Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 479 (626309)
07-28-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 11:28 AM


I thought atheists were people without religion, yet this groups is obviously anti-religion.
Or pro-First Amendment.
I dunno... What do you think they mean by "total, absolute seperation of government and religion"?
That seems to me to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.
I've actually sent them a message through their website asking to clarify what they mean by that... I'll share what they respond with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2011 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 479 (626311)
07-28-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2011 11:36 AM


I dunno... What do you think they mean by "total, absolute seperation of government and religion"?
That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception.
That seems to me to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.
Well most law has sculpted the interpretation of the Amendments. After all, 'atheism' is considered a religion for the purposes of the Constitution, even though technically it is 'beyond the scope'. The interpretation here is that the intent of the amendment was for government to be secular and show favour to no religion.
It then takes the Madison approach of, It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. , as Dr A posted earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 10:54 AM Modulous has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 479 (626313)
07-28-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2011 11:36 AM


I dunno... What do you think they mean by "total, absolute seperation of government and religion"?
I guess something like this ...
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. --- James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh, March, 2 1819. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President of The United States in Four Volumes Published by the Order of Congress, J.B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia 1865, Volume III, pp 121-126.
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. ---Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
While I concur with the Synod in the efficacy of prayer, and in the hope that our country may be preserved from the attacks of pestilence "and that the judgments now abroad in the earth may be sanctified to the nations," I am constrained to decline the designation of any period or mode as proper for the public manifestation of this reliance. I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government. --- Andrew Jackson, Correspondence 4:447, 1832
Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State. --- James K. Polk, diary entry, Oct. 14, 1846
Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres. --- Ulysses S. Grant, Seventh "State of the Union" Speech, 1875
The separation of the Church and the State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute. --- James Garfield, letter accepting presidential nomination, July 12, 1880
I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools. --- Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 49 of 479 (626314)
07-28-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 10:53 AM


I also notice the words will be, which suggests that what is presently (a cross at a location), that will in the future be a government property.
It suggests that the museum isn't open yet. The land is Port Authority and was before the cross was installed. So this cross, which was blessed before hand, has been installed on Port Authority land. This apparently should be construed as government action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 10:53 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 50 of 479 (626315)
07-28-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 11:28 AM


How much do you bet?
Two Jewish plaintiffs say they "find the cross, a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens."
I don't think that there is anything preventing them from putting their own icon up. If someone else's icon is so offensive, then don't look at it.
Or pro-First Amendment.
Oh, noes, the anti-religion!
"What we're looking for is a remedy that honours everyone equally, with a religion-neutral display, or display of equal size and prominence." Silverman said American Atheists has offered to pay for such a display and has several ideas to represent all religions — such as a firefighter carrying out a victim.
why equal representation? why not base the representation on the number of each group killed?
I haven't seen any evidence that other faiths are not allowed to have icons there, all I see is people whining about a cross.
Really, how butthurt can you get about this? Should we have a whaaambulance standing by just in case?
not but hurt at all, just making a debate. why the assumption of my emotional state?
No comment on a church that is a national park?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 1:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 479 (626327)
07-28-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 12:21 PM


I don't think that there is anything preventing them from putting their own icon up.
It's not their land.
why equal representation? why not base the representation on the number of each group killed?
What did you have in mind, a pie-chart?
Why not have a non-sectarian memorial to the dead?
I haven't seen any evidence that other faiths are not allowed to have icons there, all I see is people whining about a cross.
The atheists have offered, at their own expense, to provide a non-religious memorial. This offer has not been accepted, hence the lawsuit.
not but hurt at all, just making a debate. why the assumption of my emotional state?
Sauce for the goose.
No comment on a church that is a national park?
You didn't ask me. But since you ask, it's not a national park, nor indeed is it a church any more --- except in the architectural sense, but then so is this:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 12:21 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 2:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 52 of 479 (626334)
07-28-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 1:13 PM


modulous writes:
That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception.
Isn’t your queen also the head of the state church?
The same queen as the one Canadians have?
It suggests that the museum isn't open yet. The land is Port Authority and was before the cross was installed. So this cross, which was blessed before hand, has been installed on Port Authority land. This apparently should be construed as government action.
I think it’s a weak stance but ok.
Dr. Adequate writes:
What did you have in mind, a pie-chart?
Sure
hmm representation... how about we poll everyone killed that day at that location and see the numbers of Christians, Anti-Religious, Jews, Muslims, etc. then we can see which group is the largest and receives the largest Icon. That would be a fair represntation display of iconography.
it would be hard to poll the victims on religious matters unless there is info out there. other wise we can take the demographics percentages and figure out how many were most likely in each faith group.
Wikimedia Error
I know you may find this method biased as we have the numbers, so i welcome other methods and data.
but for this example it looks like Christians get the biggest icon (75.2%) followed by Atheists (16.1%) Jews (1.7%) and Muslims (0.6%).
Why not have a non-sectarian memorial to the dead?
It lacks empathy.
The atheists have offered, at their own expense, to provide a non-religious memorial. This offer has not been accepted, hence the lawsuit.
It has also not been denied, maybe it is being considered?
Sauce for the goose.
???
You didn't ask me. But since you ask, it's not a national park, nor indeed is it a church any more --- except in the architectural sense,
Well it’s owned and managed by the National Park Service, but split hairs however you like. It still is a church, I was describing a building.
Somehow in your logic a church managed by the national park service is fine, but a cross managed by the port authority is wrong, can you explain?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : man that was all messed up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 1:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2011 5:19 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 6:50 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 53 of 479 (626343)
07-28-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Nuggin
07-27-2011 9:17 PM


You HONESTLY think that it won't be a problem getting a monument with an Islamic symbol erected at ground zero?
I never stated that I had a belief one way or the other. If muslims do try and put muslim iconography at the site and are prevented from doing so then there is a very obvious violation of constitutional rights. However, I don't see free expression on public lands as a problem, as long as everyone has the same access to free expression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2011 9:17 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 54 of 479 (626351)
07-28-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 2:04 PM


Isn’t your queen also the head of the state church?
The same queen as the one Canadians have?
That's right, Britain does not presently have an absolute separation of church and state. That said, our politicians tend to be much more secular in their public speech than their American counterparts. The subject matter of this thread however, are a group calling themselves American Atheists and their interpretation of the US Constitution... So I'm not sure why you brought up the British system and the Commonwealth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 2:04 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 55 of 479 (626359)
07-28-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 2:04 PM


Your post seems to have gotten a little jumbled, and I'm not clear what you actually intended to address to what.
Somehow in your logic a church managed by the national park service is fine, but a cross managed by the port authority is wrong, can you explain?
I never actually said the church was "fine". However, there does seem to be something to be said for it. The church isn't functioning as a religious institution, the cross is functioning as a religious symbol. The church seems to pass the Lemon Test. It's like the difference between the Smithsonian having the Jefferson Bible and putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 2:04 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 56 of 479 (626369)
07-28-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 6:50 PM


modulous writes:
That's right, Britain does not presently have an absolute separation of church and state. That said, our politicians tend to be much more secular in their public speech than their American counterparts. The subject matter of this thread however, are a group calling themselves American Atheists and their interpretation of the US Constitution... So I'm not sure why you brought up the British system and the Commonwealth.
It’s just ironically funny to me, that a subject to a figurehead Feudal-Theocracy, is informing me about the separation of church and state. Kind of like an Arab telling me all about women’s rights. I find Irony amusing. Sorry to derail anything if I did.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Your post seems to have gotten a little jumbled, and I'm not clear what you actually intended to address to what.
Yeah I have no idea what happened, I fucked it all up, I think I fixed it. I copy and pasted too much, and had to talk to my boss, and then came back. Horrid proof reading. You got me!
I never actually said the church was "fine". However, there does seem to be something to be said for it. The church isn't functioning as a religious institution, the cross is functioning as a religious symbol. The church seems to pass the Lemon Test. It's like the difference between the Smithsonian having the Jefferson Bible and putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.
I hear you but I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think its just this group picking cherry picking things to bitch about. Somehow two rusted I-beams is more a symbol, than a 18th century church. Better yet this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion. Its reeks of pure biased garbage.
The one that passes the lemon test is a park that gets government money every year, and has for 34 years, and the one in the discussion is simply existing at a location owned by the port authority, it was not purchased, or created by the government. It is going to sit in a corner of a museum and collect dust. Yet somehow a travesty of government support of a religion exists? give me a break! The American Atheists are a joke IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 6:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 8:56 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 9:12 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 57 of 479 (626376)
07-28-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 7:41 PM


I hear you but I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think its just this group picking cherry picking things to bitch about. Somehow two rusted I-beams is more a symbol, than a 18th century church. Better yet this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion.
Yeah, it's entirely up to atheists to decide whether a cross blessed by a priest is a religious symbol.
You should be glad you've got us around to figure these things out for you. The judge in the case will, I'm sure, be particularly relieved to learn that it's not up to him.
But tell me, if it isn't a religious symbol, why does it have any defenders? Why can't they say: "Oopsie, in deciding what lump of rubble to put on the site, we inadvertently picked one that looks just exactly like the symbol of the Christian religion, and which we now learn to our astonishment has been hailed as a miracle and blessed by a priest. Of course, it is in no way intended to be a religious symbol, nothing could have been further from our thoughts, and to prevent any misunderstanding, we'll use a different lump of rubble, then everyone will be happy."
Surely the only reason why people want this lump of rubble, these "two rusted I-beams" is that it is a religious symbol. If not, there are plenty of rusted I-beams.
And this test could be more widely applied. Consider St. Paul's church. If it was a secular building of the same antiquity and with the same historical associations, the historical preservation societies would not be saying: "Oh well, you can pull it down and build a WalMart there for all we care", would they? But the cross has its partisans solely because it is a Christian symbol. If they deny it, let them pick any other rusted I-beams they please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 7:41 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2011 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 58 of 479 (626378)
07-28-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 7:41 PM


It’s just ironically funny to me, that a subject to a figurehead Feudal-Theocracy, is informing me about the separation of church and state. Kind of like an Arab telling me all about women’s rights.
If you were tempted to undervalue women's rights then an Arab woman would in fact be ideally placed to tell you why you shouldn't. If you undervalued democracy, you should hear from people who are subject to dictatorship, they could put you right. If you think freedom isn't so much, you should hear from a slave. And, yes, someone who has to put up with an establishment of religion does indeed have a valuable perspective on why you should be glad you have a First Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 7:41 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 479 (626424)
07-29-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
07-28-2011 12:01 PM


That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception.
Okay, I wouldn't call that "total, absolute seperation from religion". The AA hasn't responded so I don't know, but I could just be reading them as being more strict than they actually are.
For the cross in question:
quote:
Museum officials said the cross was being displayed not because of its religious value but the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks.
"The mission of the National September 11 Memorial Museum is to tell the history of 9/11 through historic artefacts like the World Trade Center cross. This steel remnant became a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero, as well as for people around the world," museum president Joe Daniels said in a statement.
So the cross, itself, isn't really a problem then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2011 12:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2011 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2011 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2011 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 60 of 479 (626427)
07-29-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 10:54 AM


not because of its religious value
became a symbol of spiritual comfort
As a christian, is a star of david or a crescent moon "spiritually comforting" to you in any aspect?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 12:21 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024