Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

cavediver writes:

quote:

---

Should the "heart" be included in the museum? Should the "cross" be included in the museum?

---

Is a heart a religious symbol?If not, it might be appropriate to display if it has some significance beyond that of any other random piece of debris.Since a cross in the manner in which this one became noticed is nothing but a religious symbol, it's going to have a harder time finding some other purpose that would make it appropriate for a government, historical presentation.If this were an art installation, then all bets are off. Do whatever the hell you want. Hell, even governmental involvement is fine with regard to the arts that have sectarian bases (to an extent). But this is an historical presentation. And recognizing the sociological aspects of the event are part of that and that would necessarily include religious aspects.But this particular piece doesn't have any real historical signficance. And its religious significance is only because a handful of people decided to make something of it.So why would this piece of rubble be any different from any other? What significance does it have?

Well, that's the crux (sorry)Its historical significance rests on how big a "handful" we have, irrespective of whether we are talking about the "heart" or the "cross". If it really is a handful, then it's a piece of twisted metal - throw it away. But if it is all but a handful, then I think we're on to something with some historical significance.

CS did you ever actually read what I wrote in Message 150....? Your much stated position is that this thing has "secular purpose". It has no role or purpose except as a religious symbol. Why can't you juts admit that and then make a case for it's inclusion anyway? AZ has made the best case for it's inclusion whilst acknowledging that it's entire historical significance is as a religious symbol. Symbolism which is completely lost if the thing is displayed as anything other than a religious symbol. Why can't you do the same without bleating on about "secular purpose". Dude - If I put this thing in the museum I would put it in as a crucifix-like cross because it loses all symbolic meaning and thus all historical value otherwise. Because I can see for a fact that it has to be displayed as a religious symbol because that is all it is. I am not the one claiming that it has "secular purpose". You are.So (again) - Answer me one question honestly and non-evasively.If this "secular" item were displayed in the museum upside down would those who want it included in the museum be happy with that display choice? If not why not?

All the arguments that can be made for including the cross can be made for your hypothetical heart. None of the arguments against the cross really apply. So yes there is no reason not to include it at all. As I said in Message 150 my own atheistically inclined perspective is that such symbolism is essentially inevitable and I don't personally have a problem including the cross in the museum. I think a case can be made for it's inclusion but not on the ridiculous basis that CS is advocating of it having "secular purpose". It's only has any purpose or historical role in the events of 9/11 at all as a religious symbol. This should just be acknowledged as the fact that it is before any further arguments are put forwards.Because it is undeniably a specifically Christian symbol I can certainly see why those of other faiths or those of no faith who are more determined than I to avoid being misrepresented in some sense might object to it's inclusion in a memorial dedicated to all those affected by 9/11.AZPaul has made the best case for the cross being included regardless of it's overt role as a religious symbol and Rrhain has a pretty decent point when he says that it best satisfies it's role where it is and should just remain at the church where it has already been placed specifically as a religious symbol.What exactly the US legal/constitutional situation is with regard to all of this I don't know.So in this particular debate, aside from finding CS's evasiveness just fucking annoying and less than honest, I am being a bit of a fence sitter.

The problem with religions is the villifications of others, inculcated since childhood, with no proof of any of the charges.IMHO, the future of humanity fully depends on belief via laws agreed to by humanity, as opposed preferred revered names, and mandating any scripture with unfound charges be forbidden. There is no alternative to this for humanity's future. This may also be the underlying reason why groups of humanity are beginning to rebel. Two of the world's biggest religions rely pivotally on villifications of others as their fulcrum pillars, and would crash without it. Some one should start a thread what laws are acceptable for humanity as a whole, applying equally to all.

quote:

---

All the arguments that can be made for including the cross can be made for your hypothetical heart. None of the arguments against the cross really apply. So yes there is no reason not to include it at all.

---

Its all in the fine print. Love, according to the cross followers, also says those who do not toe the line of the cross by signing on the dotted line are damned forever to a very hot place for a very long time: what a waste of fuel, at least! It is mandated as a belief irrespective if the targeted ones are otherwise nice folk. This is the associating factor which impacts on other groups, but may not be in the radar of the followers. It was soon followed by a counter doctrine, ITS A BLESSING TO KILL AN INFIDEL.What's for encores of all these wonderful spoonfuls of love and belief?

Well feel free to start such a thread. But I would suggest that the golden rule is the closest to a human universal we can find.So I spose the obvious question to ask in this context is how the Christians affected by 9/11 would respond if instead of a cross it was a giant statue of Vishnu or something being proposed at the memorial museum?

Or say a Mosque just down the road?

quote:

---

Well feel free to start such a thread. But I would suggest that the golden rule is the closest to a human universal we can find.

---

Don't know what you mean by golden rule. Mine is:WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS.

quote:

---

So I spose the obvious question to ask in this context is how the Christians affected by 9/11 would respond if instead of a cross it was a giant statue of Vishnu or something being proposed at the memorial museum?

---

No sir. I admire America as a Christian country - especially because it is the best savior of Christianity - saving it from medevial Europe. Christian America flaunted Europe with the Constitution, perhaps one of the greatest documents humanity possesses. Europe did great damage to the symbol of the cross.

Well I did link to it.......? It is a quite common concept in one form or another. And therein lies the problem. Because very arguably in the sort of sense being discussed it isn't supposed to overtly favour any one religion over any other.You are kinda making the point of the objectionists in this thread for them.....

quote:

---

Well I did link to it.......? It is a quite common concept in one form or another.

---

Common yes, but this is because Christianity has the biggest following, not because its golden rule is better than the one I gave you.

quote:

---

IAJ writes:
I admire America as a Christian country

​

And therein lies the problem. Because very arguably in the sort of sense being discussed it isn't supposed to overtly favour any one religion over any other.

---

Yes, but Europe was overtly wrong, unlike America.

From the previoulsy provided link: So this is far from unique to Christianity and certainly not sourced from it. Europe is wrong about what? I have no idea what you are referring to.

I would say that the factor of reciprocity is the same as WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS.

quote:

---

Europe is wrong about what? I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

Europe's history as a Christian block is horrific, mass murdering more humans than Poll Pot, Rome, Babylon and ancient Egypt combined. Europe did so by following the doctrine:WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU - DO UNTO OTHERS. [Read, woe to any who refuse!].

But that's the point. I can't really see how any argument could be for the cross' exclusion that doesn't also include the heart. Otherwise religion seems to be being treated as some special case, which is precisely what I thought we would want to avoid! I would put it like this. The cross has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "religious significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Similarly with the heart: the heart has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "symbolic significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Similarly with the OBL-shaped bit of metal they found, that looks like it has an arrow through his head: it has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "retributional significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Personally, I don't like singling out religion as something that requires special treatment.

I agree that it has *significance* and accept the argument for inclusion on that basis. However I also see that the fact it's *significance* is wholly derived from it's religious symbolism means that those who are not Christians may well have a case when objecting to it as part of a memorial that is supposed to represent them and those that they have lost equally. Moslems, Hindus, atheists etc. Really? Who could object to a heart symbol and on what basis? The problem here is that it can be argued both ways.Is it singling out religion to include a Christian symbol that inspired Chrsitians during 9/11 and thus gained significance to Christians in that event?Or is it singling out religion to say that this particular piece of debris cannot be included because it's symbolism happens to be overtly religious rather than something like a heart?It can be argued both ways.