Fox News Viewers Threaten Atheists Over 9/11 Cross Lawsuit

Christian Post

Christians are being blamed after viewers of a Fox News program logged onto the news network's Facebook page and left violent and threatening comments for a representative of an atheist group suing over the placement of a cross at the 9/11 site.

The comments threatening and wishing rape and murder upon atheists were sparked by an interview Fox News did with Blair Scott, the Communications Director for American Atheists; a group that describes its mission as protecting civil rights for non-believers.

I don't know how much truth in it. But the christians are being blamed for advocating killing atheists in that facebook page. If it's true, I see it as a form of tribalism rather than fanaticism. If this get worse, there'll be a major split among the people everywhere, not good at all.

The original blog.
Christians Openly Advocate Killing Atheists on FOX News Facebook Page

Facebook Christians Advocating Death, Rape and Harm to Athiests The list below represents just some of the comments that were captured before the content was deleted. Each commentator’s name is linked to their Facebook profile if it can be found, along with the quote attributed to that person.

Comments inside the link.

Perhaps this opinion gets me some hate, but perhaps Atheists would do well to recall what nation they are living in and what majority faith controls it by such a wide margin, the whole discussion is almost moot.

www.adherents.com...

That is a fairly clear grid and I confirmed the numbers by other sources as being within a % or so of anything else I found for numbers and solid estimates.

I don't want to see any harm come to Atheists, but they seem to treat the attacking of religion as a personal sport. To a majority of people, it's the very core of their life, beliefs, and spiritual being. I hope no one acts on their threats, as it only makes life harder on everyone when that happens. Having said that, these folks have to realize the Faiths they are attacking on a daily basis have members who aren't entirely stable....and will push back.

who cares If there Is a cross there? what ever happened to tolerance? I'm neither christian nor atheist (agnostic actually) nor do I condone what was posted on facebook but It seems to me that Atheists see equality as removing any trace of Christianity from the public. I'm sure there Is plenty of room there for a picture of Darwin or whoever Atheists like these days there too. why sue over the cross instead of adding something for atheists at the memorial as well, hell add some Muslim and Jewish stuff there too. people just want reasons to have there face in the news.

Originally posted by TruthWizard
I'm sure there Is plenty of room there for a picture of Darwin or whoever Atheists like these days there too. why sue over the cross instead of adding something for atheists at the memorial as well, hell add some Muslim and Jewish stuff there too. people just want reasons to have there face in the news.

That's what the lawsuit is about according to the blog, they want equal opportunity. But it's not about the lawsuit, it's about the reaction to the lawsuit.

Well I'm a strong agnostic, and I find the idea of kicking up a stink about a cross being placed at the site ridiculous.
If you're Aetheist, then you shouldn't care either way. I mean what If a lot of the people who died there were christian?

Either way, It's a mark of respect for the dead. These Aethiests are making the rest look like fools by acting like this.
I mean I'm almost a full blown Aetheist(the only religion I'm cool with is Buddhism), and I don't see any problem with it.

Those comments don't really seem like they'd be what ol' JC would say do they? So they appear to be bringing out the bad side of Christians. Both sides look like massive dicks.

These people need some hobbies. Just like over the top Christian fundamentalists do too.

Star and Flag.

I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Everyone is trying to get their attention, and no one is going to budge. I have an idea, instead of pressing your religion into the fold, why not put up memorials that reflect the religion of the [I]victims[/]? After all, they're the ones it's for, supposedly.

Probably a bunch of Christians, so keep the cross. Most likely a few Atheists, so put an atom up there or something, most likely some Buddhists, so drop a Buddha down, probably more than a few Jews, so hello Star of David, etc. etc.

I'm not calling for every single religion, just every one that was represented by the victims.

Then get rid of that GD lawsuit!

reply to post by Jazzyguy


This is awesome...a 2 Fir that can't be beat!


The Atheists will probably win, scoring another point for the common sense movement, while a plethora of Christians will now be deemed unfit to enter the pearly gates...


'Tis a great day...

...the group "american atheists" do not represent me or any atheists i know personally... imo, they're a political group bastardizing atheism - which could indicate that they were raised christian and never got past the brain-dulling programming or they're a black ops christian crew...

...the christian jerks who posted their need to kill them for filing a law suit are just sling-nasty maniacs who should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder...

...and thats as nice as i can be about either group...

The thing that people miss is that the atheists called for either equal representation or none at all. The cross can stay as long as a Star and Crescent, a Star of David, an Atom, and a Dharma Wheel is added as well.

Originally posted by BoneMosaic
Well I'm a strong agnostic, and I find the idea of kicking up a stink about a cross being placed at the site ridiculous.

I don't.

I came from an era of Christian control. When in school kids were forced to participate in Christmas and Easter celebrations - - even if they were Jewish.

We've made great strides in Separation of State.

I do not consider this a simple little innocent thing - - at all.

Originally posted by SG-17
The thing that people miss is that the atheists called for either equal representation or none at all. The cross can stay as long as a Star and Crescent, a Star of David, an Atom, and a Dharma Wheel is added as well.

I'm all for equality. But - I think they should allow all the official symbols recognized by the military for grave markers.

www.cem.va.gov...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the group "american atheists" do not represent me or any atheists i know personally... imo, they're a political group bastardizing atheism

So you are against an Atheist political group fighting to keep our government secular - - and ensuring separation of church and state?

Atheists should just quietly stay in the closet? Is that what your saying?

reply to post by Jazzyguy


There are some radical Christians out there however my guess is those on the internet passing threats are just a bunch of cowardly keyboard cowboys. Hiding behind a screen giving death threats just because you disagree, I'm sure Jesus would be proud

Personally I disagree with the decision of American Atheists to sue over the "cross", and I myself am an atheist. In my opinion these two pieces of wreckage are not overtly religious, you have to want to see them as a religious symbol. Religion is doing real harm, but these two cross-beams are not part of that in the slightest, they're hurting no one and they don't violate the first amendment in my opinion. However I'll let the courts decide and I won't be passing any death threats on to anyone, be they Christian or atheist.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Perhaps this opinion gets me some hate, but perhaps Atheists would do well to recall what nation they are living in and what majority faith controls it by such a wide margin, the whole discussion is almost moot.

We are a democratic republic. Majority does not rule.

There is more clout in equal rights and separation of church and state.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

There are some radical Christians out there however my guess is those on the internet passing threats are just a bunch of cowardly keyboard cowboys. Hiding behind a screen giving death threats just because you disagree, I'm sure Jesus would be proud

Personally I disagree with the decision of American Atheists to sue over the "cross", and I myself am an atheist. In my opinion these two pieces of wreckage are not overtly religious, you have to want to see them as a religious symbol.

I think its because of my age - - and having over many years watched the fight against Christian dominance/control in America - - that I support Equal symbols or none.

This is the third thread today where people have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the Constitution works. In this case, it is a complete misunderstanding of the First Ammendment, more specifically the Establishment Clause. As a public service to those members completely misinformed and as a friendly effort to help them from making complete fools of themselves, I'll do my best to explain it.

First, the First Ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Right from the start it clearly states that Congress can make no law establishing a (national) religion, and by the same token goes on to state that they can also make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. So in essence, it is stating that the government's job is to not get involved either way. That is why it is called the "Establishment Clause". Simple right?

The more important part, that people conveniently ignore, is the expression clause. Congress shall make no law "abridging the free exercise thereof". Which is exactly what the atheists try to use the courts to do, abridge the free exedrcise thereof. A hypocritical approach to enacting First Ammendment protections.

Instead, I challenge any Atheist anywhere to show me where in the Constitution that it provides them a right to be free from being offended by other people exercising their First Ammendment rights? Anyone? I'll check back later to laugh at the mental gymnastics that our liberal/atheist friends attempt to employ to get there. Good luck!

reply to post by Annee


Problem is this isn't a symbol, it's a cross-beam recovered from the wreckage, it's only a religious symbol if people choose to see it that way. Now if they'd actually built a brand new memorial cross and stuck it there as an overtly religious symbol I'd fully agree with you. I do think they could set up other religious symbols and put up an actual religious cross with them if they wanted, but this piece of wreckage that happens to be cross-shaped is not an overtly religious symbol.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

these two pieces of wreckage are not overtly religious, you have to want to see them as a religious symbol.

...exactly... i see it as morbid leftovers with little artistic value but, considering that all the wreckage from the wtc site was, allegedly, shipped off to china - i wonder if it really is a leftover and not a con-job...

reply to post by kozmo


You're absolutely right, except that you've missed the reason why the atheists are suing. The supposed "cross" is on a government supported memorial. So to them this is the government giving a thumbs up to Christianity while ignoring all other religions (thus RESPECTING an established religion). Now don't get me wrong, I disagree with the atheist group and I honestly think this lawsuit is a frivolous waste of time but in their opinion this violates the separation of church and state.

Personally I think there are far more important fights against religion than getting a piece of WTC wreckage that happens to be cross-shaped taken down.

By the way most fights by atheists to get stuff taken down are legitimate, like getting the ten commandments removed from in front of court houses, as the government has no business giving a stamp of approval to iron age mythologies of any kind. While I do agree that religious expression of individuals is of the utmost importance, it is equally important to stop the government from exercising religious expression as it is meant to be devoid of religion. IMO this "cross" doesn't violate the first amendment at all.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Annee

 

Problem is this isn't a symbol, it's a cross-beam recovered from the wreckage, it's only a religious symbol if people choose to see it that way. Now if they'd actually built a brand new memorial cross and stuck it there as an overtly religious symbol I'd fully agree with you. I do think they could set up other religious symbols and put up an actual religious cross with them if they wanted, but this piece of wreckage that happens to be cross-shaped is not an overtly religious symbol.

I know the piece. I also know there were thousands of other pieces that could have been used as a representative sculpture.

This particular piece has been chosen - - explicitly because of it's symbolism to Christianity.

Sorry - - but there is no denying its symbolism.