ok now-are we blind to irony, better remove that beam

[Andara Bledin]

So this is, again, about tone and not the actual message.

When you are speaking of someone being a dick, it's specifically about how they say what they have to say.

After all, the only difference between a decent customer making a complaint about a fast food order not made correctly and an SC is often the "tone." The idea that the tone is irrelevant is foolish, naive, and as far as I can tell in some cases, willfully obtuse.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

Originally Posted by BlaqueKatt

Only putting the "cross" in the memorial and museum dishonors all non-Christians who died on 9/11, including 31 Muslims, 400-500 Jewish Americans, approx. 500 non-religious citizens, and an unknown number of Buddhists, Hindus, spiritualists, pagans, etc. Recognizing only one religion is an insult to their death and the suffering of their families and friends. 3000 died, over one third were not Christian.

Over 1/3 is not over 1/2, hence 'most' are Christian, as was stated. (And I could not get the quote to work with your imbedded quotes, my apologies...cut 'n pasted instead)

Problem is they are REFUSING to display anything from ANY other religion. Other groups HAVE OFFERED and have been told no.(a group made a star of david out of the rubble, and have been told they CANNOT have it included anywhere)*
*apparently a week AFTER the lawsuit was filed it was agreed to allow the Star of David-7 years after the original request to include it. Mind you this was after numerous denials, and other groups are STILL being denied-Equal Access(to all Religions) is part of federal law.

In that case, they should not get any federal funding, agreed, and should lose the lawsuit. That's enough justification for me, though I agree with Gravekeeper that the one guy is an insensitive dick

[BlaqueKatt]

That's enough justification for me, though I agree with Gravekeeper that the one guy is an insensitive dick

that he may be but to disparage an entire organization and their efforts because of one member is also pretty dickish...heck maybe his dickishness comes from his computer science or marketing degree(yes he has both, and also holds 74 patents). In my limited experience most people I've come across with marketing degrees are quite...um..unpleasant to be around...

though this clip of him is amusing
yes it is the now infamous "tide comes in, tide goes out never a miscommunication, you can't explain that" clip.

the birth of the "are you serious face" meme

[Hyena Dandy]

Well he's not talking about computer science or marketing. And how are his 74 patents related to the discussion?

[Gravekeeper]

When you are speaking of someone being a dick, it's specifically about how they say what they have to say.

After all, the only difference between a decent customer making a complaint about a fast food order not made correctly and an SC is often the "tone." The idea that the tone is irrelevant is foolish, naive, and as far as I can tell in some cases, willfully obtuse.

Thanks, save me explaining it. -.-

Sometimes it's necessary to point out the inconsistencies and abuses of your ideological opponent in order to get your message across.

Sometimes maybe, but to people who are grieving? No, it is not a time when it is necessary. When you're trying to muster support for what will surely be a contencious lawsuit? Probably not the time either. He couldn't resist taking a cheap shot at religion even given the circumstances. Even though it could be hurtful.

He lacks as a human being. Believer or non-believer has nothing to do with it.

Problem is they are REFUSING to display anything from ANY other religion. Other groups HAVE OFFERED and have been told no.(a group made a star of david out of the rubble, and have been told they CANNOT have it included anywhere)*

If that's the case that's definately a problem, but I saw zilch in the news about anything of that sort.

that he may be but to disparage an entire organization and their efforts because of one member is also pretty dickish...heck maybe his dickishness comes from his computer science or marketing degree(yes he has both, and also holds 74 patents). In my limited experience most people I've come across with marketing degrees are quite...um..unpleasant to be around...

He's not one member, he's their leader. So he must have support. He's also the public figure head and thus resonable for his organization's public image. He's the one that talks to the press and goes around the major news networks doing interviews. He above all else should think before he speaks.

He's not a dick because he's a computer geek or a marketing exec or even because he's an atheist. He's just a dick. ;p

[Ghel]

Sometimes maybe, but to people who are grieving? No, it is not a time when it is necessary. When you're trying to muster support for what will surely be a contencious lawsuit? Probably not the time either. He couldn't resist taking a cheap shot at religion even given the circumstances. Even though it could be hurtful.

He lacks as a human being. Believer or non-believer has nothing to do with it.

First of all, quote fail. I said that, not Andara.

Do you have a link, or a date, when Silverman said what you quoted? It's been 10 years. Grieving is not a factor at this point. I don't see how this qualifies as a "cheap shot." He's criticizing the actions and statements that people have made trying to justify and bolster their religion in the wake of a senseless tragedy. Any respect that might have been given to Christianity by atheists dissipated in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Every call to prayer was another example of what's so wrong with religion. Christians don't seem to realize that the thinking that caused them to elevate rubble to the status of a holy symbol is the same sort of thinking that the terrorists were using when they planned the attacks. Their religion is right, all others are wrong, and any sort of criticism is worthy of death threats.

If that's the case that's definately a problem, but I saw zilch in the news about anything of that sort.

That's the point. The media are ignoring the reasoning behind the case and the inclusive option given in the lawsuit. Instead, they're focusing on the bits that will get them the best ratings.

[Gravekeeper]

Do you have a link, or a date, when Silverman said what you quoted? It's been 10 years. Grieving is not a factor at this point.

Wait, so you think its ok to publically mock someone's loss as long as its been a while?

I don't see how this qualifies as a "cheap shot."

I'm not sure how I can explain it to you then. He's taking an unnessacary jab at Christianity. It was dickish enough to get mentioned on the Daily Show.

Christians don't seem to realize that the thinking that caused them to elevate rubble to the status of a holy symbol is the same sort of thinking that the terrorists were using when they planned the attacks.

And you're beginning to do the same thing.

Their religion is right, all others are wrong, and any sort of criticism is worthy of death threats.

Another broad, sweeping generalization.

That's the point. The media are ignoring the reasoning behind the case and the inclusive option given in the lawsuit. Instead, they're focusing on the bits that will get them the best ratings.

While I don't deny the US media loves to do that, I was unable to find any information outside of the news as well. Not even Wikipedia drudged up anything.

[Ghel]

Wait, so you think its ok to publically mock someone's loss as long as its been a while?

I think it's ok to point out the things that are wrong with religion, which is what Silverman was doing.

I don't understand why you're so offended by this quote, GK. You're not a Christian. Are you getting offended on other people's behalf? Why would you feel the need to do that?

I'm not sure how I can explain it to you then. He's taking an unnessacary jab at Christianity. It was dickish enough to get mentioned on the Daily Show.

When people are doing stupid and/or ignorant things, we have a duty to point it out to them. Many atheists have pointed out that the calls to prayer following 9/11 are hypocritical, and rightly so.

This desire to venerate a piece of rubble is in the same vein. Either the Christian God allowed the deaths to happen and caused a piece of rubble to resemble the torture device that killed him and/or his son, or there is no god and the rubble is coincidence.

Also, you think that being mentioned on the Daily Show is a good measure of dickishness?

While I don't deny the US media loves to do that, I was unable to find any information outside of the news as well. Not even Wikipedia drudged up anything.

I think that's why there's a link to the actual lawsuit in the OP.

[Andara Bledin]

I think it's ok to point out the things that are wrong with religion, which is what Silverman was doing.

He was doing one by doing the other. If all he was doing was this one thing, we wouldn't be having this conversation. He could easily have made the same point without being an asshole. He chose to be an asshole and the fact that there are people who think it's ok for him to be an asshole just because he's their asshole is really disappointing.

I think that's why there's a link to the actual lawsuit in the OP.

The lawsuit is not a news report or a blog entry or the like.

Hell, that asshole judge in DC filed a lawsuit against a dry cleaners. Since it was a lawsuit, does that mean we should take what was in it at face value, too?

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I found the quote that's been causing such a furor. I should have known to go directly to the American Atheists website. Based on the press release, I can understand why the news hasn't listed the "inclusive" option in the lawsuit: the press release doesn't mention it.

Let's look at the quote again.

The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It's a truly ridiculous assertion.

What, exactly, about this quote has caused posters to refer to Silverman as a "dickwank", an "asshole", and a "dick"? What, exactly, is so objectionable? Is it that he's pointing out that, if the Christians who want this cross piece of rubble as part of the memorial are correct, their God is an asshole?

The lawsuit is not a news report or a blog entry or the like.

The point is that none of the news agencies bothered to look at the actual lawsuit. They didn't perform their due diligence in reporting the story.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm not sure how I can explain it to you then. He's taking an unnessacary jab at Christianity. It was dickish enough to get mentioned on the Daily Show.

and I'm sure the fact that Jon Stewart sits on the 9/11 memorial and museum foundation board had nothing to do with that.....nothing like a nice conflict of interest.......technically he's one of the defendants, so it's in his best interest to make the opposition look bad in the public eye, now isn't it?


The link I gave is the papers filed, this is the only news coverage that mentions the inclusion, writer actually read the filing.

The suit says the cross is an insult to the many 9/11 victims who were not Christian and a violation of the separation of church and state; it proposes either removing the cross or setting aside an equal amount of space at the memorial to honor the sacrifices on non-Christian or non-religious victims of the attack.

Two Jewish plaintiffs said they find the cross "offensive and repugnant to their beliefs." The brother of a first responder who died of lung problems after volunteering at Ground Zero for two weeks is also a plaintiff.

[jackfaire]

If it's not a coincidence if God really caused that piece of rubble to form into a cross.

Do you realize what that means?

At best it's "Dude saw your house burning but felt it wasn't my place to stop it hope this cross helps"

At worst it's "Dude signed my work whatdya think?"

[Andara Bledin]

You know, regardless of what else the suit might say, it also claims that the plaintiffs are being physically harmed by it's very existence.

I want to know how.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

being physically harmed by it's very existence.

I want to know how.

^-.-^

Short term I highly doubt it. Long term it is possible.

One concern that has always existed and is the reason we have freedom of religion is that if left unchecked many laws will be passed on the sole basis that they are against one religion's beliefs.

And I am saying any religion. I am not singling one out because there are beliefs that I would not like to abide by in various religions that I choose not to follow.

[Andara Bledin]

I also posit this:

There are literally thousands of items that have been donated to the museum for inclusion in the displays. Articles of faith, articles of clothing, tools, pictures, oral histories, etc.

Couldn't it be argued that the vast majority of the collection is atheistic?

Perhaps people are spending so much time looking at/for the specifically religious items that they forget that every item that isn't religious is, by default, atheist.

^-.-^