Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
Ohruhen
Junior Member (Idle past 4602 days)
Posts: 11
From: Nottinghamshire, UK
Joined: 07-30-2011


Message 91 of 479 (627357)
08-02-2011 7:47 AM


The issue here between the two sides seems to be a difference of moral stances.
Catholic Scientist seems to be looking at the how the Cross helped a grouo of rescue workers, and their actions and what gave them the strength makes the Cross enough to include. I guess that if any other religious symbol was found at the time and gave strength to a rescue effort, he'd support that symbol too. I haven't heard of any others found, so that is likely why only the Cross has been mentioned.
Now the other side, maintained by enough of you that I won't bother naming, appear to be taking a more consequencial look at the moral dilema. Puting up the Cross and no other may well not be intended to show religeous favouritism, but this isn't just about intention, it's also about consequences. It's easy to see how visitors may take the Cross to mean more than the stated intention.
For me, the consequences are more important.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 10:35 AM Ohruhen has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 479 (627387)
08-02-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 7:47 AM


Hello Ohruhen (what the heck does that mean?, is it pronounced Oh-Ruin, or Oru-Hen, or what?),
Welcome to EvC. I suppose you intended to do a general reply, instead of reply to a specific post. That's a good way to have your posts missed I did happen to notice my name though...
The issue here between the two sides seems to be a difference of moral stances.
Not really for me. This is about a lawsuit and I'm taking a legal stance. Even if I felt that, morally, the cross would have to be there, if it was unconstitutional then I would see that it couldn't be there.
Catholic Scientist seems to be looking at the how the Cross helped a grouo of rescue workers, and their actions and what gave them the strength makes the Cross enough to include. I guess that if any other religious symbol was found at the time and gave strength to a rescue effort, he'd support that symbol too. I haven't heard of any others found, so that is likely why only the Cross has been mentioned.
Indeed. And further, since the cross is being included for a secular reason, then they wouldn't even have to allow other religious symbols. The American Atheists have offered to make a piece for the museum, but why should their's be included? What significance does it have that would make it museum worthy?
Now the other side, maintained by enough of you that I won't bother naming, appear to be taking a more consequencial look at the moral dilema. Puting up the Cross and no other may well not be intended to show religeous favouritism, but this isn't just about intention, it's also about consequences. It's easy to see how visitors may take the Cross to mean more than the stated intention.
And from the legal standpoint, that is irrelevant. This is about a lawsuit, so arguments about whether, from a moral standpoint, they should be including the cross don't matter to the position that they can have it there without legal consequence.
For me, the consequences are more important.
Not for me, especially in light of this being about a lawsuit. If we were having a moral discussion, then the social consequences would hold more sway for me. But the American Atheists decided to go the legal route, and I do believe that they are wrong here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 7:47 AM Ohruhen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Trae, posted 08-09-2011 10:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 93 of 479 (627394)
08-02-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2011 10:18 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
A strange non sequitur, unless you're suggesting that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the museum at all. But I don't think that was your point.
No it was in response to you saying that its good for me that you (as in the collective you) are here to make the decision for me.
You clearly don't have any idea what I was talking about, because I was insinuating no such thing, and indeed pointing out the exact opposite.
Yeah, sometimes it is difficult to understand exactly what Dr. Semantics is talking about. He uses similar tactics as a troll, not being specific enough to be understood, and then when challenged (when someone takes the bait), he explains what he was REALLY talking about. It’s okay, it’s part of posting here.
My point is that people would quite definitely want to preserve the church if it was a secular building with the same antiquity and historical associations. They are not just doing so because it had a religious use. This means that it passes the constitutional test despite being (or having been) a church. On the other hand, people are in favor of this cross only because it is a religious symbol --- if it was just any old piece of rubble they wouldn't care.
Ok thanks, sorry sometimes it’s like pulling teeth to get you to type what you mean. This cross also has relative historical associations, and significance to 9/11/01. It is not just because of its religious use. This makes it pass the constitutional test, despite being a religious symbol.
Nuggin writes:
But apparently more than happy to live in a state that sucks money off productive states like a tick.
WTF are you talking about? Nanny State is a relative term for the whole federal government, not individual states, I cannot tell if you are taking me out of context, or if you didn’t understand what I meant by Nanny State, Though I know it wasn’t that ambiguous because Dr. A knew what I was talking about.
$1.51 dollars in Government spending for every $1 in taxes going to Virginia.
Well it makes sense, there are a lot of government offices here.
These are the ones that are in the city in which I reside: National Cybersecurity& Communications Integration Center, National Foreign Affairs Training Center, Air Force, Army, Joint Chiefs of Staff, AFOSR, INS, NSF, ONR, US Fish and Wildlife, DISA, US Marshals Service, DIA, DOD, National Guard Bureau, National Security Space Office, DEA, MSHA, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of the Inspector General, US Trade & Development Agency, DARPA, FDIC, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and of course The Pentagon and everything that is in that building. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in America, so I hope you are not trying to insinuate that this is a welfare issue.
Here are the other major ones in Northern Virginia: List of federal agencies in Northern Virginia - Wikipedia
If you don't want the State to have a say in what you do, then GET A DAMN JOB and stop taking the money.
I have a job. And I live in a Commonwealth, not a State.
Since this museum (assuming we're still talking about the 9/11 museum and not some spin off) is about a particular moment in time, it's unlikely that displays will be about subject material outside of that narrow scope.
However, it would be reasonable to have muslim relics in the museum, as it was Muslims attacking under religious motivations.
Muslim relics from the building on that day?
A display showing the names of the victims under a giant cross however would be inappropriate - since the cross has no connection to the actual events, and no connection to the individual victims.
The cross is part of that day, and the clean up afterwards, it is connected.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Indeed. And further, since the cross is being included for a secular reason, then they wouldn't even have to allow other religious symbols. 1.The American Atheists have offered to make a piece for the museum, but why should their's be included? 2/What significance does it have that would make it museum worthy?
1. I can’t understand why it should be, and in reality it shouldn’t, they knew this when they pretended to be interested in making one. It was probably a set-up for their frivolous lawsuit.
2. It’s no more significant than anyone else who wants to make a 9/11 memorial, it has nothing to do with the site, and is just a ruse to help push their agenda. If they truly cared, then there would have already had a memorial there, instead of waiting 10 years to suggest a memorial. I am confident that New Yorkers can smell the bullshit on this one.
But the American Atheists decided to go the legal route, and I do believe that they are wrong here.
Yes indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2011 10:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 11:35 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 11:59 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 94 of 479 (627404)
08-02-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 11:13 AM


quote:
1.The American Atheists have offered to make a piece for the museum, but why should their's be included? 2/What significance does it have that would make it museum worthy?
1. I can’t understand why it should be, and in reality it shouldn’t, they knew this when they pretended to be interested in making one. It was probably a set-up for their frivolous lawsuit.
They do have an agenda.... "the total, absolute separation of government and religion." I saw a banner on their homepage promoting "GodLESS America!"
I submitted a question through their website asking them what they mean by "the total, absolute separation of government and religion" but they didn't reply.
I still suspect they hold the unreasonable position, that others have espoused here, that anything religious at all should not be in anything government funded. This is ridiculous because it leads to removing a painting from a government museum because it has cross in it. How much important American art had religious influence? Enter the Lemon Test. These artworks have historical and secular worth that makes them includible. The same goes for this cross. And because it does, the museum folks don't have to entertain the requests for other pieces to be included just because this one is.
2. It’s no more significant than anyone else who wants to make a 9/11 memorial, it has nothing to do with the site, and is just a ruse to help push their agenda.
That's what its looking like to me.
If they truly cared, then there would have already had a memorial there, instead of waiting 10 years to suggest a memorial.
Well, it does seem to be responsive to the inclusion of the cross. Its not about them wanting to include a memorial, its more about them wanting to remove a memorial. Their offering was a set-up to allow them to claim that because their's isn't included then there is discrimination going on. And they'd have a point if the museum folks were putting up a cross as a religious memorial and disallowing any other memorials. But that's not why the cross is being included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 11:13 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 103 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 479 (627409)
08-02-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 11:13 AM


No it was in response to you saying that its good for me that you (as in the collective you) are here to make the decision for me.
Atheists are not the state; and it was you who wrote that "this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion". I was mocking you for doing so.
Yeah, sometimes it is difficult to understand exactly what Dr. Semantics is talking about. He uses similar tactics as a troll, not being specific enough to be understood, and then when challenged (when someone takes the bait), he explains what he was REALLY talking about. It’s okay, it’s part of posting here.
If you really couldn't understand what I was saying, I don't think that was my fault. It was stated so clearly and unambiguously that taking me to mean the exact opposite of what I said looks more like an oversight on your part.
Ok thanks, sorry sometimes it’s like pulling teeth to get you to type what you mean.
In this case it's more like I gave you a tooth and you complained that it wasn't a tooth so I gave you an identical tooth and you finally admitted that it was a tooth.
Really, can anyone else read the following statement (emphasis in original):
If it was a secular building of the same antiquity and with the same historical associations, the historical preservation societies would not be saying: "Oh well, you can pull it down and build a WalMart there for all we care", would they?
... and interpret it as meaning that "we only preserve buildings that are religious in nature"?
I mean, I actually put the word "not" in italics to emphasize it. Unless you have some disability that prevents you from reading words in italics, I don't see how you can have so grossly misunderstood me.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 11:13 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 96 of 479 (627410)
08-02-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 11:35 AM


They do have an agenda.... "the total, absolute separation of government and religion."
Sure sounds like standing up for the Constitution to me. I would think that promoting the Constitution is an agenda most Americans would support.
I saw a banner on their homepage promoting "GodLESS America!"
Now the context.
quote:
Atheism is Patriotic
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. (Article 1 of the Bill of Rights)
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded in the Christian Religion (Treaty of Tripoli, under order of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams, 1797)
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Commandment 1, Old Testament)
NOT in the Bible: Democracy, Balance of Power (checks and balances), Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, Due Process, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Right to Education, Equality of the Genders, and many other "American" characteristics -- How can anyone allege we are a Christian Nation if everything special about us is not IN the Bible?
I am a patriot, and I am proud of my patriotism (defined as consistent loyalty of country, including questioning our policies) . I support our troops (even if not always the foreign policy they're executing), cherish our rights, and respect our responsibilities, including the responsibility to protect our country from those who would betray our freedoms in support of their own agendas.
Despite what the Religious Right would like you to think, the founders specifically made the USA secular by design. They did not forget to place Jesus or God in the Constitution; rather they discussed it fervently and decided against it (a matter of record). They penned the Bill of Rights based on ethical values, not religious dogma. They enacted the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously, which states specifically that the USA is not founded in Christianity. They clearly intended the government to stay out of the religion business.
Religion, however, being inherently weak in premise, needs the state to endorse it in order to thrive. It requires the legitimacy only the government can provide in order to survive, so it lobbies the politicians to push a revisionist history that directly conflicts with provable fact, all toward the end of state support in the form of endorsement, tax breaks, and special privileges. In support of their efforts to entwine themselves with the government, they quote-mine the founders, picking out pieces that fit their agenda and contending that what they can find is incontrovertible, even when the rest of the facts disagree. They treat founder quotes like they treat Bible quotes — to suit their intentions.
Our Constitution requires the government to protect freedom of religion -- this is the exact opposite of what religion wants. Religion does not want you free, it wants you obedient. Religion never OK’s diversity or dissent. Freedom of Religion is absent in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran, because freedom leads to discussion and criticism, which often leads to research, education, and often, atheism. Therefore, religion is by its very nature counter to the Constitution in a very fundamental way.
Since Patriotism is loyalty to one’s country, which is much more about its laws than its geography, religion is at its core unpatriotic to the American Way. Atheism, therefore, being the absence of religion and supportive (at least not unsupportive) of the Freedom of Religion, is patriotic by default, and perfectly so.
To be clear, atheism, being simply nothing more than the absence of religion, does not have an American component. You can, after all, be an atheist who hates America. The ironic thing is that even the freedom to hate America is American in and of itself. You are free to disagree all you like in this country, which is the exact opposite of what you’ll get from religion. This isn’t about atheists, it’s about atheism, and like it or not, it’s the only theological position that is directly aligned with American freedom.
In celebration of the rise of atheism in America, American Atheists is flying aerial banners across the country this 4th of July. Proudly stating God-LESS America and Atheism is patriotic, our banners will bring the breadth and patriotism of the movement into America’s conversation. Originally, we had planned on flying banners in all fifty states, representing the fact that atheism is the fastest growing segment in all fifty states, but we were unable to find pilots in many states willing to fly our banners, representing a clear reminder of the work we have to do.
As the movement expands throughout the next few years, we can expect more attempts by the religious Right to minimize our rights with false patriotism and cafeteria quotes. But if we were indeed a Christian Nation, we would never have a chance for success, because we would not have the right to fight. The fact that we exist is the best evidence that we’re correct, and that America is truly free. Defending this freedom is why we’re here in the first place.
United, we stand.
Page not found - American Atheists
Don't you agree that patriotism is a good thing? Where do you see the desire to wipe out religion? It is an argument that the Godless are also Americans and patriots.
Edited by Theodoric, : Changes this line
Don't you agree that patriotism is a god thing?
to
Don't you agree that patriotism is a good thing?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2011 12:11 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 12:13 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 97 of 479 (627412)
08-02-2011 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Theodoric
08-02-2011 12:01 PM


Don't you agree that patriotism is a god thing?
Freudian slip much?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:01 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:48 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 98 of 479 (627413)
08-02-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Theodoric
08-02-2011 12:01 PM


Sure sounds like standing up for the Constitution to me.
Its sounds like more than that to me. The Constitution allows for religion to influence government and they seem to want none of that at all.
Now the context.
tl;dr. Please paraphrase in your own words, we don't debate by link nor cut-n-pastes.
Don't you agree that patriotism is a god thing?
I don't think patriotism is a god thing, nor do I really think its a good thing. It leads to nationalism and feeds the "us vs. them" mentality. Plus, I think its stupid to be proud of something that you attained through sheer luck, you should be proud of what you've earned.
Where do you see the desire to wipe out religion?
Filing a lawsuit to remove a secular memorial because it is shaped like a religious symbol makes it look like they just want to wipe out religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:01 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 479 (627416)
08-02-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 12:13 PM


Filing a lawsuit to remove a secular memorial because it is shaped like a religious symbol ...
Ah for heaven's sake.
So to speak.
The fact that it is "shaped like a religious symbol" is not a mere coincidence. It's the reason that people did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol. Which in turn is the only reason anyone wants it now. While other I-beams not adopted as religious symbols were sold for scrap metal, this one was adopted as a religious symbol, hailed as a miracle, blessed by a priest, and spent the last five years displayed outside a church. At what point in this process did it become secular?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 479 (627420)
08-02-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 12:31 PM


Which in turn is the only reason anyone wants it now,
False. The reason its wanted is because of the significance it played to the rescuers. It has historical value.
At what point in this process did it become secular?
When it was being included in the memorial for the secular, historical, reasons and not the religious ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 12:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 101 of 479 (627421)
08-02-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 12:13 PM


tl;dr. Please paraphrase in your own words, we don't debate by link nor cut-n-pastes.
As you declined to even read what they meant before you posted about it, I thought I should actually provide the context to everyone. There was no need to paraphrase what they said. You are the one that went there, without providing any context. How about you explaining what you think they mean by "God-LESS America".
I have already stated what I feel they meant.
Theodoric writes:
It is an argument that the Godless are also Americans and patriots.
I am not attempting to debate a link or just cut and paste. All I am trying to do is show that your comment about "GodLESS America" is an egregious case of taking something out of context. If you had actually read what was meant by the line I would be accusing you of quote mining. But alas, your preconceived ideas prevented you from even reading what they meant. It seems you went to their site to just look for any snippet you could manipulate to support your argument
Filing a lawsuit to remove a secular memorial because it is shaped like a religious symbol makes it look like they just want to wipe out religion.
Seems like a non-sequitur to me. Not sure how you go from this lawsuit to "wipe out" religion. If they wanted to "wipe out" religion don't you think they would try something bit more aggressive? Or are you going to go with the slippery slope.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:32 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 102 of 479 (627422)
08-02-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wounded King
08-02-2011 12:11 PM


Keyboard troubles
Need to change batteries in my keyboard. It is dropping keystrokes. Thought I caught them all.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2011 12:11 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 103 of 479 (627423)
08-02-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 11:35 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, it does seem to be responsive to the inclusion of the cross. Its not about them wanting to include a memorial, its more about them wanting to remove a memorial. Their offering was a set-up to allow them to claim that because their's isn't included then there is discrimination going on. And they'd have a point if the museum folks were putting up a cross as a religious memorial and disallowing any other memorials. But that's not why the cross is being included.
Responsive? The cross was part of building six, it has been there for a long time. Where were the American Athiests in 2001 when the cross was moved under permission from Mayor Giuliani to a pedestal on the site. It was there for 5 years until it was moved to St. Peter’s Church (across the street), in 2006. Where were these champions of liberty, freedom, and the 1st amendment in the years of 2001-2006?
Here is what it looked like in 2003 after the Mayor gave permission to set it up like this:
Why not this outrage of government involvement, when it was allowed by the highest government office holder in NYC? What makes Giuliani not a government official breaking the 1st amendment, and today it is?
I think it’s all timing, America was still dealing with that day more vividly back then, and the American Atheists would have been seen for the shit disturbers they are back in the 1st few years after the attack, rather than now when they can influence people better. Like I said before the people of NYC can smell this bullshit, I am sure.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Atheists are not the state; and it was you who wrote that "this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion". I was mocking you for doing so.
Well your literary skills are not so grand that sarcasm can be detected, in just a few lines by everyone.
If you really couldn't understand what I was saying, I don't think that was my fault.
I am not saying that it is.
I mean, I actually put the word "not" in italics to emphasize it. Unless you have some disability that prevents you from reading words in italics, I don't see how you can have so grossly misunderstood me.
Well I did. But I don’t anymore, I see no reason to dwell on it, unless you are offended that I called you out for doing what you do around here.
Theodoric writes:
Don't you agree that patriotism is a god thing?
So then it’s religious to be a Patriot? Did you just contradict your-self?
Dr Adequate writes:
The fact that it is "shaped like a religious symbol" is not a mere coincidence. It's the reason that people did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol. Which in turn is the only reason anyone wants it now, while other I-beams not adopted as religious symbols were sold for scrap metal, while this one was adopted as a religious symbol, hailed as a miracle, blessed by a priest, and spent the last five years standing outside a church. At what point in this process did it become secular?
I looked it up, they are not I-beams, they are T-beams. What about the 1st five years, why the complaint today?
Hailed as a miracle? Says who, they were all over the place afterwards:
It’s a relic of the building 6, a piece of history. Now because of its shape it is against the constitution? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 1:18 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:34 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:44 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 104 of 479 (627425)
08-02-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 12:40 PM


The reason its wanted is because of the significance it played to the rescuers.
I.e. that they "did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol".
It has historical value.
But apparently solely because it was valued for religious reasons by enough people for enough time. This is the only thing that distinguishes it from other lumps of scrap metal.
I agree that there is an argument for it on the grounds of historical value, but there is also an argument on the other side.
When it was being included in the memorial for the secular, historical, reasons and not the religious ones.
Hmm, that gives me an idea. If you left a display of the Ten Commandments outside a church for long enough, and enough people paid religious reverence to it, and a sufficient number of priests blessed it, could you then put it in a courthouse as a secular historical artifact? How much religious veneration does a thing need for it to become secular when you move it into a government building?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 105 of 479 (627427)
08-02-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 12:48 PM


Durr. Pick a shape.
It’s a relic of the building 6, a piece of history. Now because of its shape it is against the constitution? Really?
Wait. I thought this was a discussion for adults.
Are you HONESTLY trying to suggest that the people who build the monument just RANDOMLY picked a shape from the rubble and made a monument of it?
THAT'S your argument?
You _REALLY_ want us to believe that THAT is your level of understanding of this situation.
REALLY?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 12:48 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024