Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 166 of 479 (628040)
08-06-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
08-06-2011 4:07 AM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Nuggin, posted 08-06-2011 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 167 of 479 (628076)
08-06-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
08-06-2011 11:12 AM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
But if it passes the Lemon Test ...
But even you don't believe it passes the test.
Look, we've been asking you for many many posts to explain how this object was any aid to anyone at Ground Zero APART from it being similar looking to a Christian artifact.
You've failed to answer.
That means you know, as well as we do, that the ONLY reason that THIS girder is more important than any of the 10,000 other girders they had to haul away, is because this one looks like a cross.
That's religious. Solely religious. Completely religious. And more specifically, one particular religion over another.
Further, the implication of these religious beliefs is that Jesus knew this was going to happen and ALLOWED it to happen. I guess to inspire us to kill Muslims.
As such this girder isn't just an artifact which gave comfort, but is, thanks to the Christians claims, a validation of our holy war.
Putting it in the museum is thumbing your nose at every other religious faith on the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2011 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2011 8:04 PM Nuggin has replied

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


(1)
Message 168 of 479 (628191)
08-07-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
08-06-2011 11:12 AM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
Straggler writes:
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.
CS writes:
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.
But throughout this thread you have said it passes the lemon test because it had a secular purpose. Any secular purpose it may have had cannot be dependent on it being displayed as a religious symbol can it?
CS writes:
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.
So put the "piece of rubble" in the museum but avoid orientating it in a Christian crucifix-like manner.
What's wrong with that?
Or do you think NOT being displayed in a crucifix-like manner takes something away from this "secular" object?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2011 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2011 4:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 169 of 479 (628200)
08-07-2011 2:17 PM


The History is Key
Yes, the Cross is an overtly religious symbol. Yes, the beams' shape as a cross were found in the wreckage and purposely erected on the site as an overtly religious symbol. Religious or not, the Cross was an integral part of the history of the event, which is not just the bombing but the recovery afterwords, and has bonafide value as a historic object inseparable from the event.
Other nationally sponsored museums include religious objects when the object has such an intimate tie to the theme or history of the display. For historical preservation it is the object's relation to the history that determines its value to the exhibit. Any legal hand wringing over some perceived religious overtones vis-a-vis government sponsorship of the preserving institution are not even a consideration.
This same reasoning would not apply to the Cross of David display even though it is cut from the steel of the historical structure. It was made well after the event being remembered here. That display is solely for the partisan political purpose of placating one religious segment and has no bonafide historical relation to the event itself.
Edited by AZPaul3, : proper usage

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 5:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 170 of 479 (628222)
08-07-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Straggler
08-07-2011 12:32 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
But throughout this thread you have said it passes the lemon test because it had a secular purpose. Any secular purpose it may have had cannot be dependent on it being displayed as a religious symbol can it?
CS seems to want to ignore the other 2 points of the Lemon test as well.
quote:
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 12:32 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 171 of 479 (628224)
08-07-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by AZPaul3
08-07-2011 2:17 PM


Re: The History is Key
Personally I would include it in the museum. As I said back in Message 150
But I can see why others (e.g. of other faiths) might have objections to it's inclusion as an overtly and specifically Christian symbol. With regard to the legality or otherwise - There at least seems a question to be asked.
My conversation with CS is borne from what I see as his dishonesty in pretending that this object is just a "piece of rubble" that has a "secular purpose" and which could meaningfully be included on this basis even if it weren't displayed as a crucifix-like object.
This is just nonsense.
Unless displayed as a Christian style cross the object loses all the meaning for which it has been included in the first place. I honestly don't know why CS seems unable to just acknowledge this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 2:17 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Nuggin, posted 08-07-2011 5:54 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 173 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 7:11 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2011 8:40 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 172 of 479 (628227)
08-07-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Straggler
08-07-2011 5:04 PM


Re: The History is Key
Unless displayed as a Christian style cross the object loses all the meaning for which it has been included in the first place. I honestly don't know why CS seems unable to just acknowledge this.
I think the implication of admitting that is admitting the Jesus was either responsible for, or at the very least complacent in, the attacks.
If he had the power to put the cross in the building during construction in anticipation, or awareness to change existing materials during the attack, then surely he could have warned someone to try and stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 5:04 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by xongsmith, posted 08-20-2011 4:54 AM Nuggin has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 173 of 479 (628229)
08-07-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Straggler
08-07-2011 5:04 PM


Re: The History is Key
There at least seems a question to be asked.
The only question to be asked is of the competence of any curator that would reject the Cross for display in this museum.
At this point the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event far outwieghs its stand alone religious significance. It was there. It had significance. The curator's duty is to preserve the memory through the display and care of the significant objects surrounding the event.
And since this is a curtorial act, and not a legislative one, the Lemon Test is of no significance whatsoever. There is no violation of Church-and-State. Nothing breaches the wall of separation. It is nothing but a curtorial decision and pretty much a no-brainer at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 5:04 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2011 8:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 174 of 479 (628232)
08-07-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AZPaul3
08-07-2011 7:11 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
quote:
The only question to be asked is of the competence of any curator that would reject the Cross for display in this museum.
Indeed. Any curator who includes it should have his competency questioned for only one who doesn't understand the purpose of a museum dedicated to the historical significance of the attacks upon the World Trade Center would think to include it.
quote:
At this point the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event far outwieghs its stand alone religious significance.
At this point, the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event is only sustained by its religious significance.
Fixed that for you.
The only reason this piece of metal has anybody paying it any attention at all is because it has been deemed to be a religious symbol. It wasn't the first piece that fell. It wasn't the last piece. It wasn't the piece that was hit by the first plane. It wasn't the piece that was hit by the second plane. It wasn't the cornerstone of either building. It wasn't the first piece of the new suspension system designed by Minoru Yamasaki that allowed there to be huge open areas of floorspace unobstructed by support columns.
This metal has absolutely no significance except as a Christian artifact. It was a cross-shaped piece of debris (and not the only one) that happened to land upright such that some humans, who are very good and finding patterns out of noise, thought it looked like it was standing and attached significance to that fact (and it wasn't the only one like that, either). That's why it got taken away and installed at a church where it was blessed by a priest.
Thus, to be placed in a federal museum dedicated to the attacks is not only a clear violation of the First Amendment but also a nonsensical thing to do: It doesn't have anything to do with the event.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 7:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 9:08 PM Rrhain has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 175 of 479 (628233)
08-07-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rrhain
08-07-2011 8:05 PM


quote:
At this point the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event far outwieghs its stand alone religious significance.
At this point, the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event is only sustained by its religious significance.
Fixed that for you.
No need. It wasn't broken.
The only reason this piece of metal has anybody paying it any attention at all is because it has been deemed to be a religious symbol. ...
... at the time of the event with (admitted) religious significance during the event.
Thus, to be placed in a federal museum dedicated to the attacks is not only a clear violation of the First Amendment but also a nonsensical thing to do: It doesn't have anything to do with the event.
Self-serving denial. Not good form.
I suppose you would require the Smithsonian to ditch all the religious symbols in their collections for the same reason?
As for the object's significance to the event and its obvious place in the history of the event, ask a curator. You won't like the answer, but reality often bites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2011 8:05 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2011 11:59 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 176 of 479 (628238)
08-07-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by AZPaul3
08-07-2011 9:08 PM


AZPaul3 responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Fixed that for you.
No need. It wasn't broken.
Then why did you say something that was the exact opposite of reality?
quote:
quote:
The only reason this piece of metal has anybody paying it any attention at all is because it has been deemed to be a religious symbol. ...
... at the time of the event
And up to and including the present day and beyond. The only reason anybody is paying attention to this particular piece of metal is because of its religious patina.
What other significance does it have? And given the overwhelming religious implications of it, why couldn't that significance be served more handily by some other piece of metal? After all, the easiest way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is to not use it all. If the secular needs of having a piece of debris in the museum is so important, why is it so important to have that one? Why not some other one that doesn't have all the baggage?
If the only reason this one should take precedence over any other random piece of detritus is because of its Christian symbology, then it clearly doesn't belong.
quote:
with (admitted) religious significance during the event.
Then you agree it is inappropriate.
Glad I fixed that sentence for you. I knew you wouldn't be making such a bone-headed claim.
quote:
I suppose you would require the Smithsonian to ditch all the religious symbols in their collections for the same reason?
If the Smithsonian were in an identical position as a museum dedicated to the attacks on the World Trade Center, then yes. But as it isn't, it ain't.
See, now if the museum as part of its discussion of the attacks were to have a section based upon people's philosophical responses (which includes religious attitudes), then we might (mind you, I said, "MIGHT") have a reason to include this particular piece. Such a retrospective would need to include many more items of religious iconography showing the full response of the populace and even then, given how big that sucker is, a photograph would probably be more appropriate so that we could leave the actual piece where it will do the most good: At the church where people who continue to believe in its theological importance can have access to it in an appropriate setting.
The only reason anybody cares about this piece of metal is because of the religious significance a small minority put in it. It wasn't the only cross-shaped piece of metal from the site and yet, nobody is paying attention to any of those. Thus, its only significance is its theological importance which is a clear violation of the Lemon Test and thus, a violation of the First Amendment.
Not to mention that from a humanities perspective, it is such a poor idea to remove it from its current home at the church. Since it's an active religious symbol, why on earth would anybody want to take it out of its religious setting and slap a secular purpose on it? "Yeah, we know you find this icon to be spiritually uplifting, but we actually want it to be an insignificant piece of fluff in a non-theological setting where you'll never be able to have access to it again."
Why on earth would anybody want to do that?
Clearly, the idea is not to emphasize its secular function in the museum but rather to emphasize its religious significance...which means it doesn't belong in the museum. Keep it at the church.
quote:
As for the object's significance to the event and its obvious place in the history of the event, ask a curator.
What makes you think I haven't?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 9:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by AZPaul3, posted 08-08-2011 2:15 AM Rrhain has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 177 of 479 (628245)
08-08-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
08-07-2011 11:59 PM


Then why did you say something that was the exact opposite of reality?
Sorry, Rrhain, your wishful fantasy does not equal reality for the rest of the world. As I said the object's historical value is linked directly to the preserved event and far outweighs the stand-alone religious significance you are so eager to taut as its only significance. You are wrong.
It was found, unaltered from its present condition, on the site. It was adopted as a religious symbol by some of the workers. How many or few does not matter. It was prayed to. Messages for lost family, co-workers and friends were left at its base. It was an impromptu meeting site for the workers, not just religious meetings but planning meetings as well. It was an easily recognizable landmark on the recovery site.
But let's forego the other uses and stay strictly with the religious. It was a religious symbol on site. It was a worship station on site. It was a shrine to the fallen on site. No other such artifact existed on site. It had a unique purpose on site that no other landmark had on site.
quote:
As for the object's significance to the event and its obvious place in the history of the event, ask a curator.
What makes you think I haven't?
Because if you had then the object's uniqueness within the history of the event, regardless of its religious overtones, would have bound that curator to its significance for the museum.
I understand this religious symbology does not sit well with some. The time to lodge a protest was when the beams were first used in a religious role. But that would have taken a bigger set of balls than the American Atheists or anyone else in the country had at the time. Now, a decade later, the unique history of the object in its relation to the event is established, beyond doubt, and it is too damn late to piss and moan about.
It is a religious symbol. It will always be a religious symbol. But it also has a unique place in the history of the site and, thus, in the remembrance of that event. And you cannot deny that unique history even in wanting to deny the religious BS the cross represents.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2011 11:59 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2011 11:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 479 (628322)
08-08-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Nuggin
08-06-2011 3:35 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
But even you don't believe it passes the test.
But I do believe it passes the test.
You of all people should know that you can't know what I believe.
Look, we've been asking you for many many posts to explain how this object was any aid to anyone at Ground Zero APART from it being similar looking to a Christian artifact.
You've failed to answer.
I've been looking online for links to those involved explaining how it helped them but haven't found much anything. I've mentioned some ways in which it could've helped already, but it doesn't really matter that much to my position. Even if it was just a mark for a meeting place, then that could help in the rescue. A simple morale boost would be very helpful. The specifics just aren't that important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Nuggin, posted 08-06-2011 3:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Nuggin, posted 08-08-2011 8:15 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 179 of 479 (628323)
08-08-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
08-08-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Crucifix or Girders
Even if it was just a mark for a meeting place, then that could help in the rescue. A simple morale boost would be very helpful. The specifics just aren't that important.
You are arguing context, specifics are the only thing that's important.
If it was "a meeting place", then pick some other object and claim it was the meeting place. No one will know the difference because any piece of rubble is as good as any other.
If it was "a simple morale boost", then you've got to explain why looking at the remains of a destroyed building would boost the moral of people who were extremely upset because of the remains of a destroyed building. What specifically was it about this chunk of the building that boosted moral over the piece of cement to the left or the guy's arm to the right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-08-2011 8:04 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 479 (628324)
08-08-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Straggler
08-07-2011 5:04 PM


Re: The History is Key
My conversation with CS is borne from what I see as his dishonesty in pretending that this object is just a "piece of rubble" that has a "secular purpose" and which could meaningfully be included on this basis even if it weren't displayed as a crucifix-like object.
This is just nonsense.
Unless displayed as a Christian style cross the object loses all the meaning for which it has been included in the first place. I honestly don't know why CS seems unable to just acknowledge this.
There's two seperate points there that you've tied together into a different position than the one I'm taking.
Yes, the original source of its meaning stems from its religious symbolism. The other point was that an item doesn't have to have religious symbolism to end up being used like this one was. The religious symbolism is irrelevant.
I've maintained an honest and fairly consistent poistion here that is unlike the one you've just described me as holding. Go back and read my posts again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 5:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Straggler, posted 08-10-2011 1:47 AM New Cat's Eye 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