Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

As far as I can tell the only ones making it the "focus" are the ones pissing and moaning about it. That's a national focus that will give the cross power and meaning beyond its due.I think the American Atheists have shot themselves in the foot engaging in a worthless losing high profile battle and have done the rest of us atheists no damn good at all.Does anyone have a layout of the museum and the memorial garden? Where is this cross located?

Which is why it's ridiculous. Spineless curator? Spineless director? Maybe given the political climate in Washington with those Tea Party mooks running roughshod over the House the Smithsonian feared for its funding?It's still ridiculous and should not have been pulled.

Not so big a difference. If the experts with the knowledge of such things assess the value then censorship of any sort, whether from government or from public outrage is not warranted. That is the ideal, anyway. The political realities can be quite different.But you have got to pick and choose your fights for maximum advantage. This WTC fight is a loser and just gives the religionists more reason to claim we are trying to destroy religion. Which is true and a good thing when we can win, but, this one is a backfire. Not good.Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin agin

But I am. What the Am Atheists are trying is censorship.And because here in the USA such crap is wrong we will lose this fight and this fight will lose us standing! Not my doing. If I were Emperor that would not have happened. "you lot"? I AM NOT one of "you lot"!Wake up hooah. We are not going to win this battle and it will make our struggle to win the hearts and minds of the society even harder. It's a bad deal all around. Penny wise, pound foolish! It sucks! Edited by AZPaul3, : Wrong emphisis

I can't argue that. I still think this mess is a political loser for humanism/secularism/atheism in this society.But then I've been known to be wrong. Frequently.

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.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the history of St. Peter's and at this point I am not ready to spend time researching this one.Did the Cathedral play some significant role in the nation's history, other than some president praying there? What would have put it on the national stage and in the nation's mind that it should be designated a National Landmark? I don't know. You do not have to. The society in the USA has had and still has a religious component. We are trying to ween society off the religious nipple but you do not do that by being blind and revisionist to the nation's history. In history the facts are the only thing that matter. This nation has, in part, a religious past and no revisionist slight of hand is going to change that fact.If the facts of history show that some structure had a major impact on the nation and our national character, even in a religious way, then the question becomes whether or not we chose to preserve that structure. It should not matter whether something had a religious role or not. If it was significant enough to the nation's history, whether that be our secular history or our religious history, then we can debate whether or not we as a nation want to buy the thing and keep it.What is "significant enough"? Depends on a case by case basis. Ahh, debate. Gets your blood pressure up. Good for what ails ya. That is how we decide.

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193. What you "maintain" is of no importance to me and requires no further explanation from me. No. I need do no such thing. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.Get the picture here, Rrhain?

I don't give a flyin flip how the christians spin their fabled ghosts into this scene or why. I don't give a flyin flip whether you or I or anyone else thinks this thing is a religious symbol, a letter "T" or a useless piece of junk like any other rubble in the museum. I don't give a flyin flip if there is any "secular" or "religious" attachment to this thing or not.The only thing that matters is the history.Whether anyone cares to acknowledge it or not for whatever personal reasons they may have or not, this Cross had a unique role as a religious symbol at ground zero during the recovery. Which means it had a unique role at ground zero, period.This thing was found unaltered in its present condition as a piece of debris on site. It was adopted as a religious symbol on site. And don't try to give me any of this BS about how many or how few believed in it or not because that does not change its history. It was a worship station on site. It was a shrine to the fallen on site. No other such artifact existed on site. No other such artifact served this purpose on site. It had a unique meaning on site that no other landmark had on site. These are facts.I don't give a flyin flip that it offends your religious sensibilities. No amount of revisionist BS is going to change the facts of this item's direct historical ties to the site, the recovery effort and the 9/11 disaster in total.You can disagree with this view. That's fine. But if you continue to ask me, like Rrhain does in his highly repetitive attempts to bully and intimidate, then you will get the same answers again.Edited by AZPaul3, : Proper tenseEdited by AZPaul3, : clarity

Did someone find a Koran on site? Did some Koran act as a landmark recognizable to all those working on the site? That is your view of the Cross based upon your personal religious beliefs. Something I share, by the way.But, this does not alter the historical facts of what was on site. Whether the connotations attached are good or bad means nothing. Only the facts of the history of the item matter. Prove a negative? Is that the best intellectual argument you can make?Do you have any such artifact? If so then this as well should be considered for the museum, should it not? Oh, I agree. But what does this have to do with the unique role of this artifact on that site at that time? How does this alter the history? The article does not vanish just because we wish it would. The history is still there.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

There was a bible fused to a beam, as I understand. It is in the museum. If a Koran was found is a somewhat similar circumstance then I see no reason for it not to be included. It doesn't have to be "T" shaped, no. So what?Let me ask:Is the purpose of the museum to preserve the history of the event or to revise it and slant it to make it more palatable to you? Never said that. Please stop trying to mis-represent my positions. Since it was there at that site at that time, I disagree. It had a religious connotation then and now. So what? Was it not there? Did it not serve a significant purpose, albeit a religious one?If something in history offends you do you just ignore it? Hope it goes away? For the same reasons as the other artifact, I totally agree. So what? I think y'all are wrong because your objections center on personal religious reasons not on unemotional historical reasons. I disagree for the reasons I stated. We're allowed to do that here.

Now, see, unlike with Rrhain and his incessant repetition, we can disagree on this then go about our other lives.Thank you, Nuggin.[ABE]This Cross of David thing. Is it intended for the museum proper or for the Memorial Garden? If it is in the museum then that is inappropriate me-too-ism by the jews and really sucks. If it's for the Memorial Garden then that's fine.We will need to add a mid-sized granite Buddah, a small marble sculpture of a Koran, a gold guilded coathanger sculpture of the FSM for some and a life-sized bronze broomstick for the Wiccans as well. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193 with yet another explanation in Message 358.

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193 with yet another explanation in Message 358.