Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

No, really. That's pretty much exactly what my position was throughout this whole thread. Message 127

quote:

---

They have a piece of the building that held a significance for the resuers. Its not just any old cross, that it was a part of the actual building is part of the historical significance.

---

Message 138

quote:

---

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.

---

Message 139

quote:

---

And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol.

---

Message 144

quote:

---

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:

• Its from the actual building, i.e. its an artifact from the site itself
  ​
• It played an important role in the resue operation

​

That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho.

---

Message 151

quote:

---

Straggler writes:

​

Why not admit it's religious nature and argue that it should be there anyway?

That has been my position the whole time. I have admitted it is religious, and that that doesn't matter, and I have not denied that it is religious. I've argued that it passes the Lemon Test so it should be allowed.

---

Message 191

quote:

---

What secular reason?

Please catch up on what's already been posted:

​

Message 59:

​

quote:

---

Museum officials said the cross was being displayed not because of its religious value but the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks.
"The mission of the National September 11 Memorial Museum is to tell the history of 9/11 through historic artefacts like the World Trade Center cross. This steel remnant became a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero, as well as for people around the world," museum president Joe Daniels said in a statement.

---

​

Message 127:

quote:

---

How exactly did it help them?

Spiritual comfort in a time of high stress. Increase morale. Some sort of effort consilience. I dunno, I wasn't there. I'm just taking their word for it.

---

​

Message 144:

​

quote:

---

Its secular to me because:

• Its from the actual building, i.e. its an artifact from the site itself
  ​
• It played an important role in the resue operation

---

​

.

​

If Kali inspires a DMV worker to do a better job, is that a secular reason?

​

In a museum that was exhibiting things that have helped DMV workers, showing how Kali did could be done in a secular way, yes.

---

I think there's even more later but that should suffice and I'm tired of looking up old messages. Where did you say that?

I think "the cross" has cultural significance in most Western societies that goes beyond religion. It symbolizes making sacrifices for our fellow man (e.g. the Red Cross, which is not overtly religious).

I would suggest actually looking at the history of the Red Cross and other symbols used by the ICRC before spouting off nonsense. The various red symbols were chosen and put on large white backgrounds because they would be recognized as something not to shoot at because of their religious or other connotations. They were not chosen to represent sacrifice. They serve as trademarks and as "don't shoot me, I'm trying to save your brother' truce flags.Were you aware that the red symbols include a red Shield of David and a Red Lion?In this particular case, regardless of what crosses can mean in other contexts, the cross in question commemorates a religious expression that occurred during a non secular crisis. It is intended to be a crucifix, not a generic "t" because historically that's what was intended at the time.

Why they were chosen is irrelevant to the cultual significance that they actually have today.

Just a minor quibble: A crucifix is a cross that has Jesus on it, not just a bare cross.

Correct. That's why I included the current meanings in my post.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You included what you interpret the current meanings to be. Others do not necessarily interpret a cross as a religious symbol.For one thing, it is non-denominational. It is associated with a culture that happens to have a lot of Christian roots. It is not necessarily associated with particular religious beliefs.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you happen to have anything to support it? I, for one, have never seen any non-christian rocking a cross necklace. I, for one, have never seen a non-christian displaying a cross in their house. But then, argument from ignorance and all that, so please, show me the money! Unless you are using "cultural christians" as your copout. If that is the case, those people are still christians because they more often than not believe in jesus in some fashion.

I was talking specifically about a culture with Christian roots as opposed to religious practices. What part of that did you miss? I beilieve in much of what the fictional character Jesus stood for but I don't consider myself a Christian. I also believe in much of what the fictional character Frodo stood for but I don't call it religious. I have a crucifix that I made myself. My fundy friends and relatives are either puzzled or horrified. Or, you assume that every stranger you see wearing a cross is a Christian.I, for one, have a Jesus fish bracelet and a WWJD necklace. Do they count?

quote:

---

But I guess it is easier to make silly assertions about a giant crucifix having a "secular purpose" than to actually make the argument (that I would have some sympathy for) that it deserves to be in the museum as a religious symbol significant to the events of 9/11

---

Message 235

quote:

---

Why not just admit it's entirely non-secular meaning and advocate it's inclusion as a religious symbol that is historically relevant for it's religious symbolism? That is the only honest approach.

​

Your "secular purpose" argument holds as much water as a leaky bucket.

---

Message 309Do you think "significance" and "purpose" mean the same thing?If you can enlighten me as to the secular purpose (as opposed to historical significance) of this gigantic cross then I would still be happy to hear about that.And if it's just a historical object, as opposed to a religious symbol that has historical significance, then we are back to including it in the museum but placed on it's side or whatever.But that would be silly because it would negate the religious purpose that gave it historical significance in the first place.

Am I wrong in taking this to mean that you are saying it is pure coincidence that the cross has meaning? "Happens to have Christian roots"? Would Americans or anything region that "happens to have a lot of christian roots" wear crosses if not for the christian roots? The part where you admitted it as a christian symbol instead of calling it a cultural one. "Culturally christian" is still christian. Being an atheist that grew up in christian culture doesn't automatically make one a "cultural christian"unless they do christian things and doing christian things would make them ::GASP:: a christian. Do you see the difference in what I wrote and what you wrote? Belief in words written by what you admit to be a fictional character is not anywhere remotely close to believing IN that fictional character. It is the belief IN that fictional character that is important and the main tenant of that religion. Gee, I wonder why they look at you funny. yes, because it is a symbol of christianity.tell me: would anyone wear a cross had it not been for this jesus character or christianity? Do Muslims wear crosses? Jews? Hindus? And I am sure you don't wear them to be ironic whatsoever, right?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I feel so sorry for all these atheists I can imagine the ceremony and what the atheists might say to the congregation;"Dear beloved molecules that existed for a short time for no reason at all, we are gathered here to state that we love you, or did love you, but to be honest,....well, no we didn't actually, because love is a fuzzy feeling that molecules tend to give. And even though there was no point in your lives all that's left of you is pulverized matter, verily I say unto you that Dawkins, our King and commander, offers you his sympathies! We know it was wrong what happened to you....or do we? After all, morality only exists in our heads...and we know there is no reason we exist except to replicate genes...so I guess the conclusion to this ceremony is that we don't actually care that you're dead if we are true to the implications of atheism, because you know, ultimately the perpetrators thought this was the best reason for their lives, to kill you and in some way pass on their genes. So, well, even though we acknowledge you existed, and we acknowledge none of this matters, dear families, find peace in the fact that well, our association of atheists believe that ultimately there is no hope for your dearly departed, and have some cake on the way out, it might increase your gene-flow!"Well, obviously I don't mean any genuine disrespect, it is actually a sarcastic example of the true implications of atheism and should be seen that way. It's actually the absurdity of the philosophy I am attacking. This atheist philosophy, if atheists were true to those implications would likely have to state these things if they are to be truly honest about what they believe. They do indeed believe that ultimately there isn't any right or wrong, they have to, so in a sense they don't think what happened in 9/11 was, "ultimately wrong", but I doubt they would tell you that. Yet in reality I think they do really believe what happened was ultimately wrong.I think this is the problem, people can see that in reality, atheists too can be genuinely good people, that don't really believe the implications of their own philosophy otherwise they would be true to it. They want to show they can care despite not being religious and the reason they do is because they're not just molecules, like their philosophy tells them.All I would suggest is to complete the circle. Love is the real deal, does exist and God is love, not the god of hate the muslim murderers chose. The cross represents the penalty Jesus Christ paid for every human being and the lengths God has gone to to prove love is the real deal. Ultimately this world is sinful, and the motives of the murderers were self-centred sinful motives, which is why they done what they done because they only ever knew the sinful nature and didn't have that love in them. There is hope and the cross represents true hope for eternal life in a sinless state, but if atheism is true, then there is no justice for what happened, but you can rest assured, God is the judge, and He will give the exact penalty according to His omniscient wisdom, your relatives will get justice.Have rats turned up to the ceremony? Have the plants? Yet even atheists feel a need to portray a contrary action and acknowledge that life does indeed mean more than molecules despite their insane philosophy-of-nothingness because they too have a conscience and are made in the image of God. They deny the cross but would likely want to see justice be done, too, I imagine, according to an all-wise judgement.The truth is there's a lot we don't understand in this world, but to go so far as to throw a God of love out completely, well - that's just folly if He really is there, and we can tell you He is, and that when you have the love of God it is the greatest feeling in the world, and the greatest meaning available and has no offense in it at all. Those who are genuinely born-again as Christ described can experience this love for themselves, and they will also know that it is the key to everything truly and morally good and right.(Sure, use the "hell" example to come back at me, I can take it, I know it's coming, but at least we don't believe that ultimately there is no reason we exist or are here, which is still insane even if hell doesn't exist. I think I could accept it if hell only existed for genuinely through-and-through evil folk like the extremists and murderers and so forth, but to believe there is no point at all to existing, is just plain dumb, it just is.)

At least you've offered Faith some reprieve, so you can take solace in that I suppose since what you post is complete nonsense. ........is "I do not believe in god". Nothing more. Everything else you've stated is a complete fabrication not founded in reality. You mean "if atheists weren't actually atheists, but the kind of atheists I portray them as"?Try less preaching and more honesty.

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.

I imagine that it would sound more like...

quote:

---

Once again we are gathered to mourn the lives lost to ignorance and fear. Again we count the harm done by the superstitious beliefs of the pig ignorant and glassy eyed.

​

We remember those whose lives were stolen by these acts of selfish delusion. We ache with profound sadness for those who remain and our guts churn as we taste their grief. We feel it because even though these were strangers to us they were also our kin. They were our brothers and sisters and they shared our desire for a chance to love a be loved. Not so much to ask really and yet such a heinous crime to deny. Torn from the world and from the lives of those who loved them.

​

Now I know that your first instinct is to say 'Let's go fuck a terrorist sideways up the goat ass right now' but I urge you to remember that hatred is a burden and that you do not have to hate something to be against it. You just have to understand it.

---