What s Wrong With a Cross at the WTC?

FoxNews ^ | July 19 2002 | Hannity & Colmes

[Michael2001]

ALAN COLMES: Welcome back to HANNITY & COLMES. Coming up, is the game of tag too rough for the playground? Believe it or not, some people say yes, which leads us to ask our "Question of the Day," how many kids are injured playing at school each year? That answer's coming up in just a few minutes.

[Dimensio]

If so, then a pumpkin is an atheist.

Trivially true. Your point?

[Rate_Determining_Step]

> Trivially true. Your point?

We have the capacity to believe in the make-believe. We're better than pumpkins!

[Dimensio]

We're better than pumpkins!

Sometimes I wonder...

[yendu bwam]

If you are telling us that without religion, there is no possibility of a moral philosophy, then you're wrong and we could discuss that.

What do you base your morality on?

[screed]

When people who believe that hickey-giving pink elephants start suggesting that the government give their "church" funding in the name of "faith-based initiatives", then you might see some protests. When city governments start using taxpayer money to set up displays themed around hickey-giving pink elephants for holidays based on a holy myth regarding this hickey-giving pink elephant then you might hear some complaining.

Exactly so. This is where the conservative religious and the conservative atheist can find agreement. The liberal atheists only complain about the expenditure of money on religion, especially Christianity. The majority of atheism that I have been exposed to is a hatred of Christianity. In every other respect, they can't wait to spend your money an a belief system. Their's not yours.

It is unfortunate that so much money comes out of my pocket, coerced by the government, to attack my religion. Think government school system. The only people you will hear attacking that expenditure as well is the conservative atheist. The liberals cheer it, and that is why the cry of government expenditure for religion seems so disingenuous coming from the average atheist.

I say "average atheist" based solely on my experience. Dimensio can give all of the dictionary definitions of atheism he chooses to, as I see him do in most of these threads. But, that does not change the fact that a significant portion of the atheism "cause" or "movement" (I know how much they resist being identified as a group) has been coopted by the political left, who aren't FOR anything (the deconstructionist mindset).

They merely hate the predominant religion for fear of its' message of accountability and in furtherance of moral relativism. This is immediately identified by the second most common argument: "If we allow brand X, then brand Y and Z will want representation too." The primary ammunition of the relativists.

They define themselves by what they DON'T believe in, or what they're against. Look at their little fish with feet. That isn't designed to affirm anything. It is designed to deride, alienate and humiliate in my opinion.

[Salvation]

What s Wrong With a Cross at the WTC?

NOthing at all. I would be very pleased with a Cross at the World Trade Center.

[lawdog]

"It angers a lot of other people. And it causes a lot of anguish to a lot of non-believers..."

Spiritual darkness is almost always repelled at a reminder of the "light". To face such a thing reminds them of their own mortality and their inablity to "conquer" death.

[sayfer bullets]

As a "free thinking" Christian, I appreciate your approach.

Personally, I don't have a big problem regardless of what is "decided" about this. Someone on FR suggested they donate "the cross" to a church for display. I'm all for that if need be. We'll just see the throngs of people assemble where the church puts it. fine.

I also see a legitimate concern. Her reaction is way over-the-top as far as the fear factor goes, but lets give voice to those who question government actions of any kind if the constitution (literal interp) is at risk. We do NOT want the federal government sanctioning specific religious expression because ultimately they will assume the power to NOT sanction it as well. Therefore it's more likely these arguments are best for advocating a pull-back in the scope of governmental reach overall.

But in the meantime, folks need to take a breath and ease-off this stuff.

[stanz]

But in the meantime, folks need to take a breath and ease-off this stuff.

That was my overall sentiment. Government is becoming way too concerned with what is politically correct, who not to offend and what is morally appropriate. I think we just need to use a little common sense and go with what is the least controversial approach. The more government intervenes in our lives, the less chance there is for logic to win out.

[yendu bwam]

THe point here is that the idea of 'living your life to the fullest' could mean absolutely anything, from, as you say, starting a business to having sex with as many animals as you want. It's just a meaningless phrase. To make it not meaningless, you need some measure of something else, which Dimensio did not put forward. For religious people, that something else is provided to them. That is why, for example, a Christian would consider Mother Theresa's life's work to be more important than the man who collects all the stamps from Tonga. Both might say they lived their lives to the fullest. But for a Christian, as an example, there is a big difference.

[kstewskis]

I see nothing wrong with a cross at the WTC even though I am an atheist. Death is non-denominational and we all have our own way of remembering those who perished that day. Enough with all this politically correct crap that's being forced down our throats. Have a cross there for those who find comfort in it. The rest of us should understand what it means to Christians.

Thank you stanz!! ;-*

[flyervet]

Displaying that cross is not breaking the first amendment. In this case, the federal government is clearly NOT making any law that establishes a religion. It would just be displaying a piece of rubble that holds great meaning for the majority of citizens.

The reason this particular rubble, above other pieces of rubble from the WTC holds great meaning for some citizens is because this piece of rubble happens to be in a shape that mimics the symbol of a particular religion. If this piece of rubble did not resemble a religious symbol, it would hold no more meaning than any other piece of rubble. Therefore, let the religion that appears to be symbolized by this particular piece of rubble sponsor the display of this particular piece of rubble. Your're right here. The atheists complaining are very, very insecure in their beliefs.

[flyervet]

Your're right here. The atheists complaining are very, very insecure in their beliefs.

This last bit is from yendu, not me.

[Momaw Nadon]

Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross?

Maybe there is a solution that will satisfy both sides.

For Christians, leave the Cross in its current place.

Next to the Cross, erect a monument for the atheists, which of course would be . . . nothing.

[sayfer bullets]

Next to the Cross, erect a monument for the atheists, which of course would be . . . nothing.

Tongue-in-cheek, I know....but...

That would not satisfy those who had to take time to put the "fish with legs" thing on their cars. The other group of atheists and agnostics probably don't give a rip anyway...so nothing changes.

Whatever they decide, I DO want to see Toby Keith sing "Courtesy" from Ground Zero.

[okiecowgirl]

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. You have a compasionate
understanding view.