Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 106 of 479 (627429)
08-02-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Theodoric
08-02-2011 12:44 PM


As you declined to even read what they meant before you posted about it, I thought I should actually provide the context to everyone.
Oh, I suppose that's honorable enough. I thought you were addressing me. Simply providing context for everyone would probably be better served with a General Reply.
There was no need to paraphrase what they said. You are the one that went there, without providing any context. How about you explaining what you think they mean by "God-LESS America".
I have already stated what I feel they meant.
I don't know what they mean. I explained that in the message you replied to.
I am not attempting to debate a link or just cut and paste. All I am trying to do is show that your comment about "GodLESS America" is an egregious case of taking something out of context. If you had actually read what was meant by the line I would be accusing you of quote mining. But alas, your preconceived ideas prevented you from even reading what they meant. It seems you went to their site to just look for any snippet you could manipulate to support your argument
Wow, you are just too much, man.
Here is what I said:
quote:
They do have an agenda.... "the total, absolute separation of government and religion." I saw a banner on their homepage promoting "GodLESS America!"
I submitted a question through their website asking them what they mean by "the total, absolute separation of government and religion" but they didn't reply.
I went to their website to grab the quoted part and noticed, in passing, at the top of the page an "advertisement-type" banner with just those two words on it. There was no context at all. I posted it as an aside to the actual part I was discussing, and even included a smiley face next to it. You then quote mine me, sans the smiley, and use that to accuse me of an "an egregious case of taking something out of contex". The hypocrisy! It burns! Like I said, you're too much.
Good day, sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 12:44 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 107 of 479 (627430)
08-02-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 12:48 PM


Well I did. But I don’t anymore, I see no reason to dwell on it, unless you are offended that I called you out for doing what you do around here.
You called me out for doing what I evidently did not in fact do.
What about the 1st five years, why the complaint today?
What was its relationship with the government during that time? You say that Giuliani "allowed" it. Yeah, he also allowed people to build churches, which doesn't violate the separation of church and state. Could you be more specific?
Hailed as a miracle? Says who, they were all over the place afterwards:
This guy, for example.
It’s a relic of the building 6, a piece of history. Now because of its shape it is against the constitution?
Specifically, a religious relic.
As to the constitution, I think the judge gets to call that one.
I looked it up, they are not I-beams, they are T-beams.
You said they were I-beams in post #43.
* shakes head *
And to think I trusted you.
Actually I think you might have been right the first time. If you look at the photographs, the two beams do seem to be I-shaped in cross-section (so to speak).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 12:48 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 108 of 479 (627432)
08-02-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 1:01 PM


I.e. that they "did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol".
The rescuers did. But the museum folks are not including it because its religious.
But apparently solely because it was valued for religious reasons by enough people for enough time. This is the only thing that distinguishes it from other lumps of scrap metal.
I agree that there is an argument for it on the grounds of historical value, but there is also an argument on the other side.
I've admitted that they could have a case here, I just haven't seen that they do.
When it was being included in the memorial for the secular, historical, reasons and not the religious ones.
Hmm, that gives me an idea.
I thought of an opposing one too... If its purely for historical reasons, then it could be displayed upside-down and serve the same purpose, no? That might be disrespectful to the rescuers though.
If you left a display of the Ten Commandments outside a church for long enough, and enough people paid religious reverence to it, and a sufficient number of priests blessed it, could you then put it in a courthouse as a secular historical artifact? How much religious veneration does a thing need for it to become secular when you move it into a government building?
I don't think the simple having of veneration is the historical value. Its about where it was and who it was special to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 111 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 479 (627433)
08-02-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 12:48 PM


Responsive?
I thought it was being moved into a government funded museum and that's why they have a problem with it now. And because they've recently offered to provide a different memorial without response, they've filed a lawsuit.
I think it’s all timing, America was still dealing with that day more vividly back then, and the American Atheists would have been seen for the shit disturbers they are back in the 1st few years after the attack, rather than now when they can influence people better.
Yeah, you might be on to something, but I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 12:48 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 110 of 479 (627436)
08-02-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 1:38 PM


The rescuers did. But the museum folks are not including it because its religious.
But they are including it because people adopted it as a religious symbol. If they hadn't, they wouldn't.
I don't think the simple having of veneration is the historical value. Its about where it was and who it was special to.
I guess to get the Ten Commandments into a courtroom we'd need to have it venerated by a bunch of judges first.
And that, gentlemen, is how we separate church and state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 2:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 111 of 479 (627439)
08-02-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 1:38 PM


excellent idea
I thought of an opposing one too... If its purely for historical reasons, then it could be displayed upside-down and serve the same purpose, no? That might be disrespectful to the rescuers though.
I think this is an excellent idea.
Display it upside down. If it's just a chunk of metal from the towers, there's really no "up or down". There must have been a few hundred thousands of these joints.
If the Christians complain that it's disrespectful, throw it in the garbage and be done with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 2:50 PM Nuggin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 479 (627466)
08-02-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 1:53 PM


But they are including it because people adopted it as a religious symbol.
Indirectly... they're including it for the historic value, which is because people adopted it as a religious symbol.
If they hadn't, they wouldn't.
Not necessarily, they might still include it for the historic value if the rescuers adopted it as a different type of symbol.
I guess to get the Ten Commandments into a courtroom we'd need to have it venerated by a bunch of judges first.
And that, gentlemen, is how we separate church and state.
That wouldn't have anything to do with the seperation of church and state at all. That's not what its about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 479 (627467)
08-02-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 2:00 PM


Re: excellent idea
If it's just a chunk of metal from the towers,
But its not just a chunk of metal, its an artifact of high improtance to the on-site rescuers and has historical value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 114 of 479 (627475)
08-02-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 2:49 PM


Indirectly... they're including it for the historic value, which is because people adopted it as a religious symbol.
Hence all this trouble.
Not necessarily, they might still include it for the historic value if the rescuers adopted it as a different type of symbol.
Yes, if they'd all adopted a cross as a symbol of mother's apple pie rather than Christianity this whole thing could have been avoided.
That wouldn't have anything to do with the seperation of church and state at all.
You think my scheme wouldn't work? But why not? Surely enough religious veneration, by the right people, in the right place, makes a religious symbol secular ... or is it just this one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 115 of 479 (627476)
08-02-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 2:50 PM


Re: excellent idea
But its not just a chunk of metal, its an artifact of high improtance to the on-site rescuers and has historical value.
It's no more important than any other chunk of metal from the site. Or any broken computer or flattened car.
It's not like this particular piece of metal was holding up a slab of concrete and saving the last survivor or anything.
And, if it IS that there's something special about this piece of metal, then it shouldn't matter at all what orientation the display is mounted. It's still the same piece of metal if it's right side up, or upside down, or sidewise.
If it's the METAL that's important, then who cares.
If it's the "Jesus!" that's important, then it carries religious implications which don't need to be there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 2:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:03 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 116 of 479 (627477)
08-02-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 1:32 PM


Ok let me see if I understand you correctly.
They do have an agenda.... "the total, absolute separation of government and religion." I saw a banner on their homepage promoting "GodLESS America!"
This statement means nothing because you attached a smiley face? You are claiming that the comment was not a passive aggressive way to say that they want to "wipe out" religion? What is it you think they mean? I have asked this already but you decline to answer. In the context of your post it seemed very clear to me. How about correcting my conclusions? It would be very simple. What did you think the banner "GodLESS America" meant? The banner you refused to even investigate before you mentioned it.
So if you did not interpret "GodLESS America" as a call to "wipeout" religion, why do you later claim that is the purpose of the organization?
But the funny thing is that you never explicitly said that you thought this. Then why, when I interpreted this as what you meant from the comment, did you heartily agree.
CS writes:
Filing a lawsuit to remove a secular memorial because it is shaped like a religious symbol makes it look like they just want to wipe out religion.
So you think they want to "wipe out" religion, but your mentioning of "GodLESS America" has nothing to do with it?
You then quote mine me, sans the smiley, and use that to accuse me of an "an egregious case of taking something out of contex". The hypocrisy! It burns! Like I said, you're too much.
Quotemine was not intentional. The smiley seemed to be superfluous as your arguments do not support your contention that you do not think they are not trying to "wipe out" religion.
Seems you want it both ways. "GodLESS America!" . Means nothing, but the lawsuit means they want religion to begone.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 117 of 479 (627493)
08-02-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 1:34 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:
Hmm, that gives me an idea. If you left a display of the Ten Commandments outside a church for long enough, and enough people paid religious reverence to it, and a sufficient number of priests blessed it, could you then put it in a courthouse as a secular historical artifact? How much religious veneration does a thing need for it to become secular when you move it into a government building?
We put most of our cultural historical artifacts in museums, not courthouses.
Nuggin writes:
Wait. I thought this was a discussion for adults.
Then what the fuck are you doing here?
Are you HONESTLY trying to suggest that the people who build the monument just RANDOMLY picked a shape from the rubble and made a monument of it?
THAT'S your argument?
No that is not my argument, THAT is your strawman.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I went to their website to grab the quoted part and noticed, in passing, at the top of the page an "advertisement-type" banner with just those two words on it. There was no context at all. I posted it as an aside to the actual part I was discussing, and even included a smiley face next to it. You then quote mine me, sans the smiley, and use that to accuse me of an "an egregious case of taking something out of contex". The hypocrisy! It burns! Like I said, you're too much.
That is Theodoric in a nutshell. This thread is now pretty much ruined, I can’t handle Nuggin AND Theodoric in the same thread.
I wish there were more Dr Adequates, and less Nuggin/Thoedorics around here.
Dr Adequate writes:
You called me out for doing what I evidently did not in fact do.
You do it all the time it’s who you are, it’s how you post. I know you cannot drop this, so quote this and respond (I’ll give in, you can have the last word), and then I won’t respond so we can move on. Ok?
This guy, for example.
Sry that linked is blocked.
Specifically, a religious relic.
As to the constitution, I think the judge gets to call that one.
Until we get a ruling that we don’t like and then we have to legislate this piece of history in. There are more of us than you.
I agree that there is an argument for it on the grounds of historical value, but there is also an argument on the other side.
Yes a frivolous one.
You said they were I-beams in post #43.
* shakes head *
And to think I trusted you.
Actually I think you might have been right the first time. If you look at the photographs, the two beams do seem to be I-shaped in cross-section (so to speak).
Shit I don’t know, I am no engiNERD. Construction is manual labor, ugh!
And that, gentlemen, is how we separate church and state.
Interestingly that you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth SO HELP ME GOD, on a bible in that same court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 4:10 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 4:11 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 12:21 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 118 of 479 (627495)
08-02-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:06 PM


Thumbs down?
I see you have decided to just give every one of my posts a thumbs down without making any comment on the post.
How about addressing the posts and tell me why all of my posts deserve a thumbs down.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:06 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 119 of 479 (627497)
08-02-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:06 PM


Interestingly that you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth SO HELP ME GOD, on a bible in that same court.
Not true.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:06 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 120 of 479 (627510)
08-02-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 3:03 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
You think my scheme wouldn't work?
The ten commandments are in the bible, and the bible is in the courtroom, they are already there, no scheme necessary. You win.
Theodoric writes:
I see you have decided to just give every one of my posts a thumbs down without making any comment on the post.
No, but that is a good idea : )
How about addressing the posts and tell me why all of my posts deserve a thumbs down.
Because I don’t like you, or anything you have to say. I have wasted enough time on you to type this out, please ignore me as I ignore you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:03 PM Dr Adequate 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