Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

I wonder how often posts from fundies start like this?Anyway, it's a sign that everything that follows is going to be utter garbage. It's a certainty that the poster doesn't understand the very first thing about the beliefs and values of atheists and a that their own beliefs will be superimposed on them instead.Have a bit of respect, ask a question and those of us that are atheists will try to aswer you - if, in fact, you'd like to understand our position rather than invent your own views on what we think it is.

They exchange gifts, eat turkey, roast potatoes and sprouts, get all their family together and have a merry time. Some go to midnight mass (drunk) some sing carols (Dawkins). In the UK they give Easter eggs, roll eggs down hills and plan their summer holidays.

Definitely no religious significance at all. Oh no, not even a bit. Quack

Just wondering, what other shape would have been rescued out of the rubble and put on a plinth? Why was that particular shape recovered and revered?

This is circular - the only interest in that particular piece of metal is because of its religious significance. If they'd actually wanted something secular, they'd have chosen a different shape - they had an infinite number to choose from.Truth is, they couldn't do anything else could they?

I've nothing to get over, it ain't my country and I personally think it's pretty cool. I'd have voted to keep it if asked.It doesn't get us passed the very, very obvious fact that it was chosen because of its religious significance.

Well of course, that's what they have to say because of your inconvenient constitution - it's making everyone torture words and feelings. Truth is it was picked for its religious significance and it has a religious significance now - a very obvious one. It looks like a duck....not much point calling it anything else but a duck except to avoid a legalistic difficulty.

'yeh, right.' as the kids say.......or, as my dad used to say, 'pull the other one it's got bells on.'The museum chose an undeniable religious symbol. The rest is pure bullshit.

There'll be a few million people view that symbol in the next year, would you bet me anything at all that if you interviewed them and asked them what does the symbol represent that more would say hope than religion or Christianity or some such?And for those three people who say 'hope' how many do you think would answer the follow up question 'why?' With something about salvation? Really, was there a poll?But like I said, I'd vote for it, I just wouldn't pretend that it's not a crucifix and holds no religious significance.

The reality is an enormous, physical, tangible, photographical crucifix that the entire world can see, probably the most recognisable brand on the planet - the rest is rationalised hokum designed to get around an inconvenient law.

It doesn't bother me at all - like I say, I like the imagery - but the hypocrisy of the argument is very interesting to observe.

This is US culture specifically. No other state would agonise in this way about such an object - it's obviously iconic and it would have been picked up by any Christian based society as a powerful image. (Just to test the argument, ask yourself if that crucifix would have been used by a Muslim country.)The problem the lawyers are having is that they want to use the icon regardless of their laws because it is so obviously an amazing thing - but have to torture logic simply because it's of deeply religious significance. It's not a conflict culture, it's purely a conflict of law.

It's an alibi, I'll give you all that.

Nope - they don't need to lie they're not talking about facts that can be checked, it's a philosophical discussion. They just need to create an alternative story - transparently obvious though it is - 'cos everyone in the process wants the result that they got. (Except a few atheists, and who listens to them in the USA?)