Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

AZPaul3 writes:

quote:

---

The only question to be asked is of the competence of any curator that would reject the Cross for display in this museum.

---

Indeed. Any curator who includes it should have his competency questioned for only one who doesn't understand the purpose of a museum dedicated to the historical significance of the attacks upon the World Trade Center would think to include it.

quote:

---

At this point the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event far outwieghs its stand alone religious significance.

---

At this point, the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event is only sustained by its religious significance.Fixed that for you.The only reason this piece of metal has anybody paying it any attention at all is because it has been deemed to be a religious symbol. It wasn't the first piece that fell. It wasn't the last piece. It wasn't the piece that was hit by the first plane. It wasn't the piece that was hit by the second plane. It wasn't the cornerstone of either building. It wasn't the first piece of the new suspension system designed by Minoru Yamasaki that allowed there to be huge open areas of floorspace unobstructed by support columns.This metal has absolutely no significance except as a Christian artifact. It was a cross-shaped piece of debris (and not the only one) that happened to land upright such that some humans, who are very good and finding patterns out of noise, thought it looked like it was standing and attached significance to that fact (and it wasn't the only one like that, either). That's why it got taken away and installed at a church where it was blessed by a priest.Thus, to be placed in a federal museum dedicated to the attacks is not only a clear violation of the First Amendment but also a nonsensical thing to do: It doesn't have anything to do with the event.

AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Fixed that for you.

---

​

No need. It wasn't broken.

---

Then why did you say something that was the exact opposite of reality?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only reason this piece of metal has anybody paying it any attention at all is because it has been deemed to be a religious symbol. ...

---

​

... at the time of the event

---

And up to and including the present day and beyond. The only reason anybody is paying attention to this particular piece of metal is because of its religious patina.What other significance does it have? And given the overwhelming religious implications of it, why couldn't that significance be served more handily by some other piece of metal? After all, the easiest way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is to not use it all. If the secular needs of having a piece of debris in the museum is so important, why is it so important to have that one? Why not some other one that doesn't have all the baggage?If the only reason this one should take precedence over any other random piece of detritus is because of its Christian symbology, then it clearly doesn't belong.

quote:

---

with (admitted) religious significance during the event.

---

Then you agree it is inappropriate.Glad I fixed that sentence for you. I knew you wouldn't be making such a bone-headed claim.

quote:

---

I suppose you would require the Smithsonian to ditch all the religious symbols in their collections for the same reason?

---

If the Smithsonian were in an identical position as a museum dedicated to the attacks on the World Trade Center, then yes. But as it isn't, it ain't.See, now if the museum as part of its discussion of the attacks were to have a section based upon people's philosophical responses (which includes religious attitudes), then we might (mind you, I said, "MIGHT") have a reason to include this particular piece. Such a retrospective would need to include many more items of religious iconography showing the full response of the populace and even then, given how big that sucker is, a photograph would probably be more appropriate so that we could leave the actual piece where it will do the most good: At the church where people who continue to believe in its theological importance can have access to it in an appropriate setting.The only reason anybody cares about this piece of metal is because of the religious significance a small minority put in it. It wasn't the only cross-shaped piece of metal from the site and yet, nobody is paying attention to any of those. Thus, its only significance is its theological importance which is a clear violation of the Lemon Test and thus, a violation of the First Amendment.Not to mention that from a humanities perspective, it is such a poor idea to remove it from its current home at the church. Since it's an active religious symbol, why on earth would anybody want to take it out of its religious setting and slap a secular purpose on it? "Yeah, we know you find this icon to be spiritually uplifting, but we actually want it to be an insignificant piece of fluff in a non-theological setting where you'll never be able to have access to it again."Why on earth would anybody want to do that?Clearly, the idea is not to emphasize its secular function in the museum but rather to emphasize its religious significance...which means it doesn't belong in the museum. Keep it at the church.

quote:

---

As for the object's significance to the event and its obvious place in the history of the event, ask a curator.

---

What makes you think I haven't?

AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:

---

As I said the object's historical value is linked directly to the preserved event

---

But only because of its religious patina which necessarily excludes it from this particular museum.I've asked you this twice, now, so it would be awfully nice if you answered it:What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

and far outweighs the stand-alone religious significance you are so eager to taut as its only significance.

---

And that other significance is? You'd think after being asked directly twice for what that signficance is and your direct statement that it has another one, you'd be only too keen to explain what it is. So have at it.What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

It was adopted as a religious symbol by some of the workers.

---

So you agree that it is purely a religious symbol and has no other significance.So, I'm confused. You keep saying it has some other significance but the only one you bring forward is its religious patina which automatically excludes it from the museum. You need to have some other, non-religious purpose in order to get past the Lemon test.So what other significance does it have?

quote:

---

No other such artifact existed on site.

---

And that doesn't tip you off? It's a purely religious item and thus has no place here. It would do so much more good at the church where it can be accessed by those who find its religious implications to be important.

quote:

---

Because if you had then the object's uniqueness within the history of the event, regardless of its religious overtones, would have bound that curator to its significance for the museum.

---

Nope. They all agree it's ludicrous to include it in the museum. They all agree that it serves no secular purpose and that it should remain at the church where it can be of more benefit to those who find it to be theologically important. In a secular museum, it will be stripped of it its iconography and turned into a piece of debris which insults the history of the item.

quote:

---

I understand this religious symbology does not sit well with some.

---

Huh? This isn't a question of "sitting well." This has to do with respect for the item. As one of my curator buddies put it, it'd be like draining the well at Lourdes so that some upstart French water company could sell it as a competitor to Evian (which is "naive" spelled backwards). The item has signficiance in the theology of a certain group and thus, to maintain that significance, it should be maintained in its sectarian setting. Anywhere else is inappropriate and disrespects the item.

quote:

---

The time to lodge a protest was when the beams were first used in a religious role.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. Why on earth would anybody protest someone exercising their religion over a piece of rubble? How rude.

quote:

---

It is a religious symbol.

---

But you just said that it wasn't just a religious symbol. So for the umpteenth time:What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

But it also has a unique place in the history of the site

---

As what? What other significance does it have apart from its religious symbology?

quote:

---

And you cannot deny that unique history even in wanting to deny the religious BS the cross represents.

---

It is simplicity itself to deny something that doesn't exist. So help us out: What is this other significance that it has?And why is that signficance so important that it overwhelms its religious symbology such that it must be taken away from that setting and placed in a setting where that theology can never be utilized again?

AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:

---

Any artifact of any significance from the site is subject to inclusion in the museum.

---

But this one has no significance.What other significance does it have? How many times do I have to ask you that same question before you answer?

quote:

---

This is the "other" significance of the object that gives it the curatorial value for the museum.

---

What? What is it? Other than a small group of people thought it was religiously significant, what makes this piece of rubble deserving of being in the museum? More so than any other?Be specific.And if all you can come up with are religious reasons (and that has been the only reason you have come up with so far), then it doesn't belong here. It belongs in a church.So for at least the eighth time:What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

It is a religious symbol.

---

Then it doesn't belong. It really is that simple. If its only significance is religious, then it doesn't belong.If it has some other significance, it might belong.What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

Its other significance is that it was on the site.

---

There are plenty of other pieces of rubble. Why should this one be chosen?What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

To acquire, preserve and display those unique artifacts with a direct history to the preserved event.

---

Indeed, but it must be within the scope of the project. This piece has no signficance other than what a tiny number of people painted upon it. Thus, it is of no concern.What other significance does it have?

AZPaul3 pretends to respond to me:

quote:

---

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse?

---

I'll take the fourth option: You didn't actually answer, just like you didn't here, so i guess I get to ask again:What other significance does it have? You've acknowledged its religious significance but if that is all it has, then it doesn't belong. Therefore, it must have some other significance that isn't rooted in its religious significance does it have? As examples, the rubble that was hit by the first plane or the second plane, the cornerstone of the building, the first girder raised when the building was erected, all of those would be signifies that would make it appropriate to be included.What significance does it have that isn't part and parcel of its religious significance? What secular purpose does it serve?

AZPaul3 avoids the question yet again:

quote:

---

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse?

---

I'll take the fourth option: None of that was an answer so I get to ask again.What other significance does it have? You've acknowledged its religious significance but if that is all it has, then it doesn't belong. What other significance that isn't rooted in its religious significance does it have? As examples, the rubble that was hit by the first plane or the second plane, the cornerstone of the building, the first girder raised when the building was erected, all of those would be signifiers that would make it appropriate to be included.What significance does it have that isn't part and parcel of its religious significance? What secular purpose does it serve?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You've acknowledged its religious significance but if that is all it has, then it doesn't belong.

---

​

Why not?

---

The First Amendment. Since the only significance of this object is sectarian, it has no place in a public museum. It should remain in its sectarian environment where it can do the most good.

quote:

---

Do you think the Cross was at some site other than ground zero?

---

Irrelevant. That it was at Ground Zero does not make it different from any other piece of rubble. If the point of the presentation is to display a piece of rubble, why is this one so important? Why not avoid even the appearance of impropriety and display another piece that isn't so coated with religious purpose?

quote:

---

Do you deny that the object's significance and history was unique to ground zero?

---

Yes. It is not unique in the slightest. There are literally buildings' worth of rubble that could be displayed if the only purpose of the exhibit is to show a piece of the wreckage.What makes this one so important?

quote:

---

Do you deny that preserving history has a secular purpose?

---

Not at all. But what's so special about this piece? If the only purpose is to display a piece of rubble, why is this one so important? Why not show another piece that doesn't have any religious attachment to it?What makes this one so important?

quote:

---

Do you deny that preserving the history of ground zero has a secular purpose?

---

Not at all.But this piece has no historical significance.What makes this piece so important?

quote:

---

Do you deny that the museum's purpose is to acquire, protect and display the unique historical artifacts from ground zero?

---

Not at all.But this piece has no historical significance.What makes this piece so important?

quote:

---

Do you think just because the Cross had a "religious significance" at ground zero that its unique place in the history of the event, and thus the artifact's curatorial value, is somehow lost?

---

No. I think this piece has no historical significance whatsoever and that its only significance is the religious importance a handful of people attached to it. Therefore, it is of no worth to the museum than any other piece of debris.What makes this piece so important?

quote:

---

Do you think that "religion" taints and poisons all artifacts into historical insignificance?

---

Not at all. I think a piece whose only signficiance is religious has no place in a public museum but should instead be displayed in a sectarian museum where it can do the most good.Hint: You will note that nobody is saying the piece should be hidden, destroyed, or in any way kept out of the public eye. But a public museum is for historical pieces, not religious ones, and this piece's only significance is religious in nature.Unless you could be so kind as to indicate what other significance it has. What other significance does it have? You've acknowledged its religious significance but if that is all it has, then it doesn't belong. What other significance that isn't rooted in its religious significance does it have? As examples, the rubble that was hit by the first plane or the second plane, the cornerstone of the building, the first girder raised when the building was erected, all of those would be signifiers that would make it appropriate to be included.What significance does it have that isn't part and parcel of its religious significance? What secular purpose does it serve?

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?

cavdiver writes:

quote:

---

It's not there for them, it's there for those that found it significant.

---

Which means it belongs in a church, not a museum. Stuff in a museum belongs because it is significant to all since history is for everyone, not just the faithful.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Because I do think it has a secular purpose. Did you see my Message 191?

---

That isn't a secular purpose. Your own source indicates that it's a sectarian purpose: That's not a secular purpose. That is solely a religious purpose.Ergo, it doesn't belong in a museum. It belongs in a church.

quote:

---

I already answered that the cross displayed upside-down might be seen as disrespectful to the rescuers who were there that got the help from it.

---

Which is proof positive that it has no secular purpose, only sectarian.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

Its historical significance rests on how big a "handful" we have

---

Incorrect.The number of people venerating an object doesn't turn a religious object into something secular.What secular purpose does this particular object serve? Note, it cannot be traced back to "people thought it was a Christian sign." That's a sectarian purpose. We need a secular one.Be specific.The closest that has been put forward is that it was used as a meeting point. As an obvious object in the debris, that makes sense. But nothing happened at this meeting point other than meetings. There is no historical significance to this item unless you're holding back.What secular purpose does this particular object serve?

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

Don't know what you mean by golden rule.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?

quote:

---

Mine is:

​

WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS.

---

That's not the Golden Rule. That's the Silver Rule. And no, I'm not making that up.The Golden Rule is, as everyone knows, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."The Silver Rule is, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."Carl Sagan proposed two more:Brazen Rule: Do unto others as they do unto you.Iron Rule: Do unto others as you like before they do it to you.

quote:

---

Christian America flaunted Europe with the Constitution, perhaps one of the greatest documents humanity possesses.

---

So why is it whenever we invade another country to establish a democracy, we never establish an American-style government? It's always a European-style government? We've never helped a country establish a Congress...always a Parliament.

quote:

---

Europe did great damage to the symbol of the cross.

---

Which is proof that this piece of debris doesn't belong in a museum but rather a church.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

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

---

Incorrect.The Golden Rule is not Christian. Many cultures have come up with it. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, China, they all came up with it.What you put forward is the Silver Rule. It, too, is not Christian in origin and has been discovered in many cultures.

quote:

---

Yes, but Europe was overtly wrong, unlike America.

---

And yet Europe is doing so much better than America.

cavediver writes:

quote:

---

Otherwise religion seems to be being treated as some special case, which is precisely what I thought we would want to avoid!

---

Then so much for the First Amendment. I realize you're British, but we have a specific rule here in the US that directly singles out religion as a special case.The government doesn't get to regulate religion and religion doesn't get to meddle in the government.

quote:

---

The cross has significance to the workers on the site

---

Incorrect. It had significance to only some workers on the site. And that significance was completely religious in nature.Thus, it doesn't belong in a museum. It belongs in a church.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite conclusion is called for: Its only significance is religious and thus, it doesn't belong in a museum. It belongs in a church.

quote:

---

Personally, I don't like singling out religion as something that requires special treatment.

---

Then so much for the First Amendment.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's not the Golden Rule. That's the Silver Rule. And no, I'm not making that up.
The Golden Rule is, as everyone knows, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

​

Put your thinking cap on. Isabela of Spain

---

Huh? What does Isabella I have to do with anything?You claimed that the Golden Rule is "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." That's not the Golden Rule. That's the Silver Rule.What does Isabella I have to do with that?

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And yet Europe is doing so much better than America.

---

​

Don't you mean Eurostan?

---

Huh? There is no such place.Instead, there's Europe. It has better health care, better social outcomes, and while it is going through a financial crisis, it is not as bad as it is here in the US. The problem, of course, is that some countries in Europe, under influence from the US-backed IMF, are enforcing conservative economic principles of "austerity" which are making things worse.In economic downturns, governments must spend more, not less. They're the only ones who can. The economy will never recover without demand. Demand cannot come from the workers who have no jobs. Suppliers will never hire without demand. No hiring means no jobs and it becomes a downward spiral. Therefore, as we learned back in the 30s during the Depression, it is incumbent upon governments to step in and spend the money nobody else can in order to stimulate the economy. The stimulus only "failed" in the sense that it wasn't big enough.