Atheists Lawsuit Over Cross at 9/11 Museum

[antonio]

So exactly how and the fuck does a single cross effect them in anyway?

Indeed that's a real mistery. Before Atheist orgs started to spring everywhere (even commie parties used to have a more serious, ellegant and respectable approach on their official Atheism) I would bet that so almost fisiological cross repulsion had to be necessarely matter of fantastic tales about creatures of the night.

[Argyll]

I think they should take down the cross because there could have been non christian/abrahamic people who died there. It's only fair. But other than that, I guess it should stay.

[Quasimodem]

I wasn’t expecting such an emotional response.

Yes, and this was made for what? Freedom of religion, etc. And yes, the people that made these laws wanted freedom of religion, which is why they (pilgrims, which were Christian) fleed Europe in order to escape religious persecution. Perhaps they were doing this so every one could have freedom of religion, like them as well.

Well yeah, that’s certainly a big part of it.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

(from a letter to the Danbury baptists)

What you posted isn't contradicting what I said. They did want this country to be founded on Christianity. You can look at history and see that.

Let me remind you about what you said. Remember that everyone can see exactly what you wrote.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.

Yeah, I think that quite clearly contradicts what you wrote.

By the way, the “one nation under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance, which you alluded to, was introduced in the 1950s.

The fact that they wanted freedom for every one doesn't dispute the fact that they wished for this country to be a Christian nation. If you are going to attempt to tell me that people fleeing from religious persecution didn't want the new land which they were fleeing to, to be founded on the religion which they were sacrificing so much to practice, then you sir are a fucking retard that lacks a brain, common sense, and the knowledge of American history.

I think you’re the one who (ironically) lacks knowledge of American history if you think the “one nation under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance was there from the beginning. Also, your “argument” here is fallacious, because it’s circular reasoning. The conclusion you’re trying to justify is that the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that promoted Christianity, yet your “support” for this is that it’s retarded and ignorant to say that the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that promoted Christianity! The FF’s envisioned a religiously neutral government, despite the religions of the members of government (many of them were in fact deists, but that’s irrelevant to this point anyway). Hence:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

the First Amendment of the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But, this writer didn't know our earlier history, or if he knew it, he kept quiet about it.

You mean Thomas Jefferson?

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Before the Constitution, each of the American colonies codified into law every one of the Ten Commandments. Every one of the colonies firmly established that its laws and customs were based on the Judeo-Christian faith of the Colonists.

Source?

Ah yes, here it is. Word for word. The source is Chuck Norris!

Before the Constitution, each of the American colonies codified into law every one of the Ten Commandments. Every one of the colonies firmly established that its laws and customs were based on the Judeo-Christian faith of the Colonists.

So this statement may be true, or it may not, but where does it come from anyway? What’s the primary source? However, regardless of this, the Constitution dictates that the government make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Also, it’s interesting to note that the first four commandments violate freedom of religion.

Perhaps we weren't founded as a Christian nation when the 13 colonies came together as states, but we certainly started out as 13 Christian colonies, and have become a nation of Christians over the past 235 years.

Not all of the colonies were the same in this regard. Some did not have an established church (Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Rhode Island for instance) while some did. The Federal constitution, though, explicitly prohibits establishing any particular religion, as you’ve already seen.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1781: "It is God who gave us life and liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson also wrote: "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man." And: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." And: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

There are three aspects to religion: The metaphysical, the moral, and the motivational. While Jefferson practiced a moral aspect of Christianity (as per your second quote), he rejected the metaphysical aspect of Christianity, and was a deist in this regard. Did you know that Jefferson wrote a version of the bible with the supernatural aspects removed?

What I wrote previously about America being founded on Christianity has nothing to do with the topic, I was just ranting. You though seem to get a bit bitchy about what I wrote.

It has everything to do with the topic. This group made a claim that the “cross” exhibit violated the First Amendment. Also, I’m sure that everyone will notice that the bitchy one here is you, not me. Remember that everyone can read what the both of us wrote. It doesn’t just go away.

Let me guess.. You are a supporter of the cunts that are raising havoc at a museum dedicated to the tragedy of 9/11 and all of the innocent lives that were lost? Well sir, good for you indeed. If a cross in a large museum pisses you off so much you must have some sort of fucking problem. When you see the cross do you begin to growl and bite civilians? Does your skin burn when holy water is sprinkled on it? Lol, morons..

Wrong. Well, that's far from the first time in this thread that you've been wrong. I don’t find it an issue that a couple of intersecting steel beams (which weren’t built as a religious symbol) are put on display. It’s part of the structure of the building and is not necessarily a religious symbol, therefore I don’t think it would violate the First Amendment.

[Boudica]

I wasn’t expecting such an emotional response.




Well yeah, that’s certainly a big part of it.



(from a letter to the Danbury baptists)




Let me remind you about what you said. Remember that everyone can see exactly what you wrote.





Yeah, I think that quite clearly contradicts what you wrote.

By the way, the “one nation under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance, which you alluded to, was introduced in the 1950s.



I think you’re the one who (ironically) lacks knowledge of American history if you think the “one nation under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance was there from the beginning. Also, your “argument” here is fallacious, because it’s circular reasoning. The conclusion you’re trying to justify is that the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that promoted Christianity, yet your “support” for this is that it’s retarded and ignorant to say that the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that promoted Christianity! The FF’s envisioned a religiously neutral government, despite the religions of the members of government (many of them were in fact deists, but that’s irrelevant to this point anyway). Hence:





You mean Thomas Jefferson?





Source?

Ah yes, here it is. Word for word. The source is Chuck Norris!



So this statement may be true, or it may not, but where does it come from anyway? What’s the primary source? However, regardless of this, the Constitution dictates that the government make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Also, it’s interesting to note that the first four commandments violate freedom of religion.



Not all of the colonies were the same in this regard. Some did not have an established church (Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Rhode Island for instance) while some did. The Federal constitution, though, explicitly prohibits establishing any particular religion, as you’ve already seen.




There are three aspects to religion: The metaphysical, the moral, and the motivational. While Jefferson practiced a moral aspect of Christianity (as per your second quote), he rejected the metaphysical aspect of Christianity, and was a deist in this regard. Did you know that Jefferson wrote a version of the bible with the supernatural aspects removed?



It has everything to do with the topic. This group made a claim that the “cross” exhibit violated the First Amendment. Also, I’m sure that everyone will notice that the bitchy one here is you, not me. Remember that everyone can read what the both of us wrote. It doesn’t just go away.



Wrong. Well, that's far from the first time in this thread that you've been wrong. I don’t find it an issue that a couple of intersecting steel beams (which weren’t built as a religious symbol) are put on display. It’s part of the structure of the building and is not necessarily a religious symbol, therefore I don’t think it would violate the First Amendment.

Dude your post is full of shit. It's not even worth arguing, it's so pathetic. You're a fucking Canadian, so it makes sense I guess. Gtfo and go eat some cheese, eh?
while you are eating your cheese I advise you once again to learn about America's history and it's colonials, and to also shove the unreliable shit you read off of google up your cheesey ass, eh? It'll do you good learning the country that your country is a bitch to's history wouldn't it? Eh? Fucking Canadians man, never fail to entertain me.

[Quasimodem]

Dude your post is full of shit. It's not even worth arguing, it's so pathetic. You're a fucking Canadian, so it makes sense I guess. Gtfo and go eat some cheese, eh?

1. Do great impression of Tourettes Guy.
2. Be corrected on your own country's history by a foreigner.
3. Instead of offering a proper refutation, throw out an ad hominem.
4. ???
5. Profit.

while you are eating your cheese I advise you once again to learn about America's history and it's colonials, and to also shove the unreliable shit you read off of google up your cheesey ass, eh? It'll do you good learning the country that your country is a bitch to's history wouldn't it? Eh? Fucking Canadians man, never fail to entertain me.

I posted quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the US constitution. You, on the other hand, read your information from where exactly? A bathroom stall wall at your local Burger King?

[Boudica]

1. Do great impression of Tourettes Guy.
2. Be corrected on your own country's history by a foreigner.
3. Instead of offering a proper refutation, throw out an ad hominem.
4. ???
5. Profit.



I posted quotes from Thomas Jefferson and the US constitution. You, on the other hand, read your information from where exactly? A bathroom stall wall at your local Burger King?

Yes, Canadian, the fact that you posted a few things that the constitution states and quoted something from Thomas Jefferson as well means that you won, I am the loser .. You completely proved me wrong, you have won a topic which has been debated by opposing parties for years. Yay for you, you have truly made more of a contribution to mankind then any other Canadian has before, I actually mean this with out the slightest hint of sarcasm

[Star Valley]

Religion and Politics are too controversial and touchy to discuss but one thing must be said.
This is the kind of behavior that builds up resentment and misconceptions of atheists in America. The 9/11 Museum does not belong to the government, but it belongs the people who lost their lives, the people who are effected greatly, and the people who suffered during the fatal day. Ground zero belongs to the public. Atheists do not have religious beliefs and they have the right to their own freedom of thought, but they (the people suing) most certainly do not have the right to impose their ideals unto others who are religious and have a strongly founded belief system, just as society does not pressure or try to persuade atheists.
Visiting the site is optional, no atheist or non-believer of Jesus are forced to be a part of the site; the cross as a symbol is a symbol to bless and respect the dead and has all good intentions, it should not be changed or tainted in its neutral message. The census will be sure that other religions do not have an issue with the message the cross is sending.

[SilverKnight]

So exactly how and the fuck does a single cross effect them in anyway?

Economically : Somehow, it's being re-located with tax payer money (that not only comes from Christians but other beliefs and non-religious people).
Physically: not at all offcourse.
Mentally/ Symbolically: Absolutely, it's like placing a cross in the graveyard of a Muslim or Jew.

Are people not supposed to respect other peoples religions?

Yes they are I agree. And I do respect people beliefs as long as they don't breach my rights.

Why does it effect these fucks when they have no religion?

Again. Atheist victims and their families where also affected by this tragedy, and seeing a cross being placed on their graveyard isn't nice at all for many folks.

Would they be happier if there was a gigantic blank canvas which defines an atheists "religion"?

Us atheists (many) aren't here to promote atheism with symbols. Why would we? have you ever seeing any Atheist symbols imposed in national memorial sites,historic or public places? . offcourse not.

You don't respect Christianity, you don't respect jack shit if you are to say that hanging a cross in memorial of many of the victims which were Christians is wrong. Touchy feely leftist cunts like you piss me off. You obviously have 0 respect for the victims, and your claim of respecting Christianity is a joke.

Considering your foul words you seem to have no respect for me whatsoever, and I haven't disrespected you either to begin, have I ?.
Btw I'm not a leftists as you claim, I'm a moderate Atheist with a touch of justice and rationality, open minded but cautious. I do respect the victims I have distant friends my family and I knew that died in the towers and for the rest of the victims and their family I do feel touched as well. But as a sad this event had people from all different backgrounds and it's isn't right to place a cross in ground zero. Atheist are just pointing out their concerns, and it's that America is turning away from secularism. This is just my opinion (you should respect) and I'm not imposing anything on Christians, let the courts decide and the power of the American Constitution.

Edit: You are one of the morons that are touchy feely about religion and tolerance and bla bla bla, how do you think that the victim's families feel when there is a fucking mosque (which represents the religion/people which caused 9/11) right up the fucking road? Do you not take things like this into account? I guess it's just Christianity that you target huh?

Yeezee calm down ... I also agree that a mosque shouldn't be constructed near a site with such significance. I don't support any religions whatsoever this should be a secular country (witch it isn't apparently !) , and I'm not speccially against Christianity. In fact I rather see Christians being the majority in this country then Muslims for various reasons.

Religion and Politics are too controversial and touchy to discuss but one thing must be said.
This is the kind of behavior that builds up resentment and misconceptions of atheists in America. The 9/11 Museum does not belong to the government, but it belongs the people who lost their lives, the people who are effected greatly, and the people who suffered during the fatal day. Ground zero belongs to the public. Atheists do not have religious beliefs and they have the right to their own freedom of thought, but they (the people suing) most certainly do not have the right to impose their ideals unto others who are religious and have a strongly founded belief system, just as society does not pressure or try to persuade atheists.
Visiting the site is optional, no atheist or non-believer of Jesus are forced to be a part of the site; the cross as a symbol is a symbol to bless and respect the dead and has all good intentions, it should not be changed or tainted in its neutral message. The census will be sure that other religions do not have an issue with the message the cross is sending.

Got to agree with you in that part agree. It belongs to the people who died. But then when we look back at where this cross will be located it's a place in one of the most important cities in the world, visited by millions hard not to be seeing by anyone.

[Boudica]

Economically : Somehow, it's being re-located with tax payer money (that not only comes from Christians but other beliefs and non-religious people)
Physically: not at all offcourse.
Mentally/ Symbolically: Absolutely, it's like placing a cross in the graveyard of a Muslim or Jew.


Yes they are I agree. And I do respect people beliefs as long as they don't breach my rights.

Again. Atheist victims and their families where also affected by this tragedy, and seeing a cross being placed on their graveyard isn't nice at all for many folks.



Us atheists (many) aren't here to promote atheism with symbols. Why would we? have you ever seeing any Atheist symbols imposed in national memorial sites,historic or public places? . offcourse not.


Considering your foul words you seem to have no respect for me whatsoever, and I haven't disrespected you either to begin, have I ?.
Btw I'm not a leftists as you claim, I'm a moderate Atheist with a touch of justice and rationality, open minded but cautious. I do respect the victims I have distant friends my family and I knew that died in the towers and for the rest of the victims and their family I do feel touched as well. But as a sad this event had people from all different backgrounds and it's isn't right to place a cross in ground zero. Atheist are just pointing out their concerns, and it's that America is turning away from secularism. This is just my opinion (you should respect) and I'm not imposing anything on Christians, let the courts decide and the power of the American Constitution.



Yeezee calm down ... I also agree that a mosque shouldn't be constructed near a site with such significance. I don't support any religions whatsoever this should be a secular country (witch it isn't apparently !) , and I'm not speccially against Christianity. In fact I rather see Christians being the majority in this country then Muslims for various reasons.





Got to agree with you in that part agree. It belongs to the people who died. But then when we look back at where this cross will be located it's a place in one of the most important cities in the world, visited by millions hard to not see by anyone.

Indeed what I said earlier was a bit too harsh. It is on a personal level. Some one close died that day, they were Catholic. It touched a soft spot because their family is already grieving enough as it is, and now this is going on. I take back the words that I said, many of the things in which you listed above do make sense, it touched a spot, that's all.

[SilverKnight]

Indeed what I said earlier was a bit too harsh. It is on a personal level. Some one close died that day, they were Catholic. It touched a soft spot because their family is already grieving enough as it is, and now this is going on. I take back the words that I said, many of the things in which you listed above do make sense, it touched a spot, that's all.

Sorry to you as well if I hurted you in a way..I understand and I even considered that it could have hurted you because of the lost of a family/ friend, so no biggy. The way this is going in America is going to turn into a religious bloodshed one of this days, hopefully we all follow into peaceful terms.