.e. to thank Him for ordaining that this shape did appear, where and when it did.
Personally, if I visited Ground Zero, I'd have preferred to be able to buy a postcard of how the cross looked where it was found, before the Romist idolators went and spoilt it by Latinising it. Typical!
I don't suppose these spoilsport atheist zealots would even be content to allow me to buy a postcard like that, from an itinerant street vendor, if he strayed onto publicly-owned land. They seem not to have much respect for freedom, or to understand that the doctrine of the separation of church and state doesn't actually require the government to stamp out all forms of superstition from coast to coast.
That falling debris formed the shape of a crude cross shape is not as remarkable an event as it would have been if falling debris had formed (say) the shape of a star and crescent, a star of David, or a pentagram. I often see crosses in the sky, when two jet planes flying (say) east to west, and north to south, have passed, but I've never seen anything more remarkable in the clouds than the face of the character on the front of the old Mad books. In the context, I believe that I was right to take it as a sign from God that I had correctly discerned his leading for the calling that I have from Him. (I bet you think I'm joking, don't you?)
I did find the following story rather touching:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Richard_Dawkins%27_face_found_on_tortilla
If you forward that story today to ten people from your address book, nothing special is likely to happen within five days, but if you don't, nothing else special, and not nearly as nice, is likely to happen within five days either.
It is not time to establish
It is not time to establish Atheism as the State Religion even if they say it is.
Reject their premise and argument in favor of their religion being the only religion acceptable to the Constitution. There should be no prohibition on the expression of Religion on Public Property any more than there should be an established state religion.
It is only through ignorance and propaganda that atheists perpetuate this myth.
Ross, what myth?? What
Ross, what myth?? What ignorance? i see more of that in your posting than any atheist.
Again, separation of church and state is a part of the constitution. Keep this "cross" off public property and out of public funding. If the religious group wanting this cross added wants to put it in a privately funded building, that's just fine. Otherwise, you have no legitimate agrument here, Ross.
The First Amendment is
The First Amendment is inclusive, not exclusive when it comes to religion.
Adopting Atheism is denying the free exercise of other religions and is establishing a State Religion.
Atheists have no legitimate argument to prohibit the free exercise of religions by anyone.
Can you give any examples of
Can you give any examples of an atheist prohibiting the free exercise of religion? I can give several examples of Christians trying to prohibit the free exercise of other religion but I'm not aware of any examples of it being done by atheists.
You are welcome to exercise your religion as you see fit. However you are constitutionally forbidden to write your religious beliefs into law or use our tax dollars to prosteletyze. That is all we are trying to prevent.
What world are you from
What world are you from again? Fantasy land? Religion is a private matter, period, it has no place in politics. If you want to include religion then fine, lets mandate church attendence, lets cut medical funding because well people are going to heaven anyways so what does it matter if they die or not?
Lets make it illegal to say your an atheist, a secularist, a humanist, lets ban all people from anything other then (insert typical American superiority religon here) from entering the country, lets teach creationism and advocate "converting" non-believers, lets ban questionable music? how about your computer? it's not necssary to your religion is it, how about your ipod, your car? How about it making it illegal to donate anything under a set amount of dollars.
I mean lets face it if you love god then you'd have to be willing to donate your entire life savings to the church right? Last time I checked atheists and humanists weren't supressing your freedom of speech or the freedom of practicing your religion in your own home, or attending church but that could just be me and my un-moralistic atheist devil loving self talking, Church/State seperation is a neccesity.
Ross80477, you have made it
Ross80477, you have made it painfully clear that you have no clue about the law, specifically the first amendment, or the intents of the country's founding fathers. Learn the difference between "atheist" and "secular" but first learn your own country's history.
Atheism is not a "religion."
Atheism is not a "religion." And then you mention ignorance. That's kind of ironic.
And that's why Marx never got
And that's why Marx never got to the end of Hegel's Dialectic, but I digress.
Myth? There are over 30
Myth? There are over 30 supreme court cases dealing with this issue and laying down the rules. Maybe you should trying reading some objective history that doesn't have a political bent.
Neutrality is not "pro-atheism."
Exactly. Why do so many
Exactly. Why do so many people misinterpret "religious freedom" to mean "special rights for Christians"??
@Richard Donovan: It was not
@Richard Donovan: It was not about religion. I can't believe at this point some Americans are still saying this. It was about greed, individualism, capitalism, the exploitation of poor countries. We need to stop using religion as a scapegoat so that we can cling to our money and jobs and shopping malls. Causes of division: greed, rage, pride, envy, lust (even if you use porn in private, Richard), sloth, and gluttony. Any legitimate religion warns about these causes. People just fail to comply.
"By October 2001, Franciscan
"By October 2001, Franciscan (Catholic) Friar, Brian Jordan ‘blessed’ this piece of building debris" - I'm sorry, but in my opinion Brian Jordan is an idiot and it's still just a piece of building debris, not a blessed relic or whatever the Catholics would call it at this point...
(comment moved)
(comment moved)
what exactly makes him an
what exactly makes him an idiot? I don't get your point. Again, if you don't believe in blessings and relics, the sacred in the material, then why the heck should all this matter to you? If most of the families of the victims (so far I've heard of none) aren't complaining about it, what's your problem then?
"if you don't believe in
"if you don't believe in blessings and relics, the sacred in the material, then why the heck should all this matter to you?" Because it's my tax dollars going to promote your religion which is unconstitutional. That's why it matters to me.
He's an idiot if he thinks
He's an idiot if he thinks blessing trash makes it something special. And it doesn't matter to me - I have no problem with them placing debris there and calling it a memorial or whatever. I don't think that placing a "blessing" on scrap metal somehow makes it a religious artifact!
Because you're not Christian
Because you're not Christian no one is expecting you to believe that blessings do anything. It doesn't seem intelligent to say that the blessing does nothing when you don't believe in it in the first place. Check the priest's credential. He's no idiot.
I'm completely open to you
I'm completely open to you showing me in the Bible where it teaches you that blessing debris makes it a religious relic or whatever he's trying to do.
You posted a semi intelligent
You posted a semi intelligent comment in regards to the reason 9/11 happened in the first place then here you are questioning something that should be obvious. Tax payer funded objects erected on public land shouldn't be decided upon solely by victims of anything. Religion doesn't belong in government.
The majority of tax payers
The majority of tax payers are affiliated with religion (80% with Christianity as a matter of fact). The victims are tax payers. Of course they have a say in what goes up in public. Religion will always have a place in government. Government comes from religion. Especially in the US Chrisitianity will always play a major role in government. Things aren't as obvious as you think.