Whiny Atheists

[Angel4Truth]

Did I say that? Were christian zelots such as yourself to have their way it would be only a matter of . . . time.

yes:

. . won't be the first time a person (people) have been forced by christian zealots to kneel before a symbol abhorrent to them.

One day you will be forced to kneel before God, but no, i wouldn't have you kneel before a memorial cross no matter how much you fancy thinking about me in a position of power and authority over you.

We dont practice idolotry and wouldnt have you practice it either, sorry to break up your paranoid fantasy though.

 

[WizardofOz]

/discussion.

Or hopefully /yourconfusion

Perhaps your deity had something to do with it. Your dieity wouldn't have allowed such a disaster to happen in the first place . . . would he/she/it?

:liberals: What? Does whining about how much of a poo-poo head you think God is have something to do with this case?

Sure I did . . .

. . . the cross and the museum helped "demonstrate how those at Ground Zero coped with the devastation they witnessed." (just read the bold)

Yes, you repeated her ruling. Obviously you feel this is legal justification for including the beams?

Why is her ruling wrong?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Or hopefully /yourconfusion

I'm not the one who is confused . . . Oz.

Does whining about pointing out how much of a poo-poo head you think God is have something to do with this case?

Does you defending your deity's failure to act make him/her/it somewhat less of a poo-poo head.

Obviously you feel this is not reason enough to include the beams?

Obviously.

Why is her ruling wrong?

. . . because she recognizes that the t-beam represents a cross having religious significance.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Silent Hunter to God - get away, i do not want you nor your interference, I do not like you or what you stand for and i think i am better off without you.

God : OK, you're on your own

Silent Hunter: God is not real because He fails to act.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm not the one who is confused . . . Oz.

You seemed confused and thought that I would disagree with you on those points.

Think? Does you defending your deity's failure to act make him/her/it somewhat less of a poo-poo head. (fixed it for you btw)

Um, what does any of this have to do with the WTC memorial?

Obviously.

. . . because she recognizes that the t-beam represents a cross having religious significance.

But it is not being included solely because some view it this way. That's what you and American Atheists seem to be missing. The courts are not dismissing their suit because the WTC memorial needs a Christian shrine. This is about the beams and their role in the history of the WTC and the relief/cleanup efforts.

These beams are a part of that history whether your or American Atheists wants to accept it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

yes:

Did I say anything about THIS country?

One day you will be forced to kneel before God, but no, i wouldn't have you kneel before a memorial cross no matter how much you fancy thinking about me in a position of power and authority over you.

:yawn:

We dont practice idolotry and wouldnt have you practice it either, sorry to break up your paranoid fantasy though.

plank.own.eye.first.A4T.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Did I say anything about THIS country?

:yawn:

plank.own.eye.first.A4T.

You do know that the world trade center memorial is in this country right and it was that cross that you were speaking about and adressing that res referenced...


major fail.

 

[PureX]

No one objects to the temporary roadside shrines. Not even atheists. That isn't what any of this is about.

What it's about is Christians persistently trying to have their religious symbols used as public monuments, and non-Christians objecting to it. And the fact is that it's not legal. Public monuments are built using public money, on public land, and require public funds to maintain. And we can't make our fellow citizens pay for religious symbols that they don't want representing them. Nor can we allow the government to present itself as being supportive of any religious dogmas, symbols, images, or moral codes.

But some Christians just can't seem to grasp this concept. They refuse to respect the rights of others not to have to pay for or be represented by Christian religious symbols, nor subjected to Christian religious ideology or moral codes. So they are continually trying to push these on everyone else.

I'm a Christian, and even I object to that.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the spontaneous expressions of grief that cause people to create these temporary roadside shrines. And that's why no one is particularly offended by them even when they include religious symbols. Though they become just more roadside trash after enough time passes, and then they need to be cleaned up, by someone, and that's is a bit of an issue, although minor.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You seemed confused and thought that I would disagree with you on those points.

I'm confused because you disagree with me? The hhorror . . . the hhorror.

But it is not being included solely because some view it this way. That's what you and American Atheists seem to be missing. The courts are not dismissing their suit because the WTC memorial needs a Christian shrine. This is about the beams and their role in the history of the WTC and the relief/cleanup efforts made after the attack.

So, you agree. The cross had/has religious significance. That's all it takes for ME to disagree with the use of it.

These beams are a part of that history whether your or American Atheists wants to accept it.

Then any ol' I-beam would do . . . right?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Silent Hunter to God - get away, i do not want you nor your interference, I do not like you or what you stand for and i think i am better off without you.

God : OK, you're on your own

Silent Hunter: God is not real because He fails to act.

So much straw . . .

So little time . . .

 

[resurrected]

Why not just remove it and save the ambiguity?

it has meaning for many of those who particpated in the rescue and cleanup

. . . won't be the first time a person (people) have been forced by christian zealots to kneel before a symbol abhorrent to them.

really?

that's what you're afraid of?


:mock:silly atheists

 

[resurrected]

No one objects to the temporary roadside shrines. Not even atheists.

wot a retard :chuckle:

 

[Silent Hunter]

it has meaning for many of those who particpated in the rescue and cleanup

. . . among others.

really?

that's what you're afraid of?

Really? That's what you took away from that?

:mock:resurrected

 

[Silent Hunter]

wot a retard

This is "name calling without cause" but I see you have your ban free subscriber card.

 

[Angel4Truth]

This is "name calling without cause" but I see you have your ban free card (subscription).

The cause is the continued denial of what is currently happening after being pointed to it multiple times. Res has been banned also while holding what you call a ban free card.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The cause is the continued denial of what is currently happening after being pointed to it multiple times.

Why is disagreement with you a denial of something?

Res has been banned also while holding what you call a ban free card.

Subscribers rarely get banned. The higher up the metal scale (bronze, silver, gold) the less likely that is to occur . . . Lifetime members NEVER get banned that I've heard about.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why is disagreement with you a denial of something?

It wasnt disagreement with me, but disagreement that what is being discussed us actually happening at all - huge difference.

Subscribers rarely get banned. The higher up the metal scale (bronze, silver, gold) the less likely that is to occur . . . Lifetime members NEVER get banned that I've heard about.

ACW is a lifetime member and been banned since being one.

How about this, become a high up the metal scale subscriber and keep saying the kinds of things that usually get you banned and test it out :think:

 

[WizardofOz]

So, you agree. The cross had/has religious significance. That's all it takes for ME to disagree with the use of it.

The cross is being included on a secular basis. That is why the suit has been dismissed in the past and likely will be again.

Then any ol' I-beam would do . . . right?

Any ol' beam pulled out from the wreckage and propped up by the relief workers. Kind of too late to revise history though, isn't it?

 

[Rusha]

Why is disagreement with you a denial of something?

Subscribers rarely get banned. The higher up the metal scale (bronze, silver, gold) the less likely that is to occur . . . Lifetime members NEVER get banned that I've heard about.

Banned permanently, probably not. However, they DO get banned.

 

[WizardofOz]

No one objects to the temporary roadside shrines. Not even atheists. That isn't what any of this is about.

It is for these particular atheists. Are you their spokesperson or do you still have no idea what this story is about?

What it's about is Christians persistently trying to have their religious symbols used as public monuments, and non-Christians objecting to it.

In your eyes, a mother putting up a cross for her dead son on the side of a road is a public monument?

And the fact is that it's not legal.

What about it is illegal?

Public monuments are built using public money,

Nope. This was not built using public money.

on public land, and require public funds to maintain.

And no public funds are used to maintain it.

And we can't make our fellow citizens pay for religious symbols that they don't want representing them.

Good thing no one is then.

Nor can we allow the government to present itself as being supportive of any religious dogmas, symbols, images, or moral codes.

The government didn't put this up, a grieving mother did.

But some Christians just can't seem to grasp this concept.

You're certainly struggling with the concepts actually at play.

They refuse to respect the rights of others not to have to pay for or be represented by Christian religious symbols, nor subjected to Christian religious ideology or moral codes. So they are continually trying to push these on everyone else.

I'm a Christian, and even I object to that.

You should put as much vigor into objecting strawmen monuments.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the spontaneous expressions of grief that cause people to create these temporary roadside shrines. And that's why no one is particularly offended by them even when they include religious symbols. Though they become just more roadside trash after enough time passes, and then they need to be cleaned up, by someone, and that's is a bit of an issue, although minor.

PureX - do you have a link for your alternate version of this story?

Why would the American Humanist Association cite unconstitutionality as their complaint for a roadside cross memorial?