Religious Absurdity Vol 2: "WTC wreckage in the shape of a cross is god's love."

Is it okay when atheists say hateful things?

They don't speak for or represent all Christians. They obviously don't represent Christ, either.

I think freedom of expression is either allowed or it isn't, whether it be displaying an instrument of death as some kind of religious symbol or making a comment on a website.

Do you believe most Christians agree with these despicable and obviously un-Christlike comments? If you do, you are letting fear cloud your perception of reality.

First, there is no reason that cross shouldn't be included. Your right not to worship doesn't mean you get to dictate the absence of all religious symbols wherever you go.

Secondly, I would like to know where you got those posts. Did you capture them yourself? Did you get it from the website you linked to? Because I think it's a lot of bullshit. I think they are either fabricated or possibly false flag posts.

Thirdly, even assuming those posts were genuine...why in the world would you assume they represent Christians in general? Isn't this the very thing you accuse conservatives of doing wrt Islamists? Oh wait..you're BR, so that's how you roll.

I asked you a question first. You answer mine and I'll answer yours.

Is it okay when atheists say hateful things?

By the way, the leader of this insanity says this:


Remind you of anyone? This statement in itself is hateful.

and this:


What a TARD. Atheism is not a religion. They have no real symbols. Secondly, something tells me they would not support symbols from "every religious position" to be included. Third, have the officials denied other religious expressions? Of course not.

It is Patriotic to sue? Sounds to me like you are losing what you claim the Christians are in this case. It is perfectly normal for people to look for the hope, or what they see as good, in any terrible tragedy or circumstance. This is perfectly normal, and you know it.


Let me first say, that those who wrote the posts, if they are true posts, were absolutely wrong and should be ashamed of the hatred they showed.

Let me follow up by saying that you BR are in no position at this point to try to take any moral high-ground here. Your hatred and bile are clogging these forums at every point and you continue to pretend that it is ok because someone else cornered you like a wild animal. Use your well developed higher thought processes and take some responsibility for your own actions on these forums.

I'm curious on what basis it is known that the people who wrote those things are Christians? Are they all Christians? Any of them? How is this known? Is it just an assumption? Based on what?

Yes, a couple of the posts seem to imply maybe a belief in God or Christ...even possibly claiming to love Him in one. But this hardly seems very strong evidence.

I ask partly because I'm not sure it's clear than any of them identify themselves as Christians and partly because I've never met anyone who actually does identify themselves as a Christian ever saying, hinting or even implying anything like the things written in those posts.

Finally, these all seem quite over the top to me. There's clearly hate in them. But who actually wrote them and why...that's not clear.

Who gets to decide what is in the same ballpark? You? Me? What you "might" see as reasonable may seem just as hateful as what you have posted here. It is in the eye of the receiver. You do not get to decide how they should take it because of your beliefs. Especially since you do not afford that luxury to those who write what they believe here.

People find spiritual solace in many things. I hear it in Trance (a kind of electronica) music, see it on my iPad sometimes when moving my fingers and tapping here and there, and of course the sunlight poking through the leaves in my parent's neighbourhood, one of the last green-ish areas left in my Asian city slowly turning into one of those generic overcrowded Chinese cities.

The image of that cross is certainly poignant and people will read into it whatever they choose to.

But to be the centrepiece of a memorial is ridiculous in this day and age. Certainly the "main" memorial structure or whatever has to be secular. How would you add remembrances for other religions? If they'd just covered the major ones I'd complain of the oligopoly of the major religions. I'm sure you'd get groups wanting some sort of pagan goddess or fairies and so on. A secular primary memorial structure would be the simplest, most straightforward, and can apply to everyone.

I propose a simple compromise, they could easily keep this section but move it and place it as part of other pieces displayed in a museum built at ground zero.

As for all the hate comments, there will always be all sorts of extremists from all walks of life. I've lived for years with all kinds of people from Christians to Muslims to Buddhists to Brahmin Hindus to New Agers claiming the "right path". Atheism in the US seems to be a growing force but I think it is more of an inevitable reaction to growing fundamentalist Christianity and Muslim extremism.

A more appropriate memorial centerpiece would be that same cross, with a steel "S" of similar thickness, welded onto the vertical column below the horizontal cross piece.

Hey BR,

Jon Stewart declares you should stop being a total dick.

Of course he's not always right but apply your own reasoning here. It is a t-joint from a building. It makes sense that wreckage from the twin towers would be included in memorials, museums, etc.

The fact that some people look at parts of that wreckage and think religious thoughts makes it a government endorsement of religion how again?

This isn't a cross crafted by a church. It doesn't have some form of a dying Jesus on it. It is a part of a building.

This is about controlling people's thoughts, not religious iconography. You declare that other people won't have their religions represented. The building wasn't full of stars of David or other such shapes. If something fell and resembled that shape then include it.

It is wreckage from the site. Most non-religious people who see it will think of that. Yet others won't and you want to control their thoughts.

That's just sick, wrong and as Stewart notes, a dick move.

You're demonstrating exactly what trump is talking about: What you are really take exception with is that people view it as a religious symbol. Therefore, you think it shouldn't be included. But why should you care? And what the fuck does "displayed in a religious way" mean?


Because it's a direct insult to them and their beliefs. It also shows a complete ignorance of Christianity and faith in general. Oddly enough, that explains his atheism I guess.

Except that if this is being funded by government dollars, then they either need to make sure all religions and beliefs are represented or none. As is, it stinks of christianity and nothing else... our government is NOT allowed to show support of a religion.

I have no doubt someone could have sifted through the wreckage and come up with something in the shape of a crescent moon as well... or even a star-of-David. Heck, just about any twisted piece of metal could represent the FSM! ... even Ganesh would be easy to imagine in a bunch of rubble.

Could you please offer support for this? Clearly even in the pic you posted there are still additional pieces that are debris on it. I looked up on snopes.com and nothing I've found in searching declares it was ever cut to that size. It was found at a slant and stood upright that's it.



Being set upright is in a religious way? No, people think religious thoughts about it. If a chair is tipped over and someone stands it upright, that isn't a religious action. You wouldn't be upset about that though because no one would look at the chair and think religious thoughts.


Naw, it is a dick move to be sanctimonious and force everyone to live as you want. His words said that because someone is offended, we all have to give something up.Naw, it's a dick move to pretend that actually having a religious thoughts about an inanimate and neutral object and is the same thing as religious endorsement. I've missed no point. Find another ploy besides claiming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant. YOU MISS THE POINT. No one but extremist atheists like yourself who want to impose their views on everyone and control their thoughts wants this, endorses this or thinks it right. You are endorsing extremism and controlling people's thoughts. If I have someone take my tipped over chair and set it upright and a holy man comes and volunteers to bless it, you know what it is after that, a fucking chair.

You know what is ridiculous, some extremist atheists would sue because someone would have a thought about that chair.

BTW, a priest wandered past my house and told me Jesus reads these forums. He told me when multiple people read these forums, that they dwell in the spirit of the Lord and that his presence is here whenever someone replies to a message from someone who believes he is here.

So don't reply here anymore lest you engage in religious actions and a religious endorsement.

See I had religious thoughts about this place and because I'll have them about this place forever, the actual actions taking place no longer matter. It's about the thoughts.

See you later BR, don't reply unless you want to sue yourself for hypocrisy!

As Jon noted, if it really bothers you, why not think of it as some T-shaped artifact from the wreckage.

Now since this place is a religious sanctuary, I suggest you flee lest you become indoctrinated.

So there was no suitable piece of wreckage in that pile of rubble that WASN'T shaped like a cross that they could have used ?... No, I think it's fairly obvious that this piece was chosen BECAUSE it is a cross... BECAUSE it is a religious symbol.

Are you saying this is the only piece of wreckage from the towers that is being used?

Why? The 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." The notion that every religion on Earth must be included is absurdly wrong.


First..it stinks of? And what do you mean "show support of?" The government supports all kinds of religious things, and not for every religion on Earth.

I have no doubt someone could have sifted through the wreckage and come up with something in the shape of a crescent moon as well... or even a star-of-David. Heck, just about any twisted piece of metal could represent the FSM! ... even Ganesh would be easy to imagine in a bunch of rubble.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry...did I miss something? Did the government PREVENT the display of other religious symbols found at Ground Zero? That would be another thing. That would be a clear endorsement of one religion over others. The government is not required to hate all religions equally. It is not required to be hostile to all religions, nor be an entity without any elements of faith. In fact, our laws come from religions roots. The 1st Amendment exists (in this respect) to make sure Congress cannot establish a national religion. Many people seem to not understand this.

So what? Your standard here is completely wrong. You don't have constitutional right not to be offended. You don't have a constitutional right to tell 80% of the country they can't display religious symbols. You have a right to worship as you please (or not at all) and not live in a country with a national religion. That is all.

And on the topic of Atheism. We do not live in a country that has a 1st Amendment that states "Government shall have nothing to do with religion nor the existence of God himself." I know that's what many progressive-socialists would like, but it's just not so.

No... I am quite aware that I have no right to not be offended... but... if this is being funded by the government... then they shouldn't be showing favoritism to the christians. Courts have ruled that way repeatedly.

It isn't favoritism to Christians unless there have been artifacts submitted by other religions that were found at the crash site and they were turned away.

... but I get the impression that you are going to justify this no matter what, because it is a christian symbol... a symbol of the one true god, the one true religion. Therefore it is good to have it displayed.

To me, it's a hunk of metal. The sign of the cross has no religious significance to me, as I prefer to focus on the resurrection and life of the Savior.

But how does it harm me if others believe it has some religious significance?

Just a little humor.

I wasn't in NY and never saw it displayed. I'm of the view that the best way to remember these folks is not to remove the ground from use and instead use it even better than before so obviously I lost that fight right?

When we had discussions on here about Muslim community centers, which btw BR had no problems with having operated, I simply noted that we need to remove te mechanism where community concerns, can operate in such a manner and noted how Walmart has been kept out of NY city. I wasn't arguing to put something Christian nearby or give all religions equal access.



That's totally what I'm going to imagine now when I see WTC artifacts. Thanks JIMMAC!!!

If you're that easily scarred it would explain a lot.

Says who? Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is frankly, fucked. It's completely backwards. You're taking something that was intended to allow people to exercise their religious beliefs and perverting it to mean that the majority religion in the country cannot have one of its symbols displayed in a public monument. You're actually preventing them from exercising their religious beliefs.


Of course not, because you're anti-Christian and anti-religion.


You are free not to understand. You are free to believe religion is a sickness. But you are not free to tell people they are not allowed to have the symbol in which they find meaning displayed. Who the fuck are you to say that? Who the fuck are you to tell 76% of the population they can't display a cross in which you find no meaning anyway?

And that's what this is about: You telling other people what to believe. Their mere existence is incomprehensible to you. We have a word for people like that, you know. That word is "bigot."

Bull. You have a problem with the cross. If it were twisted into any other shape this would not be an issue. It was the shape that was found. It was not cleaned up, it was as found. Look at the Daily Show link again. That looks exactly like it. It was not cut down to size from what I can see.

Find some rubble shaped like an Atom and have it put up. Otherwise, shut up...

Your moaning about this is giving me a headache and make me sick to my stomach. Be honest about your issue, and don't try to change what you really mean. It is a cross, therefore bad.