Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 361 of 479 (629964)
08-21-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by AZPaul3
08-21-2011 2:16 PM


Re: Enough!
Did someone find a Koran on site? Did some Koran act as a landmark recognizable to all those working on the site?
Oh, so now it has to be "big" too. And if there was a big Koran, it would have to be made of metal to count? And if it was made of metal, it would have to be T shaped.
That is your view of the Cross based upon your personal religious beliefs. Something I share, by the way.
But, this does not alter the historical facts of what was on site. Whether the connotations attached are good or bad means nothing. Only the facts of the history of the item matter.
Untrue.
Look, this cross is going to be mounted in a way that makes Christians feel good about it being in the museum. Which means it's going to be mounted in a way that makes other people feel bad about it being mounted in the museum.
If the museum put up a shrine to the photos of the hijackers, meaning some nice candles and "you will be missed" on the wall, people would have an absolute SHIT FIT.
That's because people would find it offensive.
Well, people find this offensive.
Just because the people who think it's important are smart enough of intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that it's presence at the site does not have the meaning they claim it has, doesn't mean that non- Christians should be forced to accept their ignorance.
There are literally BILLIONS of artifacts from the site which have historical significance. Only the tiniest sliver of them is going to be present in the museum.
Why include this one that's offensive?
Prove a negative? Is that the best intellectual argument you can make?
Do you have any such artifact? If so then this as well should be considered for the museum, should it not?
Making a broad statement based on facts not in evidence? Is that the best intellectual argument you can make?
You've already set down the impossible guidelines for what is "acceptable". It must be big and metal and shaped like a cross.
No, there are no non-Christian artifacts which are big and metal and shaped like a cross. You've got me there.
Oh, I agree. But what does this have to do with the unique role of this artifact on that site at that time?
But the ONLY role this artifact has is that some Christians feel it's significant. It's not OBJECTIVELY significant.
A piece of the plane is objectively significant. A failed mounting bracket is objectively significant. A burned crushed NYFD helmet is objectively significant.
This is not objectively significant. You know how I know? There's a group of us telling you so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 2:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 3:41 PM Nuggin has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 362 of 479 (629968)
08-21-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Nuggin
08-21-2011 2:54 PM


Re: Enough!
Oh, so now it has to be "big" too. And if there was a big Koran, it would have to be made of metal to count? And if it was made of metal, it would have to be T shaped.
There was a bible fused to a beam, as I understand. It is in the museum. If a Koran was found is a somewhat similar circumstance then I see no reason for it not to be included. It doesn't have to be "T" shaped, no.
Look, this cross is going to be mounted in a way that makes Christians feel good about it being in the museum. Which means it's going to be mounted in a way that makes other people feel bad about it being mounted in the museum.
So what?
Let me ask:
Is the purpose of the museum to preserve the history of the event or to revise it and slant it to make it more palatable to you?
You've already set down the impossible guidelines for what is "acceptable". It must be big and metal and shaped like a cross.
Never said that. Please stop trying to mis-represent my positions.
But the ONLY role this artifact has is that some Christians feel it's significant. It's not OBJECTIVELY significant.
Since it was there at that site at that time, I disagree. It had a religious connotation then and now. So what? Was it not there? Did it not serve a significant purpose, albeit a religious one?
If something in history offends you do you just ignore it? Hope it goes away?
A piece of the plane is objectively significant. A failed mounting bracket is objectively significant. A burned crushed NYFD helmet is objectively significant.
For the same reasons as the other artifact, I totally agree.
This is not objectively significant. You know how I know? There's a group of us telling you so.
So what? I think y'all are wrong because your objections center on personal religious reasons not on unemotional historical reasons. I disagree for the reasons I stated. We're allowed to do that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Nuggin, posted 08-21-2011 2:54 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Nuggin, posted 08-21-2011 3:56 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 363 of 479 (629969)
08-21-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by AZPaul3
08-21-2011 3:41 PM


Re: Enough!
There was a bible fused to a beam, as I understand. It is in the museum. If a Koran was found is a somewhat similar circumstance then I see no reason for it not to be included. It doesn't have to be "T" shaped, no.
Yes, the display includes a bible, a cross, a star of david cut from crossbeam metal, a Jewish prayer shawl.
No Koran. No statues of Vishnu. No Buddhas.
So, the message is clear: This attack is about a war between the Jews/Christians and the Muslims.
The rest of you can go fuck yourselves. Too bad you died for our war. This is our country not yours. blah blah blah
Is the purpose of the museum to preserve the history of the event or to revise it and slant it to make it more palatable to you?
The purpose of the museum is to slant it to make it more palatable for Christians and Jews.
They literally CUT a star of david out of metal. That's not a found object.
That's a specific message: "Yes, this attack happened because the Muslims are mad that the Americans support Israel, and we aren't going to back down on that support"
Expressed another way: One group of childish fairy tale believers is made at another group that also believes in the same fairy tales for supporting a third group that also believes in the same fairy tales, so the first group killed a lot of people who either don't believe in fairy tales at all, or believe in a completely different set of fairy tales.
If something in history offends you do you just ignore it? Hope it goes away?
No, but I don't lionize it.
The stuff in the holocaust museum is historic and offensive, but it's not presented in a "Wee! Holocaust!" way. It's not presented as "Thank God for the Holocaust". It's presented as EVIL.
This is an object of evil and it's being presented as though it were a holy relic.
So what? I think y'all are wrong because your objections center on personal religious reasons not on unemotional historical reasons. I disagree for the reasons I stated. We're allowed to do that here.
Yes. You are allowed to do that.
Doesn't make you any less wrong.
If there were NO Christians at the site whatsoever, this object wouldn't have any significance.
If there were NO Christians, a firemans hat would still have the EXACT same amount o significance.
If there were NO Christians, a failed brachet would have the exact same amount of significance.
Ditto a piece of plane, or a pic of Guilianni, or of someone covered in ash, etc etc etc.
This object is only significant because Christians are pretending that it is.
That makes it entirely subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 3:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 4:17 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 364 of 479 (629972)
08-21-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Nuggin
08-21-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Enough!
Now, see, unlike with Rrhain and his incessant repetition, we can disagree on this then go about our other lives.
Thank you, Nuggin.
[ABE]
This Cross of David thing. Is it intended for the museum proper or for the Memorial Garden? If it is in the museum then that is inappropriate me-too-ism by the jews and really sucks. If it's for the Memorial Garden then that's fine.
We will need to add a mid-sized granite Buddah, a small marble sculpture of a Koran, a gold guilded coathanger sculpture of the FSM for some and a life-sized bronze broomstick for the Wiccans as well.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Nuggin, posted 08-21-2011 3:56 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 365 of 479 (630008)
08-22-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by AZPaul3
08-21-2011 3:50 AM


AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question:
quote:
This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.
Then you should be able to tell us what the other significance of the object is.
What are you waiting for?
quote:
Answered in Message 177
Refuted in Message 181.
quote:
and again in Message 182
And refuted again in Message 183.
quote:
and then yet again in Message 193.
And then refuted yet again in Message 195.
You need to come up with something new.
What other significance does this item have?
quote:
quote:
You need to come up with something new.
I need do no such thing.
Then you have no argument.
quote:
Answered in Message 177
Refuted in Message 181.
quote:
and again in Message 182
And refuted again in Message 183.
quote:
and then yet again in Message 193.
And then refuted yet again in Message 195.
You need to come up with something new.
What other significance does this item have?
quote:
Get the picture here, Rrhain?
Yep. When faced with a request for you to justify your claims, you will run away rather than stand up for your own argument.
Do you want to go around again or do you want to answer the question? It's really very simple:
What other significance does this object have?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 3:50 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2011 12:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 366 of 479 (630010)
08-22-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Rrhain
08-22-2011 12:19 AM


AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question
This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.
What other significance does this item have?
Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193 with yet another explanation in Message 358.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2011 12:19 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2011 1:06 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 367 of 479 (630011)
08-22-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by New Cat's Eye
08-21-2011 10:44 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I don't have the specifics
Shouldn't that be a hint to you?
quote:
I'm taking the museum officials' word for it.
So why do you think there's a lawsuit? You seem to have a very skewed set of rules for whose word you'll take.
quote:
But if it was used as a meeting place
Why is that sufficient? What about the rubble where Bush gave his speech? That's much more historically significant and it isn't being displayed. Why should a crossbeam that had no important event take place at it be venerated?
quote:
and increased morale
To whom? There were plenty of other bits that did the same thing and they're not being displayed. What's so special about this one?
quote:
thereby helping in the recovery effort
How did it help the recovery effort? Was anybody found because of it?
quote:
The issue here is not whether this object is significant enough to be in a museum
Yes, it is. The only reason an object is in a museum is because it is significant. Otherwise, it's just a piece of junk and should be carted away the way the rest of the rubble was. It's being placed in the museum because people think it is significant but it seems the only significance this particular article has is religious in nature.
That makes it significant for a church, not a museum.
quote:
it's already been deemed important enough by the officials
Why do you think there's a lawsuit? It's impossible for them to have made a mistake?
quote:
the issue here is whether or not its too religious for a museum that receives money from the government.
No, not that it's "too religious." That it has no significance other than its theological patina.
Suppose there were a church that was a waystation on the Underground Railroad. It clearly is soaked in religion, but its historical significance is sufficient that we don't care and it would be ludicrous not to do what we can to preserve it for future generations.
quote:
I said that, in general, spiritual non-secular.
And your redefinition of "black" as "white" doesn't make it so. The spiritual is non-secular by definition.
quote:
You're making it as all or nothing
No, I'm not. It could be the perserved remains of the Pope. If there is some sort of significance that isn't solely religious in nature, then that is sufficient to be included in a museum. If the only significance is theological, that is a reason to put it in a church.
quote:
where one smudge of religious patina makes an item entirely non-secular. I don't agree with that.
Neither do I. It makes one wonder why you seem to think that is what my argument is. Where did I even hint at such a conclusion?
quote:
It played a role as a meeting place
Insufficient. Plenty of other places did the same thing and some were of much more historical worth. Why is this one being venerated over the others?
quote:
and morale booster during the recovery efforts.
To whom? There were plenty of other bits that did the same thing and they're not being displayed. What's so special about this one? What "recovery efforts" were enhanced? Was anybody found because of this object?
quote:
It was saved from the dump
No, it was taken by a church where it was then given a blessing. How is that historical in nature?
quote:
and we had it right there ready for the museum. Are there other pieces lined-up and ready but being denied?
Huh? It was being displayed at a church before the museum requested it. Why not keep it where it was so that it could do the most good?
quote:
I was asking how many pieces were left that had not been carted off to the dump.
Are you seriously claiming that there are no pieces of rubble to be found? That this crossbeam is literally the only thing left and thus if we want to display a piece of the rubble, it is the only one to be had?
quote:
quote:
If it was so significant, why wasn't it kept?
Maybe because the dumpers were unaware of the significance...
And this piece is the only thing we have left? You seriously believe that?
quote:
Apparently there's enough significance for there to be an effort to save some of the remaining peices before they are lost too.
What significnace does this particular item have that can't be fulfilled by another piece that doesn't have the problem of being seemingly solely a religious item?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-21-2011 10:44 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 368 of 479 (630014)
08-22-2011 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by New Cat's Eye
08-21-2011 11:07 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
"Thanks for comming folks... Here we have the S-shaped beam, look how violent that crash must've been. In the middle we have a larger piece with an image from the scene of firefighters projected onto it. Next we have a cross-shaped piece that some of the resuers found religious significance in. Over here we have....""
Where's the problem?
You don't see a difference between the italicized portion and the bolded? The former is non-secular while the latter is solely sectarian.
What's a sectarian piece doing in a secular museum?
If it's just to show a piece of rubble, knock it over. Does this item lose its importance if it's displayed as an X rather than a T?
If so, then it doesn't have any historical signficiance of any kind and is solely a religious object. It should have been kept at the church where it was where it could do the most good.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-21-2011 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 369 of 479 (630017)
08-22-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by AZPaul3
08-21-2011 12:08 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
quote:
The only thing that matters is the history.
So what is the history?
quote:
Whether anyone cares to acknowledge it or not for whatever personal reasons they may have or not, this Cross had a unique role as a religious symbol at ground zero during the recovery
That's not history. That's theology. That's a reason to display it in a church, not a museum.
What is the history?
quote:
It was adopted as a religious symbol on site.
That's not history. That's theology. That's a reason to display it in a church, not a museum.
What is the history?
quote:
And don't try to give me any of this BS about how many or how few believed in it or not because that does not change its history.
But what was its history? You keep describing its theology:
It was a worship station on site. It was a shrine to the fallen on site. No other such artifact existed on site. No other such artifact served this purpose on site. It had a unique meaning on site that no other landmark had on site. These are facts.
Indeed, those are facts. They are facts of this item's theological importance and are justifications for it being in a church.
The question to you is to provide its historical significance that would justify it being in a museum.
quote:
No amount of revisionist BS is going to change the facts of this item's direct historical ties to the site
What historical ties does it have? All you have said is that there was a theological importance.
What is the historical significance?
quote:
You can disagree with this view.
Nobody disagrees with this view. Everybody understands the theological importance of this item.
What you are being asked to provide is the historical significance such that it would be appropriate to display in a museum rather than a church.
quote:
attempts to bully and intimidate
(*chuckle*)
Since when is asking for justification for a claim "bullying and intimidation"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by AZPaul3, posted 08-21-2011 12:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2011 2:16 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 370 of 479 (630018)
08-22-2011 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by AZPaul3
08-22-2011 12:42 AM


AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question:
quote:
This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.
Then you should be able to tell us what the other significance of the object is.
What are you waiting for?
quote:
Answered in Message 177
Refuted in Message 181.
quote:
and again in Message 182
And refuted again in Message 183.
quote:
and then yet again in Message 193
And then refuted yet again in Message 195.
quote:
with yet another explanation in Message 358.
That was new, but it was refuted in Message 369.
You still haven't actually answered the question, though:
What other significance does this item have?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2011 12:42 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2011 2:17 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 371 of 479 (630025)
08-22-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Rrhain
08-22-2011 12:59 AM


AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question
This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented
What other significance does this item have?
Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193 with yet another explanation in Message 358.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2011 12:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 372 of 479 (630026)
08-22-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Rrhain
08-22-2011 1:06 AM


AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question
This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented
What other significance does this item have?
Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193 with yet another explanation in Message 358.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2011 1:06 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 373 of 479 (630035)
08-22-2011 4:10 AM


quote:
A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The evidence does not support the action. While a religious symbol can be a cause of violation, in America's case it is not valid. The Constitution and the laws of the country does not support one religion's right over another. America is not Saudi Arabia or Iran, nor medevial Europe. The facts on the ground speak for themselves and have an impacting factor here. America represents a Christian country [not a crime per se], which displays wise and fair rules and this must be acknowledged rather than flaunted by exaggerations.

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 374 of 479 (635176)
09-27-2011 2:58 PM


WTC cross as a national monument
quote:
As Congress returns from its monthlong recess Tuesday, one of the first orders of business for a New York lawmaker will be to submit legislation seeking to establish the cross recovered from the rubble of the World Trade Center (WTC) as a national monument.
With the legislation titled the "9/11 Memorial Cross National Monument Establishment Act of 2011," Rep. Michael G. Grimm hopes to convince his fellow legislators to approve the bill.
This cross was a symbol of hope and freedom at a time when New Yorkers were coping with loss and destruction in the aftermath of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, Grimm said
Read more...
I guess Grimm has concerns over this case in court and wants to sort of circumvent the case all together. Got to love our elected reps....especially the republicans. (This story is about 3 weeks old.)
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Rahvin, posted 09-27-2011 3:19 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 375 of 479 (635183)
09-27-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by fearandloathing
09-27-2011 2:58 PM


Re: WTC cross as a national monument
A law that enshrines an obvious Christian symbol as a national monument would itself face the same Constitutional scrutiny as placing it in a Federally-funded museum. Congress can't actually bypass the Supreme Court without a Constitutional amendment, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by fearandloathing, posted 09-27-2011 2:58 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by fearandloathing, posted 09-27-2011 3:30 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 377 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2011 10:17 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024