Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Not to me.. Of course, I was never Christian.

The cross has religious meaning for some and other meanings for others. Nonsense. The US is culturally Christian and yet we see you guys arguing all the time that it isn't a "Christian nation". Sure it does. Well, they do. Most atheists celebrate Christmas and Easter, don't they? But they do it in a cultural way instead of a religious way. Sure it is. That's what I tell Christians all the time. What matters is the message, not the messenger. Unfortunately, some religious people have it reversed, like you do. As I mentioned to NoNukes, and he agreed, the origin of the symbol is irrelevant. Things change. Certainly not. I wear them because I believe in the message, not the messenger.

When you think of the Red Cross, do you honestly think of religion? Or do you think of helping people?

That's a false dichotomy. When I see the particular famous style of red cross on a white background I think of the ICRC. If I saw a three dimensional red cross, I would not think that the ICRC or anyone else is helping people.Beyond that, the cross in question is not red.

I don't know what atheists do on Christmas. Maybe they do still treat their kids to Santa Claus, but I suspect that they are not putting Nativity Scenes in their yards just to be cultural.But in the US, do atheist do anything special on Easter other than take Good Friday off from work when it is offered? I suspect not. I suspect that they acknowledge such holidays they same way I honor Muslim holidays, namely by being respectful to others who do celebrate them.

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's just the two most obvious examples that came to mind. If you want more possibilities: I don't know what you think "the cross in question" is. I'm talking about crosses in general in Western culture.

What is the subject matter of this thread, ringo? Surely you are not that obtuse. What cross is mentioned in the title of your message? I've already answered that. When I see 'the' Red Cross, I think of the particular organization that uses 'the' Red Cross. If I were to see a red cross that was completely distinct from that one, I would not think about helping people.And by asking someone to pick between x or y, when there were other meaningful answers, you did express a dichotomy. Now you are just adding silly things like ice cream that don't make your question any more sensible. In fact, you are parodying yourself.You've personally adopted a cross and some other religious as non religious symbols having meaning for you. I get that. I think it is pretty cool, now that you've explained it. But that does not cause those symbols to generally have a non-religious meaning. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have a collection of about seventy nativity scenes. In my experience, everybody celebrates Easter pretty much the same way. Some people go to church on Easter who don't attend on a regular basis. Otherwise, Easter is pretty much a secular holiday, like Valentine's Day but with different candy.

Some cross that atheists wanted to remove but the powers-that-be agree with me that it has cultural significance in addition to any religious significance that it might have. Congratulations on being able to see beyond the literal for once. The Red Cross is one example of a cross whose implications go beyond the religious. The cross in the OP, according to the powers-that-be, is apparently another example.

So your argument boils down to "nuh uh, you're wrong because I say so"? Recall my first response to you where I asked you to back up your claim? Ringo's say so is unfortunately not sufficient. No, it isn't. Nah, it doesn't Christmas = Winter SolsticeEaster = eggs and candy.No Christianity there whatsoever. No nativity scenes in my house, no dead baby jesus on easter. Only bunnies that shit candy and fat men in red suits that shit gifts. You know, how my pagan ancestors wanted it. Not how the christians co-opted it. So in ringo world, Christianity now means "belief in what jesus says" instead of the way it has been for eons of "belief that jesus existed and died for your sins"? So you, Ringo, are a christian?I have to ask again because your response is obsurd: you do realize that belief in what someone says is not the same as belief in that someone, right? If you can point me to ANYONE other than yourself (because I don't even believe you) that uses the cross in a non-christian manner, I will cede my point.The cross is a christian symbol and has christian roots. The only people silly enough to say otherwise is you and this court ruling. And neither of you have provided ANY evidence other than Ringo's say so. So jesus' message is "ask me what I would do in this situation" and you wear a symbol that represents a religion and not at all what the character said? does that make a lick of sense to you? I don't think it does and I think you are just trying to be a contrarian.

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.

I'm agreeing with the organizers of the 9/11 memorial, who consider the cross a symbol of hope for everybody. Yes, that's my point. Yes. No.If you had been reading my posts faithfully, you'd know these things. On the contrary, belief in what somebody says is far more important than the trivial question of whether that somebody actually existed. What matters more, the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had or the guy who mentioned he had it? See the OP: the organizers of the 9/11 memorial. Only me and the courts, eh? Then I think I'm in fairly good company. Maybe the courts are reading my posts like you should be, but I doubt that they made their ruling solely on my say-so. Jesus' message was, "Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself." Most religions say pretty much the same thing. I wear a symbol that represents that message.

I don't think the court ruling actually agrees with ringo's reasoning. If you want to find some really cynical reasoning regarding religious symbols like Jesus in a manger being non-religious, you're going to have to look at some Supreme Court decisions.As I understand it, the court is saying that this particular cross was important in an historical event and accordingly has historical significance in the same way the particular flag raised by four servicemen on Iwo Jima has historical significance not imputed to the flag you might pick up from Walmart to celebrate the fourth of July.In short it is not that the cross is no longer a religious symbol, but that this particular cross has additional significance which can be displayed without violating the constitution.

That pretty much is my reasoning.

That is the point the atheists are making. It still is a religious symbol. Why is everyone trying to deny that it is? It rings the same as the "I'm not religious (because being religious has negative connotations), I just have a personal relationship with jesus".