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

[Gravekeeper]

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.

Here's the thing though: If we're talking a memorial I fully agree with you. If we're talking a musuem then that's not something we have full control over. Did every religion drop off an equal number of memorial artifacts for display? Should they be equal as in one of each? Or equal via proportion to casualties? Should the musuem even bother or should it just display everything regardless of proportion?

Trying to control the musuem aspect that way would end up being kind of silly depending on how far you're taking it.

[jackfaire]

Trying to control the musuem aspect that way would end up being kind of silly depending on how far you're taking it.

Would it? If your saying it should be included as a museum exhibit as part of history that Christians prayed then all religions that prayed that day should be represented as part of history with a special exhibit to them all to tell future generations that people in dire straits tend to pray to their deity of choice.

Assuming that even the majority of people are christian is offensive. I have been assumed to be a christian because I held a door open for a person and honestly that offends me.

Why well think about it they saw me hold open a door and didn't assume, "Oh cool he held open the door for that person he must be a good person with good moral character"

They saw it and assumed, "Oh he must be Christian his faith says he has to be a good person."

[Andara Bledin]

He lost me on that single statement alone as it says "Smug, militant atheist". Not "Reasonable, concerned about seperate of church and state atheist".

This. Once again, Gravekeeper has said what I was thinking far better than I could put it.

If your saying it should be included as a museum exhibit as part of history that Christians prayed then all religions that prayed that day should be represented as part of history with a special exhibit to them all to tell future generations that people in dire straits tend to pray to their deity of choice.

Assuming that even the majority of people are christian is offensive.

It depends on what people you're speaking of. If you're speaking of the entire world, then Christian denominations make up probably about 40%.

The overwhelming majority of those who are religions (aka those who would be praying in the fist place) in the western world (aka the American continents/Europe) are Christian. As of 2008, about 75% of people in the United States stated they were some denomination of Christian. Less than 5% self-identified as other religions. Fewer than 1 out of every 15 religious individuals is not Christian.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

It depends on what people you're speaking of. If you're speaking of the entire world, then Christian denominations make up probably about 40%.

I am speaking of the WTC (World Trade Center whose buildings are typically full of non Americans as much as Americans) which is also in the one city in our country where the Melting Pot truly has meaning.

[Gravekeeper]

Would it? If your saying it should be included as a museum exhibit as part of history that Christians prayed then all religions that prayed that day should be represented as part of history with a special exhibit to them all to tell future generations that people in dire straits tend to pray to their deity of choice.

I'm saying A) Its an artifact from WTC and B) The proportion of people who died in 9/11 obviously varies from religion to religion, and thus the memorial artifacts would undoubtably vary in proportion as well.

Assuming that even the majority of people are christian is offensive.

The majority are Christian or some variant. >.>

I have been assumed to be a christian because I held a door open for a person and honestly that offends me.

That is pretty stupid, yes.

I am speaking of the WTC (World Trade Center whose buildings are typically full of non Americans as much as Americans) which is also in the one city in our country where the Melting Pot truly has meaning.

The majority there was still Christian. The vast majority of casualties were Americans. Only 12% were non-Americans. The majority of Americans are Christian. Thus, majority of casualties were Christian. A smaller number of Jewish and Muslims died as well of course. But the biggest slice was Christian.

[jackfaire]

The majority there was still Christian. The vast majority of casualties were Americans. Only 12% were non-Americans. The majority of Americans are Christian. Thus, majority of casualties were Christian. A smaller number of Jewish and Muslims died as well of course. But the biggest slice was Christian.

Okay are you actually basing this on "These names were documented to be church going christians" or is the non functioning logic in the quoted section what your going on?

I say non functioning because according to the logic the following is true.

"The majority of the people in this room are American's the majority of American's are Christians thus the majority of the people in this room are Christians"

The Room is a meeting of Atheists.

To further clarify my point that logic takes a large data set that includes many points of data, different regions, backgrounds, family ties, that all flow into people being a certain way and tries to apply it to a much smaller sampling of people with very few same data points as the larger sampling.

For example if you were to survey every person a high school you would get a percentage that drive to school let's say 15% teachers and seniors. Now if you were to try and apply that to a classroom full of Freshman and say that, "15% of them must drive" well that would be wrong because your sampling includes different data points in this class on the teacher drives the others aren't old enough to drive so while you could compare say high school to high school you couldn't compare High school to individual classroom.

[Andara Bledin]

Occam's Razor and basic logic both agree that my suggestion that the 3000 people working in the WTC that day generally adhered to the norms for their place and time has far more weight than the idea that the WTC was staffed primarily with statistical anomalies.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Occam's Razor and basic logic both agree that my suggestion that the 3000 people working in the WTC that day generally adhered to the norms for their place and time has far more weight than the idea that the WTC was staffed primarily with statistical anomalies.

Thank you.

"The majority of the people in this room are American's the majority of American's are Christians thus the majority of the people in this room are Christians"

The Room is a meeting of Atheists.

A meeting of Atheists wasn't killed in a terrorist attack. A public building that would have an average representation of the local populace was. My logic is just fine. There is no statistical reason for the WTC to have any anamolous concentration of specific religions.

[jackfaire]

Occam's Razor and basic logic both agree that my suggestion that the 3000 people working in the WTC that day generally adhered to the norms for their place and time has far more weight than the idea that the WTC was staffed primarily with statistical anomalies.

^-.-^

I am not saying it doesn't but their place and Time isn't the whole of the United States a more accurate sampling would be to look at the City of New York even the neighborhoods most of those people worked in rather than taking into account an entire country full of places that are vastly different from each other culturally and lumping them all together.


A farmer living in the Midwest in a rural town is not going to necessarily be a good person to indicate what a person raised in downtown Manhattan is going to be like.

We aren't looking at statistical anomalies your talking about ignoring that there is any difference in those two people. You might as well say, "Most American's enjoy X music so most people in the WTC enjoyed X music"

It's faulty logic because of how much your shrinking the sample size and how that changes socioeconomically, geographically and background.

A statistical anomaly would be if you take a group of people all with very similar characteristics as your majority and then applied that majority to another group with very similar characteristics and found that most groups do match up with your findings but one or two groups does not.

Here however your own characteristic for comparison is "They are Americans" Given that there are 50 states all of varying type, backgrounds and culture that is not enough data to go on.

That is why things like the census don't use the data from New York City, NY to find out what people in Great Falls, MT need as far as government funded programs.

[AdminAssistant]

The real issue here is that the rubble didn't twist itself into a Star of David. They found rubble, twisted into a cross, and that became a symbol to the (largely Christian) rescuers, survivors, whatever. Keep it at that nearby church and let's be done with it.

[Ghel]

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.

So this is, again, about tone and not the actual message. Thanks for letting us know.

He lost me on that single statement alone as it says "Smug, militant atheist". Not "Reasonable, concerned about seperate of church and state atheist".

So, pointing out atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of their religion would be militant? Pointing out that pedophile priests inhabit many religions, including Buddhism, would be smug? Pointing out that finding a religious symbol in the rubble of a disaster that that religion's God did not prevent should not be viewed as a sign is both smug and militant?

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

ETA: I think it's telling that someone is being labeled "militant" for talking. He made no death threats, didn't infringe on anyone's rights, didn't cause anyone harm (except perhaps to their egos), nothing of that sort. Just talking.

The real issue here is that the rubble didn't twist itself into a Star of David. They found rubble, twisted into a cross, and that became a symbol to the (largely Christian) rescuers, survivors, whatever. Keep it at that nearby church and let's be done with it.

Yeah, in a building full of metal connected at right angles, they found a piece of rubble that was connected at a right angle. What are the chances?

[AdminAssistant]

Ghel, trust me, I know how silly it is. Of course they were going to find materials in the shape of a cross. But people in crisis saw a symbol of their faith and it gave them hope. I've seen that cross in person, when I was at Ground Zero on March 11, 2002. I was a practicing Christian at the time, and it was very powerful to see a symbol of my faith, a source of comfort, rising out of the rubble.

However, all of this blather is a distraction from the original topic. Yes, the cross belongs in some sort of memorial/museum type thing. However, it should either be privately funded, or other religions should be allowed to place their own memorials. Inclusion for all religions seems to be the best option here.

[Ghel]

I would have no problem with the church (the one where this cross has been housed since it was discovered) setting up a memorial on privately-owned or church-owned land, funded by private donations with no government funding whatsoever. But if there's any government funding or if it's on public land, then either all religions that want to be represented must be or no religious representations should be allowed.

[BlaqueKatt]

. Did every religion drop off an equal number of memorial artifacts for display? Should they be equal as in one of each? Or equal via proportion to casualties?

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)*

Occam's Razor and basic logic both agree that my suggestion that the 3000 people working in the WTC that day generally adhered to the norms for their place and time has far more weight than the idea that the WTC was staffed primarily with statistical anomalies.

not like the numbers were given in the lawsuit-oh wait

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.

Pointing out that finding a religious symbol in the rubble of a disaster that that religion's God did not prevent should not be viewed as a sign is both smug and militant? I think it's telling that someone is being labeled "militant" for talking. He made no death threats, didn't infringe on anyone's rights, didn't cause anyone harm (except perhaps to their egos), nothing of that sort. Just talking.

it's called taking up the mantle of victim hood and oppression, common for groups of privilege to defend and retain said privilege.

Is the mere act of questioning religion an attack on it?

No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion

*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.

[Evandril]

I would have no problem with the church (the one where this cross has been housed since it was discovered) setting up a memorial on privately-owned or church-owned land, funded by private donations with no government funding whatsoever. But if there's any government funding or if it's on public land, then either all religions that want to be represented must be or no religious representations should be allowed.

(Highlighting added by me) The question is...are there any other religions that have stated they *want* to be represented, and have presented their own artifacts? If they have, and have been turned down, then I'd agree with you...but if noone else is *presenting* something for inclusion...what is the museum supposed to do, go trolling the streets with a butterfly net?

As to your comment about the 'tone' of the statement...Tone conveys quite a bit about the person making the statement. If you'd lost a loved one in an accident, and someone made the (factual) comment of 'Guess they should have worn their seat belt!' to you at the funeral, would that make you think they were just stating accurately how they feel, or would you feel they were being a total ass?