Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

We should keep the cross up

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2011, 4:44 am

Dessie wrote:
I think it shouldn't be there. And the Atheist's do have a right to sue. Separation of church and state. A cross wouldn't have been allowed at the WTC pre-9/11 and it shouldn't be at the memorial now.

DentArthurDent wrote:
WHY do we need any religious symbolism, this was a tragedy that spanned all creed and culture, how dare the bloody Christians hijack the event for their own purposes.


It is being put up in a museum, as a museum piece. It has been important to Christians who have visited the site. Removing it from the space represents an attempt to secular wash the entire exhibit. Whatever your view of the religious connotations of the cross it's existence at ground zero has been a component of the history of the site.

The complaint is based on the idea that a religious symbol cannot form part of a museum's exhibition, which is an entirely silly claim. Using that logic, the American Atheists should complain that the death mask of Tutankhamen is far too religious for public display. The state is not endorsing the Christian faith by putting it up in the museum any more than it is endorsing the mother Goddess of India by doing an exhibit on artwork relating to her down the road in the MET.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Aug 2011, 6:47 am

^ as I see it the point of contention is whether it is a memorial or a museum. If the twisted girder is to be placed in a into a museum setting I have no issue with it, a memorial is a totally different setting and I feel it use in such a situation is inappropriate.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2011, 7:09 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
^ as I see it the point of contention is whether it is a memorial or a museum. If the twisted girder is to be placed in a into a museum setting I have no issue with it, a memorial is a totally different setting and I feel it use in such a situation is inappropriate.


It seems to me that it certainly is being given the context of a museum piece. However, the US supreme court already made a ruling in relation to crosses and memorials with Salazar v. Buono in relation to the Mojave Memorial Cross. It is a great disappointment to me that someone saw fit to steal it regardless.

From Justice Kennedy: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm"


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

01 Aug 2011, 3:32 pm

91 wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
^ as I see it the point of contention is whether it is a memorial or a museum. If the twisted girder is to be placed in a into a museum setting I have no issue with it, a memorial is a totally different setting and I feel it use in such a situation is inappropriate.


It seems to me that it certainly is being given the context of a museum piece. However, the US supreme court already made a ruling in relation to crosses and memorials with Salazar v. Buono in relation to the Mojave Memorial Cross. It is a great disappointment to me that someone saw fit to steal it regardless.

From Justice Kennedy: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm"

This was the same hearing where some of the justices were apparently surprised that Jews are not represented by crosses on their tombsones or highway deaths.
It would have more weight if the default religion that is represented, over and over, is christianity - because, in toto, it is in fact an establishment of religion.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

01 Aug 2011, 4:03 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
I think atheists need to come up with a symbol. Otherwise all the religious folks get their views represented, but the atheists don't. To someone viewing the symbols, it would appear that none of the victims of 9/11 were atheists, which is almost certainly not the case. It's not fair that atheists should not be memorialized, just because they don't believe in a hereafter.


Image

Image


WHY do we need any religious symbolism, this was a tragedy that spanned all creed and culture, how dare the bloody Christians hijack the event for their own purposes.


So someone in mourning must be prevented from throwing a stone on the cairn lest he hijack the battle? You actually believe there is nothing but propaganda?

And doesn't the anatomical incorrectness of the fish bother you as it does me?