Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


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 151 of 479 (627875)
08-04-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Straggler
08-04-2011 6:00 PM


Why not admit it's religious nature and argue that it should be there anyway?
That has been my position the whole time. I have admitted it is religious, and that that doesn't matter, and I have not denied that it is religious. I've argued that it passes the Lemon Test so it should be allowed.
However - Others who do have reason to object to this as a specifically religious object certainly have a case.
From a legal standpoint? (we are talking about a lawsuit here) Then present that case. You have my argument for why it passes the Lemon Test and should be allowed. Nobody has really addressed it from what I've seen.
People imbuing things with symbolic meaning, religious or otherwise, is just what people will inevitably do.
If we have to take this thing out of the government's place because it has a religious nature, then wouldn't that mean that if people imbued an object in a government's place with religious meaning, then that thing would have to be removed too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2011 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2011 10:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 7:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 152 of 479 (627882)
08-04-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 7:29 PM


If we have to take this thing out of the government's place because it has a religious nature, then wouldn't that mean that if people imbued an object in a government's place with religious meaning, then that thing would have to be removed too?
Presumably the reason it was there in the first place was that it did have some secular value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 7:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 153 of 479 (627883)
08-04-2011 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 10:11 AM


I don't think it should matter how it became secular, but I do not think it happens like you're describing.
Well what did happen? They used it as a crane?
It "became secular" by becoming a religious symbol.
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho.
Well, see, that's where you're wrong.

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 not replied

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


Message 154 of 479 (627907)
08-05-2011 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by New Cat's Eye
08-04-2011 7:29 PM


CS writes:
I've argued that it passes the Lemon Test so it should be allowed.
Is this object a pair of rusty girders that is a relic of 9/11 or is it in effect a giant crucifix? That is the question here.
The former would pass the Lemon test, the latter (I am guessing) probably not. The former would not require that the girders are displayed in any particular orientation. The latter demands that unless displayed as a giant crucifix the object loses all significant meaning and thus it's reason for being included in the museum at all.
So the answer here is obvious. It is an overtly religious symbol. This is pretty inarguable unless you think the object could be displayed in a non-crucifix orientation without losing it's symbolic significance.
CS writes:
That has been my position the whole time.
Then why could you not give a straight answer as to why this object needs to be displayed as a crucifix?
CS writes:
From a legal standpoint?
I am no expert in US law but it does seem that there is at least a legal question to be asked here. But I was more thinking of those non-Christians (whether other faiths or no faith at all) affected by 9/11 who may not want a giant crucifix at the memorial museum. Surely they have a say too - No?
CS writes:
If we have to take this thing out of the government's place because it has a religious nature, then wouldn't that mean that if people imbued an object in a government's place with religious meaning, then that thing would have to be removed too?
And here you unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If something already in place acquires religious significance then, by definition, it wasn't placed there because of it's religious significance.
In this case the object has been put in place because of it's religious significance. That is the objection as I understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-04-2011 7:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 10:54 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 479 (627921)
08-05-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Straggler
08-05-2011 7:21 AM


Is this object a pair of rusty girders that is a relic of 9/11 or is it in effect a giant crucifix? That is the question here.
Its both, plus it was a resource used by the rescuers.
The former would pass the Lemon test, the latter (I am guessing) probably not.
A crucifix can pass the Lemon Test by having a secular purpose.
Then why could you not give a straight answer as to why this object needs to be displayed as a crucifix?
Didn't realize I hadn't...
I am no expert in US law but it does seem that there is at least a legal question to be asked here. But I was more thinking of those non-Christians (whether other faiths or no faith at all) affected by 9/11 who may not want a giant crucifix at the memorial museum. Surely they have a say too - No?
They are free to express their opinion, or file a lawsuit (as in this case), but as to whether it is allowable or not is up to the judge. They don't really have a say in that.
And here you unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If something already in place acquires religious significance then, by definition, it wasn't placed there because of it's religious significance.
In this case the object has been put in place because of it's religious significance. That is the objection as I understand it.
And we have a direct quote from the ones who put it in place saying that the object has not been put in place because of it's religious significance, but because of the secular reasons that I've already mention. That objection is just plain old wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 7:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2011 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 157 by Nuggin, posted 08-05-2011 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 158 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(1)
Message 156 of 479 (627928)
08-05-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 10:54 AM


A crucifix can pass the Lemon Test by having a secular purpose.
Having a secular purpose is only one prong of the Lemon test. The others are that it must not have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting a religion and that it must not cause unnecessary government entanglement with religion.
It can easily be argued that a religious symbol, blessed by a priest and looked upon as a symbol of God's presence by a certain subset of Christian rescuers, advances a particular religion. The argument comes down to whether or not that is its primary effect or if the 'secular rationale' is the primary effect (or indeed, are they the same effect 'spun' in different ways?)
The third prong, 'unnecessary entanglement' could also be argued, I would have thought.
And we have a direct quote from the ones who put it in place saying that the object has not been put in place because of it's religious significance, but because of the secular reasons that I've already mention.
In fairness, I could probably find IDists that said Of Pandas and People is a secular book with secular intent. If they are making the decision to install a religious symbol in a government funded museum on government property, of course they are going to say they are doing it for secular purposes. Saying it is easy, they might even believe it, but is it true?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 157 of 479 (627933)
08-05-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 10:54 AM


A crucifix can pass the Lemon Test by having a secular purpose.
In order for it to have a secular purpose, it must have provided something different than what is provided by any other crucifix.
Positive Example:
If, during WWII, a crucifix atop a church were hollowed out and secret messages were stored within by the French Resistance - that would make that crucifix a secular artifact. Just as if it were a chair or lamppost which was similarly hollowed out.
It's the hollowing out and secret messages that make it important.
Negative Example:
If the French Resistance had a secret base in the catacombs and constructed a cross out of two pieces of drift wood nailed together and then prayed to it for guidance and spiritual support - that wouldn't be secular.
In this case, you are talking about a piece of metal at the site which _CHRISTIAN_ rescuers decided was spiritually significant (although technically it's evidence AGAINST their religion, but whatever) because it was a symbol of their faith.
The metal had NO OTHER VALUE. It didn't hold anything up. It didn't point to anything. It wasn't evidence of the bombers were.
It's a cross.
Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 158 of 479 (627941)
08-05-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 10:54 AM


Crucifix or Girders
Straggler writes:
Is this object a pair of rusty girders that is a relic of 9/11 or is it in effect a giant crucifix? That is the question here.
CS writes:
Its both...
Well if it wants a place in an entirely secular museum then it needs to be just a pair of rusty girders that can be orientated any which way.
If it has religious significance as well then it needs to be displayed as a crucifix.
How do you think this item should be displayed in the museum? And why?
CS writes:
That objection is just plain old wrong.
Then why not display then object on it's side (or whatever)?
Don't evade the question - Just tell me why it has to be displayed as a crucifix.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by fearandloathing, posted 08-05-2011 2:18 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 2:46 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 159 of 479 (627943)
08-05-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Straggler
08-05-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
Then why not display then object on it's side (or whatever)?
Side=ok...flip it 180= not so good Unless your a Satanist
Sorry, couldn't resist.

"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 158 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 2:11 PM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 479 (627945)
08-05-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Straggler
08-05-2011 2:11 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
Well if it wants a place in an entirely secular museum then it needs to be just a pair of rusty girders that can be orientated any which way.
I disagree. Religious items can be placed in entirely secular museums if they also have a secular purpose.
If it has religious significance as well then it needs to be displayed as a crucifix.
Minor quibble: "crucifix" implies that it has a statue of Jesus crucified to it.
How do you think this item should be displayed in the museum? And why?
However the museum wants....
Then why not display then object on it's side (or whatever)?
Why?
Don't evade the question - Just tell me why it has to be displayed as a crucifix.
I don't suppose it has to be, its just the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2011 2:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2011 4:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 479 (627958)
08-05-2011 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
08-05-2011 12:18 PM


Having a secular purpose is only one prong of the Lemon test. The others are that it must not have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting a religion and that it must not cause unnecessary government entanglement with religion.
That's right. And if it does fail the Lemon Test, then I don't have any problem with it being removed.
It can easily be argued that a religious symbol, blessed by a priest and looked upon as a symbol of God's presence by a certain subset of Christian rescuers, advances a particular religion. The argument comes down to whether or not that is its primary effect or if the 'secular rationale' is the primary effect (or indeed, are they the same effect 'spun' in different ways?)
Let's say there was a rosary that was used to flag a place in the underground railroad, or something. I think it'd be museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of and don't think the fact that its a religious piece should make it unworthy.
50 years from now when people look at this cross in an exhibit explaining that it was an actual piece of the building that the rescuers found comfort in, I think they're gonna thinl its museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of too.
The third prong, 'unnecessary entanglement' could also be argued, I would have thought.
Sure. I could argue either side of that one.
If they are making the decision to install a religious symbol in a government funded museum on government property, of course they are going to say they are doing it for secular purposes. Saying it is easy, they might even believe it, but is it true?
I suppose, for me personally, it depends on how it is displayed. If its all shrine-like and religiony-looking then it'd be worse than if it was just displayed all booring-like as any other museum pieces are... then it'd be just another exhibit.
But the claim came from the museum president... I doubt he has some agenda to christian-ize this memorial.
I was looking for more stuff on him...
This was worth repeating:
quote:
In addition to the Cross, other religious artifacts that will be displayed in the 9/11 Memorial Museum's historical exhibition include a Star of David cut from World Trade Center steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during the recovery effort.source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2011 12:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2011 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 163 by Nuggin, posted 08-05-2011 7:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 162 of 479 (627960)
08-05-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 4:37 PM


50 years from now when people look at this cross in an exhibit explaining that it was an actual piece of the building that the rescuers found comfort in, I think they're gonna thinl its museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of too.
Only the Christians found comfort in it, for religious reasons. It may be museum worthy, but that doesn't mean it's primary effect is not one that promotes religion.
I suppose, for me personally, it depends on how it is displayed. If its all shrine-like and religiony-looking then it'd be worse than if it was just displayed all booring-like as any other museum pieces are... then it'd be just another exhibit.
But the claim came from the museum president... I doubt he has some agenda to christian-ize this memorial.
It doesn't need to be an agenda, consciously devised.
In addition to the Cross, other religious artifacts that will be displayed in the 9/11 Memorial Museum's historical exhibition include a Star of David cut from World Trade Center steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during the recovery effort.source
Two Christian memorials and a memorial from the father of Christianity. That's marginally more inclusive, but it certainly seems a biased to the 'Judeo-Christian' side of the fence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 163 of 479 (627968)
08-05-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 4:37 PM


Let's say there was a rosary that was used to flag a place in the underground railroad, or something. I think it'd be museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of and don't think the fact that its a religious piece should make it unworthy.
Neither do we. That's because it wasn't a rosary being used as a rosary. It was being used to mark something. It could have been a hammer. It could have been a road sign. It could have been a beaver skull.
In this case, the cross was being used as a cross. It could not have been a standard issue cinder block that the searches found comfort in because the ONLY reason they found comfort in it was the fact that it's shaped like a T.
50 years from now when people look at this cross in an exhibit explaining that it was an actual piece of the building
If that's what's important, pick a different piece of the building.
I suppose, for me personally, it depends on how it is displayed. If its all shrine-like and religiony-looking then it'd be worse than if it was just displayed all booring-like as any other museum pieces are... then it'd be just another exhibit.
Then display it upside down. Problem solved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 164 of 479 (628003)
08-06-2011 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 2:46 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
Straggler writes:
Just tell me why it has to be displayed as a crucifix.
CS writes:
I don't suppose it has to be, its just the way it is.
Then the answer is obvious. Include it in the museum but display it on it's side or in any other way that is non-crucifix-like.
Secular purpose satisfied. Overt religious symbolism avoided.
Problem solved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by xongsmith, posted 08-06-2011 5:08 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2011 11:12 AM Straggler has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 165 of 479 (628009)
08-06-2011 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
08-06-2011 4:07 AM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
I'm in favor of a United Nations Flag sculpture construction. This wasn't just the worst terrorist attack on USA citizens - many countries also had their worst day. Something over 85 countries. I was really pissed off that I could not find a UN flag and had to settle for an American flag.
Forgive me for not honoring & paying respects to the World in those days...i could have done it with a little more effort.

- xongsmith, 5.7d
Basically bluegenes is asking us to accept the LEAST SCIENTIFIC DATA KNOWN TO MANKIND to support his theory. I call bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2011 4:07 AM Straggler 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