Atheist group sues over cross at 9/11 memorial

[martybegan]

Yeah, I get it. It's considered a holy relic.

Still, it is divisive not to include symbols from the religions of all that died.

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

That is just a really unworkable concept. Also just because it is a cross doesnt mean people of other religons are automatically offended. Its a small percentage. So we have to let a small percentage of the population with sand in thier crack dictate exactly what is allowed in a memorial.

I have decided I am now offended by fire engines. I don't want one of the crushed fire engines in the museum. Also if we actually do it, we need to include an NYPD police car, an ambulance, a PA Police car, a sanitation truck, and a regular car.

See how stupid that sounds?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Yeah, I get it. It's considered a holy relic.

Still, it is divisive not to include symbols from the religions of all that died.

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

for the atheists the void must be enough.

 

[Ravi]

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

That is just a really unworkable concept. Also just because it is a cross doesnt mean people of other religons are automatically offended. Its a small percentage. So we have to let a small percentage of the population with sand in thier crack dictate exactly what is allowed in a memorial.

I have decided I am now offended by fire engines. I don't want one of the crushed fire engines in the museum. Also if we actually do it, we need to include an NYPD police car, an ambulance, a PA Police car, a sanitation truck, and a regular car.

See how stupid that sounds?

Yes, your post does sound stupid.

I fail to see how it would be unworkable to honor the beliefs of everyone that died that day.

Or why anyone would not want to honor them, as those that aren't Christian aren't lesser beings.

 

[Ravi]

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

for the atheists the void must be enough.

Excellent post.

 

[martybegan]

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

That is just a really unworkable concept. Also just because it is a cross doesnt mean people of other religons are automatically offended. Its a small percentage. So we have to let a small percentage of the population with sand in thier crack dictate exactly what is allowed in a memorial.

I have decided I am now offended by fire engines. I don't want one of the crushed fire engines in the museum. Also if we actually do it, we need to include an NYPD police car, an ambulance, a PA Police car, a sanitation truck, and a regular car.

See how stupid that sounds?

Yes, your post does sound stupid.

I fail to see how it would be unworkable to honor the beliefs of everyone that died that day.

Or why anyone would not want to honor them, as those that aren't Christian aren't lesser beings.

You missed my point. The point is this is less about the 1st amendment and more about people not wanting something included in the memorial. If we took religon out of it, the opposition just seems silly, or mean spirited.

If they wanted to do something, say a collage with all sorts of nice religous symbols, I have no issue with that. I'm sure the allied atheist league would.

The issue would be if everyone had to have a symbol of the exact same size and prominance. At that point it gets rediculous.

Again, how is the inclusion of something that looks like a cross establishment of Religon? I can never get an answer on that one.

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if it qualifies or not. Hasn't it been ruled that allowing only one religion is considered an establishment of religion if it is paid for with taxpayer's money?

If you took religion out of the issue, then there would be no issue. Are you now trying to claim a cross has no religious symbolism?

 

[martybegan]

I don't know if it qualifies or not. Hasn't it been ruled that allowing only one religion is considered an establishment of religion if it is paid for with taxpayer's money?

If you took religion out of the issue, then there would be no issue. Are you now trying to claim a cross has no religious symbolism?

What I'm saying was the intent of the establisment clause was to prevent the creation of something such as the Church of England. Also everyone forgets the free exercise part.

Somehow the courts have mutated it into meaning anything involving any government organziation cannot even mention religion.

It is a long way from having to look at something that looks like a cross, to having to pay a tithe to the "Church of the United States." The 1st amendment's prohibition of the establishment of a state religion has been bastardized into a method used by people of an assholian nature to scrub any mention of religion from the commons.

Of course the cross has symbolism of a religous nature, but how does including it in a public memorial establish a religion, or prevent someone elses free exercise therof?

 

[Modbert]

Hate is a cancer upon the soul and haters need to spread their misery. They are dangerous and many will soon become criminals....

Mind clarifying who is they?

 

[manifold]

Next we're gonna have these atheist douchers suing to replace the plus sign in arthmetic with something that looks less like a cross. Oh noes, I can't do sums cuz it offends me so much!

Again, when people have time to worry about stupid shit like this, and even sue over it, it goes to show how good people really have it in this country.

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if it qualifies or not. Hasn't it been ruled that allowing only one religion is considered an establishment of religion if it is paid for with taxpayer's money?

If you took religion out of the issue, then there would be no issue. Are you now trying to claim a cross has no religious symbolism?

What I'm saying was the intent of the establisment clause was to prevent the creation of something such as the Church of England. Also everyone forgets the free exercise part.

Somehow the courts have mutated it into meaning anything involving any government organziation cannot even mention religion.

It is a long way from having to look at something that looks like a cross, to having to pay a tithe to the "Church of the United States." The 1st amendment's prohibition of the establishment of a state religion has been bastardized into a method used by people of an assholian nature to scrub any mention of religion from the commons.

Of course the cross has symbolism of a religous nature, but how does including it in a public memorial establish a religion, or prevent someone elses free exercise therof?

I just read that a Star of David, fabricated from materials from the disaster site, will also be displayed. This is a step in the right direction.

A huge cross as a focal point is really no different than a huge crescent. Both, if the only symbol erected, would be divisive.

 

[Si modo]

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

That is just a really unworkable concept. Also just because it is a cross doesnt mean people of other religons are automatically offended. Its a small percentage. So we have to let a small percentage of the population with sand in thier crack dictate exactly what is allowed in a memorial.

I have decided I am now offended by fire engines. I don't want one of the crushed fire engines in the museum. Also if we actually do it, we need to include an NYPD police car, an ambulance, a PA Police car, a sanitation truck, and a regular car.

See how stupid that sounds?

Why is it unworkable? They make it work at Arlington.

 

[Ravi]

Next we're gonna have these atheist douchers suing to replace the plus sign in arthmetic with something that looks less like a cross. Oh noes, I can't do sums cuz it offends me so much!

Again, when people have time to worry about stupid shit like this, and even sue over it, it goes to show how good people really have it in this country.

If things are going well we should not care about civil rights issues?

 

[manifold]

Next we're gonna have these atheist douchers suing to replace the plus sign in arthmetic with something that looks less like a cross. Oh noes, I can't do sums cuz it offends me so much!

Again, when people have time to worry about stupid shit like this, and even sue over it, it goes to show how good people really have it in this country.

If things are going well we should not care about civil rights issues?

Only a retard would think this is a civil rights issue.

 

[Bullhornman]

It is sad this day in age, the 21st century, that people still believe in the man in the sky. Sad.

 

[CitizenPained]

According to the article, there are also some Jews and a Lutheran that are upset about it.

Why not just put the symbol for the religion of each person that died instead of being so divisive?

I'm sure if they found some twisted metal that looked like the Star of David, it would have been in there.

Jews in America are pretty solid when it comes to separation of church and state.

 

[CitizenPained]

I don't know if it qualifies or not. Hasn't it been ruled that allowing only one religion is considered an establishment of religion if it is paid for with taxpayer's money?

If you took religion out of the issue, then there would be no issue. Are you now trying to claim a cross has no religious symbolism?

What I'm saying was the intent of the establisment clause was to prevent the creation of something such as the Church of England. Also everyone forgets the free exercise part.

Somehow the courts have mutated it into meaning anything involving any government organziation cannot even mention religion.

It is a long way from having to look at something that looks like a cross, to having to pay a tithe to the "Church of the United States." The 1st amendment's prohibition of the establishment of a state religion has been bastardized into a method used by people of an assholian nature to scrub any mention of religion from the commons.

Of course the cross has symbolism of a religous nature, but how does including it in a public memorial establish a religion, or prevent someone elses free exercise therof?

It prohibits government on any level showing favoritism for one religion over another (or irreligion).

 

[EPluribusUnum]

how retarded that we have an association for atheists.

but i don't see why other memorials/faiths can't be represented. i think that's reasonable - and in today's climate, called for.

Exactly, it's absolutely unfair to single out only one religion to represent at this memorial, when this cross doesn't represent all the religious, or especially non-religious deaths that occurred as a result of 9/11. We should honor the dead and respect the families of all religious or non-religious views involved.

Also why is it retarded for there to be an association for atheists? Is it ridiculous for there to be a group of atheists that come together to fulfill particular purposes relevant to many atheists in America? If so then that shows more of your own biases rather than anything else.

 

[EPluribusUnum]

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

for the atheists the void must be enough.

No, there can be an intelligent and respectful monument recognizing the deaths of those who were atheists.

 

[EPluribusUnum]

Try it, and the atheists would probably sue over that too.

Again, where does this create the establishment of a religon in the context of the 1st amendment? Do people have to deposit a coin into the cross if they see it?

People who are offended by this need to get a fucking life.

From what I understand, the Federal government is pouring money into the memorial. So yeah, IMO, it should be all religions or none. And if any atheists died that day, they could have some sort of representation as well.

That is just a really unworkable concept. Also just because it is a cross doesnt mean people of other religons are automatically offended. Its a small percentage. So we have to let a small percentage of the population with sand in thier crack dictate exactly what is allowed in a memorial.

I have decided I am now offended by fire engines. I don't want one of the crushed fire engines in the museum. Also if we actually do it, we need to include an NYPD police car, an ambulance, a PA Police car, a sanitation truck, and a regular car.

See how stupid that sounds?

You're right we shouldn't afford the minority honor, respect, and fairness since they're apart of the minority.

Sorry but this is deeper than simply the arbitrariness of what people are offended by or especially what they value (ie their religion). This is about how Christianity is shown favoritism above all other religious and non-religious views, that shouldn't be allowed as it deliberately neglects honoring and respecting a significant portion of deaths and families involved.

 

[lilbug]

Ugh! I am so sick of this! We have become country governed by some group or another whose feelings got hurt or someone did something against THEIR principles. We are constantly bending over backwards to appease folks. Frankly, I don't see this as a religious symbol at all, I see it as expression of love for those we lost and respect and honor for those who responded. Surely to heavens folks ought to be able to get over themselves and their righteous indignation and allow folks to derive whatever peace of mind or comfort they find from this.