Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

You said I lost the debate and I responded that I didn't know where I had lost it and then you replied with a desciption of the topic theme. False.Museum officials decided that the cross played a significant enough role in the rescue effort to be put into a museum showing the history of the event. And the atheists are wrong because the museum officials explained that they were not including the cross because of its religious symbolism. And nowhere did the atheists make a good case for it not being included, so my argument for why it should be included has not been defeated. But you claimed that I already lost and that hasn't been shown.

Why?

Maybe not in general, but this specific cross does serve exactly that. False, there's more to it than just being a symbol, as has been explained. False, the museum officials are putting this cross in the museum as a historical artifact that tells the history of 9/11 because of the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks.None of your reasons for dissalowing this cross are correct/true...

Calling something a lie doesn't make it false. Repeating this lie doesn't make it true. I haven't admitted that. In fact, all I've said is that repositioning it would be disrespectful to the people who were there getting help from it. Regardless, repositioning it would only cause it to loose some of its value, but not all of it.

How dare you!If a guy is toiling through rubble trying to rescue people, finds comfort in a cross he's found, and says that it helped him, then you have no business saying it didn't. I'm not interested in your emotional hyperbole. Nope, piss off. Its in the museum so tough titties.

But of couse I said nothing of the sort.Making up ridiculous strawmen makes you look pathetic. But of course this is just some more bullshit that you made up.Again, I'm not interested in your emotional hyperbole. We'll see. Do we have any indication that its removal is even being considered? Your anti-religion fervorous hatred is exposing your bigoted attitude.

Sure, and it'd be ok to remove this cross. Too, it would have been ok to keep that one your referring to and its ok to keep this one.I'm against the claim that this cross must be removed and that it violates the seperation of church and state.

I hadn't heard of this cross until I saw this thread...And now that its in the spotlight, and some Christians are most likely seeing this as an "attack" from the atheist**, I do think the AA has made a mistake with this one. Unless they're just going with the whole 'any publicity is good publicity'.So, you think maybe they shouldn't have brought it up? They'd have a better point if it was gonna be the headstone of the memorial, or something, but its 'just another exhibit', isn't it? I'd disagree with it being a tragedy for "all" of mankind, as it was mostly for the West and I'm sure we could come up with some examples of mankind that this wasn't really a tradgety for, but I get what you mean.**not me, I see it as frivolous bitching

Not true. You asked me in Message 126 how it helped and then I speculated on some possibilities in Message 127:

quote:

---

Spiritual comfort in a time of high stress. Increase morale. Some sort of effort consilience. I dunno, I wasn't there. I'm just taking their word for it.

---

You totally ignored that part of my reply in your Message 128...I even repeated myself in Message 178:

quote:

---

I've been looking online for links to those involved explaining how it helped them but haven't found much anything. I've mentioned some ways in which it could've helped already, but it doesn't really matter that much to my position. Even if it was just a mark for a meeting place, then that could help in the rescue. A simple morale boost would be very helpful. The specifics just aren't that important.

---

You're reply to that was a total non-sequitor. I don't want to give that answer because it would be a lie. So all you've got is shit-slinging and Poisoning the Well. A rebuttle to my argument for why it can be included or an argument for why it couldn't would have made for an actual debate, but apparently you're not interested in that. Nah, I think I'll leave it in the secular museum where it belongs.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I don't have the specifics; I'm taking the museum officials' word for it. But if it was used as a meeting place and increased morale, thereby helping in the recovery effort, then it has enough significance to be in a museum.The issue here is not whether this object is significant enough to be in a museum (it's already been deemed important enough by the officials), the issue here is whether or not its too religious for a museum that receives money from the government. I said that, in general, spiritual non-secular.You're making it as all or nothing, where one smudge of religious patina makes an item entirely non-secular. I don't agree with that. It played a role as a meeting place and morale booster during the recovery efforts.It was saved from the dump, and we had it right there ready for the museum. Are there other pieces lined-up and ready but being denied? I was asking how many pieces were left that had not been carted off to the dump. Maybe because the dumpers were unaware of the significance...Apparently there's enough significance for there to be an effort to save some of the remaining peices before they are lost too.

Do you honestly think that is a big deal?I see it'd be with other rubble and not being treated differently as religious.Starting from the right:"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?

Would you support removing the Washington Monument because it is an obvious Egyptian symbolization of the sun god Ra?