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 84
    More: Obvious, World Trade Center Cross, Judges' Rules, World Trade Center, A New York, American Atheists, Franciscans, museums  
•       •       •

6056 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-30 03:41:47 PM
12 votes:
Pick your battles, people.  This just isn't one worth fighting, on either side really.  Creationism being taught in science class?  BIG problem there.  This?  Blech, who cares?
2013-03-30 03:45:26 PM
7 votes:

nekom: Pick your battles, people.  This just isn't one worth fighting, on either side really.  Creationism being taught in science class?  BIG problem there.  This?  Blech, who cares?


This!  I want to tattoo this on some of these evangelical atheists eyelids.  I don't give a fark if they want to plant a sacred grove and worship trees at the memorial, let the believers have their toys.  Just keep them out of my classrooms and my government.  (we have some work to do on this, I know)
2013-03-30 04:50:59 PM
6 votes:
img.photobucket.com
I'm an atheist and I don't even give a f*ck.
2013-03-30 02:53:31 PM
6 votes:
Sounds like someone has confused secularism with anti-theism.
2013-03-30 05:04:08 PM
5 votes:
Its people like you that give people like me a bad name.

I consider myself agnostic. I have been told that I am closer to atheist beliefs.

Lets take a look at this shall we?

Are they forcing you to pray at the base of the cross? Are they forcing you to admit the existence of God? Are they even using verses from the bible?

No.

This is something that gave people cause for relief in a very troubled time. They are not forcing you to worship their God. All they are asking is that something of this historical significance is saved for future generations to come and understand what happened.
2013-03-30 04:08:08 PM
5 votes:
Jesus Christ, atheists can be assholes.
2013-03-30 04:16:37 PM
4 votes:

Mugato: Jesus Christ, atheists can be assholes.


Any person can be an asshole.

Christians can be assholes.

Muslims can be assholes.

Hindus can be assholes.

Drinkers can be assholes.

Teetotalers can be assholes.

Men can be assholes.

Women can be assholes.

Hell, you don't even need to be human to be an asshole.  I know some ducks who are complete (metaphorical) jackasses.
2013-03-30 06:58:18 PM
3 votes:
As an Atheist Orthodox who saw the towers fall and worked as a translator for families who lost loved ones that day, I must say fark some of my fellow atheists!  Atheism doesn't mean against religion, a-holes!  People are just as free to worship as I am to not do so.  To me, that cross represents the spirit of the city and those working at ground zero.  And although I don't believe in any deities  if you were to put that cross right outside my door, I would make sure to place a flower by its feet every time I walked by it.
2013-03-30 06:32:50 PM
3 votes:
Atheist or no, the purpose of the museum is to commemorate what happened, and what happened in that crisis was that many people turned to God for answers, the cross, a symbol not created by the state for that, was the symbol that many turned to when turning to God. Not believing in God isn't a rational reason for editing history to make it seem as though those who were there, or the families of those who were there, did not believe in God. History is what it is, not what we want it to be. Having the 9/11 cross in a museum is no more of an endorsement of religion than having whips and chains in a museum is an endorsement of slavery.

History is an unbalanced, unfair biatch... "correcting" it to be more inclusive, less abrasive, more or less bad than it was is a disservice to everyone, regardless of their perspective with respect to that history.
2013-03-30 05:57:08 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-03-30 05:49:58 PM
3 votes:
God:

Did not prevent the attacks, resulting deaths, and resulting war(s), and deaths.

Did make his symbol appear in the rubble.
2013-03-30 05:43:58 PM
3 votes:
"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."

Because to notice one group is to un-notice, or anti-notice if you will, all other groups.
2013-03-30 04:43:32 PM
3 votes:
Atheist asshole trifecta in play.

Good job, assholes.
2013-03-30 04:14:02 PM
3 votes:
I bet the heat and kinetic energy of the collapse left some mangled steel beams strewn about like a spaghetti monster.
2013-03-30 10:09:31 PM
2 votes:

jso2897: The term "historical accuracy" is an oxymoron, and holding it up as a value that trumps anybody's happiness is something I don't agree with.



Should the Holocaust museums be redecorated and the stories revised to make the museums a place of joy? After all, if they stay as-is, their "accuracy" in telling the story of 12+ million people murdered would stifle my right to be happy during my visit to the museum.
2013-03-30 08:44:21 PM
2 votes:
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 08:14:00 PM
2 votes:

The Bestest: This is an example of anti-theism and just as bad as evangelism in my opinion. You are -imposing- your beliefs (or lack thereof) upon others and are the reason many atheists frown upon anti-theists due to the association.


Sorry, but we have the right to defend our society from the corrosive effects of superstition.  Deal with it, and get over it.
2013-03-30 08:13:06 PM
2 votes:

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.


jcooli09: the harm is that it tends to reinforce the lie that is religion.  It'll be honored and worshipped where it should be reviled.  It's a big green loogie in the eye of the victims, and increases the probability that it'll happen again.

If it's included it should be for it's irony, the symbol of the cause of the tragedy being loved so much by so many of those who survived.


Damn, you're weak-minded.  And a dick.  First off, it's not your position to determine that this is a bad thing for the victims.

On top of that, to call a symbol of something you don't believe in obscene, just because you don't like it, shows you clearly don't know the meaning of the word.  Basically, you're no different than that pic of the angry kid with the caption, "quit liking what I don't like".
2013-03-30 07:41:12 PM
2 votes:

jcooli09: Philip_CM: "The World Trade Center cross, two intersecting steel beams that held up when the twin towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, is seen as iconic to some."

So, you mean to tell me that American Atheists (and I'm agnostic, mind you) are throwing their hands in the air over what's to some the architectural equivalent of french toast Jesus, despite the fact that they're remnants of 9/11? That's an answer to a nonexistent problem if I've ever read one.

To me, it's offensive because the people who want it there want it as a symbol of their religion, despite the fact that the thing they wish to honor is largely responsible for the tragedy.



The museum exists to preserve the story of 9/11 for future generations. The beams and those that rallied around them are part of that story. Discarding it on the basis that it resembles an offensive symbol is akin to discarding anything with a Swastika from a Holocaust museum.
2013-03-30 07:37:40 PM
2 votes:
If 'power poles' and anything "t" shaped make you upset, it's you.
2013-03-30 07:33:05 PM
2 votes:

jcooli09: I don't see it as an asshole move to try to block the inclusion of a christian symbol from the museum, but I do see the attempt at inclusion as an asshole move.


Oh for fark's sake. It's NOT about the "Christian symbol". It's about an iconic image that is important to a lot of people. And not important because it's a a cross. The assholes here are the people trying to block it. And the people defending the attempt.
2013-03-30 07:09:05 PM
2 votes:
Not having the government endorse any religion does not mean you get to banish all signs of religion from public view, you twits. This crap only makes people more hostile towards those of us atheists who don't care what anyone believes. I just regard religion as an interesting part of our varied American culture.
2013-03-30 07:07:31 PM
2 votes:
Sigh- another atheist here who wants to ditto "You're Not Helping"

There are important battles to fight to keep religion out of various places, and this just isn't one of them.  It became an important symbol to many people after 9/11, and obviously belongs in any museum devoted to that day.  Is the next target removing all the Stars of David from the Holocaust Museum?
2013-03-30 06:55:13 PM
2 votes:

flup: Believer or not, atheist or not, everyone remembers the stupid cross. Yes, it's stupid as hell (what are the odds that in a 110-story building, two beams would intersect at a right angle??!)

However, retarded as it is, it was totally iconic of that very important time in our history. At such, it has major cultural relevance, and therefore, it belongs in the goddamn museum.

NEXT.


Quit being rational.  This is where the butthurt come to complain.

Igor Jakovsky: 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?

I always thought this was a silly argument. God supposedly gave man free will. Free will can be a dangerous thing. I don't recall God saying that he will save people from death on earth, only that of you believe in him that you will be saved and go to heaven. If you believe that sort of thing.

/not particularly religious


It really is a stupid argument made by the weak-minded.  It's like a bumper sticker - if you believe what you're expressing, you think it'll show someone you're clever.  It doesn't.
2013-03-30 06:37:44 PM
2 votes:

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?


I always thought this was a silly argument. God supposedly gave man free will. Free will can be a dangerous thing. I don't recall God saying that he will save people from death on earth, only that of you believe in him that you will be saved and go to heaven. If you believe that sort of thing.

/not particularly religious
2013-03-30 06:23:27 PM
2 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

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?
2013-03-30 06:19:32 PM
2 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-03-30 06:11:39 PM
2 votes:
If anyone wants to know what a militant atheist looks like, it's the ones who are so worked up they care about this shiat.
2013-03-30 06:11:10 PM
2 votes:
I think it's entirely appropriate to include the cross of girders in the 9/11 museum. It's a stellar example of misguided religious thinking which reinforces unfounded superstition at the expense of rational thought.

The reason a cross was found in the wreckage at Ground Zero is because hundreds of thousands of such intersecting girders were used in the towers' construction. Structures are built at 90-degree angles because putting load-bearing structures perpendicular to the force of gravity is the strongest and most efficient method of construction.

It would have been a miracle if search teams hadn't found any cross-like shapes in the wreckage at Ground Zero.

People who find meaning in this artifact do so because they're attempting to retrofit the laws of physics into their religious belief systems. This nonsensical demand that the entire world conform to the religious preferences of some is what led to the attacks on the twin towers in the first place.

So it's a perfect metaphor for why the tragedy happened, and as long as there are people who see the welded intersection of two structural beams and regard it as a personal sign from God, there will be people willing to commit future 9/11s.
2013-03-30 06:00:09 PM
2 votes:
3000+ people dead and a cross gets jabbed on top of the rubble?

God's just trolling us at this point.

/3000+ folks escaping certain death would have been a REAL miracle.
//Just sayin'
2013-03-30 05:51:13 PM
2 votes:
Giant "who cares?"
At the end of the day, that "cross" was important to a lot of people, and as such, belongs in the museum as it commemorates not only 9/11, but the turmoil afterwards.
If a bunch of beams fell and arranged themselves into a portrait of Billy Corgan, and for whatever reason a bunch of people found solace in it, it isn't my place to say it doesn't belong at the 9/11 memorial simply because I, and a few victims, farking hated Smashing Pumpkins.

You guys can go ahead and use that allegory the next time you talk about this. I know it's succinct and poignant.
2013-03-30 05:14:53 PM
2 votes:
As retarded as this is, it's still way less retarded than giving any significance whatsoever to two beams that happened to end up attached to each other in a perpendicular orientation.
2013-03-30 05:03:27 PM
2 votes:
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?
2013-03-30 03:24:29 PM
2 votes:
it's just one of thousands of T-braces used in the construction of that building.
2013-03-31 03:22:35 PM
1 votes:
I'm an athiest, and I think this was a dick move. You're not helping, angry litigious atheist dude.

This is a memorial; where religious symbols tend to be common.

Considering that this was part of the wreckage it is even more appropriate.
2013-03-31 12:33:44 PM
1 votes:

REO-Weedwagon: Marine1: 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?

In Heaven, of course. He got there after teaching mankind the sort of lessons we would need to avoid such tragedies. Of course, most don't listen, despite the fact that said teachings are applicable to a good number of life situations, whether you're Christian or not.

Okay, so your Jesus is in heaven. That doesn't alter the question you're avoiding. It's a question that's been asked for thousands of years to people like you, and for thousands of years you have responded with the same weak-sauce bullsh*t answers. It's intellectual cowardice.


Your argument is that God must be a helicopter parent or he can't exist.
2013-03-31 03:43:36 AM
1 votes:

Sensei Can You See: 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.

If memory serves, this is the cross in question. It wasn't just pulled from the rubble; it was standing at the top of a pile of rubble. Make of that what you will, but it is a rather striking image.

[thegopnet.com image 850x563]


This.

 I don't think anyone thinks the item itself is miraculous, but it did give them something to hold on to when their world was falling apart.

/being christian doesn't mean nothing bad will ever happen to you.
//jesus should be pretty much proof positive of that.
2013-03-31 01:58:09 AM
1 votes:
It's a symbol of a grave.

"The whole point of being an atheist is not giving a crap".
-atheist Adam Carolla on militant atheists
2013-03-31 12:58:11 AM
1 votes:
As an agnostic I'm no more bothered by this than I am by the many paintings of jesus and other biblical figures hanging in the publicly funded museums around the country. Acknowledging that their are Christians in our society is not the same as forcing their views upon anyone. I'm infinitely more worried about things of substance like creationist teachings instead of science or DOMA or the influence of silly religious groups on alcohol and other adult activites.
2013-03-31 12:34:08 AM
1 votes:
From the NYT:


Judge Batts wrote that the cross and its accompanying panels of text helped "demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed." She called its purpose "historical and secular," and noted that it would be in the "Finding Meaning at Ground Zero" section of the museum, with placards explaining its meaning and the reason for its inclusion.


"No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity," the judge said. She added, "The cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion." She said the plaintiffs also failed to find any form of intentional discrimination or cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
2013-03-31 12:33:09 AM
1 votes:
hey, if people want to fight over a graven image, let them.
2013-03-30 10:52:38 PM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: jaytkay: The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a private entity.

Irrelevant. The City of New York owns the land and facilities and pitches in a big chunk of its operating budget. They receive all kinds of other taxpayer subsidies as well.

The only difference is that American Atheists can raise money whargarbling about the 9/11 cross, but if they were THAT offended by a cross...they would, if they were consistent, completely lose their shiat at the Met. There's Christian stuff, Islamic art, Jewish art, Greek and Roman art with gods all over the place, African religious imagery...chrissakes, the museum even has a temple built inside it. It's temple dedicated to Isis and Osiris, but still.

Maybe if they averted their eyes until they got to the cafeteria.


"American Atheists" speak for atheists like Fred Phelps speaks for Christians. People who take the attitude that they are "typical atheists" are as intellectually honest as people who refer to Phelps as a "typical Christian".
2013-03-30 10:11:11 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: ronaprhys: jso2897: I don't think anyone here is an idiot, and I'm not calling anybody out. And maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I think that the whole point of both museums like this, and religious symbols, is to give people some kind of comfort.
Let's say, for example, that some Muslim kid lost their dad in one of the towers, and seeing a Crescent in that museum would make him feel better.  If it was up to me, I'd do what made him feel better.
That's  a real thing, to me. I'd put all the symbols up, if it helped somebody.
Which, in turn, is why people like "American Atheists" don't speak for me, heathen though I be.
I've been told I'm a really crappy atheist, though. I don't fail to believe in God hard enough, apparently.

True - you're not calling anyone an idiot.  You are, however, messing with folks to amuse yourself.  Which is similar to the game I'm playing.  The difference here is one of tactics, more than anything.  jcoolio has put himself out there and is basically being a dick for no good reason whatsoever.  I called him on it, pointed out the flaws in his nonsense, etc.  Willful ignorance, under whatever guise, should be called out for what it is.

Hey - maybe being a dick gives him hope, and comfort. Anyway, I'm not "messing with" anybuody - I just get tired of mean people wanting to deprive others of things that make them feel better because it conflicts with their version of the "truth". The term "historical accuracy" is an oxymoron, and holding it up as a value that trumps anybody's happiness is something I don't agree with. I apply this to self-styled atheists who want to piss on religious folks happiness, and I apply it to religious folk who would do the same.
"History" is a toothless old dotard sitting around the campfire telling tales to the children, and his story changes with every telling. People being happy matters more than the "accuracy" of his mumbled narrative, in my value system.


I dunno.  Historical accuracy is an ideal to shoot for.  I think that you're referring more to the interpretation of historical facts more than anything.  As folks have noted here, and in many other places, one is entitled to one's opinion, just not their own facts.

As for whether or not an accurate representation of historical events and facts offends someone, to me, that's irrelevant.  Just because facts may offend someone is no good reason to hide them, or mix them up with other things to help comfort others.  To me, it's not much different than science.  Based on the best available information, science will hold a thing as true.  If, however, additional facts come along and change that - science changes and adapts to incorporate those facts.  It doesn't matter than certain professors and other academia don't want to be proven wrong.
2013-03-30 09:56:04 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay: Gulper Eel: Well, atheists - best get busy gutting the Metropolitan Museum of Art, if you'd like to be consistent. The place is crammed with religious imagery all in your face and shiat.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is a private entity. The 9/11 Memorial and Museum is a public one.


Just substitute the National Gallery of Art, as an easy one. It's really not hard to get his point.
2013-03-30 09:49:34 PM
1 votes:

jso2897: I don't think anyone here is an idiot, and I'm not calling anybody out. And maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I think that the whole point of both museums like this, and religious symbols, is to give people some kind of comfort.
Let's say, for example, that some Muslim kid lost their dad in one of the towers, and seeing a Crescent in that museum would make him feel better.  If it was up to me, I'd do what made him feel better.
That's  a real thing, to me. I'd put all the symbols up, if it helped somebody.
Which, in turn, is why people like "American Atheists" don't speak for me, heathen though I be.
I've been told I'm a really crappy atheist, though. I don't fail to believe in God hard enough, apparently.


True - you're not calling anyone an idiot.  You are, however, messing with folks to amuse yourself.  Which is similar to the game I'm playing.  The difference here is one of tactics, more than anything.  jcoolio has put himself out there and is basically being a dick for no good reason whatsoever.  I called him on it, pointed out the flaws in his nonsense, etc.  Willful ignorance, under whatever guise, should be called out for what it is.
2013-03-30 09:37:09 PM
1 votes:
Well, atheists - best get busy gutting the Metropolitan Museum of Art, if you'd like to be consistent. The place is crammed with religious imagery all in your face and shiat.
2013-03-30 09:30:04 PM
1 votes:

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 09:08:12 PM
1 votes:

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 09:07:41 PM
1 votes:

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 09:02:51 PM
1 votes:

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 08:54:48 PM
1 votes:
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 08:54:46 PM
1 votes:

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 08:49:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:44:28 PM
1 votes:
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 08:42:00 PM
1 votes:

CanisNoir: Jeep2011: JeffreyScott: I think it should be included with a sign at the bottom that states,

"This cross is place here so you can remember your all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God sat back and did nothing to stop the attack or the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  Hell, he didn't even delay it so the people could exit the building safely.  Either he is a utter and complete asshole or he doesn't exist.  Either way you should stop worshiping him."

I am OK with this

I dunno, that's a pretty stupid stance and screams "I have no clue what I'm talking about." Someone already mentioned Free Will and the fact that God never said he would protect mankind from all the evils we insist upon inflicting on ourselves; that side of God ended with The Garden of Eden. (If you believe Jewish Tradition)

I appreciate all of the Atheists who have come out and stated their opposition to this suit and could care less if the cross is in the museum. Anything I say further goes towards the tantrum throwing children who claim to represent your side in the theological debate.

The cross represents a symbol that many people drew strength, courage, and a sense of hope from in a time of great tragedy. Nobody made it, crafted it and planted it there, it happened by coincidence and was adopted as a symbol of all that is good in "Faith". Of course it deserves to be in the museum, and no, an Atheist, Hindu, Budhist or any other type of religious symbol does not need to be added; as far as I know, they weren't there being latched on to by tons of people.

Anyone who has a problem with this because it "represents religion" is childlike in the sense that they are carrying a stupid, pointless and huge chip on their shoulder that will only serve to make their own lives miserable, and other innocents lives miserable through collateral damage. Grow the fark up.


I agree. As an atheist, I stay out of these issues - because it means nothing to me. 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.
2013-03-30 08:37:34 PM
1 votes:

3rdtimearound: I often hear from the religious  that 'atheism is a religion'. Fine, so would there be any objection to a shrine remembering, specifically, the atheists who died in the attack? Like a plate of spaghetti or a teapot?


People who say that also stretch the definition of "racism" until it's useless. Ignore them.
2013-03-30 08:33:53 PM
1 votes:

Jeep2011: JeffreyScott: I think it should be included with a sign at the bottom that states,

"This cross is place here so you can remember your all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God sat back and did nothing to stop the attack or the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  Hell, he didn't even delay it so the people could exit the building safely.  Either he is a utter and complete asshole or he doesn't exist.  Either way you should stop worshiping him."

I am OK with this


I dunno, that's a pretty stupid stance and screams "I have no clue what I'm talking about." Someone already mentioned Free Will and the fact that God never said he would protect mankind from all the evils we insist upon inflicting on ourselves; that side of God ended with The Garden of Eden. (If you believe Jewish Tradition)

I appreciate all of the Atheists who have come out and stated their opposition to this suit and could care less if the cross is in the museum. Anything I say further goes towards the tantrum throwing children who claim to represent your side in the theological debate.

The cross represents a symbol that many people drew strength, courage, and a sense of hope from in a time of great tragedy. Nobody made it, crafted it and planted it there, it happened by coincidence and was adopted as a symbol of all that is good in "Faith". Of course it deserves to be in the museum, and no, an Atheist, Hindu, Budhist or any other type of religious symbol does not need to be added; as far as I know, they weren't there being latched on to by tons of people.

Anyone who has a problem with this because it "represents religion" is childlike in the sense that they are carrying a stupid, pointless and huge chip on their shoulder that will only serve to make their own lives miserable, and other innocents lives miserable through collateral damage. Grow the fark up.
2013-03-30 08:33:27 PM
1 votes:

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!
2013-03-30 08:30:25 PM
1 votes:

cman: Its people like you that give people like me a bad name.

Lets take a look at this shall we?

Are they forcing you to pray at the base of the cross? Are they forcing you to admit the existence of God? Are they even using verses from the bible?



Using that logic, putting a huge cross on public land in front of every courthouse in the country should be okay.
2013-03-30 08:26:06 PM
1 votes:
I often hear from the religious  that 'atheism is a religion'. Fine, so would there be any objection to a shrine remembering, specifically, the atheists who died in the attack? Like a plate of spaghetti or a teapot?
2013-03-30 08:21:44 PM
1 votes:

Man On Pink Corner: The Bestest: This is an example of anti-theism and just as bad as evangelism in my opinion. You are -imposing- your beliefs (or lack thereof) upon others and are the reason many atheists frown upon anti-theists due to the association.

Sorry, but we have the right to defend our society from the corrosive effects of superstition.  Deal with it, and get over it.


And there's nothing like the random crossing of two beams surviving to make people suddenly start flocking to Westboro Baptist.

Idiot.  Seriously.  Fight the corrosive effects - but this isn't one of them.  This will encourage no more nor less hate.
2013-03-30 08:01:16 PM
1 votes:

jcooli09: the harm is that it tends to reinforce the lie that is religion.  It'll be honored and worshipped where it should be reviled.  It's a big green loogie in the eye of the victims, and increases the probability that it'll happen again.

If it's included it should be for it's irony, the symbol of the cause of the tragedy being loved so much by so many of those who survived.


This is an example of anti-theism and just as bad as evangelism in my opinion. You are -imposing- your beliefs (or lack thereof) upon others and are the reason many atheists frown upon anti-theists due to the association.
2013-03-30 07:52:06 PM
1 votes:

jcooli09: The Bestest: 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.

So? Even supposing all of that, where is the harm?

the harm is that it tends to reinforce the lie that is religion.  It'll be honored and worshipped where it should be reviled.  It's a big green loogie in the eye of the victims, and increases the probability that it'll happen again.

If it's included it should be for it's irony, the symbol of the cause of the tragedy being loved so much by so many of those who survived.


Symbols can convey different meanings to different viewers.  Take Tarot cards, for example.
2013-03-30 07:35:04 PM
1 votes:
ronaprhys:Religion isn't responsible for the tragedy.  The primary reason for the tragedy is power, fueled by economics.  Religion is nothing more than the tool that the power-hungry types used to convince idiots to die for them.  That's like blaming the firearm for the killing when someone had to pull the trigger.

Kind of.  Religion poisons the mind into believe that faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue.  Belief without evidence is a bad idea by itself, but it also causes your brain to malfunction about other ideas, too. If believing without evidence is a virtue, then you can safely disregard good ideas and keep bad ones without any consideration of how those beliefs align with reality. You have cut the tether between evidence and reason to believe.  That's crazy-town.

If you need examples of what this looks like, view kurmudgeon's post above. He thinks that because people can't disprove his particular deity, it must be true.  He's either retarded, or doesn't understand the relationship between reality and belief. If the latter, good money says that religion made him that way.
2013-03-30 07:30:13 PM
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: Atheist asshole trifecta in play.

Good job, assholes.


ct.fra.bz
2013-03-30 07:27:00 PM
1 votes:

jcooli09: Philip_CM: "The World Trade Center cross, two intersecting steel beams that held up when the twin towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, is seen as iconic to some."

So, you mean to tell me that American Atheists (and I'm agnostic, mind you) are throwing their hands in the air over what's to some the architectural equivalent of french toast Jesus, despite the fact that they're remnants of 9/11? That's an answer to a nonexistent problem if I've ever read one.

To me, it's offensive because the people who want it there want it as a symbol of their religion, despite the fact that the thing they wish to honor is largely responsible for the tragedy.


Religion isn't responsible for the tragedy.  The primary reason for the tragedy is power, fueled by economics.  Religion is nothing more than the tool that the power-hungry types used to convince idiots to die for them.  That's like blaming the firearm for the killing when someone had to pull the trigger.
2013-03-30 07:26:17 PM
1 votes:
Why are the atheists who file these type of lawsuits as well as usually being the ones who scream, "OMG! We are being oppressed" on top of their media soap boxes are almost always rich, straight, white men?

Is it this desire of wanting to be part of the oppression train? Because if you aren't being held down by "The Man," you are "The Man?"
2013-03-30 07:05:55 PM
1 votes:

flup: I'd be a lot more willing to identify myself as one of you, Atheists, if you weren't such dicks.


And, maybe people would be more willing to identify as Color blind/Jewish/Lesbian/of the Austrian economic school if they weren't such dicks.

flup: Even your defense is not, "atheists aren't dicks," it's, "christians are too."


My post wasn't a "defense" of anyone.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of saying, "atheists can be assholes ."

That is, there's no point in that claim; it conveys nothing concrete.  The term "atheists" could have been swapped out for literally any other group and the statement would be just as accurate.
2013-03-30 07:04:35 PM
1 votes:
I'm an atheist and this doesn't bother me. Many historical works of art have come from religious artifice. Does Silverman think the Rennaissance paintings of the Madonna with Jesus don't belong in a museum?
2013-03-30 07:01:22 PM
1 votes:
God really stepped up that day. Without that cross, 9/11 would have been a real tragedy.
2013-03-30 06:59:37 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: I know some ducks who are complete (metaphorical) jackasses.


Well, ducks are the first non-human animal that was documented to perform gang rape.

As far as the article, I'm an atheist, but the cross is part of the story.  It was well documented at the time, and is part of the history of 9/11.  I see no problem with it being in the museum.
2013-03-30 06:47:35 PM
1 votes:

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?


Checking ID and stamping hands for the bar upstairs.
2013-03-30 06:47:21 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: Mugato: Jesus Christ, atheists can be assholes.

Any person can be an asshole.

Christians can be assholes.

Muslims can be assholes.

Hindus can be assholes.

Drinkers can be assholes.

Teetotalers can be assholes.

Men can be assholes.

Women can be assholes.

Hell, you don't even need to be human to be an asshole.  I know some ducks who are complete (metaphorical) jackasses.


I'd be a lot more willing to identify myself as one of you, Atheists, if you weren't such dicks. Even your defense is not, "atheists aren't dicks," it's, "christians are too."

Guess what? You're still dicks.
2013-03-30 06:45:51 PM
1 votes:
Atheism is a Religion.
2013-03-30 06:35:33 PM
1 votes:

YoOjo: It's only a shape.

/agnostic, because atheism is too much like having a belief.


/apathetic, because agnosticism is too much like giving a fark.
2013-03-30 06:19:40 PM
1 votes:

zamboni: Walker: [img.photobucket.com image 400x300]
I'm an atheist and I don't even give a f*ck.

Amen!

Seems silly to attach any significance whatsoever to a cross that survived the 9/11 collapse of two buildings made out of crosses... but hey... seems silly to get worked up enough to try to exclude it from a 9/11 museum.


Some atheists are like some gun folk: there is no middle ground, there are no sensible options, battle must be joined At All Costs. Slippery slope and all that. I'm a little more sympathetic to the gun argument, seeing a steady ratcheting effect toward guns with 7 bullets, 6 ...5...4...3...2...1 then no bullets. But no background checks? That's a tough case to make, IMO.
2013-03-30 06:10:27 PM
1 votes:
"We are confident that we will eventually win this case and that cross will be removed, or atheists will be allowed to have our own symbol in there," he said.

Why wasn't this the main goal in the first place?  It's an historical artifact and I have no problem with it being displayed in the museum so long as they're not denying all other symbols.
2013-03-30 06:08:22 PM
1 votes:

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.


Why be embarrassed? This asshat has nothing to do with you.

I'm pissed that he's claiming to speak for me.
2013-03-30 06:01:50 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-30 05:55:18 PM
1 votes:
arguing that the "government enshrinement of the cross" was an impermissible mingling of church and state.

The government has been enshrining religious art and symbols in Federally run museums for as long as they've existed. Maybe the National Gallery of Art should hide its Italian collection from the eyes of the easily offended.

This guy really needs to pick his battles better. This just makes his organization look like dicks. Also, how does he know how many atheists died in the towers?
2013-03-30 05:53:40 PM
1 votes:
The concept of seperation of church and state does not at all obligate the government to conduct itself as if religion does not exist or to deny those who are religous a public voice.  On the other hand, modern-day chirstianity is infintely more about icon worship and being able to spout the correct dogma rather than being a living example of love and acceptance, so they aren't exactly endearing themselves to anyone with that.
2013-03-30 05:52:54 PM
1 votes:
I don't see it as an asshole move to try to block the inclusion of a christian symbol from the museum, but I do see the attempt at inclusion as an asshole move.
2013-03-30 05:41:11 PM
1 votes:
Silly athiests, it's almost as though they think they're persecuted.  What, do they want to be jewish or something?
2013-03-30 05:01:09 PM
1 votes:

Walker: [img.photobucket.com image 400x300]
I'm an atheist and I don't even give a f*ck.


Amen!

Seems silly to attach any significance whatsoever to a cross that survived the 9/11 collapse of two buildings made out of crosses... but hey... seems silly to get worked up enough to try to exclude it from a 9/11 museum.
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report