Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 76 of 479 (626487)
07-29-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:00 PM


If their money goes toward the funding of it, they sure do.

"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 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:21 PM hooah212002 has replied

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


Message 77 of 479 (626488)
07-29-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 12:33 PM


If they want to include a chunk of metal because it was important to the rescuers then it shouldn't matter why it was important to them. It shows favor to the rescuers, not to the religious group.
The Christian rescuers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 479 (626491)
07-29-2011 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by hooah212002
07-29-2011 3:06 PM


In what way? How do they go about deciding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2011 3:06 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2011 3:50 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 479 (626492)
07-29-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
07-29-2011 3:15 PM


And?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2011 3:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2011 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 479 (626493)
07-29-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:00 PM


CS writes:
Straggler writes:
But do the non-Christian views of the families/friends of those killed hold any sway over whether or not this is appropriate?
No, and they don't get to decide what pieces are in other museums either.
In this case shouldn't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 81 of 479 (626494)
07-29-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:22 PM


And?
And this shows implicit favour to the Christian rescuers and victims over the non-Christian rescuers and victims. And since this is a government action, it cannot do that without bending the wall which the American Atheists regard as 'absolute'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 479 (626502)
07-29-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
07-29-2011 3:26 PM


And this shows implicit favour to the Christian rescuers and victims over the non-Christian rescuers and victims.
Does it? There existed a piece of rubble from the buildings that helped some of the rescuers and it is being put into the museum for that reason.
They're not putting it in the museum because it is a christian symbol, so how is it showing favor to the christians? Must all of the museum pieces be totally void of any religious connotation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2011 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2011 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2011 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 83 of 479 (626504)
07-29-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:41 PM


Must all of the museum pieces be totally void of any religious connotation?
Since the museum is funded by the government and is not using pieces representative of every faith (I don't see a spaghetti bowl, light saber or Vishnu shrine), then yes, it should remain completely secular.
From the OP's link (as much as I hate using faux news)...:
quote:
The National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Foundation, Inc., is exempt from federal income tax. The organization's revenue in 2010 totaled nearly $90 million, of which $70 million was provided by government grants.

"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 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:22 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 84 of 479 (626505)
07-29-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:21 PM


I'm not entirely sure and it is not on topic.....

"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 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 85 of 479 (626506)
07-29-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 2:57 PM


If they do, are you cool with the cross then?
If they are going to represent people of all faiths and those of no faith, then yes, I am completely ok with it.
It is not that I do not recognize that some individuals find or found these steel girters "spiritually comforting", it's that it is only this piece (so far) that is being enshrined in a memorial of all the people who died.

"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 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 86 of 479 (626528)
07-29-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:41 PM


Does it? There existed a piece of rubble from the buildings that helped some of the rescuers and it is being put into the museum for that reason.
Yes it might.The reason that rubble 'helped some of the rescuers' is because they were Christians and they felt that finding their religious symbol was a sign that God had not abandoned them. That's the reason they gave:
quote:
I saw Calvary in the midst of all the wreckage, the disaster...It was a sign that God didn’t desert us.
source.
They're not putting it in the museum because it is a christian symbol, so how is it showing favor to the christians?
I agree, that they are not explicitly endorsing Christianity, and a valid argument might be brought forward that suggests it is a historical object, deserving to be in the place that memorialises the WTC attack. I can also see why a Christian religious symbol, blessed by a Christian minister displayed prominently on government property is problematic for a group that believes that the government shouldn't be taking any action that might be construed to favour one religion: Especially if other faiths do not get their own expressions of belief with regards to the WTC attacks historically preserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye 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 87 of 479 (627208)
08-01-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 8:56 PM


Dr Adepquate writes:
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.
I’m not really into the leftist nanny state idea.
But tell me, if it isn't a religious symbol, why does it have any defenders?
I am just defending against the AA to have a debate. I am the heel on this site. You think because I am defending having this art piece that it holds some sort of religion significance to me? Lulz wow.
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.
If you were paying attention and knew why this piece is added to the museum then you would understand, the significance of this particular piece, as something the cleanup crew rallied around. Making this a religious item, and an example of the government supporting a religion is grabbing straws.
nd 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.
Odd because we have secular buildings from that time period all over the place in Virginia:
Monticello - Wikipedia
Mount Vernon - Wikipedia
Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial - Wikipedia (here is one in the town I live in)
Montpelier (Orange, Virginia) - Wikipedia
Sherwood Forest Plantation - Wikipedia
We even have a whole town from the exact same time period, where you can go and see what life was like in the 18th century:
Colonial Williamsburg - Wikipedia
So I really have no idea what you are talking about insinuating that we only preserve buildings that are religious in nature. This was just a little evidence that historical preservation societies are concerned with secular buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2011 10:18 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 89 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:15 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 88 of 479 (627289)
08-01-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Artemis Entreri
08-01-2011 11:49 AM


I’m not really into the leftist nanny state idea.
A strange non sequitur, unless you're suggesting that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the museum at all. But I don't think that was your point.
If you don't like a "leftist nanny state", then rejoice that we have the First Amendment to stop the government from taking care of our religious needs. This being a case in point.
I am just defending against the AA to have a debate. I am the heel on this site. You think because I am defending having this art piece that it holds some sort of religion significance to me? Lulz wow.
I asked why the cross had any defenders. Unless you think they're all just playing devil's advocate, then your answer is hardly relevant.
If you were paying attention and knew why this piece is added to the museum then you would understand, the significance of this particular piece, as something the cleanup crew rallied around.
I did note that as a point in favor of the museum, as you would know if you were paying attention.
So I really have no idea what you are talking about insinuating that we only preserve buildings that are religious in nature.
You clearly don't have any idea what I was talking about, because I was insinuating no such thing, and indeed pointing out the exact opposite.
My point is that people would quite definitely want to preserve the church if it was a secular building with the same antiquity and historical associations. They are not just doing so because it had a religious use. This means that it passes the constitutional test despite being (or having been) a church. On the other hand, people are in favor of this cross only because it is a religious symbol --- if it was just any old piece of rubble they wouldn't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2011 11:49 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 11:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 89 of 479 (627319)
08-02-2011 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Artemis Entreri
08-01-2011 11:49 AM


I’m not really into the leftist nanny state idea.
But apparently more than happy to live in a state that sucks money off productive states like a tick.
$1.51 dollars in Government spending for every $1 in taxes going to Virginia.
If you don't want the State to have a say in what you do, then GET A DAMN JOB and stop taking the money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2011 11:49 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 90 of 479 (627320)
08-02-2011 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by hooah212002
07-29-2011 3:48 PM


Faith and Museums
Since the museum is funded by the government and is not using pieces representative of every faith (I don't see a spaghetti bowl, light saber or Vishnu shrine), then yes, it should remain completely secular.
I think it should be made clear that this position is for this particular museum and not all museums which receive state funding.
For example, the Smithsonian may have a display on the Puritans and not need to bring in representations of other religions because the context is "history" and looking at a particular part of history.
Since this museum (assuming we're still talking about the 9/11 museum and not some spin off) is about a particular moment in time, it's unlikely that displays will be about subject material outside of that narrow scope.
However, it would be reasonable to have muslim relics in the museum, as it was Muslims attacking under religious motivations.
A display showing the names of the victims under a giant cross however would be inappropriate - since the cross has no connection to the actual events, and no connection to the individual victims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2011 3:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but 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