reasoning logic
 
  1  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 02:49 pm
@ossobuco,
We could have so many symbols there that the Christians might have a hard time locating their cross!
We could make it a state park and charge admission so that we can get out of this depression!
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 03:30 pm
@Thomas,
In this case, you've made a case for significance of the beams, not of their inclusion in a public memorial. That's not a history re-write. American Atheists aren't saying that people didn't have an emotional connection with one of thousands of iron beams in the WTC on 9/11. They didn't say destroy it either. They even suggested that a church or some other private org might wish to purchase it. AA is not editing history.

Consider that the cross might diminish the site's objective. If the beams are put up and a the site is treated with special Christian privilege, is it really fair to those non-Christians who might wish to visit the memorial to think about their families?

Here's a more direct question: Is there any way that a secular memorial is not superior? If you are a Muslim who wishes to visit the site because of any reason (maybe you lost friends or family on 9/11), do you think the WTC beams represent an equal welcome to you (in contrast to fellow mourners who may be Christian)?

A
R
T
ossobuco
 
  1  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 08:45 pm
This article's photos - plus another that I can't manage to snag a link for that shows an rendering of how the site will look with the many trees at mature growth, makes me definite that I don't want to see symbols other than the water spaces at the memorial itself:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576433991754894976.html?mod=new_york_newsreel#articleTabs%3Darticle

Whether the Steel Beam crucifix would be one of the items in the Memorial Museum, I can see my opinion going either way. Haven't seen a photo of the museum yet.

I read an article somewhere recently talking about the years of work Michael Arad and Peter Walker have put into how the design (Arad's) could be worked out (Walker's help - he's a big time land arch). Will post that, probably more appropriately on a separate thread, once I find it, maybe around the time of the September 11th opening of the Memorial.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 09:01 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
In this case, you've made a case for significance of the beams, not of their inclusion in a public memorial.

It's a 9/11 memorial. Whatever is significant in the 9/11 story is fair game for inclusion in the memorial. As a symbol of resilience and sorrow, the cross deserves the same status as the bruised, but not destroyed, World-Trade-Center globe.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 09:13 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Here's a more direct question: Is there any way that a secular memorial is not superior?

You are assuming that a memorial with that cross in it wouldn't be secular. I disagree with this premise. Including the cross can serve the purpose of telling the story of what happened on the 9/11 site. Telling that story is a perfectly valid secular purpose for the memorial. It doesn't go away just because the cross also carries religious connotations for some.

failures art wrote:
If you are a Muslim who wishes to visit the site because of any reason (maybe you lost friends or family on 9/11), do you think the WTC beams represent an equal welcome to you (in contrast to fellow mourners who may be Christian)?

I can't speak for Muslims, but speaking for myself as an atheist, my answer is "yes". To me it's like visiting a graveyard: The presence of crosses on it doesn't make me feel unwelcome as a visitor, either. I don't expect to feel any different if I visited the 9/11 memorial and it included the cross-shaped steel beam.
failures art
 
  2  
Wed 10 Aug, 2011 09:58 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
You are assuming that a memorial with that cross in it wouldn't be secular.


Quite correct. The selection of these beams is not arbitrary, nor is its aesthetic appealing outside of a religious lens. Very directly, there's nothing secular about it, nor how it came to have special attention.

Why pretend this is secular in any way?

Crosses don't carry religious connotations just "for some." I think that's kind of silly.

I'm sorry, I get the whole idea that this seems unimportant on the grand scale of things, but frankly I can't pretend that this is anything but an attempt for religious special privilege under some social plausible deniability. I feel like at one point you have to put your foot down. 9/11 wasn't a christian tragedy, and feel the cross diminishes the real history, and spirit of the memorial.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  4  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 08:51 pm
Some silliness!

Atheist Sees Image of Big Bang in Piece of Toast
Source
For Immediate Release: Miracle Toast?

(ACPA-london) Excitement is growing in the Northern England town of Huddersfield following news that local atheist Donald Chapman saw an image of the Big-Bang in a piece of toast. In an exclusive interview with "The Huddersfield Express" Chapman, 36, explained that he was sitting down to eat breakfast when an unusual toast pattern caught his eye.

"I was just about to spread the butter when I saw a fairly typical small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring," said Chapman. "Then to my amazement, I noticed the direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs, with their changing shades emanating outwards from the center of the black hole. It was identical to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that followed the Big-Bang. It's the beginning of the world!"
http://www.satireandcomment.com/gallery/publicdomain/tn_toast.jpg
Ever since news of the discovery made national headlines, local hoteliers have been overwhelmed by an influx of atheists from all over the country who have flocked to Huddersfield to catch a glimpse of the scientific relic. "I have always been an Atheist and to see my unbelief validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding," exclaimed one guest at the Huddersfield Arms hotel.

To the surprise of many, the UK Atheist Association has asked its members to ignore the story despite its potential to inspire less faith. "Given what the religious believe already, this is an easy sell," complained one disgruntled activist who said he was going to Huddlesfield anyway noting that "Seeing is not believing".
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 09:09 pm
Ya fooled me. I thought it was an Onion piece.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 4 Sep, 2011 11:35 pm
@hingehead,
Love it!
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 05:45 am
@Thomas,
What's there to love? It's so derivative, unoriginal, banal and stupid that any self-respecting atheist would deplore it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 06:09 am
@spendius,
Would you have the same response if the image was Mother Teresa or Jesus in the toast?
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Sep, 2011 08:39 am
@reasoning logic,
Of course.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  3  
Wed 14 Sep, 2011 06:02 am
We have a show here in Oz called 'The Gruen Transfer' that features a panel of advertising industry insiders being decidedly candid about what advertisers do to manipulate consumers.

A regular section of this show is 'The Pitch' where two advertising companies are asked to come up with a campaign to 'sell the unsellable' - it's usually quite brilliant to see what creative minds can do with bizarre briefs. This season the unsellable ideas are coming from twitter.

Last week's 'unsellable' was to ban all religion.

Let Wil Anderson taking over the story....

spendius
 
  0  
Wed 14 Sep, 2011 06:07 am
@hingehead,
The assumption that they are being "decidedly candid about what advertisers do to manipulate consumers" is laughable.

It's no sweat selling the banning of all religion. You just watch N.Korean TV.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 14 Sep, 2011 06:13 am
Brilliant stuff, Boss . . . thanks for posting that . . .
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 14 Sep, 2011 06:17 am
@Setanta,
It's okay Set. Anything to bring you up to speed.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 06:57 pm
@hingehead,
Interesting video. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
ryoung
 
  2  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 07:21 pm
@littlek,
It isn't all the religous people that prersecute us atheists, just the few fanatics that have nothing better to do then try to make you look bad so they can feel good about themselves and there own beliefs. The same people probably look down on other religions just like they do us. Every group has there extremists that make the rest of them look bad. Every one has the right to believe what ever they want. I have met a few religous fanatics and never had to many problems with them. Most of the time you get as much respect as you dish out.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 16 Sep, 2011 03:20 am
@ryoung,
I don't think people have any right to believe what they want. I can't see how they have a choice in the matter. A belief is a given.

Publicly expressing a belief might or might not be a right. And there is no guarantee that an expressed belief is an actual belief.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Fri 16 Sep, 2011 09:40 am
@spendius,
Well, if people don't have a choice in what they believe, then arguments about rights thereof are moot.
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 293
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/30/2025 at 09:11:11