Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 479 (627678)
08-03-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2011 10:22 AM


Re: excellent idea
So you've accepted that it helped people and have no argument against why it, legally, can be included in the museum.
I didn't accept that it helped people. I asked specifically which survivors it pointed to or which block of cement it helped lift.
You answered that some people felt like it was a religious symbol (implying that Jesus caused the attack apparently) and that gave them comfort.
I would suggest that other people also feel it is a religious symbol, ALSO implying that Jesus caused the attack, and that gives them discomfort.
Ask yourself this:
If, instead of Jesus nailed to a 2x4, someone wanted to put up a sign that read "Praise Allah for his attack on these towers", do you think the Christians would allow it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 12:32 PM Nuggin has replied

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


(1)
Message 137 of 479 (627680)
08-03-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2011 10:16 AM


Wuss.
What's your opinion?
My opinion is that I'm glad I'm not a judge.
That's almost right. You're referring to "The Ten Commandments" as a general thing, but we need to be talking about a specific item.
I was. I said: "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?"
Some historically important artifact that is in the image of the Ten Commandments could be secular.
And apparently an artifact can become secular simply as a result of receiving religious veneration. So it seems that my scheme would work, and that you can indeed make any religious artifact completely secular by having enough people treating it as a religious artifact for long enough. Apparently repeated applications of holy water progressively washes all the religion out of it until it isn't religious at all.
It's possible that someone really super-religious like the Pope could make it secular at a single stroke, if he gave it a really thorough Pontifical blessing.
There's plenty of religious paintings in government museums.
But the basis on which they are selected is surely their artistic merit rather than their religious significance. If a painting by (let us say) Donatello, previously identified as St. Spirograph The Vague Rebuking The Lepers, was realized by art historians to be actually a picture of Socrates teaching his disciples, would it lose one cent in value or be taken off the walls of a museum? Whereas if the cross had no religious significance, it would just be scrap metal. And if it was a crescent and star people would have thrown rocks at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 12:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 479 (627686)
08-03-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Adequate
08-03-2011 11:28 AM


I was. I said: "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?"
And I said you were right, but then wondered why you picked a courthouse. Although, I don't think the blessing are in any way helping.
And apparently an artifact can become secular simply as a result of receiving religious veneration.
I dunno, I think there needs to be more to it than just that. It should have some kind of significance outside of the religion.
Like with this cross being a piece of the actual building and then also providing help to the rescue workers, the religious nature is secondary to that for being secular and considered worthy of the museum, imho.
So it seems that my scheme would work, and that you can indeed make any religious artifact completely secular by having enough people treating it as a religious artifact for long enough.
Just like a painting...
But the basis on which they are selected is surely their artistic merit rather than their religious significance.
Or historical value, which could stem from their religious significance. Too, some of them aren't really that good, but are included because of where they were from.
If a painting by (let us say) Donatello, previously identified as St. Spirograph The Vague Rebuking The Lepers, was realized by art historians to be actually a picture of Socrates teaching his disciples, would it lose one cent in value or be taken off the walls of a museum?
No, it would still maintain its historical value.
Whereas if the cross had no religious significance, it would just be scrap metal.
But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has and is being included in the museum for. All the religious stuff is irrelevant.
And if it was a crescent and star people would have thrown rocks at it.
And if it was a giant vagina people would've fapped to it. So what? Get enough people fapping to it so that it becomes historically significant and you could put that in a museum too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 08-03-2011 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2011 12:15 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 479 (627687)
08-03-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Nuggin
08-03-2011 11:23 AM


Re: excellent idea
I didn't accept that it helped people. I asked specifically which survivors it pointed to or which block of cement it helped lift.
You answered that some people felt like it was a religious symbol (implying that Jesus caused the attack apparently) and that gave them comfort.
And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol.
I would suggest that other people also feel it is a religious symbol, ALSO implying that Jesus caused the attack, and that gives them discomfort.
Okay, that doesn't take away from the non-religious reasons for including it.
If, instead of Jesus nailed to a 2x4, someone wanted to put up a sign that read "Praise Allah for his attack on these towers", do you think the Christians would allow it?
That wouldn't have a secular purpose like this cross does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 08-03-2011 11:23 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 08-03-2011 1:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 140 of 479 (627688)
08-03-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2011 12:26 PM


CS writes:
But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has and is being included in the museum for. All the religious stuff is irrelevant.
Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 141 of 479 (627695)
08-03-2011 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2011 12:32 PM


Re: excellent idea
And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol.
That's all a religious symbol can do - at best.
Are you suggesting that this object had importance because someone said:
"Where are we digging today?"
And someone else said
"Just a little bit north of that thing"
And THAT is why it belongs in the museum?
If it's NOT a religious symbol, cut it in half, display a little piece of it at this museum and send another little piece to some other place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 142 of 479 (627770)
08-04-2011 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2011 12:26 PM


And I said you were right, but then wondered why you picked a courthouse.
Trying to get displays of the Ten Commandments into courthouses is one of the things conservatives like to do when they're not too busy licking cocaine off rentboys.
I dunno, I think there needs to be more to it than just that. It should have some kind of significance outside of the religion.
Like with this cross being a piece of the actual building and then also providing help ...
"Help"?
But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has ...
It wouldn't have had the "historical secular value" that it has.
Look, this is all topsy-turvy. Suppose the museum had commissioned the cross, and they explained to the judge: "Oh, it just happens to be cross-shaped. No-one has ever taken it as a symbol of faith, or sprinkled holy water on it, or called it a miracle, or exhibited it outside a church. It's secular." Then the judge would have said: "Nice try ... assholes". Agreed?
But because people have done all these things, somehow it becomes secular. Surely it shouldn't work like that.
And if it was a giant vagina people would've fapped to it. So what? Get enough people fapping to it so that it becomes historically significant and you could put that in a museum too.
Which museum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2011 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 143 of 479 (627805)
08-04-2011 10:10 AM


Death Threats
I was looking at the American Atheist blog about the WTC cross and ran across this about death threats being posted against atheist on the Fox News Facebook page. It never ceases to amaze me how some Christians, or believers in god, can justify killing atheist or anyone they feel is doing them an injustice. Do they think this is what their God wants? I cant think of any New testament support for these views, in fact doesn't the NT teach the opposite?
I am only going to post a couple of these, the link provides about 18 examples of this hate. I am sure some are just trolls, but not all,
After witnessing this kind of intolerance from some in the Christian camp time and again it makes me glad I am godless, some religions seem to mess some people up.
This whole thing would be a non-issue if the WTC museum had of accepted the AA offer of an additional memorial/statue that would've better represented all Americans that died that day. A win win IMO. I wonder if the families of the non-Americans killed that day will get to display a flag or something to remind the visitors that Americans weren't the only ones to die.
I sent a message to the WTC museum asking them if they would even consider the AA offer...their response was "No comment at this time". I expected that with a pending court case though, I doubt CS will get a response from the AA for the same reason.
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 145 by hooah212002, posted 08-04-2011 11:31 AM fearandloathing has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 479 (627806)
08-04-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2011 12:15 AM


It wouldn't have had the "historical secular value" that it has.
But so what? It does have it. It passes the test.
Look, this is all topsy-turvy. Suppose the museum had commissioned the cross, and they explained to the judge: "Oh, it just happens to be cross-shaped. No-one has ever taken it as a symbol of faith, or sprinkled holy water on it, or called it a miracle, or exhibited it outside a church. It's secular." Then the judge would have said: "Nice try ... assholes". Agreed?
They'd have been lying, so yeah. Or are you asking as if those things honestly hadn't been done? If it would have the secular-ness, then it'd have it regardless of its shape, so I'm not seeing why it matters.
But because people have done all these things, somehow it becomes secular. Surely it shouldn't work like that.
I don't think it should matter how it became secular, but I do not think it happens like you're describing.
Its secular to me because:
  • Its from the actual building, i.e. its an artifact from the site itself
  • It played an important role in the resue operation
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2011 12:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 1:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2011 10:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 145 of 479 (627820)
08-04-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by fearandloathing
08-04-2011 10:10 AM


Re: Death Threats
Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute.....I thought the structure had no religious value or implication and was just something that "provided spiritual comfort"?

"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 143 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 10:10 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 11:38 AM hooah212002 has replied

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


Message 146 of 479 (627822)
08-04-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by hooah212002
08-04-2011 11:31 AM


Re: Death Threats
.I thought the structure had no religious value or implication
Apparently it does for some, maybe the WTC museum should distance themselves from these nuts.
Fox News has deleted that whole page from FB, they knew what they were doing by asking for comments was stirring up a shit-storm for the sake of ratings, a little hate and intolerance goes a long way.
AbE
quote:
Bloomberg said that, though the group has the right to sue, he personally believes that the inclusion of religious symbols at the 9/11 museum should be allowed
Read more..
Bloomberg thinks it's religious.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by hooah212002, posted 08-04-2011 11:31 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by hooah212002, posted 08-04-2011 11:53 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 147 of 479 (627828)
08-04-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by fearandloathing
08-04-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Death Threats
Apparently it does for some, maybe the WTC museum should distance themselves from these nuts.
Well, obviously those people that said those things aren't real christians.....

"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 146 by fearandloathing, posted 08-04-2011 11:38 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 148 of 479 (627842)
08-04-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 10:11 AM


CS writes:
Its secular to me because:
  • Its from the actual building, i.e. its an artifact from the site itself
  • It played an important role in the resue operation
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho.
Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 2:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 479 (627844)
08-04-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Straggler
08-04-2011 1:40 PM


Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.
Why?
Might as well just display it as sat while the resuers drew inspiration from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(2)
Message 150 of 479 (627860)
08-04-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 2:23 PM


Are you suggesting that the orientation of this object was related to it's role as an object of inspiration in some way? Gosh - I wonder why that might be......
C'mon CS - Let's stop playing dum. If this thing were just an artefact of 9/11 rather than an overtly religious symbol it's orientation would be utterly irrelevant. It's orientation is not utterly irrelevant because it's religious symbolism is entirely based on it's crucifix-like appearance. So stop evading this fact and just be honest about it.
Now my personal atheistic take on this is - So what? If people want to find religious meaning in rusty girders then I am happy to let them get on with it. If it played a part in the events of 9/11 as a religious symbol then I personally wouldn't object to it being in a museum for that reason. Because it is related to the tragedy of 9/11 it will be treated more seriously and more solemnly but in principle finding meaning in rusty girders is really no different to finding inspiration by seeing Jesus's face in a piece of burnt toast or an oddly shaped cheese puff shaped like Moses. The meaning exists only in the heads of the believers.
People imbuing things with symbolic meaning, religious or otherwise, is just what people will inevitably do. Especially in times of tragedy, crisis and high emotion. In my view it isn't worth getting upset about.
However - Others who do have reason to object to this as a specifically religious object certainly have a case. And you refusing to face that case on the basis that it is just some 9/11 artefact that has no specific overtly religious non-secular role is frankly dishonest.
Why not admit it's religious nature and argue that it should be there anyway? Wouldn't that be the more honest approach here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 7:29 PM Straggler 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