Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/atheists-sue-to-ban-display-of-cross-shaped-beam-in-911-museum.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07...eum.html</a> Even I know this is the worst public relations idea ever. Maybe not as stupid as opposing the "WTC non-Mosque," but stupid nonetheless.
Originally Posted By mawnck Pretty dumb, especially since ... >>“If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” Professor Lupu said. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”<< Always pick your battles .....
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Oh, man. I am 100% atheist. I tend to get riled about the American government forcing Christianity on citizens. And yet I think this is a really challenging dilemma. <<Marc D. Stern, who is the associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and has long studied church-state issues, said the lawsuit presented “an extra-difficult case.” “It’s a significant part of the story of the reaction to the attack, and that is a secular piece of history,” he said. “It’s also very clear from the repeated blessing of the cross, and the way believers speak about the cross, that it has intense present religious meaning to many people. And both of those narratives about this cross are correct.”>> Exactly. It's part of the sociological history of the whole event. <<Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law, described the lawsuit as “plausible.” The outcome, he said, could depend on how the beam was displayed when the museum opened. “If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” Professor Lupu said. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”>> Yep. It all depends upon how it's displayed and explained. Please let the museum use this piece as an introduction to a discussion of "Christianity vs. Islam: What It Meant To Be American In 1999 And What It Means Now."
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<The American Center for Law and Justice said it planned to file a brief in opposition to the atheist group’s lawsuit. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the group, said the suit was “bordering on the absurd.” He pointed to parts of the lawsuit naming four individual atheists, who are described as having suffered “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.” “They want their day in court,” Mr. Sekulow said. “I don’t think it’s going to be a long day.”>> There were a lot of reactions to the events of 9/11 that were absurd. For example... all the New Yorkers who ran to the media with stories about how they were almost killed (even though they were in Florida at the time). ...the media's fixation on New York at the expense of the sufferers in DC and Pennsylvania. ...the gay community trying to make a hero out of some gay soccer player who happened to be on one of the hijacked flights, with no real evidence that he acted as a hero. I don't find atheists' attempts to prevent the museum from becoming a Christian shrine to be "absurd."
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I guess I would have to agree with the importance of how it is displayed. I would thing that if displayed with a backdrop of the original photo of the beam in place for the historic purpose, then I could see no problem with it. It could even be mentioned that many Christians found that they could take strength from it's symbolism to them. etc. etc. If it is used as a centerpiece, stand alone, Christian significance only then, even I, a sorta Christian, would have a problem with it. My guess is that if you were to isolate every single I-beam connection in any building in any city...you would find a cross. I'm amazed there weren't more of them at ground zero. As a Christian (kinda) it bothers me that when you associate the "christian" cross in the center of such a huge catastrophic disaster you are also associating death and destruction with Christianity. Am I the only one that thinks that way?
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 One could say it is just as odd as the deification and adornment of the(supposed)artifice that was used to kill the(supposed)son of God. YMMV.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Wow, Bob...Them there's a lot a big words. But it won't stop you from getting hit with a big ole bolt a lightnin'! ;-)
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Goofy - It just always confused me why people would wear a cross around their necks on a chain. If your daughter was shot by a gunman, would you wear a tiny replica handgun on a chain around your neck for the rest of your life? It just doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The same reason why we have yellow ribbons, black ribbons, pink ribbons and so on. To keep in mind something that we don't really want to think about, but feel we need to keep us focused on a cause and remind others to be focused on it as well. Why does my front license plate have a picture of the Vietnam Veterans Wall in Washington? To remind others of an inexcusable loss of human life to satisfy the egos of a group of men, too stubborn to admit they were wrong. We all have our separate agenda's.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< We all have our separate agenda's. >>> "We all have our own cross to bear."
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Acknowledgement of Christ as our Lord; as God as our Creator; our established dependence of God's providence - should all be portrayed at ALL American memorials, museums, and other institutions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not until we become a theocracy. Dabob2 - Christian, but understands that millions of Americans are not.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "Acknowledgement of Christ as our Lord; as God as our Creator; our established dependence of God's providence - should all be portrayed at ALL American memorials, museums, and other institutions." This, to me, is one of the scariest, most dangerous statements I have ever heard. This ideology scares me more than just about anything today. Mind your own religion and I'll mind mine. Keep yours out of my life and the laws.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Acknowledgement of Christ as our Lord<< So the millions of Americans who believe otherwise can just, what, skip memorials, museums and other institutions?
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Does these statements of the US Declaration of Independence scare you?: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, ... that they are endowed by their Creator...' '... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence...'. "Reliance" = dependence. "Firm" = established. It does not take a theocracy to acknowledge.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn >>So the millions of Americans who believe otherwise can just, what, skip memorials, museums and other institutions?<< No. But they can honor the founding documents and charters that enable their nation's government to exist - documents that acknowledge these things.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Acknowledgement of Christ as our Lord<< I love JC! He was a liberal. And he knew all the good strip clubs.
