Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[Ghostwriter]

Well this could be an interesting discussion. I believe this group is going a lot overboard.

Per the article:

"A 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. "


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/27...#ixzz1TL00IsXm

[thetaj]

1) People need to stop being so easily offended.

2) People need to get over themselves. I don't think whoever put up this memorial was so concerned with the American Atheists that they went out of their way to offend them. They aren't the center of everyone's world.

3) Absolute separation =/= complete exclusion. It just means separation.

Hang with me for a minute, this stuff really rubs me the wrong way so some of this might not make sense. This particularly opinionated group of American Atheists is probably made up of people who were those kids in school who got picked last for whatever team and are still bent out of shape about it. (This also makes me think of how ridiculous it is that nowadays every kid that participates in a sport is made to feel like they've won everything. There aren't any losers or last places anymore. Which is stupid. You lost. Get over it. It'll make you a better player.) We're raising a bunch of wimpy pussy kids that turn into these people (of any organization, not just the American Atheists) that need to make EVERYthing fair.

Life ISN'T fair, which is why you live and let live and try to develop a gracious attitude about it.

In addition, 4) DON'T BE A VICTIM!
/rant

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by thetaj

Life ISN'T fair, which is why you live and let live and try to develop a gracious attitude about it.

I got into a discussion about this somewhat recently.

I always ask if the people who say "just get over it" would say the same thing if they were not members of the dominant religion. There was a shitstorm when the Muslim prayer center was announced, so how is this different?

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

My exact thought.

[DSTRen13]

If it's a government facility, I don't see why it needs to have a cross at all. You can have a memorial without bringing religion into it. If for whatever reason you just *have* to have a cross for the Christians who died, then you should also *have* to have symbols of some kind to represent the members of other faiths, as well as the atheists and agnostics, who died as well. Otherwise, just having the cross is disrespectful to the memories of all the non-Christians. I don't blame people for being upset. If one of my Christian relatives died someplace and the government put up a memorial with Buddhist symbolism and only Buddhist symbolism, I would be irritated about it.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I got into a discussion about this somewhat recently.

I always ask if the people who say "just get over it" would say the same thing if they were not members of the dominant religion. There was a shitstorm when the Muslim prayer center was announced, so how is this different?

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

Yes, and

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

If it's a government facility, I don't see why it needs to have a cross at all. You can have a memorial without bringing religion into it. If for whatever reason you just *have* to have a cross for the Christians who died, then you should also *have* to have symbols of some kind to represent the members of other faiths, as well as the atheists and agnostics, who died as well. Otherwise, just having the cross is disrespectful to the memories of all the non-Christians. I don't blame people for being upset. If one of my Christian relatives died someplace and the government put up a memorial with Buddhist symbolism and only Buddhist symbolism, I would be irritated about it.

Yes

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I got into a discussion about this somewhat recently.

I always ask if the people who say "just get over it" would say the same thing if they were not members of the dominant religion. There was a shitstorm when the Muslim prayer center was announced, so how is this different?

That being said -- is this site somehow government related? Isn't the WTC owned by a private company? If so, they should be able to display whatever they want.

To answer your question - I am perfectly happy with a Muslim memorial, a Jewish memorial, a Hindu memorial, a Wiccan memorial, should those groups wish to have one - all are a-ok with me. Should the government pay for them? No. The government should not impose a particular religion on anyone but they should also NOT prevent someone from practicing their religion.

Here in Houston we've just recently had a problem with the VA and the funeral services of veterans. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7583145.html
Could there be anything more riduclous than forbidding people from saying "God bless you" at a funeral?

It's ridiculous the way people get "offended" by others practicing their religion. Here's an idea -how about, if someone gives a prayer which does not reflect your beliefs you don't say "amen"? How about you respect their right to pray however they wish, and not assume that it somehow an infringement of your rights if you don't agree with the religious beliefs of the speaker?

[KDMafia]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Here in Houston we've just recently had a problem with the VA and the funeral services of veterans. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7583145.html
Could there be anything more riduclous than forbidding people from saying "God bless you" at a funeral?

I am confused, the way I read the article was that the issueswas to keep a Memorial Day prayer as non-denominational as possible with the understanding that not all Solider's are Christian and the Minister wanted to end with Jesus Christ as the one savior. That's way different than someone saying "God bless you" at a funeral.

I am Christian but I don't see this as being easily offended, I see it as not wanting to feel like your religion is second class and/or you're not blessed if you don't believe a certain way. I can see how it can be alienating for people, especially at group memorials where people have died. It can send an implicit message that certain people are saved/remembered while others aren't.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KDMafia

I am confused, the way I read the article was that the issueswas to keep a Memorial Day prayer as non-denominational as possible with the understanding that not all Solider's are Christian and the Minister wanted to end with Jesus Christ as the one savior. That's way different than someone saying "God bless you" at a funeral.

I am Christian but I don't see this as being easily offended, I see it as not wanting to feel like your religion is second class and/or you're not blessed if you don't believe a certain way. I can see how it can be alienating for people, especially at group memorials where people have died. It can send an implicit message that certain people are saved/remembered while others aren't.

I don't even see anything in the article about not saying "God bless you" at a funeral. I haven't ever heard of an athiest/agnostic arguing that individuals can express their religious thoughts openly. Their problem would be the expression coming from an official, government sanctioned source, ie. the VA. The majority usually doesn't see how others might have a problem with this...until they see another religion "threatening" theirs. (Islam anyone?)

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

To answer your question - I am perfectly happy with a Muslim memorial, a Jewish memorial, a Hindu memorial, a Wiccan memorial, should those groups wish to have one - all are a-ok with me. Should the government pay for them? No. The government should not impose a particular religion on anyone but they should also NOT prevent someone from practicing their religion.

You may be OK with it, but apparently, the masses weren't happy with the idea of the Muslim center opening up nearby (not even on the premises).

It's ridiculous the way people get "offended" by others practicing their religion. Here's an idea -how about, if someone gives a prayer which does not reflect your beliefs you don't say "amen"? How about you respect their right to pray however they wish, and not assume that it somehow an infringement of your rights if you don't agree with the religious beliefs of the speaker?

If the speaker is acting as an agent of the government, then yes -- it can be offensive. It gives the impression that attendees who don't practice that religion are "less than."

A lot of people say to just sit back and wait out the prayer, but I can guarantee you that if someone broke out in a Muslim prayer at, say, a graduation, other attendees would raise hell.

[MysticCat]

The complaint can be read here. The allegations are not that the Museum and Memorial, a nonprofit corporation, is an agent of the government, but rather that the fact that it is on land leased from the Ports Authority and the fact that it is funded (partly) with government grants makes the Memorial and Museum "government action."

Establishment cases can be awfully hard to predict; even when the courts say they're applying a standard test, the test is often applied differently in different cases, so that the decisions are often very fact-specific.

That said, I don't think I'd be putting any money on the plaintiffs winning this one.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

You may be OK with it, but apparently, the masses weren't happy with the idea of the Muslim center opening up nearby (not even on the premises).



If the speaker is acting as an agent of the government, then yes -- it can be offensive. It gives the impression that attendees who don't practice that religion are "less than."

A lot of people say to just sit back and wait out the prayer, but I can guarantee you that if someone broke out in a Muslim prayer at, say, a graduation, other attendees would raise hell.

Apples/oranges. The Muslim center issue is not one of government speech (fwiw, I think the arguments against it are not logical or rational - the 9/11 terriorists are no more representative of Muslims than Anders Breivik is of Christians)- and I will go out on a limb and say you probably don't want military chaplains - agents of the government - to be restricted from practicing their religion.

As to those hypothetical attendees raising hell at a Muslim prayer - they would be as wrong as the atheists objecting to prayers at the VA cemetery. Just because you find something objectionable does not mean it is an example of government imposition of religion.

[ASUADPi]

According to www.wtc.com, Silverstein Properties is the developer. I couldn't find anything about the owners of the land.

If the government owns the land, I can see the separation of church and state. But if the government doesn't own the land, people can pitch a fit all they want, but it would technically be private property.

As for the "cross", isn't it just two beams that "survived" the attack that resemble the shape of a cross?
If so, people need to get their panties out of a twist, they're the original beams and should be someplace in the memorial.

[knight_shadow]

It looks like it's being leased from the Port Authority.

http://www.wtc.com/about/silverstein...tc-leaseholder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Au...and_New_Jersey

[PiKA2001]

So the American Atheists are only upset because there's only a cross and if they added a Star of David and a Crescent or two they'd be cool with the religious symbols on display? Suuuuurrrreeee. This group has always been a rabble rousing, Christmas tree suing bunch.

Atheism is such a waste of time anyway. Hey guys, lets create a religion (Dogma included) where we don't believe in religion!!!