Atheists Lawsuit Over Cross at 9/11 Museum

[BeerBaron]

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.

.......

Originally Posted by Boudica
The Founding Fathers envisioned a government that would promote and encourage Christianity.

LOL you officially fail 5th grade US history, maybe if you're nice the idiot Canadians will teach it to you, since you obviously don't know it.

Here's some 5th grade printable worksheets for you on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

http://www.tlsbooks.com/fifthgradeworksheets.htm

[Boudica]

.......



LOL you officially fail 5th grade US history, maybe if you're nice the idiot Canadians will teach it to you, since you obviously don't know it.

Here's some 5th grade printable worksheets for you on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

http://www.tlsbooks.com/fifthgradeworksheets.htm

Ugh, you are obviously missing the fucking point. This debate is dead, thanks for trying to revive it, but it's still dead. You don't understand my point obviously. I'll be sure to do my home work Mr. Cheesehead.

[antonio]

Absolutely, it's like placing a cross in the graveyard of a Muslim or Jew.

No reasonable member of any of such religions would revolting against it. Probably that was the default behaviour on the lands of Christianity during centuries in order to show some respect for a dead being buried outside population, to try to draw a cross or to make it with two sticks. Anycase , at Occidental lands, still is a sign of respect on any circunstances, that's a rampant evidence you're trying to distort.

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.

Assuming you're talking about a exiguous minority...isnt nice for the way they're forcing their minds into see something wrong on the graveyard cross. It's like a kind of paranoia, not healthy at all.

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?

Removing a cross from a public place, at least whilst people still have memory of it, it's also a symbol, or two: the visual absence plus the symbolic action of removing it. BTW a very disrespectul ones.

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.

A moderate Atheist would never mind about such questions.

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.

Although you're not meaning this, the only respectable objetions against religious symbols would be of aestetical matter. Maybe radical Atheists dont want to confess their antibelief is just an excuse to hide their dislike for two line segments intersected at square angles. I dont know why: it would be a more respectable stand.

[_______]

the cross is a beautiful and ancient symbol far older than christianity

[Magister Eckhart]

I think they forget the extreme importance of the cross to people who lived through the event:



Not shaped by human hands, but by the event. Or have they forgotten this? Whether one believes or not, the tremendous emotional and spiritual importance of this symbol is not debatable: to take it out of the monument to please a few godless whiners is an affront to all the people who died and all the people who lost. If these people gave half a damn about the people who died, they'd never open their mouths. All they are is petulant children craving attention any way they can get it, like the majority of militant atheists.

[Star Valley]

I think they forget the extreme importance of the cross to people who lived through the event:



Not shaped by human hands, but by the event. Or have they forgotten this? Whether one believes or not, the tremendous emotional and spiritual importance of this symbol is not debatable: to take it out of the monument to please a few godless whiners is an affront to all the people who died and all the people who lost. If these people gave half a damn about the people who died, they'd never open their mouths. All they are is petulant children craving attention any way they can get it, like the majority of militant atheists.

They (anyone pulling up lawsuits) should be using this wasted energy fighting against the treatment of Fire fighters who are now slowly dying with cancer or lung infections because of moving people out of the debris that day, the Fire fighters who the government refuses to pay for their health care, the national guards all over New York City with unnecessarily pulled out giant machine guns around common people, the cold unfriendly Police, the pat-downs of children in airports, the legislature constantly debating how to finally use Ground Zero as a visiting site, the Media turning 9/11 into a constant reenactment and opportunity for ratings; all these things do not allow people who have died and now suffer after 9/11 to mourn like a normal human being and move as quickly with a peaceful heart. This cross has been one of the most symbolic touches of humanity to Ground Zero, which is really all we could ask for. It is a good start to a long round for those who have died/are dying and suffered, for them to mourn in peace for the future.

[Kadu]

You completely proved me wrong

He did actually...


This was your initial premise:

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

And then he refuted by quoting the first ammendment and also Thomas Jefferson a founding father, and one of the drafters of the US Constitution. In these quotes it's clear that the state and religion are two things apart.

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.

Notice the reciprocity of these two acts "make no law"/"free exercise".

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

An observation of Thomas Jefferson on the US Constitution, in this particular example, the first ammendment.

you have won a topic which has been debated by opposing parties for years.

Maybe a theme of debate in Bill O'Reilly's no spin zone, however the Supreme court has always ruled accordingly to the US Constitution and Federal law.

[CelticTemplar]

Feck 'em. They have nothing else to complain about is their problem.

[AussieScott]

Seems more like atheists trying to preach atheism to me. They have a right to be offended, they also have the right to STFU.

[Argyll]

the cross is a beautiful and ancient symbol far older than christianity

Celts actually used the cross way before the Romans did.