American Atheists Lose.. 9-11 Cross stays.

[OriginalShroom]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

9/11 Cross Is Safe From Atheist Group?s Lawsuit After Judge Gives Unusual Reason For Protecting It

The appellate court stated in a unanimous decision that the cross is historic as much as it is religious:


“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” —Circuit Judge Reena Raggi

And this:


“Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.” —General Court Ruling Documentation

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

 

[Jarhead]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

9/11 Cross Is Safe From Atheist Group?s Lawsuit After Judge Gives Unusual Reason For Protecting It

The appellate court stated in a unanimous decision that the cross is historic as much as it is religious:


“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” —Circuit Judge Reena Raggi

And this:


“Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.” —General Court Ruling Documentation

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

Yes. Your second quote will cover much in the future.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[Disir]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

9/11 Cross Is Safe From Atheist Group?s Lawsuit After Judge Gives Unusual Reason For Protecting It

The appellate court stated in a unanimous decision that the cross is historic as much as it is religious:


“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” —Circuit Judge Reena Raggi

And this:


“Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.” —General Court Ruling Documentation

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

They weren't asking for it to be taken down. They were requesting a plaque to be placed in the "Finding Meaning Exhibit" and a plaque would not be an artifact and atheists don't have a symbol to draw from in any of those artifacts. The case says that this particular cross is a part of the telling of the events after 9/11 both in it's discovery and afterwards. The court held that it failed the Lemon test.

I doubt very seriously that this is going to be used all that often. One would freaking hope not to have a repeat of that type of situation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...c2371c6-ddc1-4f29-aec9-a8f807a6f0a7/1/hilite/

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Put a cross on everything boys. The more you do, the less it matters...

 

[Wildman]

Put a cross on everything boys. The more you do, the less it matters...

yuppp! another troll post by the boards biggest troll......, oooops ! Mr.Deanie is running a very close race for first place.

 

[Jarhead]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

9/11 Cross Is Safe From Atheist Group?s Lawsuit After Judge Gives Unusual Reason For Protecting It

The appellate court stated in a unanimous decision that the cross is historic as much as it is religious:


“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” —Circuit Judge Reena Raggi

And this:


“Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.” —General Court Ruling Documentation

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

They weren't asking for it to be taken down. They were requesting a plaque to be placed in the "Finding Meaning Exhibit" and a plaque would not be an artifact and atheists don't have a symbol to draw from in any of those artifacts. The case says that this particular cross is a part of the telling of the events after 9/11 both in it's discovery and afterwards. The court held that it failed the Lemon test.

I doubt very seriously that this is going to be used all that often. One would freaking hope not to have a repeat of that type of situation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...c2371c6-ddc1-4f29-aec9-a8f807a6f0a7/1/hilite/

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

They weren't asking for it to be taken down. They were requesting a plaque to be placed in the "Finding Meaning Exhibit" and a plaque would not be an artifact and atheists don't have a symbol to draw from in any of those artifacts. The case says that this particular cross is a part of the telling of the events after 9/11 both in it's discovery and afterwards. The court held that it failed the Lemon test.

I doubt very seriously that this is going to be used all that often. One would freaking hope not to have a repeat of that type of situation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...c2371c6-ddc1-4f29-aec9-a8f807a6f0a7/1/hilite/

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

 

[Jarhead]

They weren't asking for it to be taken down. They were requesting a plaque to be placed in the "Finding Meaning Exhibit" and a plaque would not be an artifact and atheists don't have a symbol to draw from in any of those artifacts. The case says that this particular cross is a part of the telling of the events after 9/11 both in it's discovery and afterwards. The court held that it failed the Lemon test.

I doubt very seriously that this is going to be used all that often. One would freaking hope not to have a repeat of that type of situation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...c2371c6-ddc1-4f29-aec9-a8f807a6f0a7/1/hilite/

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

Us guys?

I am a Jew. Not very religious either.

I simply respect the sentiments of other people and if it affects me, I turn the other way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

Us guys?

I am a Jew. Not very religious either.

I simply respect the sentiments of other people and if it affects me, I turn the other way.

Then really nothing matters to you so don't worry about it...

 

[Jarhead]

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

Us guys?

I am a Jew. Not very religious either.

I simply respect the sentiments of other people and if it affects me, I turn the other way.

Then really nothing matters to you so don't worry about it...

I am interested in court rulings that supports freedoms and liberties.

Mind your own business.

 

[deltex1]

God damned atheists.

 

[Peach]

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

Us guys?

I am a Jew. Not very religious either.

I simply respect the sentiments of other people and if it affects me, I turn the other way.

As do I, seek to be offended, and you will be.

 

[Ripple]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...

9/11 Cross Is Safe From Atheist Group?s Lawsuit After Judge Gives Unusual Reason For Protecting It

The appellate court stated in a unanimous decision that the cross is historic as much as it is religious:


“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” —Circuit Judge Reena Raggi

And this:


“Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.” —General Court Ruling Documentation

Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

Thank God the court saw through the attempt to elevate one hate filled religion over another.

 

[Little-Acorn]

yuppp! another troll post by the boards biggest troll......, oooops ! Mr.Deanie is running a very close race for first place.

The reason the board troll keeps showing up, is because you keep giving him responses.

Ignore him and he'll go away.

Please.

 

[Disir]

While that ruling was not a surprise, what was written into the ruling is a major defeat for the Anti-Christians out there..

Looks like the ACLU and the rest of the Christian Haters are going to be in for a rough time...




Expect this ruling to be referred to in future cases the Left brings.

They weren't asking for it to be taken down. They were requesting a plaque to be placed in the "Finding Meaning Exhibit" and a plaque would not be an artifact and atheists don't have a symbol to draw from in any of those artifacts. The case says that this particular cross is a part of the telling of the events after 9/11 both in it's discovery and afterwards. The court held that it failed the Lemon test.

I doubt very seriously that this is going to be used all that often. One would freaking hope not to have a repeat of that type of situation.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...c2371c6-ddc1-4f29-aec9-a8f807a6f0a7/1/hilite/

Actually, I heard this morning that they DID want it removed. Apparently, some testimonies included people saying that the site of the cross, itself, made them ill.
Not sure what the truth is.

Read the case in the above link.

 

[Little-Acorn]

American Atheists Lose..


Only a few of them.

The vast majority of Americans, including nearly all atheists, couldn't care less if that cross is there (and in many other places).

It's just a few fanatic militants who have been raising all the fuss.

 

[Steven_R]

Maybe that's because if you think about it, which you guys don't, there was no God there that day, or if he was there he was on the side of the 19 who killed 150 times that many. Now that's a slaughter worthy of the Bible eh?

You guys make a big deal out of symbols while your actions undermine the faith all damn day long. Godspeed little friends...

No, no, no. God works in mysterious, often dickish, ways. Sure, it might seem that God letting some people kill 3000 innocent people might not be a God-like action, but who are you to judge the almighty?

I'm sure that as those 3000 people were burning, falling to their deaths, or being crushed by buildings the very last thought in their heads was Romans 8:31. "If God be with us, then who can be against us?"

 

[Steven_R]

American Atheists Lose..


Only a few of them.

The vast majority of Americans, including nearly all atheists, couldn't care less if that cross is there (and in many other places).

It's just a few fanatic militants who have been raising all the fuss.

I'm agnostic (although I don't believe the Bible is factual or Jehovah is real anymore than I believe Bullfinch's Mythology is factual or Zeus is real), but I'm okay with a memorial cross at a spot where people died (although I fail to see the point).

I also routinely say "bless you" when someone sneezes and have several hymns that are favorites of mine.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

... but I'm okay with a memorial cross at a spot where people died (although I fail to see the point).

The point is to say that the person who died was a Christian, or a Jew. See:

Many other faiths died that day as well, but there is no symbol honoring them, just the Christians, as usual...

 

[LambertLunatic]

Why are atheists so up in arms over a cross? Nobody is forcing religious views on them. I don't believe pro wrestling is real, but I don't go to court to try stopping it. I don't believe in Elvis sightings, but I don't try shouting down those that think Elvis is alive. I don't believe that communion wine literally turns into Christ's blood, but I fully support Catholics first amendment right to believe it does.

I think that atheists that fight against the free exercise clause are terrified that they're wrong, and that's why they're so vocal.