Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 13 of 479 (626195)
07-27-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by fearandloathing
07-27-2011 3:15 PM


boo hoo!
WHINE ONE ONE... I need a
its still frivolous garbage, I think you just want a discussion so you have switched sides, which is fine, let's discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by fearandloathing, posted 07-27-2011 3:15 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 07-27-2011 4:50 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by fearandloathing, posted 07-27-2011 4:53 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2011 6:42 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 16 of 479 (626201)
07-27-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by fearandloathing
07-27-2011 4:53 PM


hooah writes:
Are they whining bitches too?
Yes.
I'm sure you would have protested and signed a petition to stop the mosque being built too.
As always your assumptions are way off.
fearandloathing writes:
I made a quick decision based on less than all the facts, I have said I think I was wrong initially. What is to discuss?? Are you accusing me of being a troll? What is wrong with changing ones mind based on more, or, further interpretation of the available facts?
Dang simmer down. If I was accusing you of something it would looke like this: you are a x. I never said there was anything wrong with it, if you notice I said that is fine, meaning it’s okay to switch sides.
Why are you so defensive?
Jeeze
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fearandloathing, posted 07-27-2011 4:53 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by fearandloathing, posted 07-27-2011 5:29 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 21 of 479 (626214)
07-27-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
07-27-2011 6:42 PM


why quote James Madison without giving him credit?
this is hardly government support religion, its a memorial, and these people are nothing more than shit disturbers, they remind me of the westboro baptists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2011 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 07-27-2011 7:23 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2011 8:21 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 07-27-2011 8:24 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(1)
Message 43 of 479 (626300)
07-28-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by hooah212002
07-27-2011 7:23 PM


hooah writes:
You didn't read Modulus' post, did you?
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.
Yeah I did.
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.
Are you suggesting that if the government purchases land that has a religious symbol on it, then the government is supporting a religion?
I wonder why they are attacking this instead of the more obvious like St. Paul’s Church? Maybe its because they are shit disturbers, and this is some frivolous BS?
Information on the National Park that is a Christian Church:
Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site - Wikipedia
Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
Dr. Adequate writes:
Anyone who didn't recognize the Memorial And Remonstrance could look it up.
So the need to quote anyone, is not necessary here because anyone can look it up, got it, thanks.
"Hardly" government support of religion? Is that like being not very pregnant?
Poor word choice on my part, It is not government support of religion.
The people who wanted to build a big cross on what is effectively the grave of many Jews and atheists and Muslims were shit disturbers. And this is the shit that they have disturbed.
The cross was already built, it was moved there. I bet the Jews do not care, and if they wanted a Jew symbol, then I am sure they could have one, they get whatever they want here. They are far to intelligent and crafty to make a stink like this.
I thought atheists were people without religion, yet this groups is obviously anti-religion.
And to do you justice, you couldn't have come up with a more ridiculously inept comparison if you'd tried with both hands for a week.
Thanks
The WBC are the people who wave signs saying "God Hates America" at the graves of patriots, aren't they? Which is different how from building a cross on the grave of a Jew? True, the cross is more permanent, but I don't see how this palliates the offense.
Just more shit disturbers. It wasn’t an in depth comparison. I don’t recall the Jews complaining about this, but why would they, they can have a Jewish memorial if they want to, no one is stopping them.
This is about a piece of the original building, used to make a symbol, and some assholes trying to keep it off some property, you have to really grab at straws to make this into government support of religion, as there are much better arguments and examples, such as the national park above that is a church.
I live in Arlington, Virginia. We have a large cemetery here, it is run by the government. It is called Arlington National Cemetery.
Here is a picture of it:
Wow look at all those flags and all those crosses. The outrage!!! OMFG!!! Why isn’t the American Atheists group attacking this obvious government support of religion on state property?
This whole thread is a frivolous joke.
noggin writes:
Is it an icon for one particular religion? yes.
Is it in a public park owned by and maintained by the government which is paid for by the people? yes.
That's government supported religion.
Suspended again? Shocking!!!
I have two examples that are more what you would call government supported religion, than two I-beams made into a cross. Heck our money says in God we Trust on it. Yet this piece is not frivolous!?!
wow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 07-27-2011 7:23 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 11:28 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2011 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 50 of 479 (626315)
07-28-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 11:28 AM


How much do you bet?
Two Jewish plaintiffs say 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."
I don't think that there is anything preventing them from putting their own icon up. If someone else's icon is so offensive, then don't look at it.
Or pro-First Amendment.
Oh, noes, the anti-religion!
"What we're looking for is a remedy that honours everyone equally, with a religion-neutral display, or display of equal size and prominence." Silverman said American Atheists has offered to pay for such a display and has several ideas to represent all religions — such as a firefighter carrying out a victim.
why equal representation? why not base the representation on the number of each group killed?
I haven't seen any evidence that other faiths are not allowed to have icons there, all I see is people whining about a cross.
Really, how butthurt can you get about this? Should we have a whaaambulance standing by just in case?
not but hurt at all, just making a debate. why the assumption of my emotional state?
No comment on a church that is a national park?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 1:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 52 of 479 (626334)
07-28-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 1:13 PM


modulous writes:
That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception.
Isn’t your queen also the head of the state church?
The same queen as the one Canadians have?
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.
I think it’s a weak stance but ok.
Dr. Adequate writes:
What did you have in mind, a pie-chart?
Sure
hmm representation... how about we poll everyone killed that day at that location and see the numbers of Christians, Anti-Religious, Jews, Muslims, etc. then we can see which group is the largest and receives the largest Icon. That would be a fair represntation display of iconography.
it would be hard to poll the victims on religious matters unless there is info out there. other wise we can take the demographics percentages and figure out how many were most likely in each faith group.
Wikimedia Error
I know you may find this method biased as we have the numbers, so i welcome other methods and data.
but for this example it looks like Christians get the biggest icon (75.2%) followed by Atheists (16.1%) Jews (1.7%) and Muslims (0.6%).
Why not have a non-sectarian memorial to the dead?
It lacks empathy.
The atheists have offered, at their own expense, to provide a non-religious memorial. This offer has not been accepted, hence the lawsuit.
It has also not been denied, maybe it is being considered?
Sauce for the goose.
???
You didn't ask me. But since you ask, it's not a national park, nor indeed is it a church any more --- except in the architectural sense,
Well it’s owned and managed by the National Park Service, but split hairs however you like. It still is a church, I was describing a building.
Somehow in your logic a church managed by the national park service is fine, but a cross managed by the port authority is wrong, can you explain?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : man that was all messed up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 1:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2011 5:19 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 6:50 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 56 of 479 (626369)
07-28-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 6:50 PM


modulous writes:
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.
It’s just ironically funny to me, that a subject to a figurehead Feudal-Theocracy, is informing me about the separation of church and state. Kind of like an Arab telling me all about women’s rights. I find Irony amusing. Sorry to derail anything if I did.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Your post seems to have gotten a little jumbled, and I'm not clear what you actually intended to address to what.
Yeah I have no idea what happened, I fucked it all up, I think I fixed it. I copy and pasted too much, and had to talk to my boss, and then came back. Horrid proof reading. You got me!
I never actually said the church was "fine". However, there does seem to be something to be said for it. The church isn't functioning as a religious institution, the cross is functioning as a religious symbol. The church seems to pass the Lemon Test. It's like the difference between the Smithsonian having the Jefferson Bible and putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.
I hear you but I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think its just this group picking cherry picking things to bitch about. Somehow two rusted I-beams is more a symbol, than a 18th century church. Better yet this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion. Its reeks of pure biased garbage.
The one that passes the lemon test is a park that gets government money every year, and has for 34 years, and the one in the discussion is simply existing at a location owned by the port authority, it was not purchased, or created by the government. It is going to sit in a corner of a museum and collect dust. Yet somehow a travesty of government support of a religion exists? give me a break! The American Atheists are a joke IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 6:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 8:56 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 9:12 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 87 of 479 (627208)
08-01-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2011 8:56 PM


Dr Adepquate writes:
You should be glad you've got us around to figure these things out for you. The judge in the case will, I'm sure, be particularly relieved to learn that it's not up to him.
I’m not really into the leftist nanny state idea.
But tell me, if it isn't a religious symbol, why does it have any defenders?
I am just defending against the AA to have a debate. I am the heel on this site. You think because I am defending having this art piece that it holds some sort of religion significance to me? Lulz wow.
Surely the only reason why people want this lump of rubble, these "two rusted I-beams" is that it is a religious symbol. If not, there are plenty of rusted I-beams.
If you were paying attention and knew why this piece is added to the museum then you would understand, the significance of this particular piece, as something the cleanup crew rallied around. Making this a religious item, and an example of the government supporting a religion is grabbing straws.
nd this test could be more widely applied. Consider St. Paul's church. If it was a secular building of the same antiquity and with the same historical associations, the historical preservation societies would not be saying: "Oh well, you can pull it down and build a WalMart there for all we care", would they? But the cross has its partisans solely because it is a Christian symbol. If they deny it, let them pick any other rusted I-beams they please.
Odd because we have secular buildings from that time period all over the place in Virginia:
Monticello - Wikipedia
Mount Vernon - Wikipedia
Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial - Wikipedia (here is one in the town I live in)
Montpelier (Orange, Virginia) - Wikipedia
Sherwood Forest Plantation - Wikipedia
We even have a whole town from the exact same time period, where you can go and see what life was like in the 18th century:
Colonial Williamsburg - Wikipedia
So I really have no idea what you are talking about insinuating that we only preserve buildings that are religious in nature. This was just a little evidence that historical preservation societies are concerned with secular buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2011 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2011 10:18 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 89 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:15 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 93 of 479 (627394)
08-02-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2011 10:18 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
A strange non sequitur, unless you're suggesting that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the museum at all. But I don't think that was your point.
No it was in response to you saying that its good for me that you (as in the collective you) are here to make the decision for me.
You clearly don't have any idea what I was talking about, because I was insinuating no such thing, and indeed pointing out the exact opposite.
Yeah, sometimes it is difficult to understand exactly what Dr. Semantics is talking about. He uses similar tactics as a troll, not being specific enough to be understood, and then when challenged (when someone takes the bait), he explains what he was REALLY talking about. It’s okay, it’s part of posting here.
My point is that people would quite definitely want to preserve the church if it was a secular building with the same antiquity and historical associations. They are not just doing so because it had a religious use. This means that it passes the constitutional test despite being (or having been) a church. On the other hand, people are in favor of this cross only because it is a religious symbol --- if it was just any old piece of rubble they wouldn't care.
Ok thanks, sorry sometimes it’s like pulling teeth to get you to type what you mean. This cross also has relative historical associations, and significance to 9/11/01. It is not just because of its religious use. This makes it pass the constitutional test, despite being a religious symbol.
Nuggin writes:
But apparently more than happy to live in a state that sucks money off productive states like a tick.
WTF are you talking about? Nanny State is a relative term for the whole federal government, not individual states, I cannot tell if you are taking me out of context, or if you didn’t understand what I meant by Nanny State, Though I know it wasn’t that ambiguous because Dr. A knew what I was talking about.
$1.51 dollars in Government spending for every $1 in taxes going to Virginia.
Well it makes sense, there are a lot of government offices here.
These are the ones that are in the city in which I reside: National Cybersecurity& Communications Integration Center, National Foreign Affairs Training Center, Air Force, Army, Joint Chiefs of Staff, AFOSR, INS, NSF, ONR, US Fish and Wildlife, DISA, US Marshals Service, DIA, DOD, National Guard Bureau, National Security Space Office, DEA, MSHA, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of the Inspector General, US Trade & Development Agency, DARPA, FDIC, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and of course The Pentagon and everything that is in that building. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in America, so I hope you are not trying to insinuate that this is a welfare issue.
Here are the other major ones in Northern Virginia: List of federal agencies in Northern Virginia - Wikipedia
If you don't want the State to have a say in what you do, then GET A DAMN JOB and stop taking the money.
I have a job. And I live in a Commonwealth, not a State.
Since this museum (assuming we're still talking about the 9/11 museum and not some spin off) is about a particular moment in time, it's unlikely that displays will be about subject material outside of that narrow scope.
However, it would be reasonable to have muslim relics in the museum, as it was Muslims attacking under religious motivations.
Muslim relics from the building on that day?
A display showing the names of the victims under a giant cross however would be inappropriate - since the cross has no connection to the actual events, and no connection to the individual victims.
The cross is part of that day, and the clean up afterwards, it is connected.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Indeed. And further, since the cross is being included for a secular reason, then they wouldn't even have to allow other religious symbols. 1.The American Atheists have offered to make a piece for the museum, but why should their's be included? 2/What significance does it have that would make it museum worthy?
1. I can’t understand why it should be, and in reality it shouldn’t, they knew this when they pretended to be interested in making one. It was probably a set-up for their frivolous lawsuit.
2. It’s no more significant than anyone else who wants to make a 9/11 memorial, it has nothing to do with the site, and is just a ruse to help push their agenda. If they truly cared, then there would have already had a memorial there, instead of waiting 10 years to suggest a memorial. I am confident that New Yorkers can smell the bullshit on this one.
But the American Atheists decided to go the legal route, and I do believe that they are wrong here.
Yes indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2011 10:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 11:35 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 11:59 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 103 of 479 (627423)
08-02-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 11:35 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, it does seem to be responsive to the inclusion of the cross. Its not about them wanting to include a memorial, its more about them wanting to remove a memorial. Their offering was a set-up to allow them to claim that because their's isn't included then there is discrimination going on. And they'd have a point if the museum folks were putting up a cross as a religious memorial and disallowing any other memorials. But that's not why the cross is being included.
Responsive? The cross was part of building six, it has been there for a long time. Where were the American Athiests in 2001 when the cross was moved under permission from Mayor Giuliani to a pedestal on the site. It was there for 5 years until it was moved to St. Peter’s Church (across the street), in 2006. Where were these champions of liberty, freedom, and the 1st amendment in the years of 2001-2006?
Here is what it looked like in 2003 after the Mayor gave permission to set it up like this:
Why not this outrage of government involvement, when it was allowed by the highest government office holder in NYC? What makes Giuliani not a government official breaking the 1st amendment, and today it is?
I think it’s all timing, America was still dealing with that day more vividly back then, and the American Atheists would have been seen for the shit disturbers they are back in the 1st few years after the attack, rather than now when they can influence people better. Like I said before the people of NYC can smell this bullshit, I am sure.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Atheists are not the state; and it was you who wrote that "this whole idea of whether it IS a symbol or not is completely up to people who are against that religion". I was mocking you for doing so.
Well your literary skills are not so grand that sarcasm can be detected, in just a few lines by everyone.
If you really couldn't understand what I was saying, I don't think that was my fault.
I am not saying that it is.
I mean, I actually put the word "not" in italics to emphasize it. Unless you have some disability that prevents you from reading words in italics, I don't see how you can have so grossly misunderstood me.
Well I did. But I don’t anymore, I see no reason to dwell on it, unless you are offended that I called you out for doing what you do around here.
Theodoric writes:
Don't you agree that patriotism is a god thing?
So then it’s religious to be a Patriot? Did you just contradict your-self?
Dr Adequate writes:
The fact that it is "shaped like a religious symbol" is not a mere coincidence. It's the reason that people did in fact adopt it as a religious symbol. Which in turn is the only reason anyone wants it now, while other I-beams not adopted as religious symbols were sold for scrap metal, while this one was adopted as a religious symbol, hailed as a miracle, blessed by a priest, and spent the last five years standing outside a church. At what point in this process did it become secular?
I looked it up, they are not I-beams, they are T-beams. What about the 1st five years, why the complaint today?
Hailed as a miracle? Says who, they were all over the place afterwards:
It’s a relic of the building 6, a piece of history. Now because of its shape it is against the constitution? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 1:18 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:34 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 1:44 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 117 of 479 (627493)
08-02-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 1:34 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:
Hmm, that gives me an idea. If you left a display of the Ten Commandments outside a church for long enough, and enough people paid religious reverence to it, and a sufficient number of priests blessed it, could you then put it in a courthouse as a secular historical artifact? How much religious veneration does a thing need for it to become secular when you move it into a government building?
We put most of our cultural historical artifacts in museums, not courthouses.
Nuggin writes:
Wait. I thought this was a discussion for adults.
Then what the fuck are you doing here?
Are you HONESTLY trying to suggest that the people who build the monument just RANDOMLY picked a shape from the rubble and made a monument of it?
THAT'S your argument?
No that is not my argument, THAT is your strawman.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I went to their website to grab the quoted part and noticed, in passing, at the top of the page an "advertisement-type" banner with just those two words on it. There was no context at all. I posted it as an aside to the actual part I was discussing, and even included a smiley face next to it. You then quote mine me, sans the smiley, and use that to accuse me of an "an egregious case of taking something out of contex". The hypocrisy! It burns! Like I said, you're too much.
That is Theodoric in a nutshell. This thread is now pretty much ruined, I can’t handle Nuggin AND Theodoric in the same thread.
I wish there were more Dr Adequates, and less Nuggin/Thoedorics around here.
Dr Adequate writes:
You called me out for doing what I evidently did not in fact do.
You do it all the time it’s who you are, it’s how you post. I know you cannot drop this, so quote this and respond (I’ll give in, you can have the last word), and then I won’t respond so we can move on. Ok?
This guy, for example.
Sry that linked is blocked.
Specifically, a religious relic.
As to the constitution, I think the judge gets to call that one.
Until we get a ruling that we don’t like and then we have to legislate this piece of history in. There are more of us than you.
I agree that there is an argument for it on the grounds of historical value, but there is also an argument on the other side.
Yes a frivolous one.
You said they were I-beams in post #43.
* shakes head *
And to think I trusted you.
Actually I think you might have been right the first time. If you look at the photographs, the two beams do seem to be I-shaped in cross-section (so to speak).
Shit I don’t know, I am no engiNERD. Construction is manual labor, ugh!
And that, gentlemen, is how we separate church and state.
Interestingly that you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth SO HELP ME GOD, on a bible in that same court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 4:10 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 4:11 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2011 12:21 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 120 of 479 (627510)
08-02-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 3:03 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
You think my scheme wouldn't work?
The ten commandments are in the bible, and the bible is in the courtroom, they are already there, no scheme necessary. You win.
Theodoric writes:
I see you have decided to just give every one of my posts a thumbs down without making any comment on the post.
No, but that is a good idea : )
How about addressing the posts and tell me why all of my posts deserve a thumbs down.
Because I don’t like you, or anything you have to say. I have wasted enough time on you to type this out, please ignore me as I ignore you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 129 of 479 (627538)
08-02-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:11 PM


Re: excellent idea
Nuggin writes:
But it wasn't displayed. It was just a piece of a building. It was like several million other pieces of the building.
False.
It was displayed, I even posted a picture of it displayed on the site from 2003. It was displayed from 2001-2006 at the site of the WTC towers.
wikipedia writes:
Following the attacks, a massive operation was launched to clear the site and attempt to find any survivors amongst the rubble. On September 13 one of the workers at the site, Frank Silecchia discovered a 20 feet (6.1 m)[5] cross of two steel beams amongst the debris of 6 World Trade Center...After a few weeks within the cleanup site the cross was an impediment to nearby work, so Silecchia and others working on the project received an expedited approval from the office of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to erect it on a pedestal on a portion of the former plaza on Church Street near Liberty. It was moved by crane on October 3 and installed on October 4[9][10].
ironically funny to me that it is on Church Street near Liberty.
some hate wikipedia so here is more
snopes writes:
On October 3, workers placed the cross atop a 40-foot foundation so that it could more easily be seen by everyone in the area, and it has since been blessed with holy water by a Franciscan priest and adopted by construction and rescue workers as "a symbol of hope, our symbol of faith, our symbol of healing.''
their source: McCaffrey, Shannon. "Iron 'Cross' Found at Ground Zero."
Associated Press. 8 October 2001.
New York Times writes:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey issued a legal memorandum yesterday that could help preserve some of the surviving remnants of the World Trade Center at the future site of the transportation hub at ground zero.
Preservationists, Sept. 11 survivors and relatives of victims have lobbied energetically to save as many remnants of the trade center as possible during future construction, given their historic value and their meaning to the families, since the remains of 42 percent of the victims have not been identified.
The document says that the Port Authority will preserve "to the maximum extent feasible" the bases of 84 columns from the north tower and 39 columns from the south tower, and install a glass wall that will afford views of column bases obscured by the construction of a proposed platform at the terminal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/nyregion/23rebuild.html
It has been displayed since 2001. The reason the port authority wants to keep it on site is to preserve the artifacts from that event.
seems rather cut and dry to me.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : wrong quoter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 6:10 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 131 of 479 (627543)
08-02-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 6:10 PM


Re: excellent idea
You are missing the context of the conversation.
The cross was "displayed" in the rubble. It was just an hunk of metal that someone said looked like something.
It wasn't put there by magic Jesus. It wasn't different than the thousands of other chunks of metal.
ok, my bad.
Yes, LATER, someone decided to make it a religious shrine at which point it was displayed thumbing it's nose at anyone of a different faith.
that is not the reason at all. but you can have that opinion.
And, CERTAINLY, a portion of that was a middle finger toward the middle east.
I am not even sure it pointed towards South West Asia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 6:10 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 378 of 479 (635276)
09-28-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2011 10:17 AM


Re: WTC cross as a national monument
i think it looks like a penis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2011 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2011 12:50 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 380 by Straggler, posted 09-28-2011 12:54 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 383 by xongsmith, posted 09-28-2011 4:53 PM Artemis Entreri 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