|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2813 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
So you've accepted that it helped people and have no argument against why it, legally, can be included in the museum. I didn't accept that it helped people. I asked specifically which survivors it pointed to or which block of cement it helped lift. You answered that some people felt like it was a religious symbol (implying that Jesus caused the attack apparently) and that gave them comfort. I would suggest that other people also feel it is a religious symbol, ALSO implying that Jesus caused the attack, and that gives them discomfort. Ask yourself this:If, instead of Jesus nailed to a 2x4, someone wanted to put up a sign that read "Praise Allah for his attack on these towers", do you think the Christians would allow it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Wuss. What's your opinion? My opinion is that I'm glad I'm not a judge.
That's almost right. You're referring to "The Ten Commandments" as a general thing, but we need to be talking about a specific item. I was. I said: "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?"
Some historically important artifact that is in the image of the Ten Commandments could be secular. And apparently an artifact can become secular simply as a result of receiving religious veneration. So it seems that my scheme would work, and that you can indeed make any religious artifact completely secular by having enough people treating it as a religious artifact for long enough. Apparently repeated applications of holy water progressively washes all the religion out of it until it isn't religious at all. It's possible that someone really super-religious like the Pope could make it secular at a single stroke, if he gave it a really thorough Pontifical blessing.
There's plenty of religious paintings in government museums. But the basis on which they are selected is surely their artistic merit rather than their religious significance. If a painting by (let us say) Donatello, previously identified as St. Spirograph The Vague Rebuking The Lepers, was realized by art historians to be actually a picture of Socrates teaching his disciples, would it lose one cent in value or be taken off the walls of a museum? Whereas if the cross had no religious significance, it would just be scrap metal. And if it was a crescent and star people would have thrown rocks at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was. I said: "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?" And I said you were right, but then wondered why you picked a courthouse. Although, I don't think the blessing are in any way helping.
And apparently an artifact can become secular simply as a result of receiving religious veneration. I dunno, I think there needs to be more to it than just that. It should have some kind of significance outside of the religion. Like with this cross being a piece of the actual building and then also providing help to the rescue workers, the religious nature is secondary to that for being secular and considered worthy of the museum, imho.
So it seems that my scheme would work, and that you can indeed make any religious artifact completely secular by having enough people treating it as a religious artifact for long enough. Just like a painting...
But the basis on which they are selected is surely their artistic merit rather than their religious significance. Or historical value, which could stem from their religious significance. Too, some of them aren't really that good, but are included because of where they were from.
If a painting by (let us say) Donatello, previously identified as St. Spirograph The Vague Rebuking The Lepers, was realized by art historians to be actually a picture of Socrates teaching his disciples, would it lose one cent in value or be taken off the walls of a museum? No, it would still maintain its historical value.
Whereas if the cross had no religious significance, it would just be scrap metal. But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has and is being included in the museum for. All the religious stuff is irrelevant.
And if it was a crescent and star people would have thrown rocks at it. And if it was a giant vagina people would've fapped to it. So what? Get enough people fapping to it so that it becomes historically significant and you could put that in a museum too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I didn't accept that it helped people. I asked specifically which survivors it pointed to or which block of cement it helped lift. You answered that some people felt like it was a religious symbol (implying that Jesus caused the attack apparently) and that gave them comfort. And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol.
I would suggest that other people also feel it is a religious symbol, ALSO implying that Jesus caused the attack, and that gives them discomfort. Okay, that doesn't take away from the non-religious reasons for including it.
If, instead of Jesus nailed to a 2x4, someone wanted to put up a sign that read "Praise Allah for his attack on these towers", do you think the Christians would allow it? That wouldn't have a secular purpose like this cross does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 386 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has and is being included in the museum for. All the religious stuff is irrelevant. Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2813 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol. That's all a religious symbol can do - at best. Are you suggesting that this object had importance because someone said:"Where are we digging today?" And someone else said "Just a little bit north of that thing" And THAT is why it belongs in the museum? If it's NOT a religious symbol, cut it in half, display a little piece of it at this museum and send another little piece to some other place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I said you were right, but then wondered why you picked a courthouse. Trying to get displays of the Ten Commandments into courthouses is one of the things conservatives like to do when they're not too busy licking cocaine off rentboys.
I dunno, I think there needs to be more to it than just that. It should have some kind of significance outside of the religion. Like with this cross being a piece of the actual building and then also providing help ... "Help"?
But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has ... It wouldn't have had the "historical secular value" that it has. Look, this is all topsy-turvy. Suppose the museum had commissioned the cross, and they explained to the judge: "Oh, it just happens to be cross-shaped. No-one has ever taken it as a symbol of faith, or sprinkled holy water on it, or called it a miracle, or exhibited it outside a church. It's secular." Then the judge would have said: "Nice try ... assholes". Agreed? But because people have done all these things, somehow it becomes secular. Surely it shouldn't work like that.
And if it was a giant vagina people would've fapped to it. So what? Get enough people fapping to it so that it becomes historically significant and you could put that in a museum too. Which museum?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
I was looking at the American Atheist blog about the WTC cross and ran across this about death threats being posted against atheist on the Fox News Facebook page. It never ceases to amaze me how some Christians, or believers in god, can justify killing atheist or anyone they feel is doing them an injustice. Do they think this is what their God wants? I cant think of any New testament support for these views, in fact doesn't the NT teach the opposite?
I am only going to post a couple of these, the link provides about 18 examples of this hate. I am sure some are just trolls, but not all,
After witnessing this kind of intolerance from some in the Christian camp time and again it makes me glad I am godless, some religions seem to mess some people up. This whole thing would be a non-issue if the WTC museum had of accepted the AA offer of an additional memorial/statue that would've better represented all Americans that died that day. A win win IMO. I wonder if the families of the non-Americans killed that day will get to display a flag or something to remind the visitors that Americans weren't the only ones to die. I sent a message to the WTC museum asking them if they would even consider the AA offer...their response was "No comment at this time". I expected that with a pending court case though, I doubt CS will get a response from the AA for the same reason. ![]() Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It wouldn't have had the "historical secular value" that it has. But so what? It does have it. It passes the test.
Look, this is all topsy-turvy. Suppose the museum had commissioned the cross, and they explained to the judge: "Oh, it just happens to be cross-shaped. No-one has ever taken it as a symbol of faith, or sprinkled holy water on it, or called it a miracle, or exhibited it outside a church. It's secular." Then the judge would have said: "Nice try ... assholes". Agreed? They'd have been lying, so yeah. Or are you asking as if those things honestly hadn't been done? If it would have the secular-ness, then it'd have it regardless of its shape, so I'm not seeing why it matters.
But because people have done all these things, somehow it becomes secular. Surely it shouldn't work like that. I don't think it should matter how it became secular, but I do not think it happens like you're describing. Its secular to me because:
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1122 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute.....I thought the structure had no religious value or implication and was just something that "provided spiritual comfort"?
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
.I thought the structure had no religious value or implication Apparently it does for some, maybe the WTC museum should distance themselves from these nuts. ![]() Fox News has deleted that whole page from FB, they knew what they were doing by asking for comments was stirring up a shit-storm for the sake of ratings, a little hate and intolerance goes a long way. AbE
quote:Read more.. Bloomberg thinks it's religious. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1122 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Apparently it does for some, maybe the WTC museum should distance themselves from these nuts. Well, obviously those people that said those things aren't real christians....."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 386 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Its secular to me because:
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho. Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever. Why? Might as well just display it as sat while the resuers drew inspiration from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 386 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Are you suggesting that the orientation of this object was related to it's role as an object of inspiration in some way? Gosh - I wonder why that might be......
C'mon CS - Let's stop playing dum. If this thing were just an artefact of 9/11 rather than an overtly religious symbol it's orientation would be utterly irrelevant. It's orientation is not utterly irrelevant because it's religious symbolism is entirely based on it's crucifix-like appearance. So stop evading this fact and just be honest about it. Now my personal atheistic take on this is - So what? If people want to find religious meaning in rusty girders then I am happy to let them get on with it. If it played a part in the events of 9/11 as a religious symbol then I personally wouldn't object to it being in a museum for that reason. Because it is related to the tragedy of 9/11 it will be treated more seriously and more solemnly but in principle finding meaning in rusty girders is really no different to finding inspiration by seeing Jesus's face in a piece of burnt toast or an oddly shaped cheese puff shaped like Moses. The meaning exists only in the heads of the believers. People imbuing things with symbolic meaning, religious or otherwise, is just what people will inevitably do. Especially in times of tragedy, crisis and high emotion. In my view it isn't worth getting upset about. However - Others who do have reason to object to this as a specifically religious object certainly have a case. And you refusing to face that case on the basis that it is just some 9/11 artefact that has no specific overtly religious non-secular role is frankly dishonest. Why not admit it's religious nature and argue that it should be there anyway? Wouldn't that be the more honest approach here?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025