Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

IamJospeh,Thank you for once again showing your true colours and proving my point.You are an intellectual coward.Your arguements are worthless.As you have said you will not be tainting this thread with your presence anymore, we can get back to actually discussing the topic.

You say they had no such thoughts, but the only way you can make this argument is if they had NO THOUGHTS at all.The problem is that Christians like to make claims but as a group consistently fail to think through the implications of their claims. This could be chalked up to a general lack of education amongst their numbers, but more likely it's a result of them wearing their religion like a badge and not actually bothering to understand their own claims of belief.They are claiming that this is some sort of holy artifact. That the presence of this T shaped piece of metal (of which there were literally hundreds of thousands in each tower), is some sort of miracle or sign from Jesus. Otherwise, what comfort are they getting from it? Why is it more valuable than any other piece of metal from the site?The only basis for their argument that this piece of metal is more important than others is because it's shaped like the letter T and they believe that that means that Jesus put it there.Otherwise, they would worship the T at "Stop and Shop" or the T as "Starbucks". No, THIS T is significant while other Ts are not.So, what are the implications of this T being significant?They can't believe it's significant because it's a random occurrence? Otherwise, any T shaped object anywhere would be magic too. Trees that look like the letter T, sticks that fall to the ground in a letter T, etc etc etc.No, this T is magic because they believe that this T is _not_ a random occurrence, but rather an object put there specifically to give them moral support.So, this T was put there by Jesus on purpose for them. That's their claim. That's why this object has value.If Jesus put this T there on purpose, there's only two possible ways that that could happen.
1) He put it there during construction with foreknowledge that the attack was going to happen.
2) He shaped it during the destruction using magic Jesus powers.No one is claiming this this appeared out of nowhere overnight. That's NOT a part of the miracle.If Jesus put it there BEFORE the attacks, then he did so with foreknowledge OF the attacks and therefore wanted the attacks to occur, or at the very least was not interested in any way in stopping the attacks from occurring.If Jesus put it there DURING the attacks, then he demonstrates that ability to shape the materials, in which case he could have used those magic powers to stave off the attack or, at the very least, save a few people. He didn't.So, EITHER WAY, Jesus allowing people to die in order to make his T more important to people.That's the implication of their claim. Just because they haven't bothered to think it through, doesn't mean it's not there.If I said "Obama shouldn't be president because he's black", the implication, whether or not I say it, is that "blacks aren't capable of being president". I don't get to make the first claim without owning up to the second claim which it implies.That's what the Christians are trying to do. They want statement #1 but they don't want statement #2.Another example of them doing exactly this with events surrounding 9/11:
The Church near ground zero received less damage than some of the other buildings around it. In reality, this has more to do with aerodynamics and methodology of construction than anything else, but Christians were claiming this was a miracle.Their argument: The Church didn't receive as much damage because God/Jesus sheltered it.The implication which they haven't bothered to think about: God/Jesus has the ability to protect buildings from damage and PICKED THIS BUILDING which didn't really contain any people to protect, while allowing 3,000 people in other buildings which they DIDN'T protect, to die.Same deal. You don't get to claim #1 as a miracle unless you are willing to admit #2 as well.Lastly, it's worth mentioning that this was a religious attack. People can claim global economics or America's imperialism, etc. But in reality, it was Muslims that attacked for Muslim motives. One of the BIGGEST Muslim motives is that we, a "Christian Nation" are supporting Israel, a "Jewish Nation".The problem is that Muslims, Jews and Christians are ALL worshiping the SAME GOD.So, for a Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, etc relatives of those who died on 9/11, the cross is as much a symbol of the terrorists as anything else. It's a reminder that their loved ones were victims of a holy war between three sects of the SAME RELIGION.Claiming that the God of the Christians was being supportive after the SAME GOD helped the Muslims kill all these people because they don't like the Jews who worship the SAME GOD, is frankly retarded.This symbol is a slap in the face to the victims who were not a part of this religious war.

If it is an actual photo of the display, we've got bigger problems than religious iconography.We've got computer animate figures walking around the museum! It's an "Escape from Tron" situation!

Perhaps this is why people think you’re being dense on the subject. Your definition seems closer to non-denominational, no? I’ve never seen secular defined as ‘well we don’t say which Christian belief’ we support.

quote:

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular
secular

​

adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

​

noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.

---

I’m familiar enough with the lemon test to know that schools which were educating students (which I assume you’d say was primarily a secular good) still lost the case. As in Lemon V Kurzman, clearly the church ‘saved’ the monument to further its religious mission. Can you point to any secular monuments the church also saved? If not, doesn’t that raise the question of the monument being religious in nature? Which arguably this monument does. God was with us this day., My faith inspired me. would not be secular statements.

That may seem reasonable at a glance. Would you say that St. Peter’s in New York has historical significance? If so, then would it be allowable for the government to take over the care and operation of the Church as a historical landmark? What about just paying for building upkeep and letting the church continue to run? How can a line be drawn with historical significance, if the line is not historical significance apart from the religious?

Secular purpose seems like the ultimate weasel phrase, I suppose the government should pay for churches that build bomb shelters in their basement, after all they too would have a ‘secular purpose’. Or perhaps the guy at the DMV could have a ‘Fuck Jesus in the Ass’ coffee cup, since it would hold secular coffee.

I haven't asked anyone directly but have also wondered why this one... But not this one... I am sure there were other "cross" examples were present, a Google image search was all it took to find these 2. They are clearly 2 different examples of a cross sticking up out of the rubble. I wonder why one was chosen as a source of comfort, but the other wasn't. Multiple crosses would makes it seems much less miraculous so one got ignored?

Nuggin says: Exactly - they are not thinking that Jesus meant to condone the killing of some 3000 people. They don't connect the dots, they don't think things through logically. If they did, they'd drop the belief. For them the logical connection you describe has no bearing on the issue at all. You are asking them to do something they cannot do.It would be easier for them to imagine a Devil at war with God and Jesus. Some of them might claim that it was the Devil who did the evil deed and Jesus was only able to get his magic T in place at the end whilst waging battles elsewhere around the universe and that this was but one battle.

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

words do not mean what you choose them to mean.

---

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

---

That's what I just said.Therefore, you don't get to just say that the "Golden Rule" means "Do not do unto others what you would not have them to unto you." The phrase "Golden Rule" simply does not mean that. You don't get to redefine "black" as "white" and then whine when nobody understands you.The words you are looking for are, "Oops. I misspoke. Indeed, I am talking about the Silver Rule." You can then go on to describe how important you find it to be in ethics and you would be in fine company. Hillel, for example, pointed out both the Golden and Silver Rules. As I mentioned, Confucius wasn't too big of a proponent of the Golden Rule as a sole foundation of ethics. Plenty of other philosophers have talked about the subject and the inadequacies of the Golden Rule and the need for other principles to lead an ethical life. I'll probably agree with you. The Golden Rule isn't enough to live a good life.But none of that changes what the phrase "The Golden Rule" means. There may be ethical rules that we feel to be just as if not more important than that, but the language has already associated the philosophy of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" with the phrase, "The Golden Rule."

quote:

---

Black is NOT the absence of color or light.

---

Um, "black" is the absence of photons. It appears that you really do want to redefine words and then whine about it when nobody understands you.

AZPaul3 evades the question yet again:

quote:

---

Ahh, thus the disconnect is revealed. I say "history" you hear "Yahtzee."

---

What history? What historical significance does this object have that any other random piece of rubble doesn't?

quote:

---

Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.

---

Incorrect. All you did was acknowledge the religious significance. I'm asking about this supposed "historical" significance you are claiming it has. What is this significance that this object has that any other random piece of rubble doesn't?Be specific.

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.Besides, it's too late, Rrhain.Apparently the curators have acknowledged the historical (Yahtzee) significance of the cross, which you keep saying does not exist, and have moved it into the museum.So the history (Yahtzee) question has been answered, not just by me but by them. If you have any additional questions I suggest you contact the museum.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

I did try to find some webpages discribing how the cross helped during the rescue but I didn't find very much...

---

And that isn't a hint that this item is of little to no significance?

quote:

---

apparently it marked a place to meet

---

As did many other places. Why should this one be singled out over the others?

quote:

---

made people feel better

---

Why? Because of its religious patina. Therefore, that isn't a reason to include it in a government museum. That's a reason to include it in a church.

quote:

---

and helped in the recovery efforts

---

Huh? How did it help? Did it find people? Did someone trapped in the wreckage write directions on where they could be found? Was it the only way to set up lights in the area to help find people? Was its material and positional peculiarities such that it was serving as an antenna to coordinate rescue workers? Did it serve as a shield to protect other people when rubble was falling?Just how did this piece of junk "help in the recovery efforts"?

quote:

---

That on top of it being an actual piece of the buildings makes it museum-worthy.

---

Compared to all other random pieces of rubble? If "being an actual piece of the buildings" makes it museum-worthy, why did we send it all to the dump?As I directly said: There might be a reason for this object if there was any historical significance to it. There's plenty of religious significance, but that's a reason for it to be in a church. We need something else. "It was part of the building" isn't enough because there are literally buildings' worth of wreckage we could use.What makes this one so special?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No significant meeting took place there.

---

​

How do you know?

---

Because I checked.

quote:

---

Who are you to determine how much significance is enough?

---

Because I am someone who can analyze things. If you think there was a significant meeting held there, then by all means produce your evidence. You've already admitted that you can't find much. Isn't that a hint to you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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"?

---

No, I'm not claiming that.

---

Did you or did you not say the following: How is a cross not "tied to a specific religion"?Hint: In order to show you the failure of your conlusion, I am accepting your premise that in order to have a "non-secular purpose," an object must be "tied to a specific religion." Isn't a cross "tied to a specific religion"? Thus, by your own logic, this item is decidedly non-secular.

quote:

---

I read where a jewish man said that he found spiritual comfort in it too, even though he wasn't a christian.

---

And thus, it is non-secular.

quote:

---

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

---

And what role was that? There are other pieces that do the same thing. Why should this one be accepted over all the others?

quote:

---

Disrespecting the religious patina that people have painted on it does not remove that purpose.

---

Indeed, but you will notice the great hue and cry that is going out over the idea of displaying it as a piece of rubble. That indicates that its significance is sectarian in nature and overwhelms any other it may have. Therefore, it would be much more effective to leave it in its secular surroundings at the church and use another piece of rubble that is just as important in all the other ways but isn't coated with religion for the museum.

quote:

---

Who is doing that complaining?

---

The ones who took it to a church and had it blessed.

quote:

---

This thread is about the lawsuit the AA filed that claims the cross need to be removed.

---

Indeed. What is a purely religious object doing in a secular museum?

quote:

---

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.

---

But so far, you haven't put forward a single reason to keep it. Yeah, it's a piece of debris. There is a dump full of the stuff. Why is this one, so covered in religion, of so much more significance that we should use it over any of the others?

quote:

---

Oh really? How many pieces are there?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously wondering exactly how much debris was created by the collapse of Towers 1 and 2 and Building 7? They carted it all off to the dump.

quote:

---

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.

---

Because it was all being carted away. If it was so significant, why wasn't it kept?What's so special about this one? It isn't because it's the only piece.

AZPaul3 writes:

quote:

---

That's a national focus that will give the cross power and meaning beyond its due.

---

Which is a pretty good reason to exclude it from the museum and leave it at the church.It's causing a distraction.

I hope the museum has the famous crushed firetruck...those firefighters should get prominent recognition. Maybe also that jet engine that landed almost a block away.The rescuers should indeed get a big display - shoot, I wrote a whole song about them - but the "cross" should have stayed with the church to make it a powerful draw to join that church. Oh well....On another note, the 10-year anniversary is almost here and I still haven't purchased a United Nations Flag to display for this.

Care to share? I would like to see the lyrics, maybe you could offer it to the WTC memorial. If you are so inclined then it might lend itself to a poem?I wonder if the memorial has any mention or artifacts from the pentagon ect... Seems like there should be, the WTC was not the only place that was attacked that day.Maybe this thought is off topic a bit... I would rather see the memorial as a 911 memorial, one that also remembered the pentagon, and those who died in a field because they fought back.