|
Author
|
Topic: Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
IAJ writes: Some one should start a thread what laws are acceptable for humanity as a whole, applying equally to all. Well feel free to start such a thread. But I would suggest that the golden rule is the closest to a human universal we can find. So I spose the obvious question to ask in this context is how the Christians affected by 9/11 would respond if instead of a cross it was a giant statue of Vishnu or something being proposed at the memorial museum?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 5:55 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
IAJ writes: Don't know what you mean by golden rule. Well I did link to it.......? It is a quite common concept in one form or another.
IAJ writes: I admire America as a Christian country And therein lies the problem. Because very arguably in the sort of sense being discussed it isn't supposed to overtly favour any one religion over any other. You are kinda making the point of the objectionists in this thread for them.....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:39 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
From the previoulsy provided link:
Link writes: As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s). The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China. Statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in Ancient Egypt in the story of The Eloquent Peasant. Rushworth Kidder states that "the label 'golden' was applied by Confucius (551—479 B.C.), who wrote a version of the Silver Rule. Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions", and Simon Blackburn states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". So this is far from unique to Christianity and certainly not sourced from it.
IAJ writes: Yes, but Europe was overtly wrong, unlike America. Europe is wrong about what? I have no idea what you are referring to.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 6:54 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: The History is Key
I agree that it has *significance* and accept the argument for inclusion on that basis. However I also see that the fact it's *significance* is wholly derived from it's religious symbolism means that those who are not Christians may well have a case when objecting to it as part of a memorial that is supposed to represent them and those that they have lost equally. Moslems, Hindus, atheists etc.
Cavey writes: I can't really see how any argument could be for the cross' exclusion that doesn't also include the heart. Really? Who could object to a heart symbol and on what basis?
Cavey writes: Personally, I don't like singling out religion as something that requires special treatment. The problem here is that it can be argued both ways. Is it singling out religion to include a Christian symbol that inspired Chrsitians during 9/11 and thus gained significance to Christians in that event? Or is it singling out religion to say that this particular piece of debris cannot be included because it's symbolism happens to be overtly religious rather than something like a heart? It can be argued both ways.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 7:09 AM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 212 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2011 8:50 AM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Well you have gone completely off-topic, largely off-point and utterly into preach mode now.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 208 by IamJoseph, posted 08-15-2011 7:03 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: "Secular Purpose"...........?
Straggler writes: Your much stated position is that this thing has "secular purpose". It has no role or purpose except as a religious symbol. Why can't you juts admit that and then make a case for it's inclusion anyway? CS writes: Because I do think it has a secular purpose. Did you see my Message 191? Yes I have read your post and your "secular purpose" amounts to people finding "spiritual comfort" in a specifically Christian religious symbol. Go figure.
Straggler writes: So (again) - Answer me one question honestly and non-evasively. If this "secular" item were displayed in the museum upside down would those who want it included in the museum be happy with that display choice? If not why not? My frikkin arse you don't know!!! Why can't you just admit that the role of this object was as a religious symbol? Whether or not it should be included in the museum as a religious symbol is a perfectly legitimate debate. But your insistence that it should be included because it has some sort of purpose other than as a religious symbol is nonsensical.
CS writes: I already answered that the cross displayed upside-down might be seen as disrespectful to the rescuers who were there that got the help from it. What? Surely not? Gosh - You mean the rescuers who gave this object it's "secular purpose" as a result of finding it "spiritually comforting" are going to be upset if it isn't displayed as an overtly religious symbol? Well I never................
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: "Secular Purpose"...........?
So we agree that it is a religious symbol. We therefore presumably also agree that in it's role as a religious symbol it: A) Provided spiritual comfort. B) Gained historical significance for providing this spiritual comfort in a historic event. What role outside of that of a religious symbol does it have? Enlighten me here CS. Be specific.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: "Secular Purpose"...........?
CS writes: The fact that its a piece of one of the actual building gives it historical value. (Did you hear that they're trying to save other pieces of the buildings too, even thought they don't look like religious symbols?) Sure - Like bits of the Berlin wall. But if it were just a "bit of building" it could be placed on it's side, upside down or whatever couldn't it?
CS writes: It could have increased morale. Too, providing spiritual comfort doesn't necessarily make it sectarian or non-secular. Which is where Cavedivers example of something like a heart shape would come into play. But a giant Christian crucifix-shaped object just happened to spiritually inspire a bunch of people and you are claiming that it has nothing to do with any specific religion? Seriously?
CS writes: But, the main reason I've come to accept that it has a role outside that of a religious symbol is because the officials at the museum, itself, said that that is why they are including it. Then they are in the same denial that you are. But I guess it is easier to make silly assertions about a giant crucifix having a "secular purpose" than to actually make the argument (that I would have some sympathy for) that it deserves to be in the museum as a religious symbol significant to the events of 9/11.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: "Secular Purpose"...........?
CS writes: That has been my argument the whole time... part of which is that it also has a secular purpose But apparently it only has this "secular purpose" if displayed as an overtly Christian symbol. Go figure huh........? Why not just admit it's entirely non-secular meaning and advocate it's inclusion as a religious symbol that is historically relevant for it's religious symbolism? That is the only honest approach. Your "secular purpose" argument holds as much water as a leaky bucket.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: WTC cross as a national monument
Oh stop bragging.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: WTC cross as a national monument
Ouch!
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Atheists lose, cross stays
CS writes: And as I argued throughout this thread Not really. You argued that a giant crucifix had "secular purpose" but were patently unable to express what that "secular purpose" was.
Message 309 and up-thread from that. I believe it was I who said it was a blatantly religious symbol that held historical significance (AKA secular interest) to the events of 9/11 and that it's inclusion could thus potentially be justified on that basis. So nah nah nah nah.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Atheists lose, cross stays
CS writes: Where did you say that? quote:
But I guess it is easier to make silly assertions about a giant crucifix having a "secular purpose" than to actually make the argument (that I would have some sympathy for) that it deserves to be in the museum as a religious symbol significant to the events of 9/11
Message 235 quote:
Why not just admit it's entirely non-secular meaning and advocate it's inclusion as a religious symbol that is historically relevant for it's religious symbolism? That is the only honest approach. Your "secular purpose" argument holds as much water as a leaky bucket.
Message 309 Do you think "significance" and "purpose" mean the same thing? If you can enlighten me as to the secular purpose (as opposed to historical significance) of this gigantic cross then I would still be happy to hear about that. And if it's just a historical object, as opposed to a religious symbol that has historical significance, then we are back to including it in the museum but placed on it's side or whatever. But that would be silly because it would negate the religious purpose that gave it historical significance in the first place.
|
™ Version 4.2
