- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive' | Fox News
Evidently the grind to try and kill any religious symbol or preceived religious symbol has been stopped with at least 1 judge.
an atheist group tried to get the cross removed and filed a lawsuit saying that it was offensive.
the judge responded with another question is how this comes as a constitutional injury.
the cross in question was left over from the destruction of the WTC. it has been moved several times and has become a tourist attraction.
first responders before would frequent the beams and pray for other people and their co-workers.
the cross is set to go into the new museum.
This is the athiest groups second chance since the first judge threw it out and this is the federal appeals court.
the judges main question is:
Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which the plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol for all 9-11 victims, becomes a “constitutional injury.”
The lawyer defending the case raises a valid point as well.
Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with,” Baxter also said. “The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.
i found the first case the judge ruled as this.
Batts wrote that the cross “helps demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed during the rescue and recovery effort.”
Stating that the purpose of the cross was “historical and secular,” Batts observed that it will be housed at the museum in a section called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero,” with placards explaining its meaning and the reason for its inclusion in the exhibit. In addition, the cross will be surrounded by secular artifacts of the 9/11 terrorist attacks
“No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity,” Batts wrote. The judge said that the museum’s designers “have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.”
Batts noted that American Atheists also failed to allege any form of intentional discrimination or to cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
They are starting to lose more of these types of cases.
Evidently the grind to try and kill any religious symbol or preceived religious symbol has been stopped with at least 1 judge.
an atheist group tried to get the cross removed and filed a lawsuit saying that it was offensive.
the judge responded with another question is how this comes as a constitutional injury.
the cross in question was left over from the destruction of the WTC. it has been moved several times and has become a tourist attraction.
first responders before would frequent the beams and pray for other people and their co-workers.
the cross is set to go into the new museum.
This is the athiest groups second chance since the first judge threw it out and this is the federal appeals court.
the judges main question is:
Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which the plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol for all 9-11 victims, becomes a “constitutional injury.”
The lawyer defending the case raises a valid point as well.
Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with,” Baxter also said. “The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.
i found the first case the judge ruled as this.
Batts wrote that the cross “helps demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed during the rescue and recovery effort.”
Stating that the purpose of the cross was “historical and secular,” Batts observed that it will be housed at the museum in a section called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero,” with placards explaining its meaning and the reason for its inclusion in the exhibit. In addition, the cross will be surrounded by secular artifacts of the 9/11 terrorist attacks
“No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity,” Batts wrote. The judge said that the museum’s designers “have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.”
Batts noted that American Atheists also failed to allege any form of intentional discrimination or to cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
They are starting to lose more of these types of cases.
Last edited: