Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2014, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Top of the South, NZ
22,216 posts, read 21,671,761 times
Reputation: 7608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
So what?
So, that is why it should be questioned.

Is it a religious monument , or a memorial?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2014, 01:05 PM
 
46,951 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29442
I'm one of the atheistest atheists who ever failed to worship at the non-altar of the non-god Atheos, and I will gladly call these guys attention-whoring a-holes who are doing nobody any favors at all.

The display clearly passes the Lemon test, and that's the end of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,893,401 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
I could not agree more.

[b]Too many people have tried to turn the Constitution into a protection against being personally offended by things other people do or say. Some of these fools just want to ban things that other people do, even though they will never see or hear them do it.

This is purely hilarious as the Constitution merely lays out the framework for federal government and it's powers. The Constitution was meant to limit the powers government has whereas those who seek to use it as described above are asking legal counsel to do something not legal.

If a topic is not enumerated in the document the 10A puts all other concerns into the hand of individual states, which is where these cases should be heard and not on merits of the Constitution, as I pointed out previously.

Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-22-2014 at 04:44 PM.. Reason: Fixed formatting
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 02:32 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,099,924 times
Reputation: 4828
The Judge's comment is a nice one. Too bad isn't not relevant to the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 04:27 PM
 
16,590 posts, read 8,605,677 times
Reputation: 19410
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
Wonderful quote from a judge this week in the Ground Zero cross lawsuit. Atheists are trying to get the cross removed. The judge is pressing them to explain what they find so offensive about the historical artifact. And how its mere presence causes them "harm."

The article ends with this quote from the judge:



Wow. Simple common sense that seems not to be so common any more. This kind of common sense should be applied to so many more cases on a myriad of issues.

Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive' | Fox News

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,897,466 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
For me it is just an artifact from that event.
Exactly. It was a piece of rubble that in the course of that event somehow melded into the shape of a common Christian symbol by pure chance, not by human intervention. Therefore, its a very rare case where it shouldn't be removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,760 posts, read 14,652,372 times
Reputation: 18529
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
Wonderful quote from a judge this week in the Ground Zero cross lawsuit. Atheists are trying to get the cross removed. The judge is pressing them to explain what they find so offensive about the historical artifact. And how its mere presence causes them "harm."

The article ends with this quote from the judge:



Wow. Simple common sense that seems not to be so common any more. This kind of common sense should be applied to so many more cases on a myriad of issues.

Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive' | Fox News
The problem is that the case has nothing to do with taking offense and everything to do with government sponsorship of religion.

Too bad the judge is too stupid to understand that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,971 posts, read 22,151,621 times
Reputation: 13801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90 View Post
So, that is why it should be questioned.

Is it a religious monument , or a memorial?
So we cannot acknowledge any religion, because it might make you feel all icky, got it.

Show me again in the Constitution or other law, where you have the right not to be made to feel uncomfortable, icky, bothered, or offended. I'll wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,094,282 times
Reputation: 3806
It's nice to hear this from a judge. Speaking as someone who is 100% against the people who thought the Islamic center near ground zero was offensive, it's about time someone said not agreeing with an individuals narrow view of the world is not offensive.

Who cares if they're a cross. Put the Star of David up if you feel unrepresented. Put the Islamic crescent moon up if you feel unrepresented? But the yin-yang symbol up if you feel unrepresented. Seriously, just because it's not your religion, doesn't mean they're forcing it on you. If it said 'bow to this cross or you'll go to Hell' then yeah, get it out of there. But it's just a cross, meant to be a kind gesture to the victims (and their families) of an attack. Get over it.

And no, I'm not religious. Just not easily offended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,894,142 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
Exactly. It was a piece of rubble that in the course of that event somehow melded into the shape of a common Christian symbol by pure chance, not by human intervention. Therefore, its a very rare case where it shouldn't be removed.
That's exactly the way I see it. It is a chance that the iconography of the Christian faith was one of the rubble pieces that we all remember from Ground Zero.

I believe this is a great thing that we need to remember so long as it don't infringe on others rights. In this case, the cross isn't forcing Atheists, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians to convert to Christianity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top