The 9/11 Cross

[Shaggytheclown17]

Well came onto here to see if anoyne had made something about this n didn't see one so I'll make one.

Seems atheists have a big stick up their ass about a cross beam that was taken and made to be a nice piece of the memorial for all the people who died there.

.....so they sue?
Seriously dude how much mental retardation does it take to make someone, or people that spineless and that thin to go and do something like that? Next thing you know they're going to want to burn a church down cuz they're tired of it mocking them when they go to get coffee every morning

I did hear this one part where the guy wanted an "atheist symbol" there too.... XDlmfao isn't that something, an atheist wanting a religious symbol equal to the christian one, thats the first thing atheists want is to be even more associated with religion seeing as it is one 8P
Now theres gonna be like 10 posts saying its a "lack of belief" n all the other common atheist quotes.

Anyway all that crap aside, I'm 100% confident that the guy's case is gonna get thrown out and the cross will stay there n may even be dressed up even more to make it stand out just to give them the FU lol
America might be bad but it'll be a while before it gets bad enough for stuff like this to slide by.

May the cross serve as a beacon of hope and comfort to people who lost loved ones on that day, and all the people who died rest in peace.

[SolInvictus]

At 9/12/11 11:08 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I did hear this one part where the guy wanted an "atheist symbol" there too....

while i can't call bullshit, i also haven't seen any such comment; the issue was that it be removed or symbols of other faiths and organizations be represented. slightly different from being solely self-serving.

...but that's because its what they want you to think!

[Warforger]

Yah not all the people who worked in the WTC were Christian, in fact many were Muslim.

[Gustavos]

The OP is a bigot who thinks Christians represents the average American. If I was any religion besides christian and saw a cross off to the side, I'd be put off by it, but otherwise ok with it. The only real way I'd be comfortable is if other religious symbols were featured to prove what we've tried and failed to prove over the last few decades, that our country is lead by no race, nor religion.

Now, if I was still any religion other than Christian, and saw a cross as the "center piece" of the memorial and no other symbols to balance it, yeah, I'd want to bring people's attention to this.

Either way, I'm not even going to consider this topic any further until I see proof of any of this information.

[djack]

At 9/12/11 07:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 9/12/11 11:08 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I did hear this one part where the guy wanted an "atheist symbol" there too....

while i can't call bullshit, i also haven't seen any such comment; the issue was that it be removed or symbols of other faiths and organizations be represented. slightly different from being solely self-serving.

...but that's because its what they want you to think!

They shouldn't be demanding that it get taken down though. As far as I know, no one has been told that they're not allowed to put up the symbol of their religion so there is no discrimination that would warrant the government being forced to take down the cross. This is just a case of a bunch of atheists acting like assholes and trying to remove any sign that religion exists just because it's religion.

[Camarohusky]

Who cares? Really? Much ado about nothing.

[Iron-Hampster]

Well we had a hissy fit over people building a mosque around ground zero, lets not play that game, go all the way and make it a dedicated no religion zone, or allow us to harmlessly express our selves and our cultures. All in or all out, then we can at least say there is no hypocrisy.

[Camarohusky]

In the end, don't you think it'd be more important for an Atheist to worry about the real possibility of Rick Perry being a frontrunner for President?

Hmm, choose between some stupid cross and the prospect of a leader who actively proposes intergrating Christianity with our government... Difficult choice.

[Psil0]

I don't think the cross should be removed. Instead, I believe people should have the option of erecting memorials representing religious beliefs. If this country is truly based around religious tolerance, than people shouldn't have a problem doing it.

[Halberd]

At 9/13/11 01:46 AM, Psil0 wrote: I don't think the cross should be removed. Instead, I believe people should have the option of erecting memorials representing religious beliefs. If this country is truly based around religious tolerance, than people shouldn't have a problem doing it.

I agree with this, the problem is I'm sure now that the Tea Party is getting bolder and bigger they'll start being more confident and start being like 'HERP DERP, MUSLIMS ARE ISLAMIFYING OUR AMERICA, HATE MONGERING BULLSHIT, CHRISTIAN AMERICA'

[djack]

At 9/13/11 04:35 AM, Halberd wrote:

At 9/13/11 01:46 AM, Psil0 wrote: I don't think the cross should be removed. Instead, I believe people should have the option of erecting memorials representing religious beliefs. If this country is truly based around religious tolerance, than people shouldn't have a problem doing it.

I agree with this, the problem is I'm sure now that the Tea Party is getting bolder and bigger they'll start being more confident and start being like 'HERP DERP, MUSLIMS ARE ISLAMIFYING OUR AMERICA, HATE MONGERING BULLSHIT, CHRISTIAN AMERICA'

With the cross there any religious group that wants to put up the symbol of their religion can and no amount of Tea Party bitching would change that. They already have that option and no one has told them that they don't. It isn't about everyone being equal it's about the people simple-but-sandy calls "atheist cunts" acting like atheist cunts.

@simple-but-sandy, since you asked for a source here is a story from the New York Times. The fact that some of these people are actually claiming to be suffering because the cross is up makes this seem more like a trial from the Salem witch hunt than an actual lawsuits.

[Elfer]

This lawsuit is preposterous, and is probably just going to be thrown out by the judge. The cross is being placed in the memorial museum because it's a historic curiosity and a big friggin' deal to a bunch of people.

Quote at the end of the article pretty much sums it up.

[SolInvictus]

At 9/13/11 10:23 AM, Elfer wrote: This lawsuit is preposterous, and is probably just going to be thrown out by the judge. The cross is being placed in the memorial museum because it's a historic curiosity and a big friggin' deal to a bunch of people.

dj's link gives one of the most complete summations of the cross's origin and significance; it wasn't created by people intentionally but did inspire them after the events. knowing that this is the case does change the dynamics and implications of it as it defines it as an artifact rather than something specifically intended to pay tribute to a particular group over another. with this being the case, i doubt it would hold up in court, nor do i see how it would be exclusive or diminutive to others.

we can't re-raze the towers until every faith is represented by supporting beams.

[Zoraxe7]

link

The Daily show had a segment on this

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/12/11 10:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Hmm, choose between some stupid cross and the prospect of a leader who actively proposes intergrating Christianity with our government... Difficult choice.

It's an either or choice why again? They can't actively campaign against both things?

Also I have to check into the story more but considering the OP's track record...

If the story as Shaggy portrays it as being is true, it's silly. How do you put an "atheist symbol" up when atheism has no symbols or iconography that I'm aware of? I also don't think it's necessarily right to tear down a cross per say. But I do agree that if that's the only religious symbol anyone is trying to erect then it is discriminatory and somewhat disrespectful as we know in point of fact there were Muslims that died that day, and I'm sure some Jews as well.

So in my opinion, represent all faiths, or no faiths whatsoever. Because it is no exaggerration or conspiracy theory to say that Christianity has certainly and openly been weaved into the fabric of American life in a way that the Constitution would prohibit.

[RydiaLockheart]

Yeah, I was just about to ask...what IS an atheist symbol?

Honestly? I'm an atheist and I think those suing are dicks. When I see a cross on the side of the road, I don't associate it with religion. I just think "oh, someone died there." Likewise, I realize a cross is meant to be a memorial. I've seen memorial crosses. The fact is, somewhere along the way crosses became associated with memorials, not necessarily in a religious way.

These atheists are hypocrites. The 9/11 cross is not meant to shove religion down anyone's throat, but they're shoving their non-religion down people's throats.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/13/11 07:27 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: These atheists are hypocrites. The 9/11 cross is not meant to shove religion down anyone's throat, but they're shoving their non-religion down people's throats.

The other thing reading over the article shows is that we aren't talking about a man made symbol, we're talking about something that was...forged I guess? As the towers came down. Nobody built it, it just happened...then a religious and spiritual significance was attached. If it goes into the museum portrayed in that way, with that narrative of it as part of the history of the event in a more secular, non-religious way, I fail to see why anyone should feel upset or disrespected.

[Warforger]

At 9/12/11 10:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In the end, don't you think it'd be more important for an Atheist to worry about the real possibility of Rick Perry being a frontrunner for President?

Hmm, choose between some stupid cross and the prospect of a leader who actively proposes intergrating Christianity with our government... Difficult choice.

Who says you can't do both?

Doesn't matter though, Rick Perry ain't goin' nowhere that's a good bet.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/11 07:31 PM, Warforger wrote: Who says you can't do both?

Lot's of reasons. PR being a big one. Time management being the other.

Why waste time on something that serves only to anger others when frankly, the proposition of Perry as President is 1 quintillion times worse than the cross?

Seems like a dramatic waste of time to me.

[camobch0]

This whole OP seems like a heavily opinionated rant.

[VenomKing666]

A secular symbol needs to be places, not an "atheist" symbol. Christians are basically just pretending 9/11 only hurt christians, bullshit it also hurt atheist and muslims and just human beings in general, but christians are all like FUCK OFF ITS OUR SYMBOL FROM OUR RELIGION EVERYBODY ELSE CAN SUCK IT.

A secular symbol (meaning of no religion) would benefit everyone and not just the people who chose to believe in a particular religion.

[djack]

At 9/13/11 10:47 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: This rant brought to you by an atheist cunt.
A secular symbol needs to be places, not an "atheist" symbol. Christians are basically just pretending 9/11 only hurt christians, bullshit it also hurt atheist and muslims and just human beings in general, but christians are all like FUCK OFF ITS OUR SYMBOL FROM OUR RELIGION EVERYBODY ELSE CAN SUCK IT.

A secular symbol (meaning of no religion) would benefit everyone and not just the people who chose to believe in a particular religion.

Seriously? Did you actually read the thread or did you just see the title and decide to attack Christians just 'cause they're Christians? At no point have Christians ever even insinuated that 9/11 didn't hurt other people, and had you read the thread you would see links that make it very clear that the lawsuit is just a waste of time in an attempt to attack religion and get publicity for atheists. It's also ridiculous that atheists, a group that adamantly claims their beliefs can't be classified as a religion, want equal symbolic representation next to a religious symbol. You're either a religion or you aren't, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You could say the same thing for the people who support the cross yet adamantly opposed the Muslim community center.

[Liminoid]

At 9/13/11 11:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You could say the same thing for the people who support the cross yet adamantly opposed the Muslim community center.

You could also say that the "community center" would be a symbol of islamist victory and promote a radical political ideaology that presents itself as a religion

[djack]

At 9/13/11 11:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You could say the same thing for the people who support the cross yet adamantly opposed the Muslim community center.

I do say the same thing about them. I have no problems with a Muslim community center. I also have no problem with the cross being part of a memorial altar that includes the star of David, a crescent moon, and whatever other religious symbol that a group wants to put up (although I imagine most Muslims wouldn't want to put up a crescent moon fearing that it would draw attention to the fact that it was Islamic terrorists that hijacked the plane instead of honoring the non-extremist Muslims that dies that day). I do have a problem with the kind of people that sue over this and the people that think they can demand that an "atheist symbol" be put up on the grounds of religious discrimination.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 9/13/11 11:29 PM, Liminoid wrote:

At 9/13/11 11:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You could say the same thing for the people who support the cross yet adamantly opposed the Muslim community center.

You could also say that the "community center" would be a symbol of islamist victory and promote a radical political ideaology that presents itself as a religion

Islam is a Judaic religion, just as Christianity is. if Jesus manifested himself up on this world just to tell Bin Laden that he forgives him (if he were still alive) Bin laden would burst into tears because in his religion, Muhammad is the second coming of Jesus. So you could argue that it was this branch of religion that was responsible for 9/11 as a whole. a lot of Islam's hate comes from actions taken by people of these other faiths as well.

your mind= blown.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/13/11 11:36 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: because in his religion, Muhammad is the second coming of Jesus.

To the best of my recollection, Islam doesn't recognize Jesus as a prophet. He was a false prohpet that lead away the weak minded. In other words Mohammed is their Jesus (to put it bluntly)

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/13/11 11:29 PM, Liminoid wrote: You could also say that the "community center" would be a symbol of islamist victory and promote a radical political ideaology that presents itself as a religion

You could say that. You'd be wrong as fuck and completely ignorant to what Islam is and has historically been, just like if you judged Christianity solely through the prism of Catholicism.

But I like to content myself that folks who would say something like you're suggesting are an ignorant minority who really have no power to do anything to foist that ignorance on others because more intelligent people are around to slap it down.

[aviewaskewed]

At 9/14/11 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: To the best of my recollection, Islam doesn't recognize Jesus as a prophet. He was a false prohpet that lead away the weak minded. In other words Mohammed is their Jesus (to put it bluntly)

Hmmm, my own personal understanding was they thought Jesus was a prophet, but a mortal one and no more. That he may have been getting some divine direction but only Mohammad wound up with the true and correct message. Basically, three religions sharing a god, but bickering over whose leader that god liked best. Of course, I could be completely wrong and I'd welcome someone with more knowledge to correct me so I could learn a thing or two.

[djack]

At 9/14/11 01:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 9/14/11 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: To the best of my recollection, Islam doesn't recognize Jesus as a prophet. He was a false prohpet that lead away the weak minded. In other words Mohammed is their Jesus (to put it bluntly)

Hmmm, my own personal understanding was they thought Jesus was a prophet, but a mortal one and no more. That he may have been getting some divine direction but only Mohammad wound up with the true and correct message. Basically, three religions sharing a god, but bickering over whose leader that god liked best. Of course, I could be completely wrong and I'd welcome someone with more knowledge to correct me so I could learn a thing or two.

From what I've learned of Islam, they do not consider Jesus to be a prophet. They recognize that he was a wise and kind individual but not a prophet of God. Then Muhammad got the message from God that Jews and Christians had strayed from the true path and only he knew what the true path was and it was his job to share it with the world.