Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

As an artifact, I have no problem whatsoever with having that piece of the world trade center placed on display in a museum. After all, in other museums, we have thousands of Christianity-evoking relics and such that are pieces of art and history totally separate from any religious connotations.

Where I think it would cross the line would be if it became some kind of literal Christian shrine that people came and worshipped before. At that point it would cease to be a historical relic and would become a religious one, and that does NOT belong in a museum dedicated to commemorating an event in which people of many religions were killed. It would desecrate the memory of every single person by disregarding the fundamental freedom both of and from religion that we enjoy in this country.

In regards to the point made in the first post, I've never heard of an atheist who wanted his beliefs to be symbolically represented before in such a way. To most atheists I feel pretty certain that such largely meaningless and mythical symbols carry the connotations of religion and are thus abhorrent in some sense. If there is such a person, he is simply more asshole than atheist.

Every group has their idiots.

At 9/14/11 06:46 PM, Bolo wrote: In regards to the point made in the first post, I've never heard of an atheist who wanted his beliefs to be symbolically represented before in such a way. To most atheists I feel pretty certain that such largely meaningless and mythical symbols carry the connotations of religion and are thus abhorrent in some sense. If there is such a person, he is simply more asshole than atheist.

Im not surprised, there is a growing hardcore atheist movement led by fools such like Dawkins who are putting messages such as 'there is probably no god" on billboards and buses and stuff.

The 'new atheist' moment is becoming increasingly evangelical.

At 9/13/11 09:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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.

Yah that'll probably give Rick more ammunition , but still it's better to just ignore him and let him ruin his own image. Like Sarah Palin.

Atheists are not people, they are rodents. Treat them as such.

At 9/14/11 10:18 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Im not surprised, there is a growing hardcore atheist movement led by fools such like Dawkins who are putting messages such as 'there is probably no god" on billboards and buses and stuff. The 'new atheist' moment is becoming increasingly evangelical.

I don't think people like Dawkins or Chris Hitchens in particular are foolish, though I do know what you mean with regards to many rather militant individuals who kind of reside within the confrontational sphere of thought. I think we can credibly say that these people, such as the one in the picture carrying that sign, are "Anti-Theist" as opposed to "Atheist." Most atheists, I think would be disappointed in their tactics, as they do seem counter to the very point of atheism which is at least in part to abandon those evangelical methods of argument and rhetoric and kind of transcend all that by way of calm reason.

That actually irritates me. Not the cross, but the atheists.

Where were the atheists when some guy wanted to build the Islamic Center close to Ground Zero? They didn't seem to care about that, so logically, they shouldn't care about some cross.

If I'm wrong, then correct me.

At 9/15/11 12:30 AM, serving7 wrote: Atheists are not people, they are rodents. Treat them as such.

SQUEEK SQUEEK SQUEEK SQUEEK SQUEEK!

sniff sniff

SQUEEK SQUEEK SQUEEK!

At 9/15/11 12:48 AM, TNT wrote: Where were the atheists when some guy wanted to build the Islamic Center close to Ground Zero? They didn't seem to care about that, so logically, they shouldn't care about some cross.

If I'm wrong, then correct me.

one is an Islamic center because Muslims wanted one, the other is a cross at the site of a national tragedy that affected many faiths. big difference in circumstances and context.

and i'm against neither :D

At 9/15/11 12:48 AM, TNT wrote: That actually irritates me. Not the cross, but the atheists.

Where were the atheists when some guy wanted to build the Islamic Center close to Ground Zero? They didn't seem to care about that, so logically, they shouldn't care about some cross.

If I'm wrong, then correct me.

actually, Atheists and Christians alike stood against the mosque, and both were partaking in draw Muhammad day and the Quoran burning. don't pretend we weren't being assholes like you were.

At 9/15/11 08:59 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

actually, Atheists and Christians alike stood against the mosque, and both were partaking in draw Muhammad day and the Quoran burning. don't pretend we weren't being assholes like you were.

I have no way to provide sources against my argument, so whatever.

At 9/15/11 10:59 PM, TNT wrote:

At 9/15/11 08:59 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

actually, Atheists and Christians alike stood against the mosque, and both were partaking in draw Muhammad day and the Quoran burning. don't pretend we weren't being assholes like you were.

I have no way to provide sources for my argument, so whatever.

Fixed...

I find it to be a rather ridiculous argument to have. The cross for 911 is nothing more than a symbol and it doesn't matter what you believe in. If you look at our dollar bills, they have the symbol of the giant eye floating with the pyramid, which I think is supposed to represent God. I do not believe in a giant eye that floats with a pyramid, but do I go around sueing people saying this offends my religious beliefs? It's silly.

Really? The old DARPA logo makes so much sense now!

At 9/16/11 11:45 AM, Ericho wrote: I do not believe in a giant eye that floats with a pyramid, but do I go around sueing people saying this offends my religious beliefs? It's silly.

a better comparison may be "in God we trust," plenty of people think there's basis to sue for that.

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote:

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.

About the first part, no they probablydidn't so I did express my tought wrongly when I said that, however it does look like it. For other people of other religions this is like a spiritual cock clock if I can express myself that way.

Also I tought the lawsuit was asking for a secular symbol, something everybody could feel represented by, But of course when you say you don,t want a torture instrument on top of the ruin of a building you look like the bad guy.

At 9/16/11 05:58 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 9/13/11 11:11 PM, djack wrote:

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. :

Also I thought the lawsuit was asking for a secular symbol, something everybody could feel represented by, But of course when you say you don,t want a torture instrument on top of the ruin of a building you look like the bad guy.

;;;
Which is why I believe if they want to do something that respects every religion & non believer, the contemplation idea of Buddist's & others IMO is the best fit. Which they already have done a nice job with the memorial where all the names are inscribed & there is the water element, one can stand there & reflect on the stupidity of the entire situation !

At 9/16/11 05:58 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:
Also I tought the lawsuit was asking for a secular symbol, something everybody could feel represented by, But of course when you say you don,t want a torture instrument on top of the ruin of a building you look like the bad guy.

we are much too civilized to crucify people, maybe we should make it a guillotine instead!

At 9/18/11 01:32 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 9/16/11 05:58 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:
Also I tought the lawsuit was asking for a secular symbol, something everybody could feel represented by, But of course when you say you don,t want a torture instrument on top of the ruin of a building you look like the bad guy.

we are much too civilized to crucify people, maybe we should make it a guillotine instead!

I say we have a hospital bed and some needles. To add a little Texas flair we could put a report saying how black people are inherently more dangerous than whites, and a wheelchair.

At 9/12/11 11:08 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: thats the first thing atheists want is to be even more associated with religion seeing as it is one 8P

I've heard people call Atheism a religion before, and it's a damn stupid thing to say, especially because it's less about belief than it is about lack of belief and there's no worship or a commonly followed set of rules or anything whatsoever that makes religion what it is. Plus, it's about being logical and rational, which, you know, isn't really religion's thing.

I really don't see the big deal about the cross, by the way.

At 9/12/11 10:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Well we had a hissy fit over people building a mosque around ground zero

It's funny because it isn't a mosque, and it isn't even that close to Ground Zero. Plus, there actually has been a mosque near ground zero for a couple decades, now, closer than the so-called "ground zero mosque" is.

At 9/13/11 07:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: 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?

Well, we've got the Flying Spaghetti Monster and there's the dinosaur eating the Jesus fish, neither of which are quite tasteful enough for such a solemn monument.

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, but then that would probably mean you're a dumbass, as would putting "community center" in quotes as if that isn't what it is.

At 9/14/11 01:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Hmmm, my own personal understanding was they thought Jesus was a prophet, but a mortal one and no more.

And he was highly revered and mentioned several times in the Qur'an.

At 9/16/11 11:45 AM, Ericho wrote: The cross for 911 is nothing more than a symbol and it doesn't matter what you believe in.

It all depends upon context. If it is treated as a mere symbol that represented hope and faith and spirituality in the days that followed, ok, then you're right. If it becomes venerated as a Christian relic (and let's not bullshit each other and act like crosses are not the most recognizable symbol of the Christian faith), then we certainly have a problem here and we have to re-examine if the meaning has been co-opted or is being used offensively.

If you look at our dollar bills, they have the symbol of the giant eye floating with the pyramid, which I think is supposed to represent God.

How about you research your claims a little better before saying "der I think"? Also I find it silly to say "well, because a specific religion found it's way into the national language or fabric years ago, means we can't pull it out" that's silly. If something violates the Constitution, and can be proven to have done so, why should there be a statute of limitations on it's rectification?

I do not believe in a giant eye that floats with a pyramid, but do I go around sueing people saying this offends my religious beliefs? It's silly.

Again, the context is completely different, and you yourself admitted your not entirely sure if the floating eye represents your god or not. A cross is very clearly an identifiable symbol of a certain faith and you can certainly understand some people looking at such a symbol being included into a museum about a national tragedy that effects multiple faiths as a potential bugbear. The lawsuit I agree is premature, but I don't think saying that should then leap to "these silly bastards shouldn't be offended or feel any concern about this".

Also here's an article from wiki on The Eye of Providence for the interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Prov idence

At 9/19/11 05:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also I find it silly to say "well, because a specific religion found it's way into the national language or fabric years ago, means we can't pull it out" that's silly. If something violates the Constitution, and can be proven to have done so, why should there be a statute of limitations on it's rectification?

It's a waste of time to argue about something as trivial as words on paper. Are these things that people who consider themselves activists should really be focusing on? When I think of activists, I think of people who try to give more freedom to everyone, like the Civil Rights Movement. How does this give freedom to anyone? No one should have to the victim of a lawsuit because they're offended by something. Half the comedians would be out of work if we did that.

Freedom is about not caring what other people think unless they force their beliefs on you or directly attack you.

At 9/19/11 07:35 PM, Ericho wrote: Freedom is about not caring what other people think unless they force their beliefs on you or directly attack you.

What you're thinking about is called "tolerancce" not freedom. Atheists have every right to be intolerant of others. In fact, my experience is that atheists are more likely to express religious intolerance than the religious themselves.

Tolerance is such a smoke-blowing-up-the-asshole word. You accept and respect somebody's spiritual and philosophical ideologies and choose to make compromises to accommodate for them, or you push and shove to get your way over everyone else.

You tolerate menstrual cramps. You tolerate waiting for your doctor. Your liver tolerates your alcohol habit. 'Tolerating' another religion makes it sound like you grit your teeth all day and refrain from genociding every Buddhist on the planet because hey why not. They're Buddhists.

At 9/19/11 09:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/19/11 07:35 PM, Ericho wrote: Freedom is about not caring what other people think unless they force their beliefs on you or directly attack you.

What you're thinking about is called "tolerancce" not freedom. Atheists have every right to be intolerant of others. In fact, my experience is that atheists are more likely to express religious intolerance than the religious themselves.

And I find that whole atheists are likely to express religious tolerance as bull shit. Whether you're tolerant isn't based on what you believe, but what your personality is. People can have whatever beliefs they want, they're ability to "tolerate" another person's belief is solely based on them as a person.

At 9/20/11 11:00 AM, Famas wrote: Tolerance is such a smoke-blowing-up-the-asshole word.

No it's not.

You tolerate menstrual cramps.

Pfft, maybe you do. I just tell my wife to have a drink.

You tolerate waiting for your doctor. Your liver tolerates your alcohol habit. 'Tolerating' another religion makes it sound like you grit your teeth all day and refrain from genociding every Buddhist on the planet because hey why not.

That's not it at all. Tolerance is the mere act of coexisisting with another group regardless of whether you agree or absolutely despise them. Acceptance involves respecting and appreciating the group on its merits.

I would rather have tolerance than attempt to force acceptance upon people.

At 9/20/11 04:16 PM, Psil0 wrote: And I find that whole atheists are likely to express religious tolerance as bull shit. Whether you're tolerant isn't based on what you believe, but what your personality is. People can have whatever beliefs they want, they're ability to "tolerate" another person's belief is solely based on them as a person.

The pure nature of Atheism and the choice it takes to claim that one is Atheist almost inherently involves an intolerance of religion. You will find on average that Atheists are more likely to be arrogant and to riducule and look down upon religions than even the most firebrand fundy zealot is. Well maybe not that bad, but much more so than the average religious guy.

At 9/19/11 07:35 PM, Ericho wrote: It's a waste of time to argue about something as trivial as words on paper.

What? This is just plain baffling as a rebuttal. Our whole society and government is based on words on paper. Laws are words on paper. The Constitution (which I referenced and this is partially in reply to) is words on paper. Your religion is words on paper. It's ridiculous to act like "words on paper" aren't powerful and are merely "trivial".

Are these things that people who consider themselves activists should really be focusing on?

Sure. Any time somebody believes there rights are infringed, or may be infringed, they should act on it. To sit and do nothing allows those rights to be trampled and taken away.

When I think of activists, I think of people who try to give more freedom to everyone, like the Civil Rights Movement.

Except they really weren't fighting for "everyone" were they? They were fighting for the rights of themselves and their group. Not to say that it wasn't an important and worthwhile fight, it surely was. But let's portray that fight correctly. Activists have causes, and they have those causes because those causes personally effect them and their situations and ideals.

How does this give freedom to anyone?

Is activism always about freedom? I think you misunderstand what activism is and has become.

No one should have to the victim of a lawsuit because they're offended by something. Half the comedians would be out of work if we did that.

I tend to agree. But I think this is ignoring the fact that depending on how the 9/11 Cross is exhibited we may have a legitimate Constitutional issue. The fact that this lawsuit may be seen as without basis, or may be kneejerk (I tend to think it very much is) does not change the fact that issues like this should, and do, need consistent and routine examination.

Freedom is about not caring what other people think unless they force their beliefs on you or directly attack you.

I agree. Now, is something being exhibited as a religious symbol for a particular faith in an event that did not exclusively effect that faith not something that could be seen as attacking someone's beliefs or forcing an alien belief upon them? I certainly can see where people would feel it is.

At 9/20/11 08:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The pure nature of Atheism and the choice it takes to claim that one is Atheist almost inherently involves an intolerance of religion.

On what grounds? Just because prominent atheists like Bill Maher express intolerance to religion? I know just as many atheists who hold that view, and have no problem with religion. In fact, they have no problem with their children being religious if they're children choose to be so. He said she said is fun.

You will find on average that Atheists are more likely to be arrogant and to riducule and look down upon religions than even the most firebrand fundy zealot is.

Ok, show me something other then your assertion that backs this. Give me a study, give me a graph, give me an expert. Give me SOMETHING. Because I am so sick of both sides saying "look, it's the other guy who has more douchebags" and there's never anything solid backing it up.

Well maybe not that bad, but much more so than the average religious guy.

Proof or it didn't happen please. Actually...maybe this whole line of conversation is better done in that other thread about this stuff...

At 9/20/11 08:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's not it at all. Tolerance is the mere act of coexisisting with another group regardless of whether you agree or absolutely despise them. Acceptance involves respecting and appreciating the group on its merits.

Right, so you're reiterating my point. It is bullshit that tolerance is promoted as being the cutting edge of progressiveness when boiled down all it simply means is "not actively murdering/oppressing other members of society that you disagree with". Something which should be considered pretty much the bare minimum norm for human behavior.

I would rather have tolerance than attempt to force acceptance upon people.

That's not what I advocate. People have the right to be as bigoted and hostile towards other people's beliefs as they wish. I'd simply rather have people stop touting tolerance as the key trait of a model citizen when you are legally mandated by the federal government to refrain from infringing upon the first amendment rights, or 'coexist with them' as you said, anyways. So essentially it's all just a bunch of semantic circlejerking.

The pure nature of Atheism and the choice it takes to claim that one is Atheist almost inherently involves an intolerance of religion. You will find on average that Atheists are more likely to be arrogant and to riducule and look down upon religions than even the most firebrand fundy zealot is. Well maybe not that bad, but much more so than the average religious guy.

This is just. Well for starters it's a horribly broad generalization of an entire group of people who's only shared ideal is the lack of a theistic belief. Any attempt to lump millions of people into a single group called 'atheists' and claim "This is the way these people think/behave" is moronic because atheism isn't a system of beliefs or ideals.

Secondly, what you said doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering that one of the core principles of the majority of religious doctrines is "Every other religious view is incorrect and therefore must actively be fought against". Yes there are plenty of obnoxious and socially inept atheists in the world who are overzealous in preaching how much X religion sucks, but that is in no way a representative sample of all atheists, and considering that the population of atheists in the world pales in comparison to the billions of religious people.....

I'd say you're just doing a bit of projecting.

At 9/20/11 10:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I agree. Now, is something being exhibited as a religious symbol for a particular faith in an event that did not exclusively effect that faith not something that could be seen as attacking someone's beliefs or forcing an alien belief upon them? I certainly can see where people would feel it is.

I honestly can't see why people would feel it is. If this was something other than a cross I wouldn't be offended and neither would any of the people I know that are Christian (I'm currently living in Arkansas so pretty much everyone around me is die hard fundamentalist Baptists and I was raised Lutheran so most of the people I know are very religious and don't get upset over other peoples religions) so how is it offensive when it is a cross? I really don't see what is offensive about other people's religions. Unless you go to the 9/11 memorial you'll never see the cross and even if you do it is one small part of a much larger memorial. Do these same people get offended when they go to a museum that has artifacts from ancient religions?