Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

AZPaul3 avoids the question yet again:

quote:

---

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193?

---

I choose a third option: You didn't actually answer the question. Thus, there is no issue of comprehension. If I ask you what color the sky is, your response of "Yahtzee!" isn't an answer.What other significance does this item have?

quote:

---

For the umpteenth time, Rrhain, it is the history

---

What history? It has no historical significance. All it has is religious significance. Be specific: Was it the piece of the buildings that was hit by the planes? Was it the first piece of the buildings laid? The last piece? Was it the first piece to fail from the inferno?You keep saying it has historical significance, but you keep failing to express what it is.

quote:

---

the curatorial value for a museum.

---

What value is that? I've asked you over and over again to describe what it is, but you have yet to come up with anything that isn't connected to its religion.What other purpose does it have? If the only thing that makes it significant is religion, then it doesn't belong in the museum. It belongs in a church.

quote:

---

That is its "other" significance

---

No, it isn't. That's the same religious significance that makes it invalid for this museum.What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

The Cross's significance is that it was there.

---

So was every other piece of rubble. Why is this one so important?What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

It is history.

---

So is every other piece of rubble. Why is this one so important?What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That it was at Ground Zero does not make it different from any other piece of rubble.

---

​

Bullshit.

---

Oh? Why?What other signficance does it have?

quote:

---

Is that your idea of this museum's charge? To display rubble? Not a big history fan, are you.

---

Then what historical significance does this piece have that any other random piece of rubble doesn't have?The museum is for items of historical significance. If any random piece of rubble you might have pulled out of the pile doesn't rise to the level of historical significance required to be included in this museum, why does this one rate while none of the others do?What other significance does it have?

quote:

---

I know of no legislative or administrative act that requires or denies to the curators of this museum any artifact that they deem in their professional opinion to be curatorial and thus should or should not be part of the museum's holdings.

---

The First Amendment. That's why there's a lawsuit.

quote:

---

The museum serves a secular purpose. There is, nor can there be, any "religious" test of the curatorial value for any piece.

---

You do realize that your second sentence contradicts the first, yes? Because the museum is for a secular purpose, it necessarily has a religious test for curatorial value on all pieces. If it doesn't have a secular purpose, then it necessarily does not belong in the museum.This piece only have sectarian significance.If you disagree, then what other significance does it have?

quote:

---

The fact that some of the artifacts have some religious meaning does not constitute "an excessive government entanglement with religion,"

---

Indeed, but this object's signficance is solely religious. It has no other meaning.If you disagree, then what other significance does it have?

quote:

---

nor can the museum's inclusion of these artifacts be seen as having "the primary purpose of either advancing or inhibiting religion."

---

Since this item has absolutely no significance except as a religious artifact, then it clearly violates your admitted litmus test of excluding items with a "primary purpose of advancing religion."What other significance does it have?

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know the specifics of how the rescuers employed this cross during their operation, but it very easily could have had secular purposes.

---

If "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans, there'd be no room for dishes.Indeed, it "could" have had a lot of other factors that contribute to it being an historical piece, but what are they? Perhaps you can do what AZPaul3 is incapable of and describe what other significance this piece has.

quote:

---

If it was used as a marker for a meeting place, then that is a secular purpose.

---

Insufficient. No significant meeting took place there. It's not like it's where Bush gave his speech. It wasn't the location where anything of any importance was found. It's not like the cleanup crews were involved in any activity that wasn't copied in multiple other meeting spots (I think people forget just how big the World Trade Center complex is...this wasn't the only place people met.)So if this particular piece of stuff is going to be singled out, it needs to have something of significance that separates it from all the other pieces of rubble and meeting places that were there. If the only thing that makes this one stand out among all the rest is a religious purpose, then it doesn't belong in the museum. It belongs in a church.What other signficance does it have?

quote:

---

In general, I don't think that having a spiritual aspect automatically makes something non-secular. It needs to be tied to a specific religion.

---

Ah, yes...the "god doesn't mean god" argument. As if some nebulous reference to god somehow strips it of all religious pretense. If only we can make the concept so abstract as to not have any dogma other than an insistent claim that god exists, then it has nothing to do with religion, right?But you do realize that your claim is laughable on its face, yes? Are you seriously claiming that a cross isn't "tied to a specific religion"?

quote:

---

I think non-christians found spiritual comfort in the cross

---

You mean you don't know? When you read other people's minds, do you have to concentrate to hear them or is it always on and you have to concentrate to separate out the one voice from the many?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which is proof positive that it has no secular purpose, only sectarian.

---

​

Why?

---

Because if it is "disrespectful" to display a piece of rubble that doesn't reflect the religious patina people have painted on it, then the purpose of the item isn't secular but sectarian. Its only significance is the religious symbolism it represents.If people are upset because the item is acknowledged but specifically outside of its religious significance, then its significance is necessarily religious.We're back to the "god doesn't mean god" argument. Take a look at the "in god we trust" issue we have with the money. People (including Kennedy on the Supreme Court) seem to think that the word "god" in that phrase doesn't actually mean a reference to god.But take a look at the response to the idea of removing that phrase: It's naught but howls from the religious that they are being "disrespected." If that's the case, then clearly the word "god" in that phrase means precisely god and it is obvious to all but the most foolish observer that the phrase is inappropriate.Since the people complaining about this item not being displayed are doing so out of a claim that it is "disrespecting" their religion, then it is clear that the only significance this item serves is religious in nature. There are plenty of other pieces of rubble that have identical historical resumes to this particular piece of rubble. So what makes this one so important that it should be chosen over any of the others?What other significance does it have?

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

The golden rule I suggested is the true golden one

---

Incorrect.You are not Humpty Dumpty and words do not mean what you choose them to mean. The phrase, "The Golden Rule," has a very specific meaning: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We get that you don't like this meaning being attached to that phrase, but that's your problem."Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" is also a very ancient philosophy...but it is known as the "Silver Rule."The words you are looking for are, "Oh. I didn't know that." That you don't like the fact that "the Golden Rule" applies to a philosophy that isn't what you thought it was does not let you redefine "black" as "white" and snidely claim everybody else is stupid.

quote:

---

from a Hebrew sage 150 BCE

---

Incorrect. What you proferred was the Silver Rule, which was espoused by Hillel, yes. He also espoused the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Are you having trouble with the idea that Hillel put forward both?

quote:

---

I tried to show you how Isabela used the European golden rule

---

No, you didn't. You brought in a non sequitur. Isabella I's actions have no connection to the Golden Rule. Nor does penicillin have anything to do with the Golden or Silver Rules.You really need to stop and go back to read the history of philosophy. Confucius not enamored of the Golden Rule. When asked about the Golden Rule's admonition to repay evil with kidness, he replied: "Then with what will you repay kindness?" It's why Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi expounded the Silver Rule: While it's wrong to do evil to your enemy, that doesn't mean you have to take it, either. Resist, but non-violently.I highly recommend you read Carl Sagan's article regarding philosophy and the ideas of the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron Rules.Hint: I am not questioning your valuation of the Golden or Silver Rules. I am simply pointing out that the phrase, "The Golden Rule," specifically and solely means: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you are referring to a different philsophy, then you cannot call that other philosophy, "The Golden Rule," because that already means something else. The philosophy you espoused, "Do not do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you," is specifically known as "The Silver Rule."As an example, I am not questioning a person's preference of "black" over "white." I am simply pointing out that the word "black" means the absence of color and cannot be arbitrarily redefined to mean something else.

quote:

---

words do not mean what you choose them to mean.

---

Words mean what they mean, not what someone says it means.

quote:

---

The phrase, "The Golden Rule," has a very specific meaning: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We get that you don't like this meaning being attached to that phrase, but that's your problem.

---

I showed you how this can be used to commit mass murder, as in Spain.

quote:

---

"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" is also a very ancient philosophy...but it is known as the "Silver Rule."

---

How about Platinum?

quote:

---

Are you having trouble with the idea that Hillel put forward both?

---

I showed that any alternative to what I suggested is open to mis-use. The Nazis did to others what was good for them; so did depraved Rome; so did Islam in India.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to show you how Isabela used the European golden rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, you didn't. You brought in a non sequitur. Isabella I's actions have no connection to the Golden Rule.

---

Try this lovely one, made with a decree to convert or die - because its good for Spain thus also for you:'BETTER TO DESTROY THER BODIES AND SAVE THEIR SOULS".Gee thanks.

quote:

---

Nor does penicillin have anything to do with the Golden or Silver Rules.

---

Its a most fitting metaphor.

quote:

---

You really need to stop and go back to read the history of philosophy. Confucius not enamored of the Golden Rule. When asked about the Golden Rule's admonition to repay evil with kidness, he replied: "Then with what will you repay kindness?" It's why Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi expounded the Silver Rule: While it's wrong to do evil to your enemy, that doesn't mean you have to take it, either. Resist, but non-violently.

​

I highly recommend you read Carl Sagan's article regarding philosophy and the ideas of the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron Rules.

​

Hint: I am not questioning your valuation of the Golden or Silver Rules. I am simply pointing out that the phrase, "The Golden Rule," specifically and solely means: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you are referring to a different philsophy, then you cannot call that other philosophy, "The Golden Rule," because that already means something else. The philosophy you espoused, "Do not do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you," is specifically known as "The Silver Rule."

​

As an example, I am not questioning a person's preference of "black" over "white." I am simply pointing out that the word "black" means the absence of color and cannot be arbitrarily redefined to mean something else.

---

Hint. I see Hillel as transcendent of Sagan, King and Ghandi. Black is NOT the absence of color or light. I'd like to see a commemoration by honest Europeans which condemns Spain's history and this should be part of European education. Silence to evil is not a golden rule either.

Your supposition is contrary to the evidence presented. Ahh, thus the disconnect is revealed. I say "history" you hear "Yahtzee." No wonder you cannot comprehend this simple concept. Miswiring in the brain. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. You are too incompetent to make such a judgement. Yes, it is. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. See Message 227Wow, what a twisted little mind you have. What word are you hearing when I say "secular"? Do you hear "anti-religious"? Or maybe "wind turbine"? Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. [aside]

​

Good god, for all I know he's reading

​

"Applesauce easy in stop signs having petrogale petrified poodles."

​

[/aside]Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I’ve been following the thread. To say that ‘spiritual comfort’ is a ‘secular’ reason simply boggles the mind. What you seem to suggest is that if there is any benefit which can be generally pointed to which is not exclusively ‘spiritual’ then it doesn’t violate Church and State.By your reasoning, what could possibly be excluded? If all it takes is some believers saying, I got something out of it.

I condemn it. It is. At least, I was taught about it.

Good on you. A remnant often beats a multitude in error. I brought this up to impress the multidue it is better not to do what is hateful to others, than to do what is good in one's own eyes. The latter is not a bad virtue, but it can be mis-used, and should thus be discretional only. The former is incumbent.

BREAKING!No theology or ideology has the patent on belief. This is a generic, inherent trait with all life, akin to love and breathing. It is also the easiest to exploit: if we are inculcated to believe in pink zebras, 99% would become Pink Zebraites and follow Pink Zebraism. But the math says all beliefs can't be right - they all contradict each other.Conclusion: There is no alternative to humanity being ruled under majestic laws, accepted and agreed by all humanity and equally applying to all. Its like the rules of the game which all players must follow. While belief has a potent place, the law should be transcendent; the former has to be validated by the latter. Most of the rebellion comes from the requirement the community at large has transcendent rights than the individual, which is sometimes seen as impinging on one personal liberties, and is also seen as socialism. These appear the two big polar points before humanity, each pointing in oppositte directions.What is forgotten is that personal liberties are also fully dependent on good laws, not on beliefs.

Breaking!Jesus was a Socialist if not a Communist.

Mostly, I'm just taking the museum officials' word for it. I did try to find some webpages discribing how the cross helped during the rescue but I didn't find very much... apparently it marked a place to meet, made people feel better, and helped in the recovery efforts. That on top of it being an actual piece of the buildings makes it museum-worthy. How do you know? Who are you to determine how much significance is enough? That's up to the museum officials and they agree with me. Nobody cares about your oppinion on suffiicient significance. No, I'm not claiming that. I said: In general, I don't think that having a spiritual aspect automatically makes something non-secular. I read where a jewish man said that he found spiritual comfort in it too, even though he wasn't a christian. The purpose of the cross is to be a historical artefact that tells the history of 9/11 because of the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks, according to the museum officials. Disrespecting the religious patina that people have painted on it does not remove that purpose. Who is doing that complaining? This thread is about the lawsuit the AA filed that claims the cross need to be removed. I'm arguing that there is not enough reason to remove it and there is enough reason to keep it, I'm not complaining about the consequences of removing it. Oh really? How many pieces are there? I read that they were desperately trying to save the remaining pieces of rubble, that have no religious significance at all, because they were running out of them.

"Secular" means not tied to a specific religion. "Spiritual" is not tied to a specific religion. Ergo, spiritual can be secular.Secular does not mean materialistic. Are you familiar with the Lemon Test? A thing has to have a secular purpose without having the primary effect of advancing religoin nor result in unessessary entanglement of government and religion. Anything that doesn't have a secular purpose or has the primary effect of advancing religions or results in unessassary entanglement of government and religion.

Trae, I agree. Trying to make a secular justification for this religious object is a non-starter.The bigger point is that it does not need one.Apparently, the curators of the museum see enough unique historical significance in the Cross to curate it into the museum where it sits today. The "history" angle has been settled.What remains to be determined is whether government funding of the museum as a whole constitutes "excessive entanglement with religion or has the purpose of promoting one religion over another" just because of a few religious objects within its collection.I think students of the court can see where this is going to fall and I doubt if SCOTUS will even take the case after the Second Circuit rules the Cross is fine right where it is.

Really? Rather than go back and read the thread to remind yourself what's being discussed, you post off topic cartoons?Let me hold you hand through this.Christians are arguing that a piece of metal from the 9/11 site is magical because, unlike every other crossbeam in existence, this one is shaped like a T. Therefore they want to put it in a museum.Atheists are pointing out that the Christians are selecting this particular piece of trash because they think it looks like the symbol of their religion. If that's the reason they want to include it in a museum which is not about their religion, they are in violation of church and state.Christians counter with "This magic T is special because it 'helped' people".Atheists asked for specifics.Christians told us "Well, it helped people because it's the letter T".Then that whole line of argument was repeated for 270 posts.At which point you apparently forgot what he been said, so I brought you back up to speed.