Who is in the wrong?

[Rumblestiltskin]

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

Dieu des hommes

That depends on whether the atheists are equally allowed to erect a statue/sculpture in a public area. If they are, then the atheists are just being little Dawkins bumming ninnies. If they aren't, then fair enough with the whole protesting.

The "monument" in question is debris found from the WTC in the shape of a cross (which isn't anything unusual, considering that, with the way the building was constructed, there are probably plenty of t-shaped pieces of debris...so it's not like this one is special or anything), and it's being put on display on public property to serve as a memorial to those who died...even though not all of them were christian, which is the only reason anyone sees any special meaning behind the debris. So it's kind of insulting to those who died who didn't share these beliefs...which is part of the reason atheists are protesting.

It's also being displayed on, if I'm not mistaken, private property. And the atheists aren't only protesting the cross, they're also protesting the other religious monuments placed by other faith groups. They were offered equal space and equal representation. They chose instead to claim that since their religious viewpoint dictated that no religious items be shown, the world had to bow to their individual religious stance.

I couldn't find where it says if it's being built on public or private land, but it IS being backed by the government...which they aren't supposed to do. And part of the lawsuit is a clause that if the monument isn't taken down, that they have equal representation... Here's the article I'm getting the information from.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Dieu des hommes

That depends on whether the atheists are equally allowed to erect a statue/sculpture in a public area. If they are, then the atheists are just being little Dawkins bumming ninnies. If they aren't, then fair enough with the whole protesting.

Atheists are arguing for a public area to be free of religious agendas of all types, as public land which belongs to the government ought to be secular in the same manner that the constitution is secular.

[Lightning the Lulu]

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

Dieu des hommes

That depends on whether the atheists are equally allowed to erect a statue/sculpture in a public area. If they are, then the atheists are just being little Dawkins bumming ninnies. If they aren't, then fair enough with the whole protesting.

The "monument" in question is debris found from the WTC in the shape of a cross (which isn't anything unusual, considering that, with the way the building was constructed, there are probably plenty of t-shaped pieces of debris...so it's not like this one is special or anything), and it's being put on display on public property to serve as a memorial to those who died...even though not all of them were christian, which is the only reason anyone sees any special meaning behind the debris. So it's kind of insulting to those who died who didn't share these beliefs...which is part of the reason atheists are protesting.

It's also being displayed on, if I'm not mistaken, private property. And the atheists aren't only protesting the cross, they're also protesting the other religious monuments placed by other faith groups. They were offered equal space and equal representation. They chose instead to claim that since their religious viewpoint dictated that no religious items be shown, the world had to bow to their individual religious stance.

I couldn't find where it says if it's being built on public or private land, but it IS being backed by the government...which they aren't supposed to do. And part of the lawsuit is a clause that if the monument isn't taken down, that they have equal representation... Here's the article I'm getting the information from.

If they'd taken another part of the debris and used it for the memorial it wouldn't be an issue at all. It's the fact that it's being presented as representative of a particular god's intervention and gee, that god didn't bother to stop the planes so I cannot imagine why anybody would want a reminder of that religion. What is so hard to understand here? wink

[Bubblehead0987654321]

Shiurra

If a christian group wants to erect in a public area and a atheist group protest, is it christians forcings their views on others or atheists forcing their views on christians?

Sorry for the weird wording. If you want a more specific example, look up the "9/11 Miracle Cross" and that controversy.

Honestly, neither are forcing. If a christian group does pop up in a public area well be it. Let them. They r not forcing views to anyone. People will then come to it. Now, if they force religion to people not believing in christaintity like u must read the bible, u must believe in god, u must go to church, or u will go to hell, then that is a big no no on their part. That is what I consider my belief of forcing a view. Now, Atheists should not protest if a group does pop up. If they want to, fine, let them do it. Now if they would start to force their views then i would understand. Atheists would not be forcing their view unless they are forcing like God is fake, Jesus is invisible, you are crazy to even believe this, then they r forcing their views. But, u might just have people that are not like either of those and just go peacefully on their way to their own religion and their own view. If they would stick to their own view and religion, the world would be better, but u have those crazy lunatic Christians and Atheists that take it to the extreme.

[Bubblehead0987654321]

XxTheVeganVampirexX

ErroneousPsyche

Why do the Christians need to erect the cross on public property? They can't do it on their church property?

Beats me. Maybe because some of them think that Christianity isn't out there enough? They now need to take it out of the churches and into the streets? In every corner?

Crosses are quite the eye-sore.

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Bubblehead0987654321

XxTheVeganVampirexX

ErroneousPsyche

Why do the Christians need to erect the cross on public property? They can't do it on their church property?

Beats me. Maybe because some of them think that Christianity isn't out there enough? They now need to take it out of the churches and into the streets? In every corner?

Crosses are quite the eye-sore.

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

There are still street preachers today. You can usually find one on college campuses.

[brother_edward]

The Legendary Guest

brother_edward

The Legendary Guest

brother_edward

The Legendary Guest

Irrelevant. Christians are not the ONLY tax payers and as such, should not be the ONLY ones represented.

That's not irrelevant at all. And your counter simply means that every religious group should have an equal opportunity to pay for their own monument.

Paying taxes does not entitle anyone to place monuments on public property; therefore the payment of taxes is irrelevant to the issue of placing monuments, specifically. If every religious group placed a monument at every site, there would be have to be an extra plot of special land purchased just to give every religion known to be practiced by an American tax payer equal representation, or did you think only Abrahamic religions counted? Do you have any idea how many gods there are?

If it is public property, it is for public use. Members of the general public hold religious convictions. It's really quite simple.

Members of the general public hold conflicting religious views, therefore public areas, which are not owned by the general public but by the government, should not represent the interests of one religious group over another, as that is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

That is also quite simple, unless one is pushing a particular agenda. Religious people have private homes and houses of worship in which to display whatever they like, and that right cannot be taken from them either, and I would not want it to be.

"The Government" can not own property at a federal level. That power is not given by the Constitution except in the cases of legislative buildings and military forts, and must happen with the consent of State legislature. States can, but that still makes all state property the property of the tax-paying citizens of that state who allow it for the betterment of that state (Art I, Sect. 8, Clause 17).

And the Constitution protects the "Free Exercise of Religion", not "worshiping inside a building where it won't offend anyone's delicate eyes" (First Amendment.) And, as I've said, all who desire it must be provided with equal representation.

[brother_edward]

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

If it is public property, it is for public use. Members of the general public hold religious convictions. It's really quite simple.

Having "religious convictions" does not grant you special rights over everyone else...and having the government set aside land specifically for your religion is government showing favoritism to a certain group of the population...which it isn't supposed to do.

Correct. It grants me equal rights with everyone else. And the land is public. I am a member of the public. Therefore, if I and other members of my faith wish to put up a monument expressing our religious sentiments, we are able to do so. And the government has no right to stop us, so long as we and noone else prevent anyone else from having equal use of that land.

Your "I'm part of the public" bullshit is not a valid argument, because the government has to give PERMISSION to build these things on public property. And giving permission to only one group of people is not something the government is supposed to be doing. It's like someone setting up a cupcake stand, handing out free cupcakes to everybody...except for the people they don't want to have cupcakes. Your argument is like saying "well, they can have cupcakes...just not these cupcakes." If you're picking and choosing who gets the land, then it isn't for the public...

"The Government" has no authority to control any land other than legislative buildings, military forts, docks and the like. As such, we as citizens of a free nation, are free to exercise our religions as we see fit on our land. This country belongs to us, not men in fine suits in Washington.

And you don't seem to be picking up what I'm laying down. I claim that the land is for everyone's use. You claim that it can only be used by people not expressing their religion. So which of us does your little cupcake analogy really represent?

[brother_edward]

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

Dieu des hommes

That depends on whether the atheists are equally allowed to erect a statue/sculpture in a public area. If they are, then the atheists are just being little Dawkins bumming ninnies. If they aren't, then fair enough with the whole protesting.

The "monument" in question is debris found from the WTC in the shape of a cross (which isn't anything unusual, considering that, with the way the building was constructed, there are probably plenty of t-shaped pieces of debris...so it's not like this one is special or anything), and it's being put on display on public property to serve as a memorial to those who died...even though not all of them were christian, which is the only reason anyone sees any special meaning behind the debris. So it's kind of insulting to those who died who didn't share these beliefs...which is part of the reason atheists are protesting.

It's also being displayed on, if I'm not mistaken, private property. And the atheists aren't only protesting the cross, they're also protesting the other religious monuments placed by other faith groups. They were offered equal space and equal representation. They chose instead to claim that since their religious viewpoint dictated that no religious items be shown, the world had to bow to their individual religious stance.

I couldn't find where it says if it's being built on public or private land, but it IS being backed by the government...which they aren't supposed to do. And part of the lawsuit is a clause that if the monument isn't taken down, that they have equal representation... Here's the article I'm getting the information from.

The WTC museum, as was the WTC itself, is built on private property. And what they claim and what they are exercising are two different things. They are suing to have the cross removed, not to have a spot next to it.

[Rumblestiltskin]

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

Dieu des hommes

That depends on whether the atheists are equally allowed to erect a statue/sculpture in a public area. If they are, then the atheists are just being little Dawkins bumming ninnies. If they aren't, then fair enough with the whole protesting.

The "monument" in question is debris found from the WTC in the shape of a cross (which isn't anything unusual, considering that, with the way the building was constructed, there are probably plenty of t-shaped pieces of debris...so it's not like this one is special or anything), and it's being put on display on public property to serve as a memorial to those who died...even though not all of them were christian, which is the only reason anyone sees any special meaning behind the debris. So it's kind of insulting to those who died who didn't share these beliefs...which is part of the reason atheists are protesting.

It's also being displayed on, if I'm not mistaken, private property. And the atheists aren't only protesting the cross, they're also protesting the other religious monuments placed by other faith groups. They were offered equal space and equal representation. They chose instead to claim that since their religious viewpoint dictated that no religious items be shown, the world had to bow to their individual religious stance.

I couldn't find where it says if it's being built on public or private land, but it IS being backed by the government...which they aren't supposed to do. And part of the lawsuit is a clause that if the monument isn't taken down, that they have equal representation... Here's the article I'm getting the information from.

The WTC museum, as was the WTC itself, is built on private property. And what they claim and what they are exercising are two different things. They are suing to have the cross removed, not to have a spot next to it.

And according to the article that I just gave you, both of the things you've stated are not correct. Are you just going to keep asserting things, or do you actually have anything that backs up what you're saying?

[Rumblestiltskin]

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

Rumblestiltskin

brother_edward

If it is public property, it is for public use. Members of the general public hold religious convictions. It's really quite simple.

Having "religious convictions" does not grant you special rights over everyone else...and having the government set aside land specifically for your religion is government showing favoritism to a certain group of the population...which it isn't supposed to do.

Correct. It grants me equal rights with everyone else. And the land is public. I am a member of the public. Therefore, if I and other members of my faith wish to put up a monument expressing our religious sentiments, we are able to do so. And the government has no right to stop us, so long as we and noone else prevent anyone else from having equal use of that land.

Your "I'm part of the public" bullshit is not a valid argument, because the government has to give PERMISSION to build these things on public property. And giving permission to only one group of people is not something the government is supposed to be doing. It's like someone setting up a cupcake stand, handing out free cupcakes to everybody...except for the people they don't want to have cupcakes. Your argument is like saying "well, they can have cupcakes...just not these cupcakes." If you're picking and choosing who gets the land, then it isn't for the public...

"The Government" has no authority to control any land other than legislative buildings, military forts, docks and the like. As such, we as citizens of a free nation, are free to exercise our religions as we see fit on our land. This country belongs to us, not men in fine suits in Washington.

And you don't seem to be picking up what I'm laying down. I claim that the land is for everyone's use. You claim that it can only be used by people not expressing their religion. So which of us does your little cupcake analogy really represent?

The government can't tell you what to do with YOUR property. PUBLIC property, on the other hand, they are responsible for. And they aren't allowed to only give the benefits of the land to one group over another...

And that's not what I'm claiming. What I said was that the government can't show favoritism to a group...That is not the same as telling people they can't express their religion...and the fact that you're misconstruing what I've said into that is very dishonest of you. So in the cupcake analogy, I'd be the guy saying "hey, those cupcakes are for everyone"...and you'd be the guy going "well, they are" while blatantly ignoring the favoritism being shown...

[VeganIncubus]

Bubblehead0987654321

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

arrow Isn't there a passage that talks about praying in private? I think it's Matthew 6:6

arrow We'll have people on campus from local churches, and even our own clubs stopping people to give them literature or ask them whether they've heard the good news or stuff like that. It doesn't make me hate Christians as a whole, but makes me annoyed at some of them.

[Bubblehead0987654321]

Rumblestiltskin

Bubblehead0987654321

XxTheVeganVampirexX

ErroneousPsyche

Why do the Christians need to erect the cross on public property? They can't do it on their church property?

Beats me. Maybe because some of them think that Christianity isn't out there enough? They now need to take it out of the churches and into the streets? In every corner?

Crosses are quite the eye-sore.

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

There are still street preachers today. You can usually find one on college campuses.

On many colleges, there is usually, usually, a church or a christain group within the campus but not always. Still, preachers should not be doing that, unless they are just sharing their views. Then it is okish.

[Bubblehead0987654321]

XxTheVeganVampirexX

Bubblehead0987654321

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

arrow Isn't there a passage that talks about praying in private? I think it's Matthew 6:6

arrow We'll have people on campus from local churches, and even our own clubs stopping people to give them literature or ask them whether they've heard the good news or stuff like that. It doesn't make me hate Christians as a whole, but makes me annoyed at some of them.

I understand the annoyance of preachers, preaching to others in public areas. I too would find it annoying and I am part of the Christain religion. I just go to a small church group that does some volunteer work for activities but we don't give out fliers, teach others the word of god, or nay of that stuff. Praying privately is part, I can't remember where, but as long as they don't pray in public, outside the church or house or wherever they pray, is considered bad but not many christains will do anything about it. It is very annoying with them.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Bubblehead0987654321

Rumblestiltskin

Bubblehead0987654321

XxTheVeganVampirexX

ErroneousPsyche

Why do the Christians need to erect the cross on public property? They can't do it on their church property?

Beats me. Maybe because some of them think that Christianity isn't out there enough? They now need to take it out of the churches and into the streets? In every corner?

Crosses are quite the eye-sore.

Preachers use to do that, preach on street corners, and people would go and see what they were preaching about. But this was like B.C. Those type of christians though, that do it now, are why many people hate us. They just need to stop, they can talk about religion just not force it.

There are still street preachers today. You can usually find one on college campuses.

On many colleges, there is usually, usually, a church or a christain group within the campus but not always. Still, preachers should not be doing that, unless they are just sharing their views. Then it is okish.

I'm not talking about just church or christian groups. You can usually find a street preacher on a college campus, standing on the corner, shouting to the world about his faith.