Court Calls Out Angry Atheists

September 11th Memorial Held At Ground Zero On 9th Anniversary Of Attacks

ANGRY atheists have made outlandish claims about the Ground Zero Cross – the two intersecting steal beams in the shape of a cross that was found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center following 9/11.

Not only have they made these claims in public (calling it “offensive and repugnant”), they’ve made them in federal court. Now a federal appeals court is calling them out and demanding they provide a rational explanation as to how their “offense” constitutes a constitutional claim.

When the American Atheists first filed their lawsuit in state court seeking to have the cross torn down and removed from the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum, they asserted in their complaint that their members were experiencing “dyspepsia [upset stomach], symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish” as a “direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross.”

When the case was removed from state to federal court, the angry atheists quickly dropped their bizarre claims about the cross causing them upset stomachs, but continued arguing that the mere “existence of the cross” was causing them “depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

Are these angry atheists, who vehemently oppose the very idea of the supernatural,somehow ascribing near supernatural power to the cross?

A federal court threw out their lawsuit last year. Unsurprisingly, the immediate reaction of American Atheists President David Silverman was “We are angry . . . .” On appeal, these angry atheists are arguing that they are “offended” by the Ground Zero Cross.

Now a federal appeals court is demanding that this angry atheist group explain just how their “offense” becomes a constitutional crisis.

The judge has now given the plaintiffs until July 14 to file supplemental legal briefs before deciding whether the case will proceed. 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 other question is — if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross “marginalizes them as American citizens” — then how is that a “particular and concrete injury” compared to just “the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally.”

The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Court Calls Out Angry Atheists

  1. Pretty daft issue in any case, and poorly constituted. (Learnt long ago:- if you’re going to a shitfight make sure you don’t have marshmallows in your bucket.
    However, this snide little query (“Are these angry atheists, who vehemently oppose the very idea of the supernatural,somehow ascribing near supernatural power to the cross?”)
    ….is no better.
    And, as usual, drag in a fake strawman.

    There’s NO suggestion that ‘angry artheists’ object to ‘supernatural’ influences; all they’re objecting to is what they see as a sick-making image ~ perhaps in terms of advocating the desirability of crucifying apostates or other non-conformists .
    Or even sort of like some people involuntarily gagging at an image (realistic or otherwise) of a child being molested, or other ‘disturbing images’ we’re sometimes warned about..
    One might, in fact, wonder:- What would Jesus say?
    Anyone here think he’d be pleased at the idea of using that symbol of his suffering as an identifier for a particular gang of self-centred zealots?

    Like

  2. Pretty silly issue in any case, and poorly constituted. (Learnt long ago:- if you’re going to a shitfight make sure you don’t have marshmallows in your bucket.
    However, this snide little query (“Are these angry atheists, who vehemently oppose the very idea of the supernatural,somehow ascribing near supernatural power to the cross?”)
    ….is no better.
    And, as usual, drag in a fake strawman.

    There’s NO suggestion that ‘angry artheists’ object to ‘supernatural’ influences; all they’re objecting to is what they see as a sick-making image ~ perhaps in terms of advocating the desirability of crucifying apostates or other non-conformists .
    Or even sort of like some people involuntarily gagging at an image (realistic or otherwise) of a child being molested, or other ‘disturbing images’ we’re sometimes warned about..
    One might, in fact, wonder:- What would Jesus say?
    Anyone here think he’d be pleased at the idea of using that symbol of his suffering as an identifier for a particular gang of self-centred zealots?

    Like

  3. “The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim”
    Be interesting if he asked believers to substantiate their claims…..ANY of them!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s