I suppose all the gay-rights lawsuits were frivolous too? Bigoted pieces of s***...

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Religious fundamentalism is and was the cause of the terrible assault against our country of 9/11. We do not need another fundamentalist religious cult group, to raise the flag of the religious faith they believe in.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I may be in the minority here, but I agree that this case does detract from many more serious cases of infringement of the separation of church and state. We are not winning anyone to our side with this one. And yes, I am an atheist. If you read the article she is not railing against atheists, or the separation of church and state, just this specific case.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Suits are only frivolous if you are against them. The Christian right pushes just as hard as the Islamist extremists, to destroy democracy and establish a theocracy. They’re not even clever enough to disguise what they’re up to.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agree with Dana. I don’t believe this is worth fighting about. I mentioned elsewhere, there are probably any number of examples of honor and courage motivated by plain old human solidarity already on display in the museum. That they aren’t so ostentatious that people would recognize them as such simply isn’t our problem.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m sorry but I have to agree with Dana and the author of this article.  As she mentioned, it’s not being displayed out front…it’s an exhibit.  I feel that if all religious symbols and ideals were displayed in such a manner, as a work of art: something to be appreciated rather than blindly worshipped; then I feel most people wouldn’t have a problem with it.  And trust me, as far as the religious right is concerned I’m even worse than an athiest.  I’m a heretic, in that even if there was a slim possibility an omnipotent omniscient diety in the sky could exist I still would have nothing to do with him.  But one still can’t deny what’s evoked by some of this symbolism.  Personally, no images of a virgin birth or a personal savior come to mind, but I do see courage and hope in the face of oppression and despite perilous odds.  Under the circumstances, if you can find a better one I welcome you to submit it to be an exhibit as well, and if possible I will vote to see it there.  But christian nation or not (preferably not actually) I feel this particular cross represents us as a people, the american people, who will persevere regardless of what you throw at us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with the author as well.  They found it in there, yes its of religious significance, but it has direct meaning to the event.  It would be much different to display it at the entrance, as mentioned, or erect a different cross with no significance to the tragedy.  There really isn’t anything wrong here, and it definitely detracts from bigger issues.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with this. I was sad when i saw it. Want something to worry about when it comes to religion? Pick up a newspaper, this doesn’t rate.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m agree with the author here. It’s a shame that this is what American Atheists are latching onto. First of all, they didn’t happen to find a star of David made from beams in the rubble, nor did they find a Buddha in the rubble made out of beams.

I think this is nitpicking where there are much more pressing matters to be focusing on, such as state funding for religious institutions and pseudoscience making a comeback into our childrens’ curriculum.

I am a staunch non-believer and I have to say that this is a misappropriation of the American Atheists’ funds.  Fight the good fight, let the rest go.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Agree with all the most recent posts.  To the early posters—if you’re not familiar with who the author, Susan Jacoby, is, then you should be.  She’s probably more on your side than you are.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am not a US citizen, so here are my ‘unbiased’ thoughts:
1) The cross is a highly ironic artifact. It shows how the christian god failed to protect his flock. It’s pathetic.
2) Who draws the line that separates frivolous from not frivolous? When does a minor issue become a major one ?
3) Cry wolf does not apply. There is a wolf, albeit a small one. Is it frivolous to cry when the small wolf just eats a leg of a sick sheep?
4) America is the land of the lawsuits, so USE IT and defend the rights you still have.
5) The message is CLEAR: We are a christian country! Look at what the infidels did! We will not rest!
6) Today is a cross. Whats next? From inch to inch, they will gain ground if somebody let them.
So, wrong is wrong, and you should protest even if its a “small” wrong…
7)  Another thing: Imagine for a second that if it was not the cross, but a “crescent moon”. Would the lawsuit be less ‘frivolous’ then? Wouldn’t the christians cry loudly and say it’s an absurd? Would they say: we don’t like, but the constitution first ???

Regards.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m encouraged that others here are not taking a knee jerk “religious symbols have to go” attitude. We shouldn’t be trying to use the State to strike religion from our culture, and that should hold true even when the State involves itself in cultural matters.

It’s a tricky proposition when the State gets involved in cultural matters. I don’t agree with the author’s objection to faith based organizations receiving money for social spending on the same terms that other social groups would. I don’t see how helping to fund a soup kitchen in a church is a violation of the first amendment anymore than paving the road to the church. Similarly, parents who choose to send their children to a church affiliated school shouldn’t have less rights and less financial support than parents who want their kids to go to a completely secular school.

The guiding principle should be government neutrality, and reasonable accommodation for both believers and unbelievers. Christians should have the same rights as Atheists, Communists, Environmentalists, and Wiccans; no more, and no less.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

sergio, I don’t want to come off condescending, but if your only motivation for being against religion is anger then you’re not really doing this movement much of a favor.  As I mentioned before, I’m probably amongst the most avid protestors to religion in general, but I’m also a huge advocate of freedom, especially in expression.  But in the spirit of fairness I’ll address each of you points and note why they’re not neccessarily wrong, but essentially irrelevant to the topic at hand.

1. That’s an opinion.  And whereas everyone’s entitled to one in doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all.  I, for example, find our nations crippling dependancy on fast food pathetic but it’s no reason to outlaw McDonalds.

2.  Welcome to every lawsuit ever made.  Most murderer’s feel they kill out of some form of necessity, and some even have legitimate reasons to do so.  That’s why we have trials and discussion, to find out exactly what’s worth addressing and what exactly under the circumstances is actually fair.  Everything is relative.

3.  Good point, but does that suggest that we should systematically slaughter all wolves?  If not, where do we draw the line.  See the answer above.

4.  It’s also the land of frivilous lawsuits…where somebody attempted to sue starbucks because their coffee was too hot.  The athiestic movement won’t get anywhere if it destroys all its credibility with frivilous lawsuits.  All that’ll do is polarize this movement and push everyone further away. 

5.  Once again, an opinion.  I’ve already mentioned how I feel about the peice, and gathered nothing that you did from it.  It’s displayed in a museum.  There are thousands of “religious” peices in museums all around the world.  There are even more that people interpret as religious that have no discernable markings suggesting so.  But at the end of the day, what you choose to interpret in a peice of art is your own perogative. 

6.  Technically, the slippery slope arguement really shouldn’t need to be addressed anymore.  I can’t tell you how tired I am of hearing it.  At the end of the day, I sincerely doubt your the expert to consult on causality.  Wrong is wrong.  But there will always be wrong and you can’t ever hope to fight every single battle as far as that’s concerned.  You’ve got to pick your battles, preferably the one’s you know you can win but even if you’re going to lose you should at least pick one worth fighting.  Sending 300 men into battle to recover a bullet from behind enemy lines is somewhat superfluous (hyperbole, but the point still stands)

7.  That’s somewhat the point.  Every one of these religions is just as rediculous as the next and probably 10 times as rediculous as any religion that’s come and died before.  So, would christians have a field day with the concept of a cresent moon instead…yes.  And they have, more or less (see ground zero mosque).  But will I?  No…not so long as you seek the proper avenue for advocating it.  And neither should anyone else.  It may be nonsensical and essentially useless but so is television.  Should we put a ban on that too?

Like I said, I’m avidly against religion.  And as such, will not raise my children to be religious,  I literally refuse.  And I will continue to vote against anyone who proposes any slight join or church and state.  And I will continue to speak freely against religion and pull people to our side (which I feel should be the ultimate goal).  But as in everything else you have to pick your battles.  Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

...btw, buybuydandavis…I will get to you late -_-

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi SINthetic,
Yes, those points were just my opinion. I am sincerely just throwing out some thoughts and see what others think. It’s not just black & white.
I would not take the effort to fill this lawsuit, but I would not object if someone did.
So, the ‘frivolity level’ of the lawsuit is also an opinion, we are in a greay area.
Regards.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

hey sergio,
thanks for allowing our little civil discourse.  As you mentioned, it was your opinion and therefore I don’t find anything you said to be particularly wrong and even encourage even the most outrageous opinions to at least be express.  I don’t feel yours particularly fits under that category, in fact, in my more passionate moments I would find myself agreeing with most of what you said.  But I digress…

buybuydandavis, I agree with most of what you said, especially neutrality when it comes to the states involvement with cultural affairs.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case as it stands in this country.  For one, just being a church makes you exempt from taxes.  May not seem like a big deal when compared to non-profits serving soup to the poor but when televangelists are also extended the same priviledges while raking in millions to fund those gaudy ostentateous temples (which I find to be somewhat hypocritical considering jesus was a poor carpenter) so their hordes of brainwashed lemmings can shovel fistfuls of their hard earned cash back into these monoliths it’s not quite the same.  Then you have this huge influx of voodoo priests in New York who conduct dangerous and often deadly rituals with no supervision or any real training but somehow aren’t ever legally repremanded while someone can be sued for practicing cpr without proper licensing.  And that’s not even to mention the unnumerous crimes committed at and on the behalf of the vatican for which no legal recourse can ever be sought because they’ve somehow achieved a level of “diplomatic immunity” (I’m calling hax on that…).  Granted, the latter isn’t within the jurisdiction of our government but you get the idea.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

(cont.)
bottom line is, I sincerely doubt you’d ever see an athiest extended similar priviledges simply for not believing.  In any case, keep the discourse coming…I love debate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There are plenty of “non-profits” with plenty of wealth. Religious ones should have the same rights as others, including televangelists.

I’m a little puzzled by your complaint about untrained voodoo priests. Do you want govt. voodoo certification? I assume they can be civilly sued by an unhappy “customer” as easily as anyone else could. Proving voodoo malpractice might be a trick, but I assume you can sue them. It’s just that their brainwashed zombies don’t choose to.

And I agree that the lack of prosecution for priestly pederasts, torturers and rapists is clearly a case of not applying the law without bias. They should apply the law without bias. That’s what I’m saying.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

my point is not that non-profits don’t accumulate wealth as well, but they at least have to argue that they’re helping people somehow.  I suppose one could argue that these religious groups do as well but I’m not entirely convinced that they are helping anyone.  At least, not simply by suggesting that others be religious so they can donate more money to the church, which is pretty much all I’ve seen these televangelists do.  As a non-believer I find the very prospect of someone offering my religion as “help” offensive and I think you probably should as well.

and as for the priests, you would think so.  But largely on the whole, the cases are thrown out of court unless there can be made a case of child abuse or neglect.  Do I want govt. regulation on voodoo…yes.  But that would probably wind up with the outright abolition of voodoo considering there’s no reason to suggest their practice does anything but entertain children and moviegoers, which I’m not wholeheartedly against.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As an online retailer on brand s shoes, we are specialize in ugg boot for customer. In our online store here, you can choose your favourite ugg boots at any sizes with any colours.The ugg classic mini boot is not water resistant. The boots is easy to wear for its short design and flexible molded EVA outsole particular attention.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Count me as one of those who agree with the author.  I think this is an unwise use of energy and resources.  There are many more concerning battles to fight, like the upcoming Rick Perry prayer day thing for example.  This is making us come across as petty and insensitive.  Hell, Jon Stewart even did a whole segment on it last night calling us “dicks”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

That having been said, anytime the debate becomes headline news it’s a good thing.  Because the result is inevitable.  Eventually common sense and reason wins out.  You can’t possibly take a critical look at the bible, especially in the setting of all other religions throughout antiquity, and say “this must be a true story.”  It’s when people aren’t spending time thinking about it that you have a problem.  When they just kind of roll with what they were told by their parents, and assume that because everyone around them is xtian that it must be rigt somehow.  Maybe the shock value of this story isn’t such a bad thing after all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

SInthetic:

The people going to churches think it helps them. The people who join non profit Atheist groups thinks it helps them. I don’t want to government to be deciding who is “really” getting helped.

Same with Voodoo licensing, Atheist licensing, or Christian licensing. If the government gets to decide, we’ll be the first ones screwed.

And we agree - priests should be held accountable as much as anyone else for raping children.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This part of the article stands out to me:

“Yes, it would be a violation of the establishment clause if the battered cross-shaped object were displayed at the entrance as the museum’s official symbol. And I’d be the first to go to court to get it removed. But there is no evidence that the museum intends this piece, when the building opens, to be anything but one exhibit in a large collection that will include many other objects belonging to the history of that day and its aftermath. It is now being installed in an underground section of the future museum.”

From the sound of it, the cross is just a piece of a puzzle and not the symbol of the museum. As long as it is just a document of the events and a history of how certain people felt on that day (which is undeniable) then I don’t have a problem with it. Some people will likely take it too far, but I don’t see it being shoved down anyone’s throat.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

buybuydandavis,
I can get behind that sentiment somewhat…but when it comes to practicing medicine I’d want the practioner liscenced in some manner or another.  Whether we agree that the government is actually the right place for that to be done is all together a different issue.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.