|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's no more important than any other chunk of metal from the site. No, they disagree and that's why they're putting it into the museum. It has historical significance as being a piece of the actual building and also having significance to those participating in the rescue.
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. Sort of, but I doubt the rescuers see it that way.
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. Its both, but that's not why its being included in the museum. Its in there for the historic value. It has to be this specific piece, and it was significant to the rescuers because of the way it was displayed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I said good day sir!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Every piece of the actual building is a piece of the actual building. Right, so they can't use a piece that wasn't as a piece that was.
So, the ONLY real significance here is that some of the people think that it's a cross. And that that helped them during the rescue.
AND, in fact, I would bet that those people wouldn't care if it was the ACTUAL piece of the building or just a set of crossbars that look like they were from the actual building. I doubt that. You don't have any religious sentiment so you're not allowed to comment on it
But it wasn't displayed. It was just a piece of a building. It was like several million other pieces of the building. Except that this specific piece actually helped in the resue efforts.
THEY imbued it with meaning that it does not have in and of itself. The meaning that THEY imbued it with is religious. THEY are saying "Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who died at this place don't count because the letter T is important to Jesus". I didn't realize you were a part of that rescue operation and had direct insight into the significance it played for them. What else can you tell me about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If they need a display that was a piece of the building, there are plenty of chunks of concrete laying around. Use one of those. They don't need a display that was a piece of the building. They have a piece of the building that held a significance for the resuers. Its not just any old cross, that it was a part of the actual building is part of the historical significance.
Was it pointing to a body or something? How exactly did it help them? Spiritual comfort in a time of high stress. Increase morale. Some sort of effort consilience. I dunno, I wasn't there. I'm just taking their word for it.
Thousands of people died that day. A good many of them were Chinese. It's pretty safe to assume that at least some of those were not Christians. I suppose that if a Chinese guy, or a non-Christian, brought something that should be included in the museum, then they would include that in the museum too.
The fact that SOME of the rescuers and SOME of the public seem to think that Jesus supported the attacks ignores the Buddhists who died who honestly wouldn't want to be buried under a cross whether it was one that was supposedly for or against terrorism. Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'll wait for the judge. Wuss. What's your opinion?
Well, does it? I think it does. I've already explained why.
No, you're right, but why would a venerated copy of the ten comandments be brought into the courtroom? For the historical value it gained by being venerated. I meant, why a courtroom... But I guess that is beside the point.
You wouldn't object if they displayed the Bill of Rights because of its historical associations, would you? So apparently if the Ten Commandments was venerated enough, it, like the cross, would become secular and historical, at which point you could put the Bill of Rights in a broom closet and replace it with the secular ol' Ten Commandments. 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. Some historically important artifact that is in the image of the Ten Commandments could be secular. Just because its the Ten Commandments doesn't automatically make it non-secular. There's plenty of religious paintings in government museums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you've accepted that it helped people and have no argument against why it, legally, can be included in the museum.
We're now left with:
Seems in bad taste to me. That's fine, but we don't legislate by tastes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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:
That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. But if it passes the Lemon Test and can be allowed in the museum as-is, then there is no problem to be solved in the first place.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024