♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 26, 2011 7:09:24 GMT
www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/21/new-york-atheists-angry-over-heaven-street-sign-honoring-11victims/ QUOTE: New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims
Published June 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com A group of New York City atheists is demanding that the city remove a street sign honoring seven firefighters killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks because they say the sign violates the separation of church and state. The street, “Seven in Heaven Way,” was officially dedicated last weekend in Brooklyn outside the firehouse where the firefighters once served. The ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men. “There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.” Bronstein told Fox News Radio that his organization was especially concerned with the use of the word “heaven.” “We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell,” he said. “And it’s a totally religious statement. It’s a question of separation of church and state.” He was nonplussed over how his opposition to the street sign might be perceived – especially since the sign is honoring fallen heroes. “It’s irrelevant who it’s for,” Bronstein said. “We think this is a very bad thing,” David Silverman, president of American Atheists, agreed calling on the city to remove the sign. “It implies that heaven actually exists,” Silverman told Fox News Radio. “People died in 9/11, but they were all people who died, not just Christians. Heaven is a specifically Christian place. For the city to come up and say all those heroes are in heaven now, it’s not appropriate.” “All memorials for fallen heroes should celebrate the diversity of our country and should be secular in nature. These heroes might have been Jews, they might have been atheists, I don’t know, but either way it’s wrong for the city to say they’re in heaven. It’s preachy.” City leaders seemed dumbfounded by the atheists’ outrage because no one complained about the sign as it was going through a public approval process. “It’s unfortunate that they didn’t raise this as an issue while it was undergoing its public review either at the community board level or when it came before the City Council on their public agenda,” said Craig Hammerman, the district manager for Brooklyn Community Board 6. Hammerman told Fox News Radio that the community was “solidly behind this proposal. Not a single person stood up to speak out against it. I think it’s a little late in the process for someone to be bringing this up now.” “When you think you’ve heard it all, you haven’t,” Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz told Fox News Radio. “These seven brave souls who put their lives on the line and ultimately gave up the most precious gift that could be given, believe me are in heaven for serving us so admirably,” he said. Criticism of the sign brought condemnation from Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “There are cities that have religious connotations in their names, why not a street,” Land said. “Do they want us to rename Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and St. Joseph?” He added, “In a country where 85 percent of the people say they are Christian or claim to be Christian, should it be surprising that you name cities and streets with religious terminology.” Silverman said he would not be surprised if atheists are vilified for their criticism of the street sign – suggesting they were simply being patriotic. “If we’re opposed to this sign, we’re somehow opposed to honoring the heroes,” he said. “The attacks on 9/11 were an attack on America. They were an attack on our Constitution and breaking that Constitution to honor these firefighters is the wrong thing to do. “The patriotic and right thing to do is to obey our own law and to realize that we are a diverse nation, a melting pot full of different views,” Silverman added. The local and national atheist organizations said they’ve offered alternative names that would still honor the firefighters, but without any religious affiliation. Bronstein suggested they call the street, “We Remember The Seven – 9/11.” He said that would be “more appropriate.” But the city has no intention of removing the sign. If that’s the case, Bronstein said he may consider a lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2011 13:27:37 GMT
It is strange that no objections were raised when the sign was being eerected. I'd be outraged by it if I was related to one of the dead, and knew he was a non-believer - but presumably that hasn't happened.
S while I have a tiny bit of sympathy with what the atheists are saying, it is their tough luck, they are too late to object.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 27, 2011 15:31:42 GMT
How exactly does it hurt them? That's what I don't get.
We have a street here in town that is called Mecca. I don't bat an eye over it nor does it keep me up at night.
I have enough stress in my life without going out and looking for more.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2011 16:55:27 GMT
Mecca is a real place; heaven is debatable!
It isn't just the word "heaven" though: "Seven in heaven" is giving out the message that the dead firefighters are in a better place, which is a religious opinion not shared by atheists.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 27, 2011 21:38:58 GMT
Fanny Hands Lane, Butts Wynd, Jingle Pot Road or Wino Way, Farfrompoopen Road, This Ain't It Road, Little Schmuck Road, Candy Cane Lane.......They are just street names.....I don't think about them as political/religious or anything statements.
I have seen streets named after cartoon characters and things from fictional books........didn't make them real to me or bother me if someone does believe it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 28, 2011 10:53:53 GMT
My sympathies lie with the atheist argument generally.
But the atheists have it completely wrong in this case.
Right war, wrong battle.
The seven fire fighters are known locally and with affection as the seven in heaven and it is those 7 people who are being honoured with this street naming. It's a personal commemoration. Personal beliefs are protected by the American Constitution.
Now, if these same atheists want to argue that ''In God We Trust'' and ''one nation.... UNDER GOD'' breaks the separation of church and state policy, then go for it! They are correct there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2011 17:38:11 GMT
Yes, if that is how the dead firefighters are commonly known, the name does make more sense.
But this sort of remark is enough to turn anyone atheist - I never trust anyone who says "believe me":
“When you think you’ve heard it all, you haven’t,” Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz told Fox News Radio. “These seven brave souls who put their lives on the line and ultimately gave up the most precious gift that could be given, believe me are in heaven for serving us so admirably,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 1, 2011 2:06:24 GMT
This is every bit as fundamentalist as those they object to, if not more so. They are taking it upon themselves to know that Heaven is a place that religious Christians believe they go to, that does not exist. I noticed a reference to Jews. Some Jews believe in an afterlife and Heaven, some do not.
Why not allow to take it as suits the reader? Maybe Heaven means a quasi-physical pie in the sky for some, another dimension or state of being for others, a way to think about the dead and gone (a sort of entry in their own good books) for yet others and a god reincarnation for some more.
This objection is every bit as fundamentalist in what it assumes (perhaps more) than the people it is complaining about. If they knew their Christianity, they would know anyway that Heaven has nothing to do with it - that is reserved for Angels and possibly a very few Saints. The rest of us have to put up with St. Paul's In the grave there is only sleep until woken by the Last Judgment. So it is folk myth and symbology, not Christian dogma at all.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 1, 2011 7:16:13 GMT
Not really. You're looking too deeply into it.
The people putting up the sign believe the seven are in heaven. The people complaining about the sign are complaining about violation of separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 1, 2011 16:37:37 GMT
A heaven populated by the souls of the righteous is certainly Christian dogma, even if the Bible itself is a bit hazy about it:
O quam gloriosum est regnum in quo cum Christo gaudent omnes sancti! Amicti stolis albis sequuntur Agnum quocumque ierit.
(O how glorious is the kingdom in which all the saints rejoice with Christ! Clad in robes of white, they follow the Lamb wherever he goes.)
The difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs in the matter is that Protestants expect to go straight there - or of course to Hell - immediately after death, whereas Catholics recognise that they may have to spend a bit of time in Purgatory first.
But in either case, the soul is separted from the body at death. At the Resurrection of the Body, they will be reunited.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 2, 2011 0:39:03 GMT
Purgatory at least makes sense within the system (whether you believe the system itself valid or not). As far as I know it, the St. Paul In the grave only sleep developed into the idea that those who died for the faith as martyrs went straight to Heaven instead, to the extent that Pontiff Leo III (not sure if it was him) had to pronounce that going out of your way to get yourself killed was the sin of suicide, not genuine martyrdom.
How Protestants came to think that after 1500 years, they knew better than the people who wrote the New Testament and change their Old Testament references from Septuagint to Massoritic defeats me, but then so does the Filioque that their Roman predecessors invented from nowhere.
Then again, I am not so happy about some of what the true heirs to simplified Christ the divine in all as Mystery countenance in Egypt and Ethiopia, or what the true followers of a literal Jesus the Prophet support in Egypt and Iran either.
I'll give them all a miss and turn to something more suited to the Age of Aquarius.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 2, 2011 8:44:37 GMT
I'll give them all a miss... Which you are perfectly free to do - but not on this thread, which is about the actual beliefs, however ill-founded, enjoined on the followers of particular brands of Christianity. If you want to discuss the Filioque clause, start a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2011 11:15:22 GMT
There is little chance of discussing it with me, because I have no idea what Liberator is talking about.
But I don't see a problem with diverting a thread a bit; it happens, and anyone who wants to, can simply bring it back on track!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 2, 2011 17:39:00 GMT
Religious history interest me, Skylark. Not really. You're looking too deeply into it. The people putting up the sign believe the seven are in heaven. The people complaining about the sign are complaining about violation of separation of church and state. I probably am but if atheists are going to be offended because the people behind this sign take it absolutely literally, then they might as well be as offended by every religious establishment in their view as well. What people believe is their business, they can't force anybody else to believe it any more than some of the traditional names scattered round Europe require anybody to take the trolls, fairies, miracles and apparitions they refer to as historical statements either. China's rival to the ISS is going to be called Heavenly Palace. I don't think there's any reason to get all het up about that!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jul 2, 2011 18:20:27 GMT
I really missed a trick with that one. Why didn't someone just ask the atheist objectors to "go to hell?"
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 4, 2011 3:12:44 GMT
You don't ask people to go to hell, you tell them!
More important than that, with maybe a few exceptions, like 'Church' of Scientology (probably cribbed straight from Heinlein's Church of All Worlds) however mad I think your beliefs, the mechanism that I use to prevent your expression of them is the same mechanism that you can use to prevent expression of mine - so let's keep it to a Mexican Standoff where we can say it to each other, but can't force each other.
As I read the American Constitution, product of an era as archaic as the clothes, it allows complete religious expression of anything, does not disallow any religious expression - however much Franklin and most of them rejected the religion of their day. Furthermore, their constitution seems to prevent the Federal Congress from stopping any State from becoming a theocracy - perhaps because most of the New England ones were when it was drawn up.
I don't care for Theocracy, but it is always possible to leave, and I do care for if that's what the majority want, and I don't care at all for changeing the hands-off sense of let them choose any religion to a hands-on one of they must not choose any religion.
As far as I interpret the US Constitution, it says that if any state chooses to make Scientology or Mormonism or Satanism or Voodoo the State religion, The Congress has no power to interfer beyond protecting the agreed human rights of all concerned against any discrimination for rejecting the State Religion.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jul 4, 2011 4:09:30 GMT
I'm an athiest who believes that all religions are bogus and always have been. Some are more bogus than others with Islam being the least credible and the most evil. However, the Catholics and the Scientologists aren't far behind.
America needs a constitutional convention to eliminate tax free status for religions. This is a huge loophole which allows con men to set up in business as preachers and scam their congregations while avoiding taxes. They're criminals and they should be treated as such. Unfortunately, they're currently above the law.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 4, 2011 17:01:19 GMT
Once a religion becomes organised with a creed getting ever more precise, it has lost its point. Spirituality (a word I dislike) is experience, not belief . The tax exemption should certainly go. That is why Scientology ever came to be registered as a religion at all - Hubbard was having trouble with his tax and other people running 'courses' of the same sort cheaper and better than himself. Also, it gave him the power trip he obviously enjoyed. In order, I think the older more elaborate religions more effective, with Buddhism right at the top and umpteen levels of Protestant break-away raving for Jeeeeesus right at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 4, 2011 20:17:07 GMT
I'm an athiest who believes that all religions are bogus and always have been. Some are more bogus than others with Islam being the least credible and the most evil. However, the Catholics and the Scientologists aren't far behind. America needs a constitutional convention to eliminate tax free status for religions. This is a huge loophole which allows con men to set up in business as preachers and scam their congregations while avoiding taxes. They're criminals and they should be treated as such. Unfortunately, they're currently above the law. first, we have to eliminate the tax free status of corporations, who really are criminals and should be treated as such
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 4, 2011 20:24:50 GMT
You don't ask people to go to hell, you tell them! More important than that, with maybe a few exceptions, like 'Church' of Scientology (probably cribbed straight from Heinlein's Church of All Worlds) however mad I think your beliefs, the mechanism that I use to prevent your expression of them is the same mechanism that you can use to prevent expression of mine - so let's keep it to a Mexican Standoff where we can say it to each other, but can't force each other. As I read the American Constitution, product of an era as archaic as the clothes, it allows complete religious expression of anything, does not disallow any religious expression - however much Franklin and most of them rejected the religion of their day. Furthermore, their constitution seems to prevent the Federal Congress from stopping any State from becoming a theocracy - perhaps because most of the New England ones were when it was drawn up. I don't care for Theocracy, but it is always possible to leave, and I do care for if that's what the majority want, and I don't care at all for changeing the hands-off sense of let them choose any religion to a hands-on one of they must not choose any religion. As far as I interpret the US Constitution, it says that if any state chooses to make Scientology or Mormonism or Satanism or Voodoo the State religion, The Congress has no power to interfer beyond protecting the agreed human rights of all concerned against any discrimination for rejecting the State Religion. you read the constitution wrong. don't feel bad. the supreme court has made several lunatical decisions based on a totally false interpretation of the first amendment. the first amendment says that congress cannot pass any law establishing ANY state religion. no state can pass such a law either, since even under the tenth amendment, no state can pass a law that is contrary to the federal constitution. what is especially egregious is the imbecilic notion that the first amendment puts some kind of barrier between the church and government. it does nothing of the kind. the most important provision in the first amendment is that congress also cannot pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. to every intelligent person, this means that, if a child wants to pray in school, there can be no law forbidding it. if the government wants to have a nativity scene in the doorway of city hall, no one has a right to object. the perversion of the first amendment by the anti civil liberties union is reprehensible, and every imbecile who follows it is a traitor to the united states, by definition
|
|