Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

You said I lost the debate and I responded that I didn't know where I had lost it and then you replied with a desciption of the topic theme. False.Museum officials decided that the cross played a significant enough role in the rescue effort to be put into a museum showing the history of the event. And the atheists are wrong because the museum officials explained that they were not including the cross because of its religious symbolism. And nowhere did the atheists make a good case for it not being included, so my argument for why it should be included has not been defeated. But you claimed that I already lost and that hasn't been shown.

So, it's a "cross", not a piece of the building. Not a significant marker of some body. Not a rallying point.It's a _CROSS_.Done. You lose.

Why?

A cross serves no informative, historical or specific information about 9/11It's merely a symbol of one group who is retroactively claiming responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Americans.Putting it in the museum serves no purpose other than to insult people of other faiths.

Maybe not in general, but this specific cross does serve exactly that. False, there's more to it than just being a symbol, as has been explained. False, the museum officials are putting this cross in the museum as a historical artifact that tells the history of 9/11 because of the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks.None of your reasons for dissalowing this cross are correct/true...

Do you understand that repeating the same l.i.e. doesn't make it true?This object is ONLY a symbol. As is evidenced by the fact that EVEN YOU admit that it only has value if mounted "in the proper Christian position" as opposed to any other orientation. The "role" is played was for Christians to imply that their God caused 9/11 to happen.That role is not something which this museum, or frankly any museum, should be glorifying.

Calling something a lie doesn't make it false. Repeating this lie doesn't make it true. I haven't admitted that. In fact, all I've said is that repositioning it would be disrespectful to the people who were there getting help from it. Regardless, repositioning it would only cause it to loose some of its value, but not all of it.

Show me one person that this object dug up.
Show me one building that this object moved.This object didn't "help" anyone.The closest it comes to "help" is for the few Christians there to use it as a bragging point while thumbing their noses at the rest of the workers saying "See, our God did all this. F all of you! We win!"That's NOT helpful and it's CERTAINLY NOT sufficient to include it in a museum about a trajedy.If you want to open a 2nd museum called "See Christians be A-holes", then feel free. You can include this hunk of shit, as well as burning crosses put up by the KKK, and a few picks of the Indian taxi driver who was beaten to death by Christians unsatisfied with the death toll on 9/11.As for the rest of us, keep your filthy religion out of our public spaces.

How dare you!If a guy is toiling through rubble trying to rescue people, finds comfort in a cross he's found, and says that it helped him, then you have no business saying it didn't. I'm not interested in your emotional hyperbole. Nope, piss off. Its in the museum so tough titties.

The Smithsonian removed an offensive depiction of the cross...it offended catholics.

quote:

---

William Donohue, a voice of reliable outrage at any perceived insult to Catholics is unhappy, still, with the Smithsonian's stance on art censorship.

​

This Donohue's views on a video about AIDS and death -- one that included four seconds of ants crawling on a crucifix, the image of Jesus' sacrificial death -- prompted the Smithsonian managers to yank the video out of a major, privately funded, exhibition of portraits of the gay experience.

​

But it seems that the Board of Regents meeting, which applauded the management of the nation's museum complex, didn't go far enough for the founder of the Catholic League.

​

First, there was no explicit apology to Christians.

​

Second, the Smithsonian officials dared to still speak of the video, A Fire in My Belly by David Wojnarowicz, as a significant work of art.

​

According to the Associated Press, John McCarter said the artist, who died from AIDS at age 37, had artistic purpose in mind:

​

"Representation of the crucifix and the ants had an interpretation to it, I believe in his mind that was not sacrilegious," McCarter said, noting that the artist was working at the time in Mexico where Christian iconography is often represented in art. "Alternatively, it might have been very deeply religious."

​

Donohue's Catholic League press release finds that concept totally bizarre.

​

But the worst offense, to Donohue's views, is that new guidelines established to avoid future controversies don't build in religious censorship. Instead, they say, ""Culturally sensitive exhibitions should be previewed from a diverse set of perspectives."

​

Oops. More than one view needs to be considered before excluding a work of art from an exhibit in a taxpayer-supported museum?

​

No no no, says Donohue. He doesn't want religious voices consulted, he wants them to have the final say.

...( extra quote box added for purpose of highlighting this statement....FnL)

​

Now imagine if there is a video of large ants running all over a depiction of Muhammad, is it incumbent on Smithsonian officials to find someone who likes such fare? Would it change things if we substituted the crucified Jesus for Muhammad?

​

However, Donohue also fears the opposite -- that the new guidelines are a censorship "smokescreen" to give museum curators cover for possibly censoring religious works -- presumably meaning art he likes -- out of shows. Donohue tells Religion News Service:

​

They are giving themselves wiggle room. They are leaving the door open to censor that kind of art they find offensive.

​

Should religion be the trump card in deciding what is art and which art is worthy of display in our public galleries? Whose religion? Should the Smithsonian Board of Regents include a priest, a rabbi, a pastor and an imam?

---

Not exactly the same situation, but it seems somewhat relevant as to the disparity involving what is an acceptable use of a christian or any religious symbol. If the cross is shown in bad taste then Christians want it removed. Maybe they should realize the cross itself is offensive to others, therefore has no place in a public place regardless of whether it is shown in a positive or negative way. I am not sure I fully agree with the Smithsonian because it was a work of art...it seems they were trying to keep everyone happy...which might be the best way to handle it being it isn't a private museum. sourceEdited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim that this object some how took action and saved people's lives. That this object did some actual digging. That this object grabbed a mic and said "There is a body over under that piece of concrete. Look, where I am pointing".None of those things ACTUALLY happened.Instead, the "help" this object provided was that SOME rescuers were religious people who took pride in the destruction their God had wrought upon the people of NYC and saw this piece of garbage as evidence that their God killed 3,000 people.Good for them! Tell them to take that shit to some museum that glorifies that sort of shit. Not for long.You religions fucktards have spent too much time thumbing your nose at the Constitution. We're starting to fight back, to actually DEFEND America instead of crapping all over it.And all we can hear from you guys is crying about how "hard it is to be a Christian". Boo fucking hoo.If you want to brag about killing 3000 Americans, be a fucking man, and OWN UP TO THAT SHIT.Just trying to sneak that bullshit into a museum is pathetic.

I intended for Message 280 to be a response to you, just want to know how you feel about this....
sourceI am a moron and hit general reply.Is it ok to remove an offensive depiction of the cross?

Now that is ridiculous. The art had merit in the eyes of the Smithsonian's experts. They should have kept the display and let Donohue go pound sand.And this is quite relevant to this WTC situation.Do the experts in the field see artistic value in the Smithsonian piece? Yes. Should it be displayed? Yes.Do the experts in the field see historical value in the WTC Cross? Yes. Should it be displayed? Yes.Everyone gets so wrapped up in the religion, pro and con. It does not matter. The only thing that matters is the artistic or historical merit the experts see in the piece.

As I said... I am not sure I agree with the Smithsonian. I understand making compromises in order to keep the peace, this is all the AA asked for, removal or a compromise that wouldn't exclude anyone. Seems reasonable to me, though I tend to lean more towards the thought that the Smithsonian made a poor choice in order to keep the peace... Politics I am sure.

But of couse I said nothing of the sort.Making up ridiculous strawmen makes you look pathetic. But of course this is just some more bullshit that you made up.Again, I'm not interested in your emotional hyperbole. We'll see. Do we have any indication that its removal is even being considered? Your anti-religion fervorous hatred is exposing your bigoted attitude.