Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

I'm still not seeing any point from you that pertains to this debate... So? And that is irrelevant. It hasn't been decided yet.If they do, are you cool with the cross then? Having this cross in the museum does not represent people by christianity. What are you talking about? So?

No, and they don't get to decide what pieces are in other museums either.

In what way? How do they go about deciding?

And?

Does it? There existed a piece of rubble from the buildings that helped some of the rescuers and it is being put into the museum for that reason.They're not putting it in the museum because it is a christian symbol, so how is it showing favor to the christians? Must all of the museum pieces be totally void of any religious connotation?

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... 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. 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? 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. 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.

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?

---

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. That's what its looking like to me. 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.

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. tl;dr. Please paraphrase in your own words, we don't debate by link nor cut-n-pastes. 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. 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.

False. The reason its wanted is because of the significance it played to the rescuers. It has historical value. When it was being included in the memorial for the secular, historical, reasons and not the religious ones.

Oh, I suppose that's honorable enough. I thought you were addressing me. Simply providing context for everyone would probably be better served with a General Reply. I don't know what they mean. I explained that in the message you replied to. Wow, you are just too much, man.Here is what I said:

quote:

---

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 went to their website to grab the quoted part and noticed, in passing, at the top of the page an "advertisement-type" banner with just those two words on it. There was no context at all. I posted it as an aside to the actual part I was discussing, and even included a smiley face next to it. You then quote mine me, sans the smiley, and use that to accuse me of an "an egregious case of taking something out of contex". The hypocrisy! It burns! Like I said, you're too much.Good day, sir.

The rescuers did. But the museum folks are not including it because its religious. I've admitted that they could have a case here, I just haven't seen that they do. I thought of an opposing one too... If its purely for historical reasons, then it could be displayed upside-down and serve the same purpose, no? That might be disrespectful to the rescuers though. I don't think the simple having of veneration is the historical value. Its about where it was and who it was special to.

I thought it was being moved into a government funded museum and that's why they have a problem with it now. And because they've recently offered to provide a different memorial without response, they've filed a lawsuit. Yeah, you might be on to something, but I don't know.

Indirectly... they're including it for the historic value, which is because people adopted it as a religious symbol. Not necessarily, they might still include it for the historic value if the rescuers adopted it as a different type of symbol. That wouldn't have anything to do with the seperation of church and state at all. That's not what its about.

But its not just a chunk of metal, its an artifact of high improtance to the on-site rescuers and has historical value.

Hence all this misplaced trouble. Its unwarranted (from a legal standpoint). Should the reason for the historical significance even matter from a legal standpoint? It passes the Lemon Test so that's that, no? No, you're right, but why would a venerated copy of the ten comandments be brought into the courtroom? Or do you mean museum? I think you're joke was just a little off...