Christians Are Forcing Their Beliefs on People With Ground Zero Cross

[SecularMotion]

Extremist Christians in America are apparently getting worse and worse in the way they believe. As if it wasn't bad enough that some of them knock on your door to try to convert you, now they want their religious symbol to be the one that represents all who fell on September 11, 2001.

A cross made from old girders is expected to become a monument at ground zero, to honor all those who died on 9/11, but why a cross? It seems that someone is forgetting that the United States is not a Christian country. There is no national faith, and there will hopefully never be. In fact, forcing a religion on the citizens of a country is fascism and against The Constitution.

Placing this cross as a national monument is not only tacky, but it is a complete slap in the face to all those who fell that day who were not Christian in faith. Some of the victims of 9/11 were Jewish, Muslim, atheist, Wiccan, agnostic and no telling how many other faith paths.

Are these victims unworthy for memorial because they weren't christian?

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979770500

[rrneck]

1. Money talks and bullshit

walks around with lots of money.

[Ilsa]

2. And the cross proponents will be the first to freak out if

other religious groups ask to place their icons on the grounds. They'll freak out, make excuses, and then try to talk their way out of their hypocrisy.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Seems to me that the cross is a slap-in-the-face to Muslim "terrorists".

When the two planes were flown into the two WTC buildings, to these "Christians", it wasn't so much an attack on this country as it was the beginning of The New Crusades.

[The Doctor.]

15. It's also a slap in the face to every non-'Christian' that died in those attacks.

So why should we slap them too?

[Iggo]

4. What else is new?

When it comes to civil rights, the majority traditionally has a tough time understanding that they are part of the problem.

"But a cross is a good thing! Everybody knows that!"

[Silent3]

5. "As if it wasn't bad enough that some of them knock on your door to try to convert you"

The Ground Zero cross I object to. What's wrong about someone trying to convert you, however? Apart from the minor annoyance of anyone knocking on your door for anything, what's the big deal?

Many people here encourage door-to-door campaigning for Democrats. What's the difference?

The problem with pushy religious people is when they try to force their religion on others. Trying to convince someone by speaking to them, by putting forth the case for what you believe, IS NOT FORCE.

[struggle4progress]

16. When door-knocking, I often forget to tell people they'll go to hell if they don't vote Dem

True story!

[Silent3]

23. We may be about to see the whole economy go to hell...

...because not enough of them voted Democratic in 2010.

I hope that's not going to be a true story.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Damn right wing xtians. Tell them those people did not die because they were xtians.

They died because terrorists wanted Americans to die. They didn't care about their religion.

[LiberalFighter]

7. I wonder who is making that decision? nt

[glinda]

8. Million dollar question.

[Renegades of Funk]

9. It wasn't fashioned

It came out of the wreckage like that.
Seriously I was for Park 51.
What is next removing religious imagery from art museums?

[Goblinmonger]

46. A building based on beams connected at right angles

happens to create a piece of wreckage when destroyed that has two pieces of metal at right angles to it.

IT'S A GOSH DARNED MIRACLE, ALICE!

What should we do with all the pieces that look like the top half of an exclamation point?

[Kurmudgeon]

10. A cross erected in New York is forcing something on the whole country?

I've seen no opposition to the placement of icons from other beliefs.
No one said others were unworthy, that's your surmise.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Why should our government

be putting up the symbol of one specific religion?

[Kurmudgeon]

59. "Our" government? New York City is not a state.

"American Atheists issued a legal challenge against constitutionality of the cross two days later, alleging the cross is a "Christian icon" and an inappropriate "mingling of church and state." The atheist group is demanding that unless other faiths also be allowed to post up their religious symbols inside the memorial, the WTC cross should be removed."
Just another attack from radical atheists trying to silence and control those who don't believe the same as them.
http://newyork.christianpost.com/news/9-11-cross-suit-bloomberg-defends-religious-displays-at-memorial-53134/

Say the government is doing something than attack those who are different than you is what's really happening.
Radical atheism being used to silence and control others. It won't be so fun when it's your turn.
May you should be more concerned about freedoms than the fact that others believe differently than you.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Are you saying that NYC doesn't have to follow the constitution?

They are free to do what they wish? You can't be that obtuse.

And this is an "attack from radical atheists trying to silence and control those who don't believe the same as them" when IN THE SAME QUOTATION they say "unless other faiths are allowed to post up their religious symbols." Why is allowing other religions the ability to take part in the memorial so god damned scary to you? Perhaps it is you and not the "radical atheists" that are concerned about others believing differently since it is the "radical atheists" that are fighting for all faiths and you are on the side of just allowing the christians to have a voice here.

[trotsky]

65. ZING. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

11. Recommended. Christians that support this are bullies.

Bullies for Christ.

[Kurmudgeon]

60. Yet who is supporting this silencing measure, Atheist Bulles with their intolerance.

[ZombieHorde]

61. The atheists are standing up the bullies.

The privileged are pushing against everyone else, and then the privileged get upset when those who are pushed say "enough."

[Kurmudgeon]

69. Oh, so militant atheists are like the bully who sucker punches you then says"stop hitting me!"

I knew boys like that in high school, you had to keep an eye on them.
That cartoon you posted is both old and prejudiced. Enjoy your imaginary situation to justify yourself.

[ZombieHorde]

74. "That cartoon you posted is both old and prejudiced."

Yet it is both newer and less prejudiced than the Holy Bible. If you read media distributed by various Christian groups, such as the American Family Association and the 700 club, you see it is actually fairly accurate.

The cross on ground zero is marking the area as a Christian area, like a dog pissing on a fence. Yet many who died in those buildings were not Christian. The cross is insulting because it is upholding Christian identity over the identity of others.

[Igel]

12. So if they put it up you'll be forced to believe and be baptized?

You'll have no choice but to convert to The Generic Xian Church?

No. You'll just be forced to see if it you go by it or look at pictures of the site. I go by Xian churches with big crosses all the time and somehow don't accept the cross as a symbol of Xianity; it hasn't altered my beliefs one bit. Or those of most people.

Maybe it just means most people aren't as weak willed? Nah, that can't be it.

Where I do go to church (I recently started attending, erratically at least) there are these big triple crosses on the wall behind the lectern. Some Saturdays somebody brings big chunks of cloth to make it so our sensitive eyes don't have to see them. Other Saturdays that person doesn't. I haven't noticed any difference in the congregation or their beliefs.

Personally, I find crosses placed in yards and on buildings to be no more annoying than church bells. Some are pleasant, others just grate.


Sometimes just accommodating the majority as they go about doing what they do for themselves is an okay thing. Not every chance to exert power and control need to seized and used. Not every act of the majority is intended to coerce the minority: We're just not that important.

[cleanhippie]

14. Its unfortunate that you are unable to see what the problem with this is.

And its not about a cross.

[Kurmudgeon]

70. The problem is clear, some are too intolerant to live in a country with other faiths than Atheism.

[darkstar3]

75. And some are intolerant of minorities speaking out about majority encroachment on their rights.

That's the USA, and DU, for you. We have all kinds here.

[Goblinmonger]

79. So why don't you want to include other faiths at Ground Zero?

The big bad atheists do.

[darkstar3]

17. Accomodationalist bullshit.

The same accomodationalist bullshit that allowed our country to fall so far into the clutches of god-baggers.

[humblebum]

18. I believe the term is accomodatioNIST, not accomodationaLIST.

Of course, if you want to consider yourself a SeparatioNALIST, that's your prerogative.

[darkstar3]

19. When lost for a response, parse.

Fuck if I care...

[humblebum]

20. That's alright, we know what you mean. And it really doesn't matter because

I am an accomodationist.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Those churches you see...did the government put them up?

That cross at Ground Zero...is the government putting it up?

See the difference yet? Good. Now go read the Constitution and Google "excessive entanglement"

[cleanhippie]

13. I have invited some of our believers to discuss this, lets see if they show up.

:popcorn:

[backscatter712]

21. Scumbag God at the WTC:

[darkstar3]

22. +1

[humblebum]

24. Ah yes. Radical atheism is such a wonderful thing. The only things

that ever change are the faces.

[darkstar3]

25. Radical? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[humblebum]

26. I read that line from you a time or two or three...

[backscatter712]

29. I am not left-handed! n/t

[backscatter712]

30. U MAD BRO?

[cleanhippie]

32. Really? Looks like Strong Criticism to me.

Nothing about a lack of belief was included in that message at all, so I fail to see how atheism, especially RADICAL atheism was involved in any way.


But you know that already.

[eppur_se_muova]

27. LOL! nt

[LaurenG]

28. Ugh - how disrespectful and arrogant.

:mad:

[humblebum]

31. I am sure many of the dead would consider it quite respectful.

Now, if other symbols aren't allowed on site then there's a problem. But, returning a piece of original towers to the original location is hardly disrespectful. And if it is only a cross that you have a problem with, then that would indeed constitute bigotry against a certain group of people.

[LaurenG]

33. It would be more respectful to add a piece for all faiths not just one

Its disrespectful of the others for only one faith to be represented and quite arrogant to assume that everyone there is Christian, but you know that.

[humblebum]

34. I would expect each particular faith to put up its own memorial

and it could be considered disrespectful not to do so. To find debris in the shape of a star of David or a crescent moon or an atomic sign could be difficult, if that's what's holding them up.

[LaurenG]

36. Well I think you have a very valid point

how logical of you. :)

[darkstar3]

38. Not so much, when you consider that many affiliations and lack thereof have no symbols,

and this tactic of "let everybody put up their own symbol" is purposely exclusionary. And where is all the space and the money going to come from for all of those various religious symbols that are theoretically going to be added?

[humblebum]

41. They may not all have symbols, but there was a limit to the number

of faiths the victims belonged to. That will never change. And if they didn't have a symbol, their faiths or non-faiths, certainly had names.

[Leontius]

52. If they have no symbols the very fact that no symbols

should be allowed it then follows that only those without symbols are being honored or remembered, therefore excluding all who have symbols ie many religions, groups, etc . So anyone who would be represented by a symbol must cry out against this discrimination and sue to prevent this affront to their rights being infringed by the government in favor of those without symbols. Being forced to see no symbols can only mean state sanctioned anti symbolism has occurred.

[darkstar3]

35. Why specifically recognize faith at all in this manner?

Why not a memorial completely devoid of religious overtones, which would then be more inclusive by definition?

[LaurenG]

37. That would work too. nt

[humblebum]

42. Oh. You mean one that only represents secularism? Some

would consider it as such, myself included.

[Kurmudgeon]

71. I can tell you didn't really read the article, but I expect you know that.

[LaurenG]

85. Yes I read it after I commented I messed up on this one. nt

typo

[backscatter712]

40. ... and many of the dead would consider it disrespectful.

If you were Jewish, Muslim or atheist, would you want some dumbass sticking a cross up over your memorial?

And this is why the government needs to stay 100% out of the religion business entirely.

[humblebum]

43. Fortunately, we do have a constitutional freedom of religion in the US, NOT

an absolute separation of C&S as some would attempt to portray the situation. Atheism is also covered under the free exercise clause.

[backscatter712]

44. We do have a strong separation of church and state.

You want to practice religion, and put up religious symbols? Do it on private time and private dime. The WTC site is owned by the state, and any religious symbols erected, especially religious symbols put up while other religious symbols are excluded, constitute a state endorsement of religion, which is explicitly prohibited by the First Amendment.

How would you like it if people pulled a bent, curved piece of girder, erected it as a Muslim crescent, and got the government to endorse it?

Like I said, government must stay completely out of the religion business.

[humblebum]

45. "explicitly prohibited by the First Amendment" - where? Do you

realize that there are religious symbols in and on the nation's Capitol and other government buildings, in veterans' cemeteries and monuments. No national religion has ever been established, and the free exercise clause does not stipulate public or private locations. The phrase "free exercise" is quite explicit. It means FREE - with out restrictions. So again I ask you where is it prohibited?

[Goblinmonger]

49. The symbols at the Captiol

are not exclusive and any that might be would not be allowed now. The SCOTUS chambers have many different religions represented in the tableau of the history of law. That's different and you know it. The symbols in veterans' cemeteries are put there at the request of the families not required by the government.

[humblebum]

51. We'll just see how it works out, but you are rationalizing about

the symbols at the Captiol and at Veterans cemeteries. And the language of the Constitution has never changed, nor the documents used to determine their original intent. It would take a constitutional amendment Nowhere is there an absolute separation.
However, I do agree that other symbols representing the faiths of non-Christian victims should be displayed. The cross does not and cannot represent all of the victims. But all religions and non-religions can be accomodated. Your scenario of absolute separation does not exist and never has in this country.

[Goblinmonger]

58. So you're a strict constructionalist?

Things are making more sense, now. Yes, the language of the Constitution has not changed. Are you saying that the interpretation of the document has not changed in over 200 years? Not every justice is a strict constructionalist (thank god). Hope you feel good being in the same arena of your Constitutional interpretation as Scalia.

1. Veterans' Cemeteries: Not a rationalization. The government doesn't put that symbol there. They give the family the option. You don't have to put a symbol on the marker if you don't want to.

2. Capitol symbols: All of the ones I know of are there for historical and not religious purposes. I admittedly hedged my bets because I clearly don't know of every single religious symbol in D.C. and didn't want this to be some pissing match of "what about this one."

I'm glad we agree on what should be displayed.

Jefferson and, more importantly, Madison did want a complete separation. That is in the documents that we use to determine original intent. Madison made it pretty clear during the convention (he didn't even want ministers to be able to hold federal office because that would result in the government paying a salary to a religious figure).

[humblebum]

62. What you are calling a rationalization is indeed that, because

the fact remains that those permanent symbols are there. And, as far as being a strict constructionalist, it is only a label and nothing more, and the Constitution has always been interpreted and reinterpreted within the context of the times. However, the words of the original have never been changed and "free" still means free. I realize that you would like to see a world devoid of religious symbolism (and religion itself), but that would itself be a symbol and a monument to materialism and non-religion.

As far as original intent, your investigation needs to go way beyond Madison and Jefferson, and single quotations from either man, because there are many, many other sources that contradict your assertions and they must be taken as a whole.

[Goblinmonger]

64. But you seem to think the reintepretation of the Constitution

is not a good thing. I couldn't give two shits about religion in society. It bothers me when government pushes it.

You do know that Madison wrote the constitution, right? His viewpoint is pretty important in this. And the vast majority of the framers were on his side as to separating church and state.

[humblebum]

66. Madison penned the Constitution, but to say that he wrote it, as

if it was a product of his mind, is a falsehood. And you do realize that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, right? So if absolute separation was their true intent, why did they not include "absolute separation" in their writings?

You seem to have a very skewed and limited view of what transpired during the Constitutional Convention and the process of ratification that followed. From that viewpoint it is easily seen that their main concern was to avoid an established state religion, as was common in Europe at the time. Religion was extremely active in the Colonies and the early states that followed, which is clearly evident from physical artifacts and documents. What is also clear is that people were free to choose a particular religion.

Madison was a master at compromise. That was one of his main strengths as a statesman. He was a true federalist as was evident in his writings as "Publius" and a strong ally of Hamilton, but neither man favored a written bill of rights. However, they were forced to add it as a compromise for ratification. Madison broke ranks with Hamilton later on.

[Goblinmonger]

67. Federalism is from the mind of Madison

Show me otherwise.

So is this argument limited to the constitution only or are we, as you indicated earlier, going to other documents to get to intent. No, that phrase isn't in the constitution itself, but Jefferson said it and Madison indicated very clearly he believed in it in the federalist papers.

You are wrong about my understanding of the Constitutional Convention understanding. I've read the Federalist Papers a couple times. I have read a good deal of Madison's writings outside the Papers. And the "free to choose a particular religion" is, quite frankly, a joke. the early states under the Articles had several very striking instances of state-sponsored religions to the extent that those that weren't members of that religion were run out of the state. THAT, in addition to what happened in England, is what the founders wanted to avoid. Stop acting like everything was great without the first amendment.

Madison and Hamilton were not that strong of ally's very early on. They had very different views. Hamilton was much more in favor of a strong central government than Madison. Madison didn't feel we needed a bill of rights because everything in it was obvious in the original document. He felt writing it down would make it so that people had fewer rights.

[humblebum]

68. Hamilton and Madison were BOTH Publius, which indicates that

they were both "on the same page" politically, and anyone who tells me that Madison wrote the Constitution pretty much reveals their ignorance. Also, Jefferson was not even in the country during the Constitutional Convention.

[Goblinmonger]

77. Yes, but we know who wrote which one at this point.

Hamilton was much more strong central government than Madison.

So show me that Federalism wasn't the brain child of Madison.

I know Jefferson wasn't there, but certainly he echoes the views of many that were when he puts into words the separation.

[humblebum]

82. We have known who wrote what for a very long time. What's your point?

And "Federalism wasn't the brain child of Madison"? Madison did not invent the idea of federalism if that's what you are insinuating. However, he and Randolph did write the Virginia plan, which laid out much of the groundwork for the finished Constitution. And, his version of federalism was definitely unique.

And where did I ever say that "everything was great without the first amendment?"

[Kurmudgeon]

72. Radical atheists just want to muzzle everyone not like them, be ready for it.

[darkstar3]

76. The projection...it blinds...

[Goblinmonger]

78. The quotation you gave above doesn't indicate that

And you never really answered why you claim that when the atheists are the ones fighting for all other religions while you, clearly, only want Christianity included.

[trotsky]

84. Really?

"The atheist group is demanding that unless other faiths also be allowed to post up their religious symbols inside the memorial, the WTC cross should be removed."

Yup, sure sounds like they want to muzzle everyone. NOT.

[Leontius]

53. Actually the site is owned by an individual . I believe he paid

a lot of money to own it.

[backscatter712]

54. The site is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

That's a bi-state port district - it's a local government. It's not privately owned.

[Leontius]

55. Sorry about that, the ' leaseholder' is a private individual.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Very tacky and very insulting, but I don't see how it forces their beliefs

Just shows them as elitist bigots as all extremists are, be they christian, muslim, atheist or jew.

[moobu2]

50. This is no different than one of them finding a mildew stain

From a leaky roof or a knot on a tree trunk and claiming it’s a miraculous image of Mary or Jesus. I mean, every girder in both towers had dozens and dozens of cross sections bolted together which means there were thousands and thousands of potential Jesus crosses and so one, maybe more, cross sections landed on the ground intact...This is supposed to be miraculous? Why didn't baby Jesus just stop the planes in flight and land them like a feather unharmed? Now I could go for a miracle like that but not this, this is stupidity. If I were a Christian, I would be embarrassed.

[laconicsax]

56. It was God's will that the buildings were built like that.

That way, when 3000 people were killed in His name, the wreckage would have a sign of His eternal Glory.

Doesn't make sense? Well that's just because God works in mysterious ways. Knowing the outcome ahead of time doesn't mean that the game is fixed and stuff.

[trotsky]

57. "If I were a Christian, I would be embarrassed."

That pretty much nails it on the head right there. Sad that so many liberal Christians are A-OK with it.

[Kurmudgeon]

73. That a piece of a building looks like a cross and is used in a memorial? Reallly?

[Goblinmonger]

80. To the exclusion of all other faiths?

Yep.

And, no, I'm not going to let it go until you address it.

[trotsky]

83. Yep.

Embarrassed.

[drakonyx]

81. Didn't you hear?

We're a "Christian nation." *choke, choke*