Religious themes in a state-sponsored memorial is just a bad idea because it's got to be all or nothing. Either include every religion that matters to anybody with any connection to the memorial at all, or include none of them. In the interest of simplicity, I tend to vote with 'none'.
Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her. Harry: That's a special feeling.
We are talking about this and not the debt ceiling? I figured if I posted something it would get turned off, but really a cross on WTC gets its own thread, but the end of America's AAA rating gets nothing? Ok.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.
Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Originally posted by lotjxWe are talking about this and not the debt ceiling? I figured if I posted something it would get turned off, but really a cross on WTC gets its own thread, but the end of America's AAA rating gets nothing? Ok.
There are several simple answers to that and here is one of them,
Originally posted by CajunManHere we go again, another group really bored looking to make attention. This time it is the atheists suing over a piece of steel that looks like a cross that will be at the 9/11 museum.
Thoughts? These people need to get a life. It is just a piece of steel that had meaning during 9/11. So what if it is a cross.
Just had to vent about this.
Leave the cross alone!
Look, as an atheist, I actually have no problem with the cross being in the museum. It was part of the day, and so it belongs there for historical reasons. I don't see this as favoring religion.
However, I can understand where these people are coming from. You're telling us to get a life, but we're not the ones trying to impose our views through the law. When we have to have a religious message on every piece of money, when there's an official statement of religious belief the official Pledge of Allegiance, when courthouses use religious oaths and hang the Ten Commandments, can you *really* blame us for being a little touchy on the subject? Are we really the ones who need to get a life?
To me it's simple. The cross in question should be there. Not as a national symbol but more as an exhibit that is reflective of how a group of people directly tied this specific item to their religion in order to move forward with their lives. There is nothing wrong with that IMHO.
I do feel however that along with this cross there should be exhibits in the same area that capture the essence of how religion ties into the events that took place prior to and during the aftermath. Create a whole religious wing and call it the The Third Crusade - Westward Bound! The tag line could be "Dog's and Cat's Living Together....Mass Hysteria!"
From a pure social level there should be an exhibit that captures the view points of the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindu's .....etc..... Capture the story of how hate breeds hate and how it bleeds over in such a way that it defies logic and the basic fundamentals of the faith in question.
Originally posted by The Guinness.To me it's simple. The cross in question should be there. Not as a national symbol but more as an exhibit that is reflective of how a group of people directly tied this specific item to their religion in order to move forward with their lives. There is nothing wrong with that IMHO.
This. I'm just about the biggest atheist you're going to find, but this isn't like they erected a cross for the sake of erecting a cross. This is a legitimate historical artifact and it unquestionably belongs there. This guy is making us look like dicks who need to know how to pick our battles better.
Three things: 1) 1999 was not last year, though whether those polled have changed their feelings in the past four years I can't say. 2) I find 'daily spoken prayers' to be a very very vague term. Are these prayers led by teachers? Priests?