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

[BlaqueKatt]

ok this could've gone in church and state, but it seems to fit better here.

first the official document filed in PDF form(19 pages double spaced, takes less than 5 minutes to read-please do so BEFORE commenting as the various news programs/stories are leaving out A TON of information to generate outrage-possibly to distract the public from the budget crisis?)

the main points are:
this memorial is funded by government funds,, placing the cross with government funds on government property violates not only the US constitution, but the NY state constitution, and the NY state civil rights act.

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, demanding respect for the Christian symbol and denying that same respect for the other religions is saying, our religion is more important, and you don't count-plain and simple, yet Atheists are being accused of "disrespecting beliefs", when we file a lawsuit to INCLUDE other religions, yes INCLUDE)

The lawsuit asks for EITHER removal of the cross, or inclusion of other religious symbols(equal access), other groups have requested to place memorials for the fallen of their religion, at no cost to the memorial or museum(donating the memorials) AND HAVE BEEN DENIED, REPEATEDLY. Every news story is only focusing on the removal, and saying NOTHING about equal access.

This has generated, death threats, lots of them. Over 8,000 so far.

Most of the general "Kill the infidels" sort "they don't believe as we do they deserve to die/we need to kill them/if you don't love Jesus, I hope someone rapes you"

They claim we're "disrespecting their beliefs" by asking for inclusion, and then turn around and say we should die/be killed for ours, Isn't that what the people that attacked us on 9/11 thought? Can they not see the irony, or are they blinded by the beam in their own eye?

These are the same people that denied religious freedom to the Muslims rebuilding their cultural center, because it was offensive, yet they get mad enough to act in the same manner they decry Islam for(I know Muslim extremists are not a representative of the whole, and these "so called Christians" are not either)

I urge the Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, et. all to support this lawsuit, stop the hatred and religious discrimination, or next time it may be your religion under fire, and excluded. And no asking for INCLUSION of all IS NOT AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY!

Most religions claim to be tolerant of other beliefs, let's band together and show that we actually are, and not just hypocrites paying lip service to the idea of tolerance, with intolerance and hatred as the real agenda.

[HYHYBT]

I think that, first, everybody fighting either for or against this should find some better use of their time, and second that it would have been better to leave the cross at the church, and since that was not done, to take it back there.

27. 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.

Whatever other reasons there are for calling it a government action, that isn't one. The property is leased, is it not? So far as this one point goes, this is essentially the same as claiming that your bringing home a new coffee table is an act of your landlord.

28. 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.

Depends on what "largely" means. But unless it's completely funded by the government, it seems to me they ought to be able to do just about whatever they like with their other funding. (and 60% is nowhere close to all.)

35. Plaintiff American Atheists opposed inclusion of a cross on the grounds that other religious groups were not given the opportunity for a similar faith- based memorial at the site of an American tragedy.

Are there any? Admittedly, a cross is one of the simplest possible shapes, but the significance of this one, to those who find it significant, is that it simply happened that a piece of rubble was shaped that way. If any other religious symbols (say, a menorah) turned up in a similar fashion, I haven't heard of them, but certainly if they have and this cross is displayed then they should be too!

[Gravekeeper]

I might support it if it wasn't a frivilous lawsuit.

The entire thing rests on whether or not its displayed as religious symbol or a historical artifact. Seeing as it's a musuem, it will likely be displayed as a historical artifact of the event along with several other impromptu memorials that sprung up around ground zero. In which case the courts are not going to touch it. As a musuem exhibit, it's perfectly fine. If they come out tomorrow and say they're going to hang it out front for Jeebus, then its a problem. But they've not stated anything of the sort that I'm aware of.

Also, their president is a dickwank. I don't care what you think of religion and what not you don't turn to 9/11 victims and go "Haha, so where is your god now?".

So you can scratch off us Buddhists ;p

[jackfaire]

I ponder the wisdom of memorials at all. Think about it every time something major happens we build a memorial and maintain it indefinitely how long before they outnumber cities?

[Sleepwalker]

Memorials already outnumber cities... I am pretty sure even those little roadside crosses with flowers outnumber US cities. ~.^

[BlaqueKatt]

Seeing as it's a musuem, it will likely be displayed as a historical artifact of the event along with several other impromptu memorials

that is incorrect-the memorial contains the cross-with the names of all the victims on it-the museum is on the same grounds, but the museum and the memorial are run by separate parties. The news media is muddying the waters further by using the two terms interchangeably, when they are in fact two separate things run by two separate groups. (it would be akin to trying to use the terms "house of commons" and "Senate", interchangeably, both part of the same thing but run by different groups) The separation of church and state, and the establishment clause are very important in the US, so it is not a "frivolous lawsuit", American Atheists files lawsuits anytime any religion tries to cross the line-and so far they have never lost a case. People thought the lawsuit against prayer in schools was frivolous.

If they come out tomorrow and say they're going to hang it out front for Jeebus, then its a problem. But they've not stated anything of the sort that I'm aware of.

So the fact that it's been "blessed by a priest", held at a church, had church services held at it weekly for the past 10 years-makes it a historical artifact? Especially since the "it's a historical secular monument" argument has been dropped in light of the facts. They have admitted it is Religious in nature, and thus in violation of the constitution of both NY state and the united states-both the memorial and museum are partially funded by tax dollars, or the government-this is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

Secular doesn't mean "no religion" - it means "you let me do my thing and I'll let you do yours, and neither of us interferes with the other." By attacking my right to be free of their religion they are at the same time bestowing upon me the right to interfere in that religion. Because if they establish that they have the right to force me to be subjected to their beliefs without recourse, then they cannot object when I step forward and stick myself deep in the middle of their affairs and fuck things up.

"This group of atheists, they're free in our country to not believe and not practice, and we should defend their right to do that, just as we should defend individuals' rights to practice and to believe."

Why the cross does not belong

a few more articles on why the lawsuit
facebook
A voice of reason

[jackfaire]

Memorials already outnumber cities... I am pretty sure even those little roadside crosses with flowers outnumber US cities. ~.^

I was trying to not go too extreme but it's like how so many buildings get declared historical landmarks where your not allowed to create or build any sort of business that wasn't there at the time the building was made.

If it increases exponentially at some point the whole Planet would be a giant museum and we would just be the Curators.

[Gravekeeper]

that is incorrect-the memorial contains the cross-with the names of all the victims on it-the museum is on the same grounds, but the museum and the memorial are run by separate parties.

I can't find anything definitive saying what they intend to do with it beyond that it will be part of the museum's collection when the museum opens. Which is fine. Again, like I said, if its hung out front for Jeebus. That's a problem. If its in a museum, it's not. Which I imagine is the exact argument that will be used in court against the lawsuit.

But again, I see no actual decision made yet. Until then, I will reserve full judgement.

So the fact that it's been "blessed by a priest", held at a church, had church services held at it weekly for the past 10 years-makes it a historical artifact?

Oddly, in a way, yes. Part of the museum's intention was to show how people coped with the tragedy. The object in question is one such coping mechanism. Regardless of what the rest of us think about it. 9/11 was purely about religion.

They have admitted it is Religious in nature

"They"?

Why the cross does not belong

That's the exact dickwank I was referring too. That guy's an asshole. You can be an Atheist and not an asshole. He has yet to figure this out though.

[jackfaire]

I 9/11 was purely about religion.

If your calling secularism and our government religion sure. Near as I can 9/11 included no religious targets and was only purely about religion in the same way as a car accident is purely about religion.

Yes religious people will pray but that doesn't mean because they pray suddenly only their suffering matters.

[Ghel]

The entire thing rests on whether or not its displayed as religious symbol or a historical artifact.

There wouldn't be interest in this hunk of metal as a "historical artifact" if it didn't resemble a Christian religious symbol. If it wasn't in the shape of a cross, it would have been scrapped along with the rest of the metal from the towers. It is the religious meaning given to it that is the reason so many people want it included in the memorial.

That's the exact dickwank I was referring too. That guy's an asshole. You can be an Atheist and not an asshole. He has yet to figure this out though.

Are you referring to the linked article? What part of Silverman's words in the linked article make you say that he's a "dickwank" or an "asshole"? Why should the sentiment that "all people should be treated equally when public land or public money is used" convince you that he should be insulted?

Do you have a problem with the following statement?

We at American Atheists fight the unpopular fights because they are necessary. We seek equality and demand it when refused. Religious discrimination from the government is not allowed and must be contested, even when the majority is favoured. Indeed, especially so.

Edited to add: I actually think that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money. Not because the cause is unworthy, but because the focus should be on the backlash to the lawsuit from Christians. To quote PZ Myers: "...Christianity clearly has little to distinguish itself from the terrorists who committed the Trade Towers atrocity: religion turns people into ravening monsters who abandon common decency to defend their bogus tribal mythology."

[Gravekeeper]

Near as I can 9/11 included no religious targets and was only purely about religion in the same way as a car accident is purely about religion.

I was referring to the motivations behind 9/11. You can't ignore the role of religion in it.

It is the religious meaning given to it that is the reason so many people want it included in the memorial.

Yes, and it shouldn't be in the memorial, but I don't much care if it's in the musuem. Like I said.

Are you referring to the linked article? What part of Silverman's words in the linked article make you say that he's a "dickwank" or an "asshole"? Why should the sentiment that "all people should be treated equally when public land or public money is used" convince you that he should be insulted?

Seeing as I referred to him as a dickwank before that article was even linked, obviously I'm not referring to it.

Do you have a problem with the following statement?

No, I have a problem with this statement: "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"

That is an insensitive, dickish statement.

[Ghel]

No, I have a problem with this statement: "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"

That is an insensitive, dickish statement.

He's just calling it like he sees it. He's not mincing words describing the sentiment that Christians are professing, and that sentiment, itself, is objectionable. Telling Christians that they're being dicks is not being a dick oneself.

[jackfaire]

I was referring to the motivations behind 9/11. You can't ignore the role of religion in it.

Your right I can't but the terrorists didn't attack secular targets because they violated the terrorists Christian beliefs.

[Gravekeeper]

Telling Christians that they're being dicks is not being a dick oneself.

But he is being a dick there. He can state his opinion without tossing in that cheap shot like that. Especially considering the circumstances. He's also not going to rally much support saying shit like that. He lost me on that single statement alone as it says "Smug, militant atheist". Not "Reasonable, concerned about seperate of church and state atheist".

Your right I can't but the terrorists didn't attack secular targets because they violated the terrorists Christian beliefs.

What I'm trying to point out is that when tragedy happens, especially tragedy like this, many people will turn to religion for comfort. If the musuem is trying to demonstrate how people coped, then religion's role in it becomes historically significant to the musuem.

[jackfaire]

. If the musuem is trying to demonstrate how people coped, then religion's role in it becomes historically significant to the musuem.

If that is what they are attempting to do then it behoove them to as has been requested not single out one religion on the incorrect theory that only Christians lost their lives that day and put in symbols honoring all faiths.