Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

cavediver writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The government doesn't get to regulate religion and religion doesn't get to meddle in the government.

---

​

I get that. What has that to do with what is included in a national museum? Are all religious artefacts to be excluded?

---

It's government money. Therefore, if religious items are going to be included, they need to have some signficance beyond their sectarian purpose. And not just trivially so but significanctly so. It's why religious schools can't receive government funds. Yes, the educational purpose of schools is very important, but if the school is going to teach religious doctrine, then that overwhelms any other purpose. Even if it's only a single prayer given at graduation after 12 years of completely secular education, that single act is a violation of the Constitution and cannot be allowed.The only significance of this particular item is specifically tied to its religious patina. It wasn't the piece that was hit by the planes, it wasn't the first or last piece of the building laid, it wasn't the piece that was proof that the architectural design would work, or anything like that.Since it has no purpose other than as a religious item, it doesn't belong in a government museum. It belongs in a church.

quote:

---

On a publicly-funded archaeological dig, are religious sites to be ignored?

---

Is there something other than its religious significance that makes it important? Hint: You said so yourself as to why it might have some significance other than as a religious site.

quote:

---

On a publicly-funded sociological study, are religious beliefs to be ignored?

---

Is there something other than its religious significance that makes it important? Hint: You said so yourself as to why it might have some significance other than as a religious tally.

quote:

---

Let us, for sake of argument, say that it had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Do you still maintain that it does not belong in a museum?

---

Yes. The number of people who imparted religious significance is irrelevant since the only significance this item has is religious.

quote:

---

Let us, for sake of argument, say that my heart-shaped girder had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Could that belong in a museum?

---

Is a heart a religious symbol?

quote:

---

Let us, for sake of argument, say that my OSL-shaped girder had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Could that belong in a museum?

---

Is OSL a religious symbol?You may not like that religion has been singled out, but the Constitution has specifically done so.

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.

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.

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.

AZPaul3 continues to avoid the question:

quote:

---

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.

---

Then what other significance does this item have?

quote:

---

Apparently the curators have acknowledged the historical (Yahtzee) significance of the cross, which you keep saying does not exist

---

Then surely you can tell us what it is.What other significance does this item have?

quote:

---

If you have any additional questions I suggest you contact the museum.

---

(*chuckle*)Why do you think there's a lawsuit?What other significance does this item have?

AZPaul3 continues to avoid the question:

quote:

---

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.

---

Then what other significance does this item have?I know, I know...you'll just refer to previous posts. But since I maintain those don't actually show any evidence, perhaps you will be so kind as to rephrase what you said before.

quote:

---

Answered in Message 177

---

Refuted in Message 181.

quote:

---

and again in Message 182

---

And refuted again in Message 183.

quote:

---

and then yet again in Message 193.

---

And then refuted yet again in Message 195.You need to come up with something new.What other significance does this item have?Edited by Rrhain, : Added refutation references.

AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question:

quote:

---

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.

---

Then you should be able to tell us what the other significance of the object is.What are you waiting for?

quote:

---

Answered in Message 177

---

Refuted in Message 181.

quote:

---

and again in Message 182

---

And refuted again in Message 183.

quote:

---

and then yet again in Message 193.

---

And then refuted yet again in Message 195.You need to come up with something new.What other significance does this item have?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You need to come up with something new.

---

​

I need do no such thing.

---

Then you have no argument.

quote:

---

Answered in Message 177

---

Refuted in Message 181.

quote:

---

and again in Message 182

---

And refuted again in Message 183.

quote:

---

and then yet again in Message 193.

---

And then refuted yet again in Message 195.You need to come up with something new.What other significance does this item have?

quote:

---

Get the picture here, Rrhain?

---

Yep. When faced with a request for you to justify your claims, you will run away rather than stand up for your own argument.Do you want to go around again or do you want to answer the question? It's really very simple:What other significance does this object have?

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't have the specifics

---

Shouldn't that be a hint to you?

quote:

---

I'm taking the museum officials' word for it.

---

So why do you think there's a lawsuit? You seem to have a very skewed set of rules for whose word you'll take.

quote:

---

But if it was used as a meeting place

---

Why is that sufficient? What about the rubble where Bush gave his speech? That's much more historically significant and it isn't being displayed. Why should a crossbeam that had no important event take place at it be venerated?

quote:

---

and increased morale

---

To whom? There were plenty of other bits that did the same thing and they're not being displayed. What's so special about this one?

quote:

---

thereby helping in the recovery effort

---

How did it help the recovery effort? Was anybody found because of it?

quote:

---

The issue here is not whether this object is significant enough to be in a museum

---

Yes, it is. The only reason an object is in a museum is because it is significant. Otherwise, it's just a piece of junk and should be carted away the way the rest of the rubble was. It's being placed in the museum because people think it is significant but it seems the only significance this particular article has is religious in nature.That makes it significant for a church, not a museum.

quote:

---

it's already been deemed important enough by the officials

---

Why do you think there's a lawsuit? It's impossible for them to have made a mistake?

quote:

---

the issue here is whether or not its too religious for a museum that receives money from the government.

---

No, not that it's "too religious." That it has no significance other than its theological patina.Suppose there were a church that was a waystation on the Underground Railroad. It clearly is soaked in religion, but its historical significance is sufficient that we don't care and it would be ludicrous not to do what we can to preserve it for future generations.

quote:

---

I said that, in general, spiritual non-secular.

---

And your redefinition of "black" as "white" doesn't make it so. The spiritual is non-secular by definition.

quote:

---

You're making it as all or nothing

---

No, I'm not. It could be the perserved remains of the Pope. If there is some sort of significance that isn't solely religious in nature, then that is sufficient to be included in a museum. If the only significance is theological, that is a reason to put it in a church.

quote:

---

where one smudge of religious patina makes an item entirely non-secular. I don't agree with that.

---

Neither do I. It makes one wonder why you seem to think that is what my argument is. Where did I even hint at such a conclusion?

quote:

---

It played a role as a meeting place

---

Insufficient. Plenty of other places did the same thing and some were of much more historical worth. Why is this one being venerated over the others?

quote:

---

and morale booster during the recovery efforts.

---

To whom? There were plenty of other bits that did the same thing and they're not being displayed. What's so special about this one? What "recovery efforts" were enhanced? Was anybody found because of this object?

quote:

---

It was saved from the dump

---

No, it was taken by a church where it was then given a blessing. How is that historical in nature?

quote:

---

and we had it right there ready for the museum. Are there other pieces lined-up and ready but being denied?

---

Huh? It was being displayed at a church before the museum requested it. Why not keep it where it was so that it could do the most good?

quote:

---

I was asking how many pieces were left that had not been carted off to the dump.

---

Are you seriously claiming that there are no pieces of rubble to be found? That this crossbeam is literally the only thing left and thus if we want to display a piece of the rubble, it is the only one to be had?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it was so significant, why wasn't it kept?

---

Maybe because the dumpers were unaware of the significance...

---

And this piece is the only thing we have left? You seriously believe that?

quote:

---

Apparently there's enough significance for there to be an effort to save some of the remaining peices before they are lost too.

---

What significnace does this particular item have that can't be fulfilled by another piece that doesn't have the problem of being seemingly solely a religious item?

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

"Thanks for comming folks... Here we have the S-shaped beam, look how violent that crash must've been. In the middle we have a larger piece with an image from the scene of firefighters projected onto it. Next we have a cross-shaped piece that some of the resuers found religious significance in. Over here we have....""

​

Where's the problem?

---

You don't see a difference between the italicized portion and the bolded? The former is non-secular while the latter is solely sectarian.What's a sectarian piece doing in a secular museum?If it's just to show a piece of rubble, knock it over. Does this item lose its importance if it's displayed as an X rather than a T?If so, then it doesn't have any historical signficiance of any kind and is solely a religious object. It should have been kept at the church where it was where it could do the most good.

AZPaul3 writes:

quote:

---

The only thing that matters is the history.

---

So what is the history?

quote:

---

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

---

That's not history. That's theology. That's a reason to display it in a church, not a museum.What is the history?

quote:

---

It was adopted as a religious symbol on site.

---

That's not history. That's theology. That's a reason to display it in a church, not a museum.What is the history?

quote:

---

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.

---

But what was its history? You keep describing its theology: Indeed, those are facts. They are facts of this item's theological importance and are justifications for it being in a church.The question to you is to provide its historical significance that would justify it being in a museum.

quote:

---

No amount of revisionist BS is going to change the facts of this item's direct historical ties to the site

---

What historical ties does it have? All you have said is that there was a theological importance.What is the historical significance?

quote:

---

You can disagree with this view.

---

Nobody disagrees with this view. Everybody understands the theological importance of this item.What you are being asked to provide is the historical significance such that it would be appropriate to display in a museum rather than a church.

quote:

---

attempts to bully and intimidate

---

(*chuckle*)Since when is asking for justification for a claim "bullying and intimidation"?

AZPaul3 continues to avoid the very simple question:

quote:

---

This supposition is not supported by the evidence presented.

---

Then you should be able to tell us what the other significance of the object is.What are you waiting for?

quote:

---

Answered in Message 177

---

Refuted in Message 181.

quote:

---

and again in Message 182

---

And refuted again in Message 183.

quote:

---

and then yet again in Message 193

---

And then refuted yet again in Message 195.

quote:

---

with yet another explanation in Message 358.

---

That was new, but it was refuted in Message 369.You still haven't actually answered the question, though:What other significance does this item have?