Atheist Lawsuit Against World Trade Center Cross Makes Me Want to Scream
For this “girder set” became the national symbol of American patriotism, hope, and courage. The cross was the source of strength for millions around the nation (especially those on the ground). It helped them overcome adversity while representing the faith of our Founding Fathers.
Some would say it was pure coincidence that the “girder set” fell to the ground in the shape of the symbol that represents Christ’s suffering.
But many believe that the WTC cross was and still is a divine symbol sent to remind us that HE was in the rubble too, suffering and comforting us as only HE is capable of doing.
Regardless of what you think it meant then or means today, the WTC cross is under attack and must be defended.
While reading about the lawsuit, I was pleased to learn that the conservative American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), where a friend of mine is counsel, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the WTC cross.
Colby M. May is director and senior counsel of the Washington office of the ACLJ, so I sent him an email asking for a quote about the lawsuit.
The following is Colby’s response. He clearly spells out the case and puts the American Atheists in their proper place. We can only hope that the presiding judge agrees that this case needs to be shredded and trashed.
On September 13, 2001, two days after the worst terrorist attacks in American history, New York City firefighter Frank Silecchia discovered two steel beams in the shape of a cross just after recovering three bodies from the rubble of the collapsed World Trade Center. Silecchia told ABC News of his immediate reaction: “I was overwhelmed with the image of my faith… it brought me to tears and to my knees.” Silecchia was not alone in his reaction. Contemporaneous reports are unanimous in recording the immediate and profound effect that the cross had on first responders and rescue workers. This is why the cross is at the “historical exhibition” of the September 11 Memorial museum, where it chronicles not only the recovery and rescue efforts but how we understand “collective grief.” In short, Plaintiffs [American Atheists, Inc.] cannot dispute that the cross is an historical artifact of the September 11 attacks, they cannot dispute that it had significance to many first responders and others at Ground Zero, and they cannot dispute that historical artifacts – even religious artifacts – have long been placed in America’s public museums. Inclusion of the cross is constitutionally appropriate, and by no measure does it establish a state religion.
This September 11, the WTC cross is scheduled to be officially “presented” at the 9/11 memorial museum.
Of course, the American Atheists group is trying to block the presentation. So watch carefully how the mainstream media covers this controversy. Will the same media organizations, usually hostile to overt Christian symbols, now turn into defenders of the WTC cross?
****
More on religion and atheism and miracles at PJ Lifestyle:
This sort of contretemps is causing Amiable Atheists and Agnostics — no, that’s not the name of an organization, though perhaps it should be — to be tarred with the brush of their aggressively militant co-believers. The damage being done to interfaith amity — yes, atheism is a faith, as the proposition “there is no God” can neither be proved nor disproved — is considerable. It will take some time to bind up the wounds.
Unfortunately, not all atheists/agnostics are of the same opinion as you. Most of the ones I’ve talked to through college and in my liberal state (granted, these are of course the vocal ones) will insist that it’s not a belief/faith, but the greater truth of life and therefore, unassailable. Never mind that’s basically the definition of belief.
I agree that positions such as this, taken by people such as that, damage everyone. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why tensions keep building
“will insist that it’s not a belief/faith, but the greater truth of life and therefore, unassailable”
History shows what happens when Atheists INSIST that their personal choice is unassailable..
and I LOVE to stick it in their face…
muslims have atheists as the worst enemy as well.. funny that
Oh, but don’t you know? Stalin and Mao and all the rest of those despotic, atheist mass murderers weren’t really atheist. They can’t really be considered true representatives of atheist philosophy. No true atheist would do the things they did… and on and on and on it goes. Until it sounds exactly like what most religious people say about atrocities committed in the name of their religion.
Except, of course, the atheists forget that religion, generally speaking (and obviously excluding Islam), actually does condemn mass genocide, whereas atheism is a mechanism for enabling it to happen. When people kill in the name of God, it’s a terrible aberration. When people kill in the moral vacuum of atheism, there’s no objective guilt assigned at all – which is exactly why it’s so useful a tool for murderous regimes. Try making an atheist explain how morality is derived in the absence of a higher power, and what prevents it from descending into a morass of “anything goes as long as it benefits me/my subjective good” that can be manipulated to support the most henious of crimes.
That’s usually the point in the conversation when I want to move on, point out that human nature will assert itself no matter what philosophy is imposed upon it, that atheism can obviously be used as a system of control as effectively (if not more so) than religion, cite that South Park episode with the sea otters, and demonstrate that at least religion has mechanisms in place for dealing with the baser impulses of man. Usually, though, said atheist has already stormed off, though. Sad.
I’m a conservative atheist and I’m not a jerk. Ok, so maybe I am a jerk, but I’m not a loud mouthed jerk like these idiots in the lawsuit.
Please remember – being loud and annoying does make them representative of the group.
Though I myself often have doubts (sometimes enough to classify me as an agnostic), I can’t … I cannot … contemplate this great universe of ours, with all its mysterious complexities, without thinking that rationally there could be a greater Being than our small human minds can comprehend. You can call it God, or pure physics, but I believe whatever it is, scientific or metaphysical, it is too large for our so-called advanced but still primate brains.
That aside, the arguments of the avowed atheists are arguably specious. They loudly claim believe There Is No God. This is a belief that is every bit as unprovable as the belief that There Is A God. Don’t give me the scientific facts and explanations. Science has never been able to prove There Is No God, no matter how much atheists wish it were so (and I say this as a total advocate of science). There is or there isn’t a God. No one has been able to say why with any proof.
If iron girders collapsed into the shape of a Christian cross, who has the omnipotence to declare that it was a sign from God, or an accident of physics? Nobody. Let those who believe in either scenario believe.
Here’s the rub: If those who insist they don’t believe in God don’t like an accidental cross of WTC iron girders, what is it to them? I don’t ask how it happened, those are questions of physics. I say, explain why. Chance? Intention? Present proof of either. Let such questioners prove God doesn’t exist, that it’s just a random incidence of collapsed iron. Let those who believe in God see it as a sign from God that he blesses the death of innocents, and takes them into heaven, whatever religious path they chose, or even none. Show me proof that transcends what we understand about the cosmos.
Atheism is not a belief nor a faith. Atheism is not the belief that no gods exist but the rejection of positive claims concerning the existence of gods. In the same way, not believing in Santa is not a belief. Not believing the Locke Ness monster is not a belief. Not holding a belief is not faith since faith is holding a belief without evidence. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be held on faith.
Theism/atheism deals with the proposition a god/gods exist. Similarly, during a trial the jury is ask to declare guilty or not guilty (and not innocent). You need evidence to declare the person guilty but you don’t need any to declare the person not guilty. If you go on trial you can sit during the time of the trial and refuse to speak. If the accuser can’t meet its burden of proof, then you are declared non-guilty. Whether you are innocent or not isn’t part of the debate.
In the same manner atheism is the default position (non-guilty) until somebody can demonstrate the existence of god. In the same way, not believing in Santa is the default position until somebody can demonstrate the existence of Santa. “Santa doesn’t exist is” isn’t part of the debate nor is “gods don’t exist”.
Atheism per se is lack of belief, but it has positive tenets without which that lack of belief could never stand. Materialism, the positive, unprovable metaphysical postulate that matter can self-organize into meaningful and even self-conscious organisms, is the underpinning without which atheism would have no leg to stand on.
You hide behind “atheism = lack of belief so we don’t have to prove anything,” but your underpinning of the positive tenets of materialistic faith means atheists are as much believers as any fundamentalist Christian.
Atheism per se is lack of belief, but it has positive tenets without which that lack of belief could never stand. Materialism, the positive, unprovable metaphysical postulate that matter can self-organize into meaningful and even self-conscious organisms, is the underpinning without which atheism would have no leg to stand on.
I disagree with the above.
Atheism does not need any legs to stand on.
Atheism is not a philosophy who’s job is to explain how the world came to be.
It is as you stated lack of belief.
Specifically it is a denial of Christian/Jewish/Muslim and other theology.
The refutation of religions is based on the logical errors (internal contradiction, circular proofs and definitions, and inconsistency with observable reality).
Atheism can be combined with materialist, or spiritual attitude towards life.
Buddha was a spiritual atheist.
Thanks. I would add that Fearless Ferenc was probably talking about abiogenesis. First abiogenesis is not a belief system. It has no metaphysics. It’s a theory that stands and solid evidence provided by experiments. Anyway you don’t need to believe in abiogenesis to be an atheist. Kids are atheists before somebody talks to them about god. But it would be priceless to see one be asked his/her opinion on abiogenesis and (as Fearless Ferenc said) its positive, unprovable metaphysical postulate that matter can self-organize into meaningful and even self-conscious organisms. Just imagine for a second.
You have honest skeptics and then you have militant people who call themselves atheists but really are not as they wouldn’t be bothered by this kind of thing if they had the courage of their convictions.
What these people are, are God haters.
They should be ignored.
Perhaps Atheism can be a faith, but it certainly does not have to be a faith.
Proposition that “there is no God” is used in a context and is referring to the local god who’s name is a proper noun “God” and who is defined by the local culture as the god that of the Bible, or the god of the Quran (Mr. Allah), etc.
The proposition therefor becomes concrete and usually refers to the logical inconsistencies of the various reports in the particular holy book regarding its god.
Atheism does not necessarily mean denial of existence of one universal God/god which is both proper and common noun. It is denial of personal god belonging to any particular faith, tradition or scripture.
Aren’t the atheists also arguing that the cross is “contaminated” with toxic waste or something? #sad
I hadn’t heard that one, but I did see an interview with one who was claiming that the open inclusion of an artifact of one faith was so disturbing to people of no faith or other faiths that it was causing them to get physically sick.
I say, let em puke away.
What weenies we’ve become. That an idea can disturb someone so much that they retch.
Well, I’m not Christian, Jewish in fact, but I’m definitely on the side of the museum. And yes, crosses do make me uncomfortable, but, you know what – the US is a Christian nation. Atheists trying to enforce their religion – and it is a religion, the most fanatic and murderous religion that ever was – are ten times the threat as Muslims trying to do the same.
And when can we get rid of the stupid phrase “separation of Church and State”, placed into American Constitutional jurispudence by a paranoid, Catholic-bashing former KKK Kleegle – who just happened to be a justice of the US Supreme Court (see Mark Levin, men in Black).
There are tolerant atheists out there. I hope they will be more vocal. Agnostics I don’t think are a problem; unlike atheism, agnosticism is not a religion.
Funny thing about that — isn’t it pretty much what the demonic Legion experienced in the presence of the Christ?
I just don’t understand people. I’m an atheist and I just don’t have much in common with these people aside from the shared lack of belief in God. I just really don’t have a problem with religion. I don’t care if my money or government uses the word God. I don’t care if there are crosses everywhere. I don’t care if I live near a church or a mosque. I don’t care if folks try to preach to me. I just don’t care. I don’t see any rights being infringed here, so I just don’t understand the wasted fight. It’s really just all about tolerance. I’ve been bad-mouthed by atheists for not falling in line with their political agenda and I just don’t get it. They’re just as bad, in some cases, as those they claim to be at odds with.
My only assumption is that these particular atheists hold a grudge against Christianity. Whereas I just made a personal decision and never harbored any bad feelings for religion, these folks must have been wronged or deeply offended at some point in their life. They aren’t atheist by choice so much as it seems to be out of spite. It’s apparent in my brief, and usually unpleasant, conversations with them.
There are different kinds of Atheists. Most atheists just don’t care, and have a “live and let live” attitude towards religion.
However some atheists also have ulterior motives and are involved with other Marxist movements. Christianity/Judaism represents Capitalism, and freedom of religion promotes individuality which must be destroyed to make way for the secular state religion.
“other Marxist movements…”??? Really?
About this statement, I care. About the other, not so much. Believe what you will. Just don’t make me pay for it.
Like you, Shawn, I am an atheist and I agree completely with your comments. It seems that some atheists are actually anti-theists who have some sort of active hatred of Christians in particular. I wish somebody would take up commentator Porretto’s idea of an organization called “Amiable Atheists” and start a group to counter the unfortunate machinations of the militant atheists who appear to be following the same policies that the soviets followed in Russia after the Bolsheviks took over.
Or, perhaps, “bored athiests”.
You are referring to the militant atheists. I think they’re on a quest to convert people that is every bit as fervent and off-putting as some of my Christian co-religionists who can be just as militant in their attempts to evangelize. Let me be clear. While I believe that everyone ought to hear the message of Christ and understand the means to their salvation, I also believe that most adult atheists have heard this news and badgering them endlessly about it will only do further harm. I figure we all have our paths to walk and every man and woman must choose theirs. At the end of the day, we only have our own personal faith to tell us what is right, and my faith can’t trump yours.
So, I figure it’s better to live and let live. That’s tolerance.
as long as Western non-Militant Atheists agree that their peaceful existence is due to the Christian people they are surrounded by..
Shawn, well said.
I am an atheist, too. I agree with most everything you said, except the bit about living next to a church or a mosque. In that one statement you are implying that all religious faiths are the same… morally equivalent. They most definitely are not. While examples abound of the differences between Islam and Christianity, consider, for example, the treatment of women in Islam versus the treatment of women in Christianity, then attempt to make the case that there is some moral equivalence between the two… they’re both “just” faiths.
With respect to the cross itself, just reading of how it so tremendously impacted those of faith, whom I greatly respect, got me all choked up and teary. I don’t have to believe in what it stands for in order to appreciate how it gives solace to others.
I have militant atheist friends and argue with them a lot about this very issue (not the WTC Cross). It disturbs me greatly how they cannot accept that people can have different beliefs–and, likewise, that atheism is itself a belief system. Is it coincidental that all the militant atheists I know are also liberal?
I’m an atheist but I disagree with you when you say that atheism is a belief system. Not believing in god isn’t a belief system, not believing in Santa isn’t a belief system. Not believing in the flying spaghetti monster isn’t a belief system. That is why you can see atheists with very different opinions on very different subjects. Because you could cite many things a person doesn’t believe in and you would have no idea of what they believe in.
100 – 200 million people murdered by the denomination of atheism called Communism say it’s a belief system, and an intolerant and irrational one at that.
Agnosticism is not a belief system.
Atheism is, it is the belief – often through blind faith – that there is no God (heaven forbid!).
As long as atheists refuse to accept that they are a religion like any other, they will be continue to cause trouble for the rest of us.
Atheism isn’t the belief that there are no gods but the rejection of theist claims as already said. In the same way that voting non-guilty doesn’t mean innocent. Gnosticism/ agnosticism on the other hand is about what you know or at least claim to know. So you can be agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic theist, gnostic atheist. (Check the link for an image representing the four positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theological_positions.svg )
Atheism is not a religion. It has no of the characteristics that are attributed to religions. It has no ritual, no ceremonies,no doctrines, no fables, no moral code, no holidays, no leaders, no defender of the faith because it doesn’t require faith.
Linking communism with atheism is not a valid argument and is called the guilt by association fallacy. But purely for the sake of argument, let me slightly modify your argument to expose its foolishness. How many people killed by people who didn’t not hold a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Thank you. I knew those hotheads didn’t represent everyone.
Well, I was mostly making a broad statement that I can coexist perfectly fine with any religious faith or means of worship (So long as they aren’t of the radical kind), but I understand your point.
I would also argue that atheism on its own is by no means a belief system or a faith (In response to some other comments), but that would require a great deal of space for my explanation.
Some atheists simply don’t believe in God. Those are not hostile to other religions, just like Christians are not generally hostile to other faiths.
Marxists/communists are different sort. They believe that religion is “Opium for the people”, an actual invention to keep people oppressed.
The atheists who are against any expression of religion are almost always communists first and atheists second.
Actually, Communism is simply a denomination of atheism. The problem with some atheists is that they refuse to accept that the same rules apply to them as to any others. This is more dangerous to them than others, because they are a religious minrority in the US, and because if they are not a religion, they have no Constitutional protection. You can say all you want about “freedom from religion”, but where is it written?
No. Atheism is a tool of communism. It is used to counteract effects of religion and to replace belief in higher being with belief in goals as given by the communist party.
Any objections to a Muslim icon at the museum? Yeah, I thought so.
You mean to honor those people who made the museum possible?
Brillian comeback Mark. I love it when trolls get sent back under their bridge.
The whole museum is a testament to them. It wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Islamic radicals.
what ‘radicals’?
are you really still buying into the islamic propaganda?
9/11 was perpetrated by TRUE muslims following mohammad’s commands and example
At another government institution, of course not. I have no problem with Islam.
But at that museum, if presented in accordance with the facts, I think the Muslims would be more likely to object than otherwise.
As a Christian, I sometimes cringe at the actions of my co-religionists (the Westboro Baptists come to mind, although I would argue that their connection to Christianity is tenuous in the extreme.) Situations like the Ground Zero cross make me feel very, very sad for sincere atheists. Let us be honest–the people calling for the removal of this cross do not disbelieve in God. They believe in Him intensely. And they hate Him intensely.
As a Christian, I sometimes cringe at the actions of my co-religionists (the Westboro Baptists come to mind
=-====
FRED PHELPS AND HIS LAWYER FAMILY ARE DEMOCRATS
look it up
false flag garbage with a marxist mission to help destroy Christianity
What gives these fanatical atheists standing to sue in a court of law? Aren’t we all free to our religious beliefs and haven’t Americans always been able to erect monuments to honor those who have suffered for us all? Washington DC is full of them –all erected under our Judaic-Christian legacy. This cross harms no one. No judge should hear their whines.
As long as Hugo KKK Black’s decision stands, Christians are screwed
Yep. One more on the Supreme Court and it’s gone.
William Rhenquist’s dissents on Establishment Clause cases are a great read.
And Judaism, and any other religion, except the state religion, atheism.
I thought it was a dissent, actually, but that’s how Jefferson’s phrase got into Constitutional jurisprudence.
Andrew, perhaps they just hate you. Or, perhaps, they hate what believers do to each other and to the unconverted. Maybe the idea of God, but I doubt that they hate God, him/herself. How could they?
Oh, I don’t know – it can be done. Anti-semitism does not require actual Jews, after all.
Some DO hatte God. Haven’t you ever heard one of these people say something like, “I don’t want any part of a God who ______ (name your gripe here)”?
Some DO hate God. Haven’t you ever heard one of these people say something like, “I don’t want any part of a God who ______ (name your gripe here)”?
As I mention in the piece, I had not heard of the movie the Cross and the Towers until I was doing research for this piece. What I did not mention was I read about the movie on the American Atheist web site. Now it turns out a prominent Christian organization will be showing the movie at one of their devotions because they read about the movie in this piece.
It is a religious symbol, but that doesn’t matter. An artifact of the disaster belongs in the museum. I usually appreciate the efforts of certain atheists to push Church and State away from each other, but this is just ridiculous.
I stopped taking these sort of atheists seriously since I noticed they have the same mental block as most teenagers: since they cannot understand religious people, they think they are all stupid and irrational. It’s really the “my dad is such an idiot” view of the average 15-year-old.
This off-putting, self-important attitude of faux superiority has, by the way, nothing at all to do with the question of whether God exists or not — just like the teenager’s contempt for his parents has little to do with their actual views.
P.S.
Pat Condell has these folks’ number:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IolHgMf_nbw&list=UUWOkEnBl5TO4SCLfSlosjgg&index=9&feature=plcp
big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
I used to have a certain degree of respect for atheists, in their ability to question and challenge the norm. Now I understand that they are simply classic bigots, supremecists who will never be content until all people of faith abandon their beliefs and are forced to believe in nothing.
These atheists are the very definition of bigots.
~ The Infidel Alliance
I think we need another word, “generalization”, which is the root of bigotry. Unless you have a poll of atheists, I would not assume the hotheads represent the majority.
(One poll of religion in America found that 12% of atheists believe in God. Rather confused atheists, I presume.)
Sounds like your response to these particular bigots (who happen to be atheists) is to become a bigot against all atheists yourself.
Like others who’ve posted here, I’m an atheist and I don’t agree with these people protesting the cross. It is making a mountain out of a molehill.
However, the problem with government making concessions to religion is that you then create the problem of having to make concessions to all other religions in order to be fair. Which is why, as the Founding Fathers clearly realized, there is a necessity to separate church and state. If you don’t, you end up, at the very least, with religions vying for power and favors from government, or at worst, a church/state collaboration of power.
So while I agree with the principle they are trying to uphold, I disagree with their attacking of mere symbols. Although I admit I would join their protest if the symbol were a Muslim one.(But would that be “fair” if a cross were allowed?)
That being said, I really don’t see how Christians can witness such a tragedy and then find “comfort” in God. If God is omnipotent, why didn’t he use his power to stop it? If he is benevolent, where was his compassion? If it was “judgement”, then I guess he agreed with the Muslims on this one.
You have to go into major denial mode to not only not blame God, but find any sanity or “comfort” in his obvious indifference to this tragedy.
It WAS judgement and the muslims were just the tool used.
No – God doesn’t agree with muslims. Every muslim country on this planet is also judged and predictibly miserable.
God isn’t indifferent to our pain and anguish, but remember, He judged the world so wicked at one point that He killed off everybody but one family – AND THOSE PEOPLE GOT OFF LUCKY COMPARED HOW HE’S GOING TO DO US IN THIS TIME.
Yep, sounds like the insanely vengeful God I’ve come to know.
Create humanity with the fatal flaw of curiosity, and watch it go downhill from there, so you can then start pitting them against each other as tools of your judgement. All the while rubbing their noses in their sins to keep them in their place, grateful for whatever crumbs of “grace” you throw them. So kind and loving!
Actually, my question was rhetorical – I know from experience how Christians could witness 9/11 an still believe in God, because I was one at the time. All the mechanisms were already in place to facilitate it – don’t question, don’t think rationally, just shut it all down and blame yourself – it always comes down to us and our sins, of course. Kind of like the reaction of an abused child toward his abuser – he concludes that he must deserve it.
Very sad, really. It’s a very abusive relationship, and requires an unhealthy disconnect from reality in the believer’s mind in order to function.
I understand the questioning of God, as I too question how God could allow this to happen. I think that is a natural reaction. But then if God is omniscient, omnipresent, all encompassing, why do we then think that our limited viewpoint should supercede God’s will and purpose and how do we then justify that we somehow know better than God? This is a very slippery slope to go down. I mean no disrespect, because I struggle all the time, but to be an athiest you have to claim to be possess an attribute of God, i.e., to be all knowing. To say there is definitely no God, is then to claim all knowledge. An agnostic is the teneble position as they do not claim to know for sure. Actually, no one can know for sure, either position is taken on faith regardless of any argument you use to lay your claim. Back to my original point, it is really arrogant of us to question a God who is beyond space and time (i.e., this universe) and purportedly the creator of the universe. I highly doubt that if a God who will supposedly judge all people at the end of time will be swayed by an argument from one of his creations that he just did not handle things correctly here on earth. So saying “I just can’t believe in a God who allows suffering” is an untenable position if there really is a God. I can respect your positions on uncertainty of the existence of God but any animosity towards that God (exhibited by not believing because he allows things you don’t think are moral) tells me there is a belief and fear and an unwillingness to submit (i.e., pride; sound familiar). Just some thoughts to provide another perspective.
Not the way I read history. What our Founding Fathers realized was that the state should not and would not dictate a national church. People would be free to worship as they wished including not worshiping, but that never meant a public demonstration of worship would be infringed. Yours is a faulty reading of intent.
Congress opened with a prayer and it still does – and it was a Christian prayer until it became politically incorrect to do so not too many years back. The largest service in America was housed in the Congressional Building in the late 1700′s, and we’ve had clerics in the military paid for by government since its inception.
This may be not be a Christian nation, but it most definitely was a nation created by Protestant Christians. From our elite schools mottos to our thousands of churches that predate our Independence, of that there is no doubt and no real debate of fair mind.
Atheists are forever using the Danbury Baptist Church letter penned by Jefferson as assurances that state would not interfere, but they are not so quick to remind that even Jefferson signed his name to a document that started the whole shebang:
We are endowed by our Creator…
Yes, the state was to be prevented from dictating a national church, and individuals and churches were to be free to worship and believe according to the dictates of their own conscience. That was the whole point of the principle of separation. I don’t see how we are in disagreement here.
The state should remain neutral toward religion, and vice versa. The chaplains in congress, ect, if you will research further, were actually opposed by some of the founders because they saw it as a violation of that separation, to have the chaplains paid by the govt. Jeffersons letter was not just an isolated remark. He proposed in Virginia in 1779 a bill that would guarantee complete legal equality for citizens of all religions, and no religion. It was the first plan to call for complete separation of civil and religious authority, the 1786 “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”, which was used as a template for the Constitution.
Madison himself said, in his “Memorial and Remonstrance”: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That same authority which can force a citizen to contribute 3 pence only of his property for the support of any one (religious) establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” Madisons advocacy of government freedom FROM religious control is equally explicit: “If religion be not within cognizance of civil govt.,how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to civil govt.? What influence in fact have ecclesiatical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen to be guardians of the liberty of the people.”
I refute that. I want written record of your facts. Can you provide me with the original proof? That’s your request of my faith.
But even if you’re right and Jefferson or Madison said as much, that’s still not the way it is, as chaplains have existed since its inception.
At the very least proving the majority of our Founders reject you and your opinions.
I’m quoting from “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism” by Susan Jacoby. I don’t agree with all the views in the book, but the issue of separation of church and state is very straightforward. Of course if you only pay attention to those who say it is an attack on freedom of religion, and who slant their presentation of our history to make all our Founders look Christian, then I can see why you would have a hard time accepting these facts.
In reality, the issue of separation of church and state was argued from the founding. And the founders, being intelligent men with influences from religion, the Greek Classics, and Enlightenment philosophers, developed in their thinking rather than stubbornly refusing to accept any opinions that might conflict with established religious doctrine and practice. They understood the importance of thinking rationally and independently, unlike the religious, who have been defending a sinking ship of “innerant” doctrine for centuries.
Quite the contrary, what you have to do to blame God is believe first there is a God, but that the the sovereignty is of mortal man. As Christians, we know it doesn’t work that way.
He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Yes, as a Christian you must believe that “God works in mysterious ways”, because nothing else besides this non-explanation makes sense. We are “sinners in the hands of an angry God”, twisting above the flames, but He loves us! I prefer rationality to schizophrenia, myself.
Really? I don’t recall Jesus saying that. And what you believe apparently, the something from nothing is so patently absurd, thankfully a vast majority of the world rejects it outright.
Unicorns don’t raise my ire. Why would a nonexistent God raise yours? It seems to consume you and your ilk for some “strange” reason.
You know what I think, Liz? I think you know you’re losing the war.
I never said I was quoting Jesus. That is a quote from Jonathan Edwards, a famous preacher in the revolutionary era.
I don’t believe in something from nothing – that’s what you believe – that God created something from nothing.
A non-existent god doesn’t raise my ire. The fact that there are people who don’t buy into the delusion that one does exist seems to raise yours.
And why would I think I’m losing the war? The history of human knowledge is the history of supernatural explanations being replaced by natural ones,with relentless consistency. In the war between reason and religion, reason always wins, whether the religious are willing to acknowledge it or not.
Hi Liz,
How is losing respect for atheists in general or these atheists in particular bigoted? I don’t deny them their right to be atheists, nor to voice their opinion. I don’t have a lot of respect for Snookie either, but I don’t deny her right to be amoral and stupid.
Here’s my ideological beef with atheists: if you dont believe in God, you cannot believe your fundamental human rights were granted by God but rather by men. And if fundamental human rights are granted by men, then they are no longer rights. History shows us time and time again examples of men deciding what rights to grant and then taking away those rights. In essence, atheism is the tyranny of man.
Additional comment on the subject of 9/11 being some sort of punishment by a vengeful God. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The men who committed these attacks weren’t zombies or lower animals acting on instinct. 9/11 was the act of hateful men who exercised their God given free will to slaughter thousands of people. The exercise of free will to deny other people their God given rights is what made this an act of evil.
~ The Infidel Alliance
As mzk pointed out, generalization is the root of bigotry. You are generalizing by calling all atheists bigots and not judging them as individuals. Therefore you are bigoted against atheists.
Needless to say, all atheists are not supremacists bent on forcing others to believe like them. Thats traditionally been owned by religion.
Your reasoning on fundamental rights is rather circular. Rights don’t have to be “granted by God” to be inalienable. The fact is, the laws found in the Bible were found in the laws of several civilizations that came before them, like the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. Since these people didn’t have the Bible they must have come up with them simply by reason and common sense, something humans have in spite of religion, not because of it.
So if these laws, and the rights based on them, were not originally “inspired” by God, they will stand without the prop of religion.
I think the reason atheists bother you so much is that you know, like the preachers of Darwins time, that “If this hypothesis is true, then is the Bible an unbearable fiction…then have Christians for nearly 2000 years been duped by a monstrous lie.”
Hi Liz!
Without realizing it you have made my point exactly. Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian law was nothing more than tyrannical rules imposed on populations by a king or pharoa. These were slave states, and slavery was codified in these legal systems. Slave states by definition don’t respect rights.
These were legal systems made by men, irrespective of universal God given human rights, and the king or pharoa didn’t have to abide by his own dictates.
Selective rights are not rights. Laws are not rights either. When ‘rights’ are conferred by men, by kings, pharoas, feudal masters or any other tyrants, they are not rights, because they can be rescinded by men, by kings, pharoas and feudal masters.
~ The Infidel Alliance
P.S. – Liz, I reread my original post, and agree my wording was a bit ambiguous. My position was clearly stated in the the last sentence:
“THESE atheists are the very definition of bigotry.”
~ The Infidel Alliance
If you’d read the Old Testament, you’d notice that it’s laws are also presented as a set of tyrannical rules imposed on the Israelite population by preists and kings. (I would call imposing the death penalty for infractions such as breaking the Sabbath, blasphemy, etc, pretty tyrannical.)
They were also a “slave state”, as they did own slaves. So how is this “respecting rights”, exactly?
Rights are derived from laws. Because of our Constitution, we live under the rule of law, not the rule of men, therefore we have rights that cannot be negated by men. Self-governance came from the recognition that by the use of reason, men could rule themselves, rather than being ruled by preists and kings, as in the Bible.
Atheist can be very helpful in exposing fake Christian , fake Jew and fake Islam. The three Abraham faiths are about dependence on the True God. This means faith in True God will produce a close relationship where miracles take place everyday. If one miss a miracle for just a day question arise in the believer as to why no miracle took place. If one miss miracle for a week faith and depending on God decrease, if one miss miracle for month lazy agnostic feeling takes over and one begins to mouth their prayers with lack of their soul. If one has no miricle from their faith in God for a year they make up false doctrine to tailer their lives as an example believing all miracles disappear after the 12 of Jesus or after Angel came to Mohamed or after Moses and they become erudite big boy and big girl ripe for their children to become agnostics and atheists.
The problem with atheism as they gain power when world economies fall they invent doctrine people must obey: You must kill the baby in the womb after you have one baby. You must believe in Global warming ect.. You must report on unbelievers in our elite doctrines and expose and turn in other religions so we can make them useful taking their organs for transplants as we do with baby in the womb women with sweet smile on their face give us
more latter
But everything is a miracle…..
The greatest miracle is how human being can become God’s temple. Every other miracle serves the greatest miracle Wood crosses have fallen from the sky in my 2nd heaven enchanted forest and mean NOTHING if this event does not serve the greatest miracle
Satan The Devil has heard the VERY voice of god and now it means only rebellion to Satan
With this type of future atheist , believers begin to understand how Satan the Devil is using them to turn man into a machine so one day man made machines have better minds than man and only the elite atheists are on top pissing to the bottom of the pile and completing Satan’s mission of rounding up the human that behave like monkey to perception of erudite big boy and erudite big girl playing house as atheist
Put up a star & crescent and nobody on the left will say boo, not a word, not a breath. Bloomberg only has to say some mush and it’s done.
Pure idolatry. That may as well be a golden calf.
“HONOR DELAYED IS HONOR DENIED”
[The 9/11 Memorial—An American Travesty]
There is a blot of shame upon our land,
That has only grown with time.
As a nation we have failed our own–
“What is this awful crime?”
The Memorial that we owe our fallen dead!
Enemies of freedom struck symbols of our strength.
The most evil raid ever made against our homes.
The wicked cheered the savagery portrayed,
While Patriots’ courage in large part remained unknown.
Only at the Judgment Bar will they receive their glorious due.
Oh, so briefly, did some survivors rally to the trump—
Some leaders heard the call to help us heal.
But so quickly did the traitors hidden in our midst,
Begin their lies, our nation’s faith to steal.
Their Judgment also waits with damning fury.
How quickly have the wasted years sped by!
Who can in honor claim we have been just,
To those who bled, and burned, and died?
Who dares say we have kept our public trust,
By showing that sacrifices made were not in vain!
To ponder our ingratitude is to weep in shame!
To further delay forgotten vows of recognition,
Joins us to infidels who took our citizens’ lives!
No excuse justifies our failure in this holy mission.
For by delaying honor, WE HAVE DENIED IT.
Seeing our infamy, the enemies of freedom rally!
So close to hallowed ground, they build
A monument to their treachery and murder!
And thus, again, forces of evil show their skill.
In Heaven, the fallen must avert their gaze at our collusion.
NO RIGHTS RESERVED.
This is a day for weeping and prayer. By our actions, WE ARE COMPLICIT IN THIS CRIME
As a Jew, not only do I have no problem with the cross, I welcome it to the site. It is a sign of faith to 85% of our country. It is also a sign for many who believe God was at Ground Zero. I am in no way diminished by it, nor is my faith, nor my co-religionists.
Whoa !!
This nation was founded by people with a strong belief in God – just God, not a defined one. Our law does not compel anyone to share that belief but just as it is not a force to obey something, it is also not a reason to abandon something in which may people of many faiths have trust. It works for them. If it doesn’t work for you, that is OK, but don’t go on the public political stump and try to limit what I believe . If this is what you think you should do, there are lots of places in the world that might allow your disruptive tactics, but in America, my America, don’t dare to trample on my beliefs or we shall become as enemies and, guess what, I will win !!
Grantman You stated my feeings perfectly,thank-you. And blessed Rosh Hoshanah for you and all you love.
Also Jewish, I agree completely with Grantman: The cross of girders is a powerful symbol that belongs at the site.
A famous man once said;
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Both sides are guilty of going over the top. I personally respect Mr Jefferson’s quote and attitude.
The government of the USA says it was OBL and crew that did the damage. Their Islamist beliefs are what led to the act of terrorism. They hate the cross. Is not removing the ikon surrendering to the Islam system? Who are the agnostic people supporting anyway?
I regard these doctrinaire “atheists” (really, anti-theists) in much the same way as I imagine Christians regard the Westboro Baptist Church lunatics. They do not speak for me. On a personal level, I regard the WTC cross as simply a random artifact – in a million tons of steel and concrete and pulverised people it would be remarkable were there not some sort of structure that triggered humans’ over-active pattern recognition systems, and I would have thought that a cross in a pile of girders would be almost inevitable. If others wish to ascribe it significance then it’s no skin off my nose. If those promoting the cross as a demonstration of God’s existence also wished to use it to force me to convert or die, then I would fight them. Of course they don’t want to do that. On the other hand, the people who flew the planes into the towers do want precisely that, along with tens of millions of co-adherents to their faith. Relatively wishy-washy Christianity is no threat to people like me. Militant Islam is a deadly peril. What atheists and Christians and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and Bahá’í and Buddhists and… should be doing is putting aside their differences to confront the barbarians and if necessary slaughter them out of hand, to beat the martial supremacist chauvinism out of them just as we did to the Germans and Japanese, or failing that, to crush their wicked blood cult like the Conquistadors did to the Aztecs.
One the of the New York papers quoated one of these atheists as saying “The sight of that cross makes me sick” Perhaps these people are not just atheists but vampires? Perhaps they would object to garlic cloves and mirrors as well!
Ill tell you what why dont you meet the idiots, uhhh ateist halfway. Keep the c roos up but also leave a statue of Madalyn O’hair up right next to it.
Atheist nihilism or Perfection of Man by Man utopianism, neither is very pretty.
What makes me want to scream is the judges who fail to reject these lawsuits as frivolous. The Atheist claims are hyperbolic to begin with, and apparently, no judge is able to see that Atheism is just another religion with a non-God called homo sapiens.
As an atheist myself I can’t get worked up about this one way or the other. Little people with little causes.
CK in PA:
Mark’s “brilliant comeback” was a logical fallacy. Let’s follow his logic a bit further. Timothy McVey was a Christian, so Christians support blowing up federal buildings? Same here. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. So what? I suppose they had beards. Do beards cause violence? According to you and Mark they do.
If we’re going to allow religious icons at the museum, we’re going to allow ALL religious icons. This is the religious freedom our armed forces have fought and died for. How disrespectful you two feel their sacrifices.
How about a skinned animal for the Satanists? They pay taxes too.
No, Kowboy. Mark’s comeback was indeed a worthy comeback and you are wrong assigning the Christian religion to McVeigh’s mindset.
Timothy “McVeigh” was raised Roman Catholic, but was not a practicing Catholic and professed agnosticism.
“In his letter (2001), McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4
Religious freedom does not preclude Christian dominion or hegemony. The majority have right too. Go peddle multiculturalism, cultural and moral relativism and radical egalitarianism somehwere else.
The litmus tests as to whether a terrorist act was ‘religious’ or not is simple. Did it follow the teachings, examples or mandates of the founder of the religion in question or the religion claimed by the perpetrator.
Jesus never killed, nor did he mandate his followers to kill. Thus the arguement that Timothy McVeigh was some sort of Christian terrorist falls flat on its face.
Muhammed, however, was a killer, a mass murdering genocidist in fact, and he did command his followers to kill. This is why the 9/11 attacks were clearly an Islamic act, the Sunnah of Muhammed.
Anyone can claim something is what it is not, but the truth is the truth.
~ The Infidel Alliance
I find it curiously interesting that these anti – whatever – groups always make up the justificaytion for their actions long after those actions took place. This cross is an excellent example as it has been tagged as a Christian Cross. Well, if that is so, tell me which Christian group is served by retaining the cross as a memorial of some impact on those of us who have no troubles in holding beiefs ? It is not tagged as a Methodist Cross or an EpiscopalCross and being non-denominational, it is not, therefore, a symbol of any specific group – rather it is a symbol reflecting the heritage of this nation which was established under God. Like it or not, America was established as a Godly nation and the Almighty is a part of our history that can never be erased. If you don’t happen to like it, grow into that degree of maturity that allows the mature person to go ahead with life despite distractions that are always there. If this is too much for you to handle, there are no strings holding you here and there must be some spot on Earth where you can live more comfortably with your hand-ups, fears and unwarranted subjects that you use to worry.
The Constitution forbids the government from establishing a state-sanctioned religion, as the Anglican Church was for England. That’s all it does.
Nowhere dose it say that the government must also scrub all public spaces of all vestiges of religion.
Grozzy, I have told myself all those things, too -”who am I to question the Creator of the entire universe?”, etc. Yes, that does seem arrogant, and it would be, if he existed. The problem is, what if you’ve been taught to stifle your intellectual curiosity in order to prevent you from coming to a conclusion that doesn’t bode well for your pastors paycheck? All through history, the Church and its leaders have demonized reason and science because they could see their hold over the mind of their “sheep” diminishing with it’s advance. They taught them to pride themselves on their LACK of education,associating independent philosophical thinking with the sin of pride. As Christosom put it, we are to “restrain our own reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning, in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words.”
I didn’t stop believing because I was angry at God. It was because I committed the dangerous sin of allowing myself to look at the facts of history and science objectively, and found that Scripture and religion do not line up with reality. At that point it was an easy choice to make. What bothers me is to see people who want to be good laboring under the false premise that to do so they must be religious, and live in guilt of their “sins”. Thats not liberty.
The bastardization of the original definition separation of church & state is disgusting! The liberals have been successful in twisting it into something completely different because they think & “feel” it is all about them. The dumbing down of the public schools & higher education is shameful! The revisionist history by the liberals keeps the younger generations from knowing the truth. As an American of the Jewish faith, I find it appalling that liberals (atheists included) are attempting to prevent us from choosing to worship as we please. Worship or not to worship is a personal choice, I don’t need your help!
Liz, you seem to have a penchant for rewriting history and fact. I find you wholly dishonest. Demonized science, hey?
Well Copernicus and Mendel would disagree, as both monks. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Descartes and Pascal— were all practicing Christians and wrote much on the subject of Christianity. Michael Farady a Glasite church elder. I could go on and on, but space limits the need.
Want a living example? Francis Collins was director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute and is currently serving as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He has also written on religious matters in articles and in Faith and the Human Genome he states the importance to him of “the literal and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is the cornerstone of what I believe.”
Most atheists seem okay people to me, and we agree to disagree and leave well enough alone. But your militancy is the very nature of this thread. Like the author, people like you make me want to scream – or puke on occasion.
It was of course St Thomas Aquinas who spent a lifetime’s work demonstrating that faith and reason are in fact complementary, and some have asserted that it was the Church Herself, along with Jewish/Talmudic teaching, which taught and demonstrated that the Universe is a place of natural laws and consistency, rather than the Chaos of inexplicable forces of pagan thought, to which even the Olympian gods were subject — thus providing the foundation for science itself, which depends on such a consistent & rational framework.
It was the Greeks who were the first to come up with rational thought and the scientific method. Aristotle ring a bell? The later scholars of the Middle Ages such as Aquinas drew from the Greeks -the true originators of the foundation of science.(Not to be confused with the religious Greeks who were as confused about reality as any other religious group.)
The fact that there were many scholars and scientists who happened to be Catholic is no credit to the Church. It was about the only way to get an education in those days, and everybody was Catholic if they valued their life. As I already pointed out, the Church persecuted or murdered any scientist or scholar who disagreed with the established Church interpretation of Scripture. Only when evidence proving dissenting views became overwhelming did they grudgingly come up with their own pseudo-scientific attempts to reconcile science with Scripture. The Protestants did the same thing.
The Church has been the enemy of science for challenging it’s “infallible” dogma from the beginning, and then adds insult to injury by parasiting off of science and claiming to have originated the ideas later.
Well I must say that its the ignorance of history of people like you that make me want to scream. Nearly every one of those scientists you named was persecuted by the Church authorities for their scientific claims. Galileo was famously forced to recant the claim that the earth revolved around the sun. Copernicus only escaped being executed by dying before they could get to him. If you would actually read the facts of history rather than the churches “approved version” of it, you might learn something. Yet you find me “wholly dishonest” and “militant”. If rationally stating facts is “militant”, then I guess I’m guilty as charged.
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître
Graduate of Cambridge University
Ph.D. in Physics from MIT
Originated “expanding universe” model
Proposed “Big Bang” theory
Pwned Einstein
Member Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Belgium
Awarded first Eddington Medal bestowed by the Royal Astronomical Society
Roman Catholic priest
President of the Pontifical Academy of Science
Where is your “Science vs. Religion” dichotomy now?
Still quite firmly in place, thank you.
Oh, what I came to say was to compare and contrast this dispute with how the Mohammedans (aka “The Religion of Peace”) have invaded US territory in Libya and Egypt and murdered 4 diplomats, including the US Ambassador in the former.
These atheists are so afraid of the God of Jesus Christ that thats all they
think about. I guess they think that phrase “out of sight out of mind” is true.
But it ain’t gunna work.
Technically, I am an atheist; I have no religious beliefs. But I prefer to identify myself as “non-religious” because fanatics like these have ruined the word “atheist.” It originally just meant “non-religious,” but as a result of shenanigans like this, it has come to mean “militant anti-religious jackass” in the minds of the public.
I have never understood the mindset of people like these. And I wish they would cut it out. There are lots of people like me, who don’t have any religious beliefs, but have no problem with those who do as long as they are tolerant of us. But you never hear about us, because we don’t call attention to ourselves. The only atheists most people hear about are the militant anti-religious jackasses, because they make lots of noise and go out of their way to be offensive. So the religious folks, understandably, assume that all atheists are like that.
It seems clear to me that the WTC cross is both an artifact and a religious symbol. Why shouldn’t it be a part of the memorial museum? Religion was, and is, an element of the 9/11 story. Why should we pretend otherwise? The girder cross may not have any religious significance for me personally, but I can’t see any reason why I should feel threatened by its inclusion in the museum. This lawsuit strikes me as pointless and stupid.
I agree with you. Not only stupid, but counter-productive. Lawsuits over things like this only worsen the animosity that believers have toward atheists, most of whom are not “militant”.
I think situations like this are the result of ignorance on the issue of separation of church and state on both sides, because of the political bias in public education which has severely marginalized the teaching of the Constitution and its principles. If it was taught thouroughly, I don’t think things like this would be happening. As it is, in the vacuum created by this lack of education, innaccurate interpretations of it have emerged.
Alot of Christians these days seem to think that since the Founders and the entire country were always and at all times Christian, (really?) the whole idea was just a figment of Jeffersons imagination, or something. Schools should have mandatory Christian prayer and Bible study, and if you don’t agree with it, too bad! You need it, whether you want it or not, end of discussion.
On the other hand you have atheists (like the ones in this lawsuit) who go to the other extreme and claim that “separation” means a kid can’t even bring a Bible to school or pray on the grounds, because that might “offend” someone.
Why is it so hard for both sides to see that the intent of the founders in the separation was to insure the freedom of all parties concerned from being forced to do anything by the other. I don’t force you to pray or read a Bible, I don’t force you NOT to pray or read a Bible. The State simply remains neutral – what is so hard about that?
In the case of this cross symbol, as in the case with other religious artifacts, if it was meaningful to people who were involved in the tragedy, then it’s part of history, and they have a right to preserve it.