Things like this are embarrassing for Atheists

A Primal Nut

One thing that always annoyed me about religion was people sensitivities to it, they got insulted if you suggested they were wrong, protested against stupid things and were offended by anything deemed insulting to their religion. "Freedom of religion" was sometimes exploited so people could get their way legally and force their beliefs on other people.

One of the best things about being an Atheist is that we generally don't care about stuff like that, we don't go around getting insulted by every silly thing; instead get on with our lives as being an Atheist doesn't consume our lives the way religion can consume others. If someone suggests Jesus Christs was the son of God, I'd like to think we don't get offended the way a Christian would if I suggested he wasn't the son of God; because going around getting offended by things like this is silly and for me there is more important things, and this is one thing that separats us from religious people.

So when I see Atheists acting more like religious people; getting insulted by very little thing, I find it embarrassing, and I almost see it as a fundamentalist thing where some people want to turn Atheism into a cult that consumes people's lives. I'm talking specifically about this:

http://www.allfacebook.com/fox-news-facebook-page-gets-8000-death-threats-2011-08

Now obviously, they are right to be offended by the death threats which are completely rediculous and horrendous. But I'm talking about the rest of the article.

"The group is adamant about the fact that no other religions or philosophies will be honored if the city moves forward with its plans to erect the religious symbol".

What, do people want to start erecting Atheist symbols? I'm against this as its a step towards turning Atheism into a religion or cult.

"Some legal experts have referred to the recent religious conflict “absurd” because parts of the lawsuit names four atheists who suffered dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge, that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens, who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack".

This is the most rediculous, embarrassing things I've ever read about an Atheist, worse than many of the things we complain about what religious people do. I understand that everyone deals with pain in different ways -for Christians they want a crucifix, for atheists they might prefer photos of loved ones or whatever else the individual prefers. I don't see how putting a single crucifix at the 9/11 memorial excludes anyone, and from reading the quote above, it appears that the 9/11 memorial is being hijacked to make a point.

I agree that separation of church and state is important but when it comes to stuff like this - a memorial to 9/11 victims; why bother protesting. If Christians want to put a crucifix on the site and it makes them feel better, let them. The idea that an atheist would be offended by this is rediculous and embarrassing for me - and almost a form of fundamentalism.

To make it clear, I'm not talking about the death threats which are obviously terrible, I'm talking about the protest against the crucifix and the idea that an atheist would be offended by it. I just don't want to see Atheism go the way of people being and offended and upset by other people's ideas; the way religious people often are.

Galvasean

For clarification, who is putting up the cross? Are they a Christian group or is it state sponsored?
IMO the state should not be putting up such symbols, but individuals or indeed groups of individuals should be allowed (and indeed encouraged) to do so.

mikhail

I'm more embarrassed by the fact that the only way to sort stuff out in a modern democracy is to sue, claiming hilarious mental effects, and see if a judge agrees with you. It's just so immature.

Regarding this specific case, I'm not aware of the specifics, but I would draw a distinction between say a government agency placing that cross and a private group. If the government wants a religious component to its memorial, it shouldn't be a single religion's. I'm not inclined to be terribly bothered by it, but neither am I inclined to tell other people how to think and feel, nor to feel shame at the actions of members of an imaginary collective.

jhegarty

Galvasean wrote: »

For clarification, who is putting up the cross? Are they a Christian group or is it state sponsored?
IMO the state should not be putting up such symbols, but individuals or indeed groups of individuals should be allowed (and indeed encouraged) to do so.

The cross was moved around a few times, but it was originally found the debris after the attacks.

It's just two beams that fused together when the buildings fell to form a cross.

It's going to be moved the museum about the world trade centre when it opens next year.

wonderfulname

I don't see this as being about religion or lack thereof I see it as being about people. If there were to be a state sponsored memorial to an event in which someone close to me had died and that memorial adhered to a belief system that they were not a part of I'd feel pretty sh*t to be honest, it would be like others were being remembered and honoured ahead of them, like my loss was less than others.

I would be offended at Christians pulling some fused metal out of something that destroyed the lives of so many and using it to push their side of the story.

Any human who has suffered a loss would be inclined to feel the same. As for an atheist symbol, such a thing can not exist, I believe you mean secular, which is entirely appropriate.

strobe

The Daily Show did a deadly bit about this. Firefox-that add headers ad on - :
then:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-4-2011/culture-war-update---the-dividening-of-america---american-atheists-vs--the-ground-zero-cross

"By the way atheists... Why do you give a sh1t!?!?!"

"Everyone is entitled to their day in court. It's not like the atheists are being total dicks about it..."

kylith

As an atheist my problem with the erection of a cross is that it excludes those killed in 9/11 that weren't Christian. If a cross is to be allowed then so too should symbols of all religions of people killed, whether Muslim, Jewish, or anything else, AND something secular and tasteful for the non religious.

Galvasean

kylith wrote: »

As an atheist my problem with the erection of a cross is that it excludes those killed in 9/11 that weren't Christian. If a cross is to be allowed then so too should symbols of all religions of people killed, whether Muslim, Jewish, or anything else, AND something secular and tasteful for the non religious.

I take issue with the 'and' part. A secular symbol is for everybody, not just the non religious. It negates the need for having multiple symbols to please everybody.
Of course, certain religious folk would have you believe secularism is anti-religious :rolleyes:

Standman

I don't know the full details of this situation, but even if I were to disagree with it it wouldn't be embarrassing for me. The only opinion I can categorically state I have in common with any other atheist in the world is that I lack a belief in god. Just because some atheists do things that may be regarded as silly or petty does not mean I have to be embarrassed on their behalf just because we both share a lack of belief.

mewso

I get far more annoyed when I see "Christians" ignoring their own book ("Thou shalt not kill") than I do someone putting a cross at a memorial site for dead people who won't give a **** tbh.

In any case it would be far better to put a statue of a fireman up there. Stick to symbols of humanity when remembering human beings if you ask me.

kylith

Galvasean wrote: »

I take issue with the 'and' part. A secular symbol is for everybody, not just the non religious. It negates the need for having multiple symbols to please everybody.

Some religious people would probably demand their own religious symbol though, rather than accept something tasteful and inclusive.

recedite

strobe wrote: »

The Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-4-2011/culture-war-update---the-dividening-of-america---american-atheists-vs--the-ground-zero-cross

The American Atheists organization files a lawsuit to exclude a steel beam Ground Zero cross from the 9/11 memorial, suggesting a giant atom sculpture instead.

WTF! A giant atom?

Galvasean

mewso wrote: »

I get far more annoyed when I see "Christians" ignoring their own book ("Thou shalt not kill") than I do someone putting a cross at a memorial site for dead people who won't give a **** tbh.

Memorials are to help living people remember good deeds of those gone, not so ddead people can circle jerk themselves.

mewso wrote: »

In any case it would be far better to put a statue of a fireman up there. Stick to symbols of humanity when remembering human beings if you ask me.

+1. I think a fireman would be a great tribute to all the fire brigades, cops, citizens etc. who did went beyond the call of duty what they could to help in that terrible time.

goose2005

many Republicans died on 9/11. We need a statue of Reagan at 9/11. There were also Muslims, Jews, communists, men, women, feminists, racists, blacks, etc. etc. But only one group is speshul enough to get their own symbol, because what a miracle it was that when a building containing thousands of girders meeting at right angles, two parts of girders meeting at right angles were found in the wreckage (as well as a big pile of corpses, but those were totes part of the divine plan! Be back real soon guise!)

jhegarty

goose2005 wrote: »

But only one group is speshul enough to get their own symbol

What are you on about ?

It's going to be one exhibit in a huge museum. Are you under the impression that it will be the only exhibit ?

goose2005

Galvasean wrote: »

Memorials are to help living people remember good deeds of those gone, not so ddead people can circle jerk themselves.



+1. I think a fireman would be a great tribute to all the fire brigades, cops, citizens etc. who did went beyond the call of duty what they could to help in that terrible time.

Did firemen go beyond the call of duty? Surely their duty is to enter a burning building to save people.

Galvasean

goose2005 wrote: »

Did firemen go beyond the call of duty? Surely their duty is to enter a burning building to save people.

I'm fairly certain they are under no obligation to repeatedly go into a building when they are certain they will end up being killed. Some of them did anyway and lost their lives for it.

shanered

There was no certainty that the buildings were going to collapse, as other buildings that had similar fires have burned for hours and never collapsed in the fashion that the twin towers did, it was exactly what their job is, exactly like a soldier goes into a gunfight and a police officer a shootout, not certainties only possibilities, this one turned out for the worst though.
They did a great job saving as many as they did, which they deserve all the respect and praise that they can get for their heroic actions.

fontanalis

jhegarty wrote: »

The cross was moved around a few times, but it was originally found the debris after the attacks.

It's just two beams that fused together when the buildings fell to form a cross.

It's going to be moved the museum about the world trade centre when it opens next year.

But what's the chance of that happening in a building composed mainly of vertical and horizontal steel beams?

jhegarty

fontanalis wrote: »

But what's the chance of that happening in a building composed mainly of vertical and horizontal steel beams?

Quite high I imagine.

I don't think it was every touted as some type of miracle.

beerbuddy

A Primal Nut wrote: »

One thing that always annoyed me about religion was people sensitivities to it, they got insulted if you suggested they were wrong, protested against stupid things and were offended by anything deemed insulting to their religion. "Freedom of religion" was sometimes exploited so people could get their way legally and force their beliefs on other people.

One of the best things about being an Atheist is that we generally don't care about stuff like that, we don't go around getting insulted by every silly thing; instead get on with our lives as being an Atheist doesn't consume our lives the way religion can consume others. If someone suggests Jesus Christs was the son of God, I'd like to think we don't get offended the way a Christian would if I suggested he wasn't the son of God; because going around getting offended by things like this is silly and for me there is more important things, and this is one thing that separats us from religious people.

So when I see Atheists acting more like religious people; getting insulted by very little thing, I find it embarrassing, and I almost see it as a fundamentalist thing where some people want to turn Atheism into a cult that consumes people's lives. I'm talking specifically about this:

http://www.allfacebook.com/fox-news-facebook-page-gets-8000-death-threats-2011-08

Now obviously, they are right to be offended by the death threats which are completely rediculous and horrendous. But I'm talking about the rest of the article.

"The group is adamant about the fact that no other religions or philosophies will be honored if the city moves forward with its plans to erect the religious symbol".

What, do people want to start erecting Atheist symbols? I'm against this as its a step towards turning Atheism into a religion or cult.

"Some legal experts have referred to the recent religious conflict “absurd” because parts of the lawsuit names four atheists who suffered dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge, that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens, who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack".

This is the most rediculous, embarrassing things I've ever read about an Atheist, worse than many of the things we complain about what religious people do. I understand that everyone deals with pain in different ways -for Christians they want a crucifix, for atheists they might prefer photos of loved ones or whatever else the individual prefers. I don't see how putting a single crucifix at the 9/11 memorial excludes anyone, and from reading the quote above, it appears that the 9/11 memorial is being hijacked to make a point.

I agree that separation of church and state is important but when it comes to stuff like this - a memorial to 9/11 victims; why bother protesting. If Christians want to put a crucifix on the site and it makes them feel better, let them. The idea that an atheist would be offended by this is rediculous and embarrassing for me - and almost a form of fundamentalism.

To make it clear, I'm not talking about the death threats which are obviously terrible, I'm talking about the protest against the crucifix and the idea that an atheist would be offended by it. I just don't want to see Atheism go the way of people being and offended and upset by other people's ideas; the way religious people often are.

Amen to that....

A Primal Nut

goose2005 wrote: »

Did firemen go beyond the call of duty? Surely their duty is to enter a burning building to save people.

Many were off-duty and called in to help.

Also, they didn't know the building would collapse but of course there was a big risk going up to the top in order to try to save people (the chance of the fire spreading, another explosion due to leftover fuel, etc).