Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 11 of 479 (626167)
07-27-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Larni
07-27-2011 1:02 PM


I can't imagine what the atheists seek to gain from suing anyone for putting up a cross.
Any religion should be free to put up their icons as well.
Wheres the beef?
quote:
Plaintiffs Dennis Horvitz and Kenneth Bronstein are members of American
Atheists and are Atheists reared in the Jewish tradition. They find the cross,
a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture,
and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American
citizens.
quote:
Plaintiff Jane Everhart is a member of American Atheists and is an Atheist
with a Catholic background. She finds the use of governmental action to
place a cross within the September 11 Memorial and Museum, which was
designed to memorialize all casualties of the World Trade Center, to be an
insult to every non-Christian survivor of that attack.
quote:
Plaintiff Mark Panzarino is a member of American Atheists. Plaintiff Mark
Panzarino was brother to Frank Joseph Panzarino, an inactive Marine
reservist who assisted in the rescue work for two weeks after the September
11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (hereinafter the 9/11
attack). Assisting in the rescues took its toll on his health, and Frank
Joseph Panzarino succumbed to weakened lung syndrome in 2005. As a
survivor of the 9/11 attack and family member of one of the brave
responders to the 9/11 attack, Mark Panzarino is appalled that the state has permitted a symbol of Christianity to represent a tragedy that affected
all Americans. The Panzarinos unequivocally do not wish for a cross to
represent Frank Joseph Panzarino’s sacrifice unless it is a Lutheran Cross.
quote:
The September 11 Memorial and Museum will be on a site owned by the
Port Authority. Thus, the Memorial and Museum and its exhibits are a
government action.
quote:
The September 11 Memorial and Museum will be largely funded with
money from the government. Accordingly, actions taken by the September
11 Memorial and Museum also constitute governmental action.
quote:
Plaintiff American Atheists opposed inclusion of a cross on the grounds
that other religious groups were not given the opportunity for a similar faithbased
memorial at the site of an American tragedy.
quote:
On multiple occasions, plaintiff American Atheists publicly offered to
provide a memorial for the September 11 Memorial and Museum, at its own
cost, to represent the approximately 500 non-religious victims of the attack
on the World Trade Center.
Plaintiff American Atheists never received a response.
quote:
No other religious or non-religious group has been permitted a
memorial.
quote:
As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the
cross, plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages for
which they have no clear, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek
a declaration that the inclusion of a cross at the September 11 Memorial
and Museum, in the absence of equal acknowledgment of those non-
Christians who also were victims of the 9/11 attack, is unconstitutional.
American Atheists seek injunctive relieve against inclusion of the cross
and/or an order that a memorial to the non-religious Americans who fell
victim to the 9/11 attack be placed within the September 11 Memorial and
Museum near the cross.
The full argument can be read here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 1:02 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by fearandloathing, posted 07-27-2011 3:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 07-27-2011 5:56 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 402 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 5:27 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 479 (626311)
07-28-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2011 11:36 AM


I dunno... What do you think they mean by "total, absolute seperation of government and religion"?
That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception.
That seems to me to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.
Well most law has sculpted the interpretation of the Amendments. After all, 'atheism' is considered a religion for the purposes of the Constitution, even though technically it is 'beyond the scope'. The interpretation here is that the intent of the amendment was for government to be secular and show favour to no religion.
It then takes the Madison approach of, It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. , as Dr A posted earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 10:54 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 49 of 479 (626314)
07-28-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 10:53 AM


I also notice the words will be, which suggests that what is presently (a cross at a location), that will in the future be a government property.
It suggests that the museum isn't open yet. The land is Port Authority and was before the cross was installed. So this cross, which was blessed before hand, has been installed on Port Authority land. This apparently should be construed as government action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 10:53 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 54 of 479 (626351)
07-28-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
07-28-2011 2:04 PM


Isn’t your queen also the head of the state church?
The same queen as the one Canadians have?
That's right, Britain does not presently have an absolute separation of church and state. That said, our politicians tend to be much more secular in their public speech than their American counterparts. The subject matter of this thread however, are a group calling themselves American Atheists and their interpretation of the US Constitution... So I'm not sure why you brought up the British system and the Commonwealth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2011 2:04 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 479 (626446)
07-29-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 10:54 AM


Okay, I wouldn't call that "total, absolute seperation from religion". The AA hasn't responded so I don't know, but I could just be reading them as being more strict than they actually are.
I'm not sure how something being secular without exception isn't 'total, absolute separation' of politics and religion. I think you are reading them as saying something they aren't. They aren't saying all politicians should be atheists, or non-practicing or. I'm not really sure what other notion you might have had in mind.
If you want to have an idea as to the American Atheist's viewpoint, you might like to look to Thomas Jefferson, whom they cite as inspiration for their position on church and state.
quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
The American Atheists believe this wall should be total and absolute. That is, no exceptions given in some cases here and there. No laissez-faire attitudes towards the wall. The wall is absolute, and should not be crossed. Government should not advocate a religion, shouldn't show favour to a religion, have any opinions implicit or explicit regarding any particular religion. Politicians are free to do these things, but not as part of government action. Opening a museum that essentially commemorates the dead, on government property can be construed as government action. And if that action even implies favour of one religion, the American Atheists believe it is proper to call it out and elicit change - or at least that's kind of their mission statement.
So the cross, itself, isn't really a problem then?
There might be a secular purpose for displaying the cross, but it does also seem to be showing favour to a particular religious group, and about that religious group's focus of spiritual attention is of some kind of special importance to the WTC site. You have to admit, claiming that some religious people found religious significance in the cross after the disaster as a secular reason to have it at the museum is pushing things a little.
Edited by Modulous, : illicit change? Is that what drug dealers give?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 12:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 77 of 479 (626488)
07-29-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 12:33 PM


If they want to include a chunk of metal because it was important to the rescuers then it shouldn't matter why it was important to them. It shows favor to the rescuers, not to the religious group.
The Christian rescuers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 479 (626494)
07-29-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:22 PM


And?
And this shows implicit favour to the Christian rescuers and victims over the non-Christian rescuers and victims. And since this is a government action, it cannot do that without bending the wall which the American Atheists regard as 'absolute'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 86 of 479 (626528)
07-29-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2011 3:41 PM


Does it? There existed a piece of rubble from the buildings that helped some of the rescuers and it is being put into the museum for that reason.
Yes it might.The reason that rubble 'helped some of the rescuers' is because they were Christians and they felt that finding their religious symbol was a sign that God had not abandoned them. That's the reason they gave:
quote:
I saw Calvary in the midst of all the wreckage, the disaster...It was a sign that God didn’t desert us.
source.
They're not putting it in the museum because it is a christian symbol, so how is it showing favor to the christians?
I agree, that they are not explicitly endorsing Christianity, and a valid argument might be brought forward that suggests it is a historical object, deserving to be in the place that memorialises the WTC attack. I can also see why a Christian religious symbol, blessed by a Christian minister displayed prominently on government property is problematic for a group that believes that the government shouldn't be taking any action that might be construed to favour one religion: Especially if other faiths do not get their own expressions of belief with regards to the WTC attacks historically preserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2011 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 156 of 479 (627928)
08-05-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 10:54 AM


A crucifix can pass the Lemon Test by having a secular purpose.
Having a secular purpose is only one prong of the Lemon test. The others are that it must not have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting a religion and that it must not cause unnecessary government entanglement with religion.
It can easily be argued that a religious symbol, blessed by a priest and looked upon as a symbol of God's presence by a certain subset of Christian rescuers, advances a particular religion. The argument comes down to whether or not that is its primary effect or if the 'secular rationale' is the primary effect (or indeed, are they the same effect 'spun' in different ways?)
The third prong, 'unnecessary entanglement' could also be argued, I would have thought.
And we have a direct quote from the ones who put it in place saying that the object has not been put in place because of it's religious significance, but because of the secular reasons that I've already mention.
In fairness, I could probably find IDists that said Of Pandas and People is a secular book with secular intent. If they are making the decision to install a religious symbol in a government funded museum on government property, of course they are going to say they are doing it for secular purposes. Saying it is easy, they might even believe it, but is it true?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 162 of 479 (627960)
08-05-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2011 4:37 PM


50 years from now when people look at this cross in an exhibit explaining that it was an actual piece of the building that the rescuers found comfort in, I think they're gonna thinl its museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of too.
Only the Christians found comfort in it, for religious reasons. It may be museum worthy, but that doesn't mean it's primary effect is not one that promotes religion.
I suppose, for me personally, it depends on how it is displayed. If its all shrine-like and religiony-looking then it'd be worse than if it was just displayed all booring-like as any other museum pieces are... then it'd be just another exhibit.
But the claim came from the museum president... I doubt he has some agenda to christian-ize this memorial.
It doesn't need to be an agenda, consciously devised.
In addition to the Cross, other religious artifacts that will be displayed in the 9/11 Memorial Museum's historical exhibition include a Star of David cut from World Trade Center steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during the recovery effort.source
Two Christian memorials and a memorial from the father of Christianity. That's marginally more inclusive, but it certainly seems a biased to the 'Judeo-Christian' side of the fence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2011 4:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 475 of 479 (738659)
10-13-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 5:27 PM


Well, obviously I don't mean any genuine disrespect, it is actually a sarcastic example of the true implications of atheism and should be seen that way.
In that case:
"Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to celebrate our friends and family getting into heaven and our enemies being sent to hell. What a marvellous thing 9/11 was, bringing our family to God the way it did - thank God and His miracles! God is Great! Everybody here is of course utterly happy as nobody died and we'll be seeing them soon in paradise where we'll live in gold houses. Let us hope this latest Anthrax scare is real this time, proving that God is ready to accept us into his home. In the meantime:
Thank you and please give me $300 so I can buy a new car to glorify God!"
I don't mean any genuine disrespect.
This atheist philosophy, if atheists were true to those implications would likely have to state these things if they are to be truly honest about what they believe.
Funerals are not the time for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and atheists don't have a monopoly on positive spins at a time of mourning.
They do indeed believe that ultimately there isn't any right or wrong, they have to, so in a sense they don't think what happened in 9/11 was, "ultimately wrong", but I doubt they would tell you that
What happened on 9/11 was not 'ultimately wrong'. It was the real kind of wrong.
in reality I think they do really believe what happened was ultimately wrong.
Not at all. It was a contravention of moral principles that I believe represent one of the fairest ways for humanity to relate to one another. But I'm not ultimate.0
I think this is the problem, people can see that in reality, atheists too can be genuinely good people, that don't really believe the implications of their own philosophy otherwise they would be true to it.
Do you have any reason to suppose I am not true to my philosophy? Do you even know what it is? There is no theist philosophy is there?
They want to show they can care despite not being religious and the reason they do is because they're not just molecules, like their philosophy tells them.
My philosophy tells me emergent properties exist, and thus people are not 'just molecules', otherwise corpses would be people, which they aren't.
The cross represents the penalty Jesus Christ paid for every human being and the lengths God has gone to to prove love is the real deal.
Honesty, for a person who has the power to create the heavens and the earth - and the power to commit global genocide, you'd think schlepping around the arse-end of nowhere while Rome was happening for a few decades performing local miracles for the uneducated and then getting executed before retutrning to heaven is hardly going to any 'lengths'. Compared to his earlier work, it seems kind lacklustre.
Sending a 3ft deep 20 mile radius pile of meat to a starving people would be going to more lengths to prove his love. Numbers 11:31 - as long as he didn't curse them at the same time, of course. Numbers 11:33.
Have rats turned up to the ceremony? Have the plants? Yet even atheists feel a need to portray a contrary action and acknowledge that life does indeed mean more than molecules despite their insane philosophy-of-nothingness because they too have a conscience and are made in the image of God.
To drive the point home. Not being a theist tells you nothing about my philosophy. To demonstrate this: You and Mohammed Atta are/were theists. His philosophy was wildly different than yours, correct?
They deny the cross but would likely want to see justice be done, too, I imagine, according to an all-wise judgement.
Naturally, I'm pro-justice. My desires aren't informative of reality.
The truth is there's a lot we don't understand in this world, but to go so far as to throw a God of love out completely, well - that's just folly if He really is there
Why? Is it conditional love?
we can tell you He is
I can tell you He isn't.
when you have the love of God it is the greatest feeling in the world
I've had religious delusions, there were many plus sides. Included in the downsides were a judgemental simple-minded character coupled with the arrogance that comes from knowing that I was absolutely right and I will one day be vindicated.
We have similar brains, it's likely we've both experienced this 'greatest feeling' and I'm willing to bet so have Muslims, including Atta and Buddhists and Hindus. I don't need to believe in certain stories to experience it, I doubt you do, either.
Those who are genuinely born-again as Christ described can experience this love for themselves, and they will also know that it is the key to everything truly and morally good and right.
Unfortunately Christ didn't describe it, so anyone who thinks they have achieved being born from on high is potentially deluding themselves with an intoxicated blend of hubris.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 5:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by petrophysics1, posted 10-13-2014 11:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 479 of 479 (738693)
10-14-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by petrophysics1
10-13-2014 11:18 PM


So nothing has really changed for you.
Everything and nothing, baby.
First of all most of my religious life was as a young person. I became an atheist in my early 20s, though I didn't call myself that right away. I'm in my mid 30s now. My adult life is considerably different than my child life.
On the other hand, I still enjoy 'spiritual' experiences on a fairly regular basis, and what I believe about them doesn't inhibit them. If anything, knowing that I don't have to be at the mercy of a divine third party, means they might happen more regularly as I don't feel guilty for trying to 'force it'.
If you think that I am in fact arrogant and simple-minded you are more than welcome to do so. I note with amusement that you felt your clichd retort was so awesome you arrogantly believe it didn't require support. What truth do you think that I am 'sure of'?
As I've noticed, the atheist and the born again on this board are psychologically the same.
We call it 'human nature'.
Just a different "Ultimate truth" to pitch and be sure of.
I'm not sure this is a complete sentence.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by petrophysics1, posted 10-13-2014 11:18 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024