So I was on facebook and saw this post by American Atheists Inc.
QuoteJoe Daniels, president of the memorial foundation said that "steel girders made into other makeshift crosses, Stars of David and possibly some Eastern religious symbols would also become part of the museum." Well, Mr. Daniels just admitted that the "cross" IS religious and is not about it being "historic" or a "relic." They didn't come up with this idea until AFTER we complained. But no atheist symbol...
Now of course, we know atheists tend to cry foul for a lot of shit, some things rightfully so...others not so much.
According to Wikipedia, it says that it is a non-profit corporation, but on the site it also says that the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg became chairman of the organization.
Now, does American Atheists Inc. have an actual case here?
If Boomberg's involvement is their only argument, I'd say not, assuming that he's operating as an individual and not in his capacity as mayor.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 26, 2011, 06:39:14 PM
If Boomberg's involvement is their only argument, I'd say not, assuming that he's operating as an individual and not in his capacity as mayor.
Of course they're taking my argument completely out of context.
My statement:
QuoteAlso, is the memorial run by the government? If not, then sorry, but you guys don't really have a case.
The American Atheists Inc. replied after quoting the second half of my comment:
QuoteOur lawyers disagree obviously. American Atheists has never lost a case.
One person replied:
QuoteYa know what kills me? People saying shit like this: "Also, is the memorial run by the government? If not, then sorry, but you guys don't really have a case." as if they're clever... you seriously think a serious organization's lawyers wouldn't know this already.........................
Another replied:
Quoteif you would just take a few minutes to read the legal documents pertinent to this case, then you would making such patently false statements as "you don't have a case".
First off, if you provided the legal documentation in the first place, maybe I wouldn't have thrown the question out there. Also, taking my original statement completely out of context.
Apparently this lawsuit is making headlines.
Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Display of WTC Cross at 9/11 MemorialSource (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/27/atheist-group-files-lawsuit-against-display-wtc-cross-at-11-memorial/#ixzz1TL7Iy8zX)
QuoteA group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists, which advocates an "absolute separation" of government and religion, filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.
The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release. "It's a truly ridiculous assertion."
But museum organizers say the cross, which is a symbol of hope for many, should have a place at the memorial.
The cross is "an important part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the history of 9/11 in a way nothing else could," 9/11 Memorial president Joe Daniels said Saturday, the Christian Post reports.
"Its return is a symbol of the progress on the Memorial and Museum that we feel rather than see, reminding us that commemoration is at the heart of our mission," Daniels reportedly said.
I wonder, what about the people that died there who had other bliefs than christinanity? Should'nt they get a holy icon crafted from the steel girders?
I agree, I wonder how Christian groups would feel if they had an Islamic icon there.
And of course things now take a turn for the stupid.
Source (http://atheists.org/blog/2011/07/29/fox-news-facebook-page-on-911-cross-generates-death-threats-against-atheists)
QuoteFOX News Facebook Page on 9/11 Cross Generates Death Threats Against Atheists
FOX News readers on Facebook started going off after Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists, appeared on America Live with Megyn Kelly. Blair reports that when he returned home from his local FOX station for the interview that his voice mail was full of messages and his inbox had almost 200 hateful messages. "I can always tell when someone from American Atheists is on FOX news, because my Inbox explodes with hate email," said Blair.
Moderators on FOX News' Facebook page had been trying diligently to delete the violent threats, but not before they were screen-captured by a diligent American Atheists member named Robert Posey.
Here are the screen captures of the death threats and threat of violence posted against atheists. We have left their screen names in place. If you're devoted enough to make the death threat then you should be devoted enough to have your name attached to your hatred. How many did FOX News delete before they could be captured? There are over 8,000 comments on their post related to Blair's appearance on FOX News.
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo1.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo2.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo3.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo4.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo5.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo6.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo7.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo8.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo10.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo9.jpg)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo11.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo12.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo13.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo14.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo15.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo16.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo17.png)
(http://atheists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/photo18.png)
Michael Perri's comment made my Irony Meter explode.
Quote from: MrBogosity on July 29, 2011, 06:20:14 PM
Michael Perri's comment made my Irony Meter explode.
All of the comments are really ironic when they claim that their god is forgiving and that their religion is that of peace and love.
Though I think Sindy wants to force some of that love into atheists.
Hey, even the bible says rape is okay if they're underage and virgin and from another tribe.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on July 30, 2011, 10:43:04 AMHey, even the bible says rape is okay if they're underage and virgin and from another tribe.
And knowing the bible, "underage" probably doesn't mean "17" it more likely means "doesn't even have hair down there".
Even MORE death threats and plain old stupidity! (http://practicaldoubt.com/2011/07/28/calls-to-violence/)
(http://practicaldoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/violentmessages.png)
(http://practicaldoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/minnoritiesintolerance.png)
(http://practicaldoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/stupidarguments1.png)
And here's a Christian who is at least not wanting us dead.
(http://practicaldoubt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sanity.png)
Okay, so finally we have an answer for what grounds AAI has for filing a lawsuit.
Source. (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/bloomberg-defends-atheists-in-9_11-cross-spat-dpgonc-km-20110730_14364831)
Quote(NewsCore) - NEW YORK -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the right of a group of atheists to file a lawsuit to block the return of a cross made of steel beams to the World Trade Center memorial, the New York Post reported Saturday.
Bloomberg said that nonbelievers have rights, too. "You've got to be careful in criticizing people. Number one, they have a right to sue, and we'll see what the judge says."
"This group of atheists, they're free in our country to not believe and not practice, and we should defend their right to do that, just as we should defend individuals' rights to practice and to believe," Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show Friday.
The group, American Atheists, filed suit against the return of the steel beams that were found standing in the rubble after the 9/11 attacks.
They say the cross is a religious symbol that should not be on a project partially financed by government funds.
It was moved during the reconstruction to a location outside St. Peter's Church, a few blocks north on Church Street, and was just recently returned to the site, where it will be a part of the museum's collection.
The memorial is due to open on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
So apparently while the museum isn't run by the government, government money did help to finance the project. At least we finally have an answer to this. You'd think that American Atheists Inc. would say this sooner. It is almost like they're trying to give off the impression that you can sue anyone who offends you.
Crap like this makes me wonder just what some of these atheist groups are thinking. I know quite a few *cough* League of Reason *cough* are just church where you take one big G (God) and put another (Government) in its place.
Quote from: FSBlueApocalypse on July 30, 2011, 06:35:24 PM
Crap like this makes me wonder just what some of these atheist groups are thinking. I know quite a few *cough* League of Reason *cough* are just church where you take one big G (God) and put another (Government) in its place.
That is an unfortunate reality with a lot of atheists I know. Most of them are socialists, which kills me to no end. They kept insisting that free market capitalism would bring us back to the dark ages. You know, because the dark ages was totally a period of time where freedom reigned.
Apparently on the Daily Show last night Jon Stewart did a segment (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/the-daily-show-culture-war-update-video) on the cross controversy at the 9/11 memorial and American Atheists Inc. aren't happy about it. They claim that they thought it was funny but Jon Stewart misrepresented them and their cause.
Comedian Jon Stewart tears atheists a WTC cross-shaped new one (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/comedian-jon-stewart-tears-atheists-a-wtc-cross-shaped-new-one)QuoteLast night, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, took time off from skewering politicians and the media to react to the American Atheists, Inc., lawsuit over a 17 foot tall cross being displayed as an exhibit in the new National September 11 Memorial and Museum. The cross, composed of steel beams found in the rubble of the World Trade Center after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack, was previously displayed at a nearby Catholic Church where it served as, if you'll pardon the expression, a cross between a memorial of the attack and an object of Christian religious veneration. Because of the latter aspect, the AA lawsuit asks that it either not be displayed, or displayed together with memorials of other faith (and non-faith) traditions.
You can see Jon Stewart's take on it in the video here (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/the-daily-show-culture-war-update-video). It's funny but it's about as nuanced as most of the press coverage on the subject has been and focuses on a suggestion of petty, mean-spiritedness.
"By the way atheists, why do you give a <bleep>?" asked Stewart. "Why not just think of it as a metal, T-shaped thing? ... Don't think of it as an ode to Jesus the Christian savior, think of it as an homage to Jesus, the Canaanite with the relatively unsuccessful carpentry business."
Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director for American Atheists, Inc., wrote an opinion piece today explaining why AA is taking on such an unpopular cause:
While there is a place in our cause for diplomacy in certain situations, it is painfully obvious that in most areas diplomacy has miserably failed. Diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to compromise. While some may choose to remain silent or non-confrontational, there are a growing number of us who have decided that the time has come to no longer sit back and let the theocrats run the show.
The growing problem of the steady inclusion of church and state in the United States needs to be addressed with more urgency than many Atheists are affording it because the problem is increasing at very disturbing levels. As Atheists, we already face an uphill battle for acceptance in the court of public opinion because nearly every singe time we protest one of these violations, we end up, for lack of a better word, crucified. Unfortunately, there is no real way to avoid that.
Asked by this reporter to comment on the Jon Stewart segment, AA's Communications Director Blair Scott had this to say:
I raised my children with the philosophy of, "If you can't laugh at yourself, then you have no right to laugh at others."
Stewart's segment was funny and I giggled and laughed. So this is not one of those "it's all funny until they pick on me" stories. The segment was humorous.
The reality is that Stewart would have had a difficult time being funny if he mentioned the facts and Constitution and the realities of the case. So he had to go for the emotional aspect in order to get a laugh. I get that.
I'm just greatly disappointed that he missed an opportunity to present the facts of this case and support the Constitution. As one friend of mine put it, "This was the first time Stewart has ever disappointed me."
Funny aside, I hope that Stewart actually understands the case and support the Constitution, because people's emotions and feelings about this "cross" are irrelevant to the Constitution and the law.
To be honest, despite any legal standing they may have, they really hurt their cause when David Silverman went on television and asked, "Where was god when 9/11 happened?"