Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Anyone who didn't recognize the Memorial And Remonstrance could look it up. "Hardly" government support of religion? Is that like being not very pregnant? Specifically, a Christian memorial. The people who wanted to build a big cross on what is effectively the grave of many Jews and atheists and Muslims were shit disturbers. And this is the shit that they have disturbed. And to do you justice, you couldn't have come up with a more ridiculously inept comparison if you'd tried with both hands for a week.The WBC are the people who wave signs saying "God Hates America" at the graves of patriots, aren't they? Which is different how from building a cross on the grave of a Jew? True, the cross is more permanent, but I don't see how this palliates the offense.

They do --- they could ask me.

I wonder what that means. 'Tis so. How much do you bet? Two Jewish plaintiffs say they "find the cross, a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens."Or pro-First Amendment. Oh, noes, the anti-religion!... adding, "also we'd like to start throwing Christians to the lions again like in the good old days" ... oh, wait, I made that up.Really, how butthurt can you get about this? Should we have a whaaambulance standing by just in case? Two reasons. Firstly, whatever the religious right may think, the American flag is not in fact a religious symbol.Secondly, the crosses are on the graves of Christian soldiers. It's optional. Jews get a Star of David. Muslims get a crescent and star. Mormons get the Angel Moroni. This is fine, it's parallel to what the atheists are asking for at the 9/11 memorial. If instead the Army put a cross on the grave of every soldier regardless of religious affiliation, you can bet they would indeed be having the shit sued out of them --- and surely even you can see that that's right.So why not extend the same courtesy to the victims of 9/11?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I guess something like this ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's not their land. What did you have in mind, a pie-chart?Why not have a non-sectarian memorial to the dead? The atheists have offered, at their own expense, to provide a non-religious memorial. This offer has not been accepted, hence the lawsuit. Sauce for the goose. You didn't ask me. But since you ask, it's not a national park, nor indeed is it a church any more --- except in the architectural sense, but then so is this:

Your post seems to have gotten a little jumbled, and I'm not clear what you actually intended to address to what. I never actually said the church was "fine". However, there does seem to be something to be said for it. The church isn't functioning as a religious institution, the cross is functioning as a religious symbol. The church seems to pass the Lemon Test. It's like the difference between the Smithsonian having the Jefferson Bible and putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

Yeah, it's entirely up to atheists to decide whether a cross blessed by a priest is a religious symbol.You should be glad you've got us around to figure these things out for you. The judge in the case will, I'm sure, be particularly relieved to learn that it's not up to him.But tell me, if it isn't a religious symbol, why does it have any defenders? Why can't they say: "Oopsie, in deciding what lump of rubble to put on the site, we inadvertently picked one that looks just exactly like the symbol of the Christian religion, and which we now learn to our astonishment has been hailed as a miracle and blessed by a priest. Of course, it is in no way intended to be a religious symbol, nothing could have been further from our thoughts, and to prevent any misunderstanding, we'll use a different lump of rubble, then everyone will be happy."Surely the only reason why people want this lump of rubble, these "two rusted I-beams" is that it is a religious symbol. If not, there are plenty of rusted I-beams.And this test could be more widely applied. Consider St. Paul's church. 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? But the cross has its partisans solely because it is a Christian symbol. If they deny it, let them pick any other rusted I-beams they please.

If you were tempted to undervalue women's rights then an Arab woman would in fact be ideally placed to tell you why you shouldn't. If you undervalued democracy, you should hear from people who are subject to dictatorship, they could put you right. If you think freedom isn't so much, you should hear from a slave. And, yes, someone who has to put up with an establishment of religion does indeed have a valuable perspective on why you should be glad you have a First Amendment.

And that is something to be said for it.On the other hand, why refuse the atheists' offer to provide them with a non-religious memorial? It's not an unreasonable request.

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.If you don't like a "leftist nanny state", then rejoice that we have the First Amendment to stop the government from taking care of our religious needs. This being a case in point. I asked why the cross had any defenders. Unless you think they're all just playing devil's advocate, then your answer is hardly relevant. I did note that as a point in favor of the museum, as you would know if you were paying attention. 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.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.

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. 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. 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): ... 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.

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.

I.e. that they "did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol". 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. 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?

You called me out for doing what I evidently did not in fact do. What was its relationship with the government during that time? You say that Giuliani "allowed" it. Yeah, he also allowed people to build churches, which doesn't violate the separation of church and state. Could you be more specific? This guy, for example. Specifically, a religious relic.As to the constitution, I think the judge gets to call that one. You said they were I-beams in post #43.* shakes head *And to think I trusted you.Actually I think you might have been right the first time. If you look at the photographs, the two beams do seem to be I-shaped in cross-section (so to speak). Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.