Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth

[IGetItAlready]

The National September 11th Memorial and Museum, *A NON-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY*, has challenged a suit filed to keep the museum from displaying the iconic cross shaped I-beam recovered from the WTC rubble following the 911 attacks.

9/11 Museum Seeks Dismissal of Atheists' Lawsuit Against Cross


In the suit filed last year, a New Jersey atheist group claims that the piece of debris is in fact a shrine and that it doesn't represent non Christians who perished in the towers and that the cross shaped beam will somehow impose religion *"through the power of the state"*.

On a more sensible note:

Many individual atheists openly spoke against American Atheists after it filed the lawsuit last year. Susan Jacoby, an atheist contributor of The Washington Post, described the group as having "an unerring nose for the scent of publicity," their suit "nonsense," and their leader, "obtuse."

This is some of the most idiotic shit I've ever heard of and I'm glad the museum is FINALLY pushing back. At the same time I'm not the least bit surprised given the petty bullshit we've all come to expect from our favorite dipshits in the "anti-God" movement.

Perpendicular lines crossing one another are all around us and I love that some of the most repugnant people on earth take so much offense each time they encounter them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

Those same Atheists prolly believe in the Annunaki anyway.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

The practical difference being....?

 

[IGetItAlready]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

Those same Atheists prolly believe in the Annunaki anyway.

Exactly. And though that freedom OF religion allows for those without faith, it in no way implies that images related to any faith entering into the cornea's of anyone else is an infringement on their rights.
Yet that's EXACTLY how these triflers like to interpret it.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

The practical difference being....?

...quite clear.

 

[Si modo]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

The practical difference being....?

Are you being deliberately obtuse in asking that?

Not being snarky, but I don't want to waste my time typing a response to a bright person who seems to be able to figure it out.

 

[jillian]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

The practical difference being....?

...quite clear.

One doesn't exist w/o the other

 

[IGetItAlready]

The practical difference being....?

...quite clear.

One doesn't exist w/o the other

Technically, neither exist in our Constitution. One is implied and the other is a misinterpretation that comes up each time someone gets all bent over what they see as an attempt to have faith forced upon them.
Like "being forced" to look at two pieces of steel crossing at a right angle.

 

[Si modo]

The practical difference being....?

...quite clear.

One doesn't exist w/o the other

That's not true.

 

[jillian]

...quite clear.

One doesn't exist w/o the other

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

 

[IGetItAlready]

One doesn't exist w/o the other

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.

 

[dblack]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

Really? So your take on the first amendment is that we have freedom to choose a religion, but not freedom from having a religion imposed on us by government?

What exactly are you getting at here?

 

[AmyNation]

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.

Agreed.

 

[jillian]

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.

It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.

 

[IGetItAlready]

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.

It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.

Sorry Jillian. Was simply attempting to stay on topic.
You're right, government does not have a right to impose religion on anyone.

And that's not what's happening in this case.

 

[Ariux]

The Atheist says the cross "It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists."

Sure it does. The God Damned Jews put Jesus on the Cross. The Muslims believe Jesus survived the Cross. Mormons believe Jesus died on the Cross. And, Atheists are just Jews. See, the Cross represents everyone.

 

[HUGGY]

Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth


Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm constantly reminding people that we have "Freedom OF Religion" NOT "Freedom FROM Religion".

The practical difference being....?

The free exercise clause.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?

 

[Avatar4321]

Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth


Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.

Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's my father.