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.

[jlogajan]

The atheists don't have faith, and they don't want anyone else to have it either. They have no respect for believers, or for their rights.

I'm not sure why theists insist that atheists should not be as evangelical as theists are. It always comes off sounding hypocritical.

[piasa]

Just wait - when Islam is going real strong here there will be demands that images of eagles and presidents on coinage be removed; and then there will be demands that statues in our memorials of leaders and soldiers be taken down, for such things are offensive to Islam.

Too many people have assumed that there is such a thing as freedom from being offended. Too many people have assumed that there is such a thing as freedom from religion, when what there is is freedom OF religion. If these folks have their way they will also demand a freedom FROM speech, instead of freedom OF speech.

[Dimensio]

I wonder why Pascal's Wager (or rather a shortened summary thereof) is still touted as though it had any merit. Not only does it completely ignore the possiblity of choosing the wrong god in creating its false duality, it doesn't even consider that a god might take more offense at a follower of a "false" god than at an atheist.

I once presented that possibility to a Calvinist who was trying to argue that Pascal's Wager was somehow logically sound (despite having been told why it was not by several different people). His response was that he does not accept "irrational" possibilities. He never bothered, even when asked multiple times, why he considered that possiblity irrational. I suspect that it was because he refused to consider that his arguments might just have a real flaw.

[Dimensio]

I think that the problem is that those atheists who do respect the rights of believers aren't up and in anyone's face about it...thus you won't see how many of them there are as opposed to the howlers.

[Dimensio]

If something like a cross could cause "anguish" to an atheist, they must not be very strong in their non belief.

Well, if they were crucified on said cross...

[Dimensio]

I'd be willing to bet that if a muslim group wanted to display their star and crescent pagan moon-god symbol, or if Jews wanted to put up a Star of David, there wouldn't be a peep out of them.

I'm willing to take you up on that bet.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

COLMES: Let's say this cross, which was found in the rubble, gives aid and gives comfort to a number of people who need some healing as a result of September 11, and it makes them feel good. And some people already, even believers have said that.

JOHNSON: Right, right. It angers a lot of other people. And it causes a lot of anguish to a lot of non-believers.

This is exactly why "Atheism" is not a disbelief in God, it is a rejection and hatred of God. How can you hate something that you don't believe exists? Why can a symbol that you believe have no merit cause you to be angry? "Atheists" don't want to just have their non-belief, they want to express their anger at those who have belief. The Cross of Jesus Christ is an insult to their very soul as they can't stand to see a Truth exhibited when their whole lives are Lies. Have you ever seen a happy Atheist? No, the human soul hungers for knowledge of God and Atheists have just stubbornly refused to keep searching and it makes them miserable. To see a Cross makes them realize that the clues for the search are all around them and it makes them angry. Christ preached forgiveness, gentleness, holiness. Atheists thrive on vengence, abrasiveness, and secularlism. No wonder they are angry when they see a Cross, it tears their lives apart.

[Dimensio]

This is exactly why "Atheism" is not a disbelief in God, it is a rejection and hatred of God

Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Anything else, including disgust for a particular concept of a god, is a seperate matter from atheism.

[stanz]

Thanks for your comments. Since I work directly across the street from WTC (1 Liberty Plaza) I feel I have a vested interest in how the memorial turns out.
regards....stanz

[jlogajan]

"Atheists" don't want to just have their non-belief, they want to express their anger at those who have belief.

Sounds like a lot of fundamentalists I know. I still don't grasp why religionist don't think atheists should be advocates of their beliefs.

When people hold a certain position, they tend to advocate it. It's just natural human behavior.

[rdb3]

America already has cities named after Catholic saints.

[Dimensio]

I live in a city named for a French king. What does that imply?

[rdb3]

What on earth are you talking about?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

First, there was a reason why I put the terms into quotes, and that is because what I am talking about are the organization oriented atheists, and not the general person who just doesn't believe.

Now, onto your response. The most glaring and discrediting action that anyone can take is that of hypocrisy. A anti-drug activist caught with crack, a anti-porn activist caught buying mail-order porn, a district attorney caught bribing an official. These things destroy credibility and ruin any message, regardless of how good it is, that comes from these people.

What these "Atheists" (again, in quotes) are doing is saying, "Your beliefs are wrong and should not be allowed into the public realm. But my beliefs, or lack there of, are correct and should be in the public realm." Hypocrisy, especially for those who insist that they follow Reason.

Reason would state that those ideas who hold the most value will dominate in an open dialogue, while those ideas that are lacking will fade. So followers of Reason would have no problem putting up their beliefs against beliefs that are wrong and lacking.

But instead of putting ideas into the marketplace, they wish to close the market to competing ideas. This is why it is hypocritical.

Advocacy of a position is fine and I doubt many on this site would disagree. Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross? If the position that there is no God is correct, then shouldn't that memorial win out in the end? And if it doesn't, how does it hurt the atheist if others believe in God?

Look at it from this way.

If I believe I am on a boat that is sinking, and another boat comes up and I step onto that, I beleive that everyone on the boat I just stepped off of will drown. Is it not my moral imperative to attempt to get others to step off of the sinking boat, onto the boat that is not sinking?

Now if you believe we are standing in a field and I take a step away from one area into another, and tell you to get off the sinking boat, why should it bother you so much? Where is your inducement to be angry at me for imagining there is a sinking boat and a safe boat? Where is your moral imperative to convince me that there are no boats?

If you truly do not believe that either of our fates are going to be any different, from what position do you advocate? If we die and that's the end, then all of life is a vanity, and all existance a wisp of smoke; seemingly substantial, but really of absolutely no consequence.

Who cares if Hitler killed 10 million, we will all die and disappear anyway. Who cares if we live under freedom or oppression, there is nothing beyond this life either for us or for future generations. Who cares about being good and kind to each other, goodness and kindness will not hold off death and death is the end of all of our conciousness. What a hopeless way to live. Why work to make things better? To what end? The future generations will have no more hope than you, so what is the point?

[The KG9 Kid]

Boy, there's no fooling you.

[steve-b]

How can you hate something that you don't believe exists?

I certainly wish that government officials who take my money and spend it on notions I don't believe in did not exist. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

[rdb3]

What's your point? You made a statement which I responded to.

What does "fooling" have to do with anything?

[steve-b]

Your arguments fail to address the issue of government sponsorship.

[Dimensio]

Why not put proceeds towards a non-religious memorial to "compete" with the Cross? If the position that there is no God is correct, then shouldn't that memorial win out in the end?

Uh...argument from popularity? The truth value of a god's existence is based on a majority believing that it exists?

Who cares if Hitler killed 10 million, we will all die and disappear anyway...

I'm trying to figure out just what you are attempting to argue here. Are you suggesting that you think that it is "better" to believe in a god and an afterlife?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Your arguments fail to address the issue of government sponsorship.

You are correct, it does. But let us look at what was actually said by the "Spokesperson" for the "Atheists" in this exchange.

ELLEN JOHNSON, AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Well, if there's money involved if there's any government money going towards the memorial site, and there probably will be, that's a violation because the government would be supporting the building of a cross. And even if it wasn't, even if there was no government money involved... ...I think that a memorial, especially at the World Trade Center, should represent all Americans.

She clearly argues this from outside the situation of the issue of government money. She chose the intellectual battlefield, I will not provide cover for only her to use when I engage the field.