If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   NY state court says that 9/11 Cross may be allowed in the memorial's museum. Naturally, some people have a problem with this   (cnn.com) divider line 299
    More: Obvious, World Trade Center Cross, Judges' Rules, World Trade Center, A New York, American Atheists, Franciscans, museums  
•       •       •

6059 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Mar 2013 at 5:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



299 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 08:43:50 PM  

the ha ha guy: jcooli09: porn is much less damaging than religion, so I'm ok with it.  How about you?


You don't find it offensive therefore it's fine? Thanks for proving my point.

To answer your question, I would argue that there are more people in the US who find porn offensive than there are who find religious icons offensive.

So my question is, what makes your right to not be offended greater than the right of others to not be offended? Why should the ground-zero cross be erased from history while enormous genitalia is glorified and printed on our money?


They took the Penis Dollar Bill out of circulation years ago, man.
 
2013-03-30 08:44:21 PM  
Anyone who hates anything is not acting in his best interests.

Attacking what is not attacking you is a waste of resources.

Attributing fear generated internally to external causes is error.
 
2013-03-30 08:44:28 PM  
jcooli09:

bullshiat.  People want it there because they see it as their god.  Most of them will see it as a beautiful reaffirmation of their faith, but that's the very fantasy that made it possible.  It's obscene.

This was seen by everyone after the tragedy and it is a part of that history.

You think it shouldn't be included because SOME people might see it like you described?
 
2013-03-30 08:45:47 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Man On Pink Corner: Sorry, but we have the right to defend our society from the corrosive effects of superstition.  Deal with it, and get over it.

Some of the "corrosive effects" of Christianity have included great works of art, extensive charitable endeavours, and moral campaigns such as the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. You can't indict religion for the bad things done in its name while throwing out the good things: that is hypocrisy. Besides, when it comes to slaughter the Christians were amateurs compared to those following the avowedly atheist totalitarian system of Communism, whose death toll has amounted to upward of eighty million in one century alone (and they didn't even produce an equivalent to Bach, Michelangelo, or Dante).

The problem is not with religion as such but with man's propensity to hold irrational beliefs and to want to use them to dominate his neighbours, and this can also manifest itself in secular ways: political ideologies serve the same purpose for most people nowadays as faith did for our ancestors. You only have to read a political discussion on Fark to see how many commenters around here treat politics as a substitute religion giving their lives meaning, and with its own corresponding ideas of original sin (white guilt), the lost paradise (the pre- industrial and/or tribal and/or aboriginal and/or matriarchal way of life), the division of humanity into the saved and damned (those who are part of the problem (conservatives) and those who are part of the solution(left- liberals)), and the promised utopia of the future that will arrive once the enemies of goodness have been gotten out of the way (a carbon- free future, perhaps, a de-industrialized world, a one- world government, or whatever else strikes their fancy). Much like Christians, too, politically- minded people tend to lash out viciously at those who question their dogma: and if you doubt it, just watch the replies to this post!


GMTA
 
2013-03-30 08:46:32 PM  

the ha ha guy: jcooli09: porn is much less damaging than religion, so I'm ok with it.  How about you?


You don't find it offensive therefore it's fine? Thanks for proving my point.

To answer your question, I would argue that there are more people in the US who find porn offensive than there are who find religious icons offensive.

So my question is, what makes your right to not be offended greater than the right of others to not be offended? Why should the ground-zero cross be erased from history while enormous genitalia is glorified and printed on our money?


It isn't about my being offended, it's about calling it like it is.  Religion is the problem, not the solution.
 
2013-03-30 08:46:35 PM  

the ha ha guy: Why should the ground-zero cross be erased from history while enormous genitalia is glorified and printed on our money?


What's the exchange rate between your money and mine? :-)
 
2013-03-30 08:48:02 PM  
This object is part of the history of the site.   Thus...

<span voice="Indiana Jones">It belongs in a museum</span>

/nonbeliever
 
2013-03-30 08:48:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who hates anything is not acting in his best interests.

Attacking what is not attacking you is a waste of resources.

Attributing fear generated internally to external causes is error.


This. To me, one of the greatest advantages to my being a godless heathen is not belonging to anything, or having to worry about what symbols other people like to look at. It would make no sense for me to attach significance to that which, by definition, has no significance to me.
 
2013-03-30 08:48:43 PM  

REO-Weedwagon: Let the cross stand as a monument to the question every Jesus-worshiper avoids: Where was your omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving Jesus when 3,000 people were murdered?


Guiding the planes?
 
2013-03-30 08:49:41 PM  

ronaprhys: The only thing that I'd say to dispute this is that if the religious symbol for any other religion had happened to show up like this one did (which is unlikely, given the complexities of most symbols - this one happens to be damned easy to come up randomly), then they'd deserve to be included if they brought similar comfort. For example, say there had been an art exhibit and a huge menorah had managed to live through the carnage, completely unscathed, then I'd say it should be included.


I would agree; its inclusion isn't about the brand of faith.

jso2897: I would much rather see members of other faiths deal with it - like having a Muslim demand a crescent be placed right next to the cross.
Just for the entertainment value, you understand. You'd support that, right? I mean what with you being a grownup, and all.


See above; if a Muslim holy symbol happened to be standing in rubble and, you know, considering the context, tons of people rallied around it as a source of healing and strength then I would have no problem with it's inclusion. As it is, there shouldn't be one because one never existed. To put one in the museum is to re-write a false history.
 
2013-03-30 08:49:58 PM  

jcooli09: Religion is the problem, not the solution.


Religion is the solution to many problems, just not the one you're thinking of.
 
2013-03-30 08:50:43 PM  
Damn vampires
 
2013-03-30 08:51:15 PM  

jcooli09: ronaprhys: jcooli09: Just because you can't understand what I'm saying is no reason to get so upset, Nancy.

Understanding what you're saying is very easy to do.  Unfortunately for you, it's not anything original, intelligent, or particularly well thought out.

Quit liking what I don't like.

clearly it allows you to feels superior, I guess that's something.

Religion isn't about god, it's about control and marketing.  This is marketing and that doesn't deserve to be enshrined.


Nope - doesn't make me feel superior at all.  For all practical purposes, I'm agnostic.  I guess I could try to argue that I could feel superior due to your idiocy, but I don't.  I feel a bit of pity, but that's about it.  Of course, that's tempered by the knowledge that you're (probably) an adult and you've made your own bed to lie in.

Again - no different than a 5yo kid throwing a temper-tantrum.
 
2013-03-30 08:51:21 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: theotherles: REO-Weedwagon: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 344x400]

Let the cross stand as a monument to the question every Jesus-worshiper avoids: Where was your omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving Jesus when 3,000 people were murdered?

F*CK YES!

Where was your God over the last century when over a hundred million people were murdered by various so-called governments?

Y'all seem to think that noblesse oblige applies to God.  The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.  How could its Creator be?


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
 
2013-03-30 08:51:44 PM  

Amos Quito: FTA: "September 11 "affected all Americans, not just Christians," Silverman continued. "We will not sit and let the 500 atheists who died on 9/11 go unnoticed."


How does Silverman know how many atheists died on 9/11?

Were they registered atheists?


Did someone reject the atheist gravestone?
 
2013-03-30 08:53:39 PM  

CanisNoir: ronaprhys: The only thing that I'd say to dispute this is that if the religious symbol for any other religion had happened to show up like this one did (which is unlikely, given the complexities of most symbols - this one happens to be damned easy to come up randomly), then they'd deserve to be included if they brought similar comfort. For example, say there had been an art exhibit and a huge menorah had managed to live through the carnage, completely unscathed, then I'd say it should be included.

I would agree; its inclusion isn't about the brand of faith.

jso2897: I would much rather see members of other faiths deal with it - like having a Muslim demand a crescent be placed right next to the cross.
Just for the entertainment value, you understand. You'd support that, right? I mean what with you being a grownup, and all.

See above; if a Muslim holy symbol happened to be standing in rubble and, you know, considering the context, tons of people rallied around it as a source of healing and strength then I would have no problem with it's inclusion. As it is, there shouldn't be one because one never existed. To put one in the museum is to re-write a false history.


Are you sure? There wasn't even one, single crescent shaped piece of metal in all  that wreckage?
Exactly what number of people would have to "rally around it" for you to let them display it?
Can you quantify your exact standard of legitimacy of "history"?
I'm just asking questions, you understand.
 
2013-03-30 08:53:49 PM  

theotherles: BarkingUnicorn: theotherles: REO-Weedwagon: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 344x400]

Let the cross stand as a monument to the question every Jesus-worshiper avoids: Where was your omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving Jesus when 3,000 people were murdered?

F*CK YES!

Where was your God over the last century when over a hundred million people were murdered by various so-called governments?

Y'all seem to think that noblesse oblige applies to God.  The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.  How could its Creator be?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus


So lump Epicurus in among "y'all."
 
2013-03-30 08:54:42 PM  

jcooli09: It isn't about my being offended, it's about calling it like it is.  Religion is the problem, not the solution.



Censoring religious icons in historical contexts will only further claims of "revisionist history", which the zealots will use as a reason to further their efforts.

If this were a memorial, yes, I would oppose the cross, just as I would oppose any religious icons. But this is in a museum designed to preserve history in an accurate and unbiased manner. You can't claim "someone might worship it" as an excuse to censor this piece of history any more than you can claim "someone might worship it" as an excuse to censor swastikas in a Holocaust museum.
 
2013-03-30 08:54:46 PM  

jcooli09: the ha ha guy: jcooli09: porn is much less damaging than religion, so I'm ok with it.  How about you?


You don't find it offensive therefore it's fine? Thanks for proving my point.

To answer your question, I would argue that there are more people in the US who find porn offensive than there are who find religious icons offensive.

So my question is, what makes your right to not be offended greater than the right of others to not be offended? Why should the ground-zero cross be erased from history while enormous genitalia is glorified and printed on our money?

It isn't about my being offended, it's about calling it like it is.  Religion is the problem, not the solution.


You keep repeating the same inaccurate assertion, as if repetition will somehow make it true.  Again - it's about power.  Which, if we're honest, is part of human nature.  No different than pack dominance or any other instinctual behavior.  If religion didn't exist, another tool would be selected that does the job just as well.
 
2013-03-30 08:54:48 PM  
EvilRacistNaziFascist:
They may not have come up with one you could agree with, and that's understandable; I can't honestly say I believe it myself. But then again, consider the atheist alternative, which is to say that bad things happen to good people because the universe is indifferent to us to the point of letting us suffer and die for even the most pointless reason, and it's because life sucks and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about that. I can well understand why people would prefer to believe in a complicated story involving a cosmic bet involving God and Satan instead. In the end, whatever theory we adopt (whether religious or atheist) isn't going to change the fact that life is short and that each of us is going to die, so I don't begrudge anyone their consolations in the meantime. It'd be a good thing if you keyboard warriors with your LOL SKY WIZARD schtick could keep in mind that hope is the rarest and most precious of all human commodities, especially to those who suffer, grieve, are seriously ill, etc.

This is the best case for keeping religion around. You have to keep the poor people in line. A little hope and a lot of guilt will keep them from asking why they have so little and others have so much. You just might not kill your neighbour for that loaf of bread if going to hell is the price.
 
2013-03-30 08:55:45 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: The problem is not with religion as such but with man's propensity to hold irrational beliefs and to want to use them to dominate his neighbours


If not religion, they just use something probably even more irrational to justify dominating others. And many forms of social manipulation work like a charm on Atheists. It's not as if the only trick that has ever existed was religion. It's just the most obvious lie to some people.
 
2013-03-30 08:55:53 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: theotherles: BarkingUnicorn: theotherles: REO-Weedwagon: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 344x400]

Let the cross stand as a monument to the question every Jesus-worshiper avoids: Where was your omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving Jesus when 3,000 people were murdered?

F*CK YES!

Where was your God over the last century when over a hundred million people were murdered by various so-called governments?

Y'all seem to think that noblesse oblige applies to God.  The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.  How could its Creator be?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

So lump Epicurus in among "y'all."


Epicurus was NOT a "y'all". Pliny the Elder, maybe. He always struck me as kind of a redneck.
 
2013-03-30 08:56:27 PM  
When I think 'memorial', I immediately think 'BRONZE AGE TORTURE DEVICE'.
 
2013-03-30 08:56:40 PM  

hornblowerfan: This makes me embarrassed to be an atheist. We're not all like that, trust me. I think it's a beautiful symbol of 9/11 and should absolutely be included.


cosign
 
2013-03-30 08:58:06 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The problem is not with religion as such but with man's propensity to hold irrational beliefs and to want to use them to dominate his neighbours

If not religion, they just use something probably even more irrational to justify dominating others. And many forms of social manipulation work like a charm on Atheists. It's not as if the only trick that has ever existed was religion. It's just the most obvious lie to some people.


This - the individual who really can't be conned is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.
 
2013-03-30 08:58:40 PM  

jso2897: Are you sure? There wasn't even one, single crescent shaped piece of metal in all  that wreckage?
Exactly what number of people would have to "rally around it" for you to let them display it?
Can you quantify your exact standard of legitimacy of "history"?
I'm just asking questions, you understand.


To the "just asking questions" portion, you aren't. No need to lie about it.

To prove your point, find us the news articles where folks were rallying around any other symbol found.  If so, include those.  If not, you've got no point.
 
2013-03-30 08:59:17 PM  

prgrmr: Also, statistically speaking, what's amazing isn't that they pulled cross-shaped steel beams from the WTC rubble; what's amazing is that they only pulled out one.


What if I told you that they are displaying it in the wrong orientation? If this piece was displayed in the same manner as when it stood at the WTC it would display as an upside down cross. I'm sure some people would have a definite problem with this.            not a factual statement
 
2013-03-30 09:02:51 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: Are you sure? There wasn't even one, single crescent shaped piece of metal in all  that wreckage?
Exactly what number of people would have to "rally around it" for you to let them display it?
Can you quantify your exact standard of legitimacy of "history"?
I'm just asking questions, you understand.

To the "just asking questions" portion, you aren't. No need to lie about it.

To prove your point, find us the news articles where folks were rallying around any other symbol found.  If so, include those.  If not, you've got no point.


Of course I have no point - never said I did.
The kind of "lying" I am doing is called "kidding" chum. Relax.
We both know that whatever the circumstances, if somebody tried to stick up a Muslim Crescent in that museum, a whole stratum of people would shiat their pants. I would not be among them, nor am I among those who object to the Cross, or to Thor's f**king hammer if it makes somebody feel better about a rotten, shiatty thing that happened.
Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-30 09:02:54 PM  

jso2897: Are you sure? There wasn't even one, single crescent shaped piece of metal in all that wreckage?
Exactly what number of people would have to "rally around it" for you to let them display it?
Can you quantify your exact standard of legitimacy of "history"?



One was never reported, if one existed, not enough people rallied around it for it to become part of the national culture and representative of tragedy.

ronaprhys: To prove your point, find us the news articles where folks were rallying around any other symbol found. If so, include those. If not, you've got no point.


In other words, what he said.
 
2013-03-30 09:04:46 PM  

CanisNoir: jso2897: Are you sure? There wasn't even one, single crescent shaped piece of metal in all that wreckage?
Exactly what number of people would have to "rally around it" for you to let them display it?
Can you quantify your exact standard of legitimacy of "history"?


One was never reported, if one existed, not enough people rallied around it for it to become part of the national culture and representative of tragedy.

ronaprhys: To prove your point, find us the news articles where folks were rallying around any other symbol found. If so, include those. If not, you've got no point.

In other words, what he said.


This is really important to you guys, eh?
Ok - you win - Cross good, Crescent bad.
Sure as shiat don't make no difference to me.
 
2013-03-30 09:05:31 PM  

Decillion: This is the best case for keeping religion around. You have to keep the poor people in line.


Did I say that? No. I was speaking of those who are sick or who have been bereaved. Obviously you felt the need to twist my words so that they could become more representative of whatever evil fantasy right- winger you're continually battling against in your imagination (a common pathology among Farkers).

A little hope and a lot of guilt will keep them from asking why they have so little and others have so much. You just might not kill your neighbour for that loaf of bread if going to hell is the price.

Who in the United States or any other Western country is in the position of needing to kill his neighbour for a loaf of bread?! Whatever Marxist claptrap you might believe in, the origin of religion is simply an attempt to make sense of why people grow old, why they suffer, why their loved ones die, and why they then die themselves -- which is why religion of some kind or another has been almost universal throughout human history.
 
2013-03-30 09:06:22 PM  

jso2897: We both know that whatever the circumstances, if somebody tried to stick up a Muslim Crescent in that museum, a whole stratum of people would shiat their pants.


You know, considering the nutjobs who precipitated the attack did so using a bastardized version of Islam, I bet you'd find quite a few people who'd be just peachy kean with a Muslim Crescent being placed in the museum, under a certain context. Personally I think that would be unfair to the millions of Islamic people who aren't nut jobs though so I wouldn't support it.


/Just sayin
 
2013-03-30 09:07:32 PM  

Proximuscentauri: When I think 'memorial', I immediately think 'BRONZE AGE TORTURE DEVICE'.


And if you give it no further thought, you profit nothing.
 
2013-03-30 09:07:41 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: They may not have come up with one you could agree with, and that's understandable; I can't honestly say I believe it myself. But then again, consider the atheist alternative, which is to say that bad things happen to good people because the universe is indifferent to us to the point of letting us suffer and die for even the most pointless reason, and it's because life sucks and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about that. I can well understand why people would prefer to believe in a complicated story involving a cosmic bet involving God and Satan instead. In the end, whatever theory we adopt (whether religious or atheist) isn't going to change the fact that life is short and that each of us is going to die, so I don't begrudge anyone their consolations in the meantime. It'd be a good thing if you keyboard warriors with your LOL SKY WIZARD schtick could keep in mind that hope is the rarest and most precious of all human commodities, especially to those who suffer, grieve, are seriously ill, etc.


I don't begrudge anyone the solace religion can bring either; my grandmother suffered horribly from cancer but it was made easier because she believed she would go to a better place when it was over. My problem with religion is the inevitable moralizing and curtailment of nonbelievers' rights that go with it. Just because some people claim their deity is opposed to gay marriage or abortion or polygamy, etc. doesn't mean I have to live by their rules. And the Constitution tends to lean in favor of nonreligious viewpoints, no matter how much the practice goes the other way in the real world.

It's especially onerous that fundamentalists's vehemence in meddling with others' private lives seems to be in direct proportion to the ridiculousness of the foundations of their faith: "My god put Adam and Eve in a garden with a tempting fruit they were forbidden to eat--forever--and let an evil force in to tempt them further. When they inevitably went astray, they, and all their heirs forever, were punished for it, proving that they're flawed and must be redeemed. But, God is a loving god."

Sorry. That's a poor basis for ordering a democratic society, let alone one's personal life.
 
2013-03-30 09:08:12 PM  

jso2897: This is really important to you guys, eh?
Ok - you win - Cross good, Crescent bad.



Not hugely important to me, no, but it's Saturday, I'm not drunk enough yet and I'm kind of bored, so I figure what the heck. Also, never did I say "Cross good Crescent Bad" - what I said was "Accurate History Good, Inaccurate History Bad." -- There's a bit of a difference.
 
2013-03-30 09:10:43 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Decillion: This is the best case for keeping religion around. You have to keep the poor people in line.

Did I say that? No. I was speaking of those who are sick or who have been bereaved. Obviously you felt the need to twist my words so that they could become more representative of whatever evil fantasy right- winger you're continually battling against in your imagination (a common pathology among Farkers).

A little hope and a lot of guilt will keep them from asking why they have so little and others have so much. You just might not kill your neighbour for that loaf of bread if going to hell is the price.

Who in the United States or any other Western country is in the position of needing to kill his neighbour for a loaf of bread?! Whatever Marxist claptrap you might believe in, the origin of religion is simply an attempt to make sense of why people grow old, why they suffer, why their loved ones die, and why they then die themselves -- which is why religion of some kind or another has been almost universal throughout human history.


Exactly. This is why I (a total nonbeliever) would happily stick up every damn religious symbol in the world in that museum if it would comfort someone, or spare them any of the pain of life. If somebody can make themselves feel better by believing something, more power to them.
I make myself feel better by believing things - for instance, I believe I'll have another drink.
 
2013-03-30 09:11:01 PM  

jso2897: Of course I have no point - never said I did.
The kind of "lying" I am doing is called "kidding" chum. Relax.
We both know that whatever the circumstances, if somebody tried to stick up a Muslim Crescent in that museum, a whole stratum of people would shiat their pants. I would not be among them, nor am I among those who object to the Cross, or to Thor's f**king hammer if it makes somebody feel better about a rotten, shiatty thing that happened.
Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.


If you didn't have a point, you wouldn't be playing - unless you're just trolling for fun.

That being said, I would've found it amusing if another religious symbol had shown up.  In fact, probably the best would've been a Star of David.  Would've pissed off the perpetrators of the attack quite nicely, sent the conspiracy theory loons into a tizzy, and pissed off enough of the Christians to make it worthwhile.  A Buddhist symbol?  Meh - no one really hates them.  Christian?  Well, we're seeing that now and the furor is relatively slight.  The crescent?  Not enough folks here to truly drive the symbol into a museum.
 
2013-03-30 09:12:57 PM  

Proximuscentauri: When I think 'memorial', I immediately think 'BRONZE AGE TORTURE DEVICE'.


The idea of the Christian cross is that an instrument of punishment has been transformed into a symbol of redemption and the victory against injustice and death -- which makes it a more fitting symbol than any other for the 9/11 memorial, really, whatever your own beliefs might be.
 
2013-03-30 09:14:03 PM  

CanisNoir: jso2897: This is really important to you guys, eh?
Ok - you win - Cross good, Crescent bad.


Not hugely important to me, no, but it's Saturday, I'm not drunk enough yet and I'm kind of bored, so I figure what the heck. Also, never did I say "Cross good Crescent Bad" - what I said was "Accurate History Good, Inaccurate History Bad." -- There's a bit of a difference.


So, if putting a Muslim Crescent in that museum would make somebody feel better, you'd still be against it? It's my understanding that there are Muslims who lost loved ones in 9/11 - don't they deserve to feel better? I think everybody deserves to feel better. History, after all, is a matter of opinion, and is generally written by the winners.
 
2013-03-30 09:16:02 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: Of course I have no point - never said I did.
The kind of "lying" I am doing is called "kidding" chum. Relax.
We both know that whatever the circumstances, if somebody tried to stick up a Muslim Crescent in that museum, a whole stratum of people would shiat their pants. I would not be among them, nor am I among those who object to the Cross, or to Thor's f**king hammer if it makes somebody feel better about a rotten, shiatty thing that happened.
Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.

If you didn't have a point, you wouldn't be playing - unless you're just trolling for fun.

That being said, I would've found it amusing if another religious symbol had shown up.  In fact, probably the best would've been a Star of David.  Would've pissed off the perpetrators of the attack quite nicely, sent the conspiracy theory loons into a tizzy, and pissed off enough of the Christians to make it worthwhile.  A Buddhist symbol?  Meh - no one really hates them.  Christian?  Well, we're seeing that now and the furor is relatively slight.  The crescent?  Not enough folks here to truly drive the symbol into a museum.


Ah, so it's a matter of numbers. What percentage or number of people is require for the comfort someone might feel at seeing the symbol of their religion displayed to become legitimate, in your view?
 
2013-03-30 09:17:56 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Proximuscentauri: When I think 'memorial', I immediately think 'BRONZE AGE TORTURE DEVICE'.

The idea of the Christian cross is that an instrument of punishment has been transformed into a symbol of redemption and the victory against injustice and death -- which makes it a more fitting symbol than any other for the 9/11 memorial, really, whatever your own beliefs might be.


Above all, it is the symbol of the "comeback" that is so beloved.  Like Rocky Balboa or Gabrielle Giffords.
 
2013-03-30 09:19:08 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Proximuscentauri: When I think 'memorial', I immediately think 'BRONZE AGE TORTURE DEVICE'.

The idea of the Christian cross is that an instrument of punishment has been transformed into a symbol of redemption and the victory against injustice and death -- which makes it a more fitting symbol than any other for the 9/11 memorial, really, whatever your own beliefs might be.

Above all, it is the symbol of the "comeback" that is so beloved.  Like Rocky Balboa or Gabrielle Giffords.


Odd - when I think "bronze age torture device", bagpipes spring to mind.
 
2013-03-30 09:23:57 PM  

jso2897: So, if putting a Muslim Crescent in that museum would make somebody feel better, you'd still be against it? It's my understanding that there are Muslims who lost loved ones in 9/11 - don't they deserve to feel better? I think everybody deserves to feel better. History, after all, is a matter of opinion, and is generally written by the winners.



Was there a crescent found that became an icon of hope in the Muslim world? If so, then it should be included. If not, then it's only adding objects and stories where none existed, and would discredit the historical value of the museum as a whole.
 
2013-03-30 09:24:03 PM  

Decillion: This is the best case for keeping religion around. You have to keep the poor people in line. A little hope and a lot of guilt will keep them from asking why they have so little and others have so much. You just might not kill your neighbour for that loaf of bread if going to hell is the price.


I have not been enlightened so I have nothing to guide me through this life thus far. I plan on killing a man, going to prison, finding salvation and being forgiven for my sins. Others act like going to Hell is just a threat and even though they are god fearing people they will commit sins and then repent for said sins. We're good right? Phew if I left that on my chest I would have to answer for it in afterlife.
 
2013-03-30 09:24:18 PM  
jso2897:Ah, so it's a matter of numbers. What percentage or number of people is require for the comfort someone might feel at seeing the symbol of their religion displayed to become legitimate, in your view?

That doesn't follow from what I wrote.  Try again.
 
2013-03-30 09:26:03 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897:Ah, so it's a matter of numbers. What percentage or number of people is require for the comfort someone might feel at seeing the symbol of their religion displayed to become legitimate, in your view?

That doesn't follow from what I wrote.  Try again.


someone else you are unable to understand.
 
2013-03-30 09:30:04 PM  

jcooli09: ronaprhys: jso2897:Ah, so it's a matter of numbers. What percentage or number of people is require for the comfort someone might feel at seeing the symbol of their religion displayed to become legitimate, in your view?

That doesn't follow from what I wrote.  Try again.

someone else you are unable to understand.


You aren't particularly clever, you know that?  Shouldn't you be throwing a tantrum that there's a church in your town?
 
2013-03-30 09:30:50 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Man On Pink Corner: Sorry, but we have the right to defend our society from the corrosive effects of superstition.  Deal with it, and get over it.

Some of the "corrosive effects" of Christianity have included great works of art, extensive charitable endeavours, and moral campaigns such as the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. You can't indict religion for the bad things done in its name while throwing out the good things: that is hypocrisy. Besides, when it comes to slaughter the Christians were amateurs compared to those following the avowedly atheist totalitarian system of Communism, whose death toll has amounted to upward of eighty million in one century alone (and they didn't even produce an equivalent to Bach, Michelangelo, or Dante).

The problem is not with religion as such but with man's propensity to hold irrational beliefs and to want to use them to dominate his neighbours, and this can also manifest itself in secular ways: political ideologies serve the same purpose for most people nowadays as faith did for our ancestors. You only have to read a political discussion on Fark to see how many commenters around here treat politics as a substitute religion giving their lives meaning, and with its own corresponding ideas of original sin (white guilt), the lost paradise (the pre- industrial and/or tribal and/or aboriginal and/or matriarchal way of life), the division of humanity into the saved and damned (those who are part of the problem (conservatives) and those who are part of the solution(left- liberals)), and the promised utopia of the future that will arrive once the enemies of goodness have been gotten out of the way (a carbon- free future, perhaps, a de-industrialized world, a one- world government, or whatever else strikes their fancy). Much like Christians, too, politically- minded people tend to lash out viciously at those who question their dogma: and if you doubt it, just watch the replies to this post!



That was beautiful. Well said.

I especially agree with your observations on the supplanting of the dogma of religion with those of political ideologies and science*, and would add that academia has become the new "priest class" in our evolving secular culture. Those who disagree with or question the enshrined tenets are treated as heretics and shunned, and the majority of people will simply accept whatever they are told and sing the hymns *without question*, as doing otherwise can have very real negative consequences in their daily lives.

Yet another area you touched on are the social taboos - certain ideas or opinions that one must avoid even the APPEARANCE of contemplating lest they be accused of neo-Blasphemy -  a "sin" that can and has ruined lives, careers, and condemned the "sinner" to hell on Earth.

Funny, but it seems we really haven't changed all that much. We've just swapped out old sins and objects of reverence for new.

The really sad part is that the masses are still being manipulated / controlled by the elite classes, only where once they rallied in the name of God / Religion, they now dogmatically swear allegiance to the recognized leaders of their chosen political ideology.

But one thing hasn't changed: Money is still King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.


*Pure science (absent the greed and ego and ulterior motives of the scientist), is a beautiful thing, but it is rarely (if ever) found in its pure form
 
2013-03-30 09:31:41 PM  

the ha ha guy: jso2897: So, if putting a Muslim Crescent in that museum would make somebody feel better, you'd still be against it? It's my understanding that there are Muslims who lost loved ones in 9/11 - don't they deserve to feel better? I think everybody deserves to feel better. History, after all, is a matter of opinion, and is generally written by the winners.


Was there a crescent found that became an icon of hope in the Muslim world? If so, then it should be included. If not, then it's only adding objects and stories where none existed, and would discredit the historical value of the museum as a whole.


To me, the fact that it made people feel better would be more important than somebody's narrative that they choose to call "history" - but then, I care about how more about  people being happy than I do about being "right".
But what do I know? This is why I think people like the "American Atheists" are assholes, and why I resent their presuming to speak for me. But I guess religious people have to deal with assholes presuming to speak for them all the time too, so I can't expect a free pass.
To me, if the point of this "museum" is to do anything but give people - all people - hope and comfort of some kind, I don't care about it anyway. Ford was right - "history" is bunk. It's a fairy tale, written by the winners.
 
2013-03-30 09:33:43 PM  

ronaprhys: jcooli09: ronaprhys: jso2897:Ah, so it's a matter of numbers. What percentage or number of people is require for the comfort someone might feel at seeing the symbol of their religion displayed to become legitimate, in your view?

That doesn't follow from what I wrote.  Try again.

someone else you are unable to understand.

You aren't particularly clever, you know that?  Shouldn't you be throwing a tantrum that there's a church in your town?


Ah, so now you are going to start telling people they are dumb because they don't agree with you? Somebody takes himself a little too seriously, methinks.
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report