NYC Mayor Criticized for Decision to Exclude Clergy From 9/11 Ceremony

[Flavius_Aetius]

I don’t know if it is ‘religion’s fault’, but I can say with absolute assurance that of there were no religion, all other things being equal, 9/11 would not have happened. It was an attack motivated by religion, and carried out in the name of the God of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. You can hear the attackers shouting His name on the tapes of the plane that crashed, as passengers herocially fought back. These are facts, and are not altered by saying that their religion is wrong, or not really Islamic, or that they were misguided. The facts remain.

Sounds like you DO know that it’s religions fault that 9/11 occurred. And exactly how do you know that there would never be any attack if we lived in your perfect atheist utopia?! What about Western Imperialism? Wouldn’t it be just as easy to influence Arabs into taking action against World Powers that have extensively used their lands as their battlefields and places to strip natural resources from? Added to Western Imperialism is ethic differences, “why are these white devils killing our people and stripping our lands clean of resources?!”

See even in your imaginary paradise without religion, we would still find plenty of reasons to hate one another!

 

[Teelynn]

Are they? Who says? And even if this has been the case - why should it continue?

Because it upholds our “Tradition”. There is something to be said for “tradition”. It gives society something to hold onto…something secure…something of comfort. Without something to believe in and hold onto that is beyond ourselves, a vacuum is created…an emptiness that by nature longs to be filled. (which btw, is how God created us)

 

[jediliz]

Cuba and China are both atheistic countries run by Communists. There are few freedoms and a lot of human rights abuses. I’ll take Religion any day.

These families are Christian, Jewish, etc…I don’t know why a priest or rabbi or wahtever can’t say a few words remembering the ones that were lost.

 

[jam070406]

Well, yes, they would be united around those word, but they would disagree about what the words mean. Some religious people, for example, believe we descend from Gods rather than are creations of them. They would also be united in this belief with every one of the 9/11 attackers and those who sent and supported them.

I’m not sure how this answer really is really an answer at all.
This justifies not letting Priests and Rabbis speak to their Faithful, that find comfort in God over lose of human life?
It’s not just words. I don’t know how you can ask people of Faith to remember lose of human life without naturally linking it with the spiritual reality of an afterlife.

 

[Hokomai]

Sounds like you DO know that it’s religions fault that 9/11 occurred. And exactly how do you know that there would never be any attack if we lived in your perfect atheist utopia?! What about Western Imperialism? Wouldn’t it be just as easy to influence Arabs into taking action against World Powers that have extensively used their lands as their battlefields and places to strip natural resources from? Added to Western Imperialism is ethic differences, “why are these white devils killing our people and stripping our lands clean of resources?!”

See even in your imaginary paradise without religion, we would still find plenty of reasons to hate one another!

Again, there is no need to make up things I did not say. I said “all things being equal”, had there been no religion, there would have been no 9/11. This is a thought experiment, impossible to verify in the real world, but useful for thinking things through. I have not proposed that there should be, or could be, ‘a perfect atheist utopia’. There was a long history of Arab nationalism based on secular values. Terrorism involving suicide was not a part of it. Religion provides strong motivation especially by telling people that they will not really die, but instead go to heaven, and avoid hell. Atheists (although I don’t call myself this, you would) are no better than religious people, and in many cases worse. But it is harder to get them to blow themselves up with no hope of survival.

 

[Hokomai]

I’m not sure how this answer really is really an answer at all.
This justifies not letting Priests and Rabbis speak to their Faithful, that find comfort in God over lose of human life?
It’s not just words. I don’t know how you can ask people of Faith to remember lose of human life without naturally linking it with the spiritual reality of an afterlife.

I am entirely happy that people congregate freely to listen to their religious leaders. I am not so happy that people for whom they are not leaders are forced to listen to them also. I agree that religious people will remember the loss of human life by linking it to an afterlife (I think that is the main reason religion exists). I am happy for them to do so. I just think it is wrong for them to assume that everyone in a mixed group of people wants to, or is willing to, participate in their prayer or other rituals.

 

[Wolseley]

I am entirely happy that people congregate freely to listen to their religious leaders. I am not so happy that people for whom they are not leaders are forced to listen to them also. I agree that religious people will remember the loss of human life by linking it to an afterlife (I think that is the main reason religion exists). I am happy for them to do so. I just think it is wrong for them to assume that everyone in a mixed group of people wants to, or is willing to, participate in their prayer or other rituals.

Then we should have two ceremonies, one for religious people and one for non-religious people? Or three or four, or five, for members of various faiths, all so non-religious peple won’t have to be exposed to any of that icky religious stuff that might rub off on them and damage their delecate psyches?

That might tie up an awful lot of Bloomberg’s time. I think he’s a liberal twit, but I’m sure that he does have other things to do. Six identical ceremonies (“Ok, who’s up now? The Sikhs?” “No, Mr. Mayor—the Sikhs are at 10:45. You’re doing the Hindus right now”) takes quite a while.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am entirely happy that people congregate freely to listen to their religious leaders. I am not so happy that people for whom they are not leaders are forced to listen to them also. I agree that religious people will remember the loss of human life by linking it to an afterlife (I think that is the main reason religion exists). I am happy for them to do so. I just think it is wrong for them to assume that everyone in a mixed group of people wants to, or is willing to, participate in their prayer or other rituals.

Well gee whiz, how come the ‘mixed group’ has to cater to the one who doesn’t WANT to hear?

Why does the one who doesn’t ‘want’ to hear get things HIS way? Why doesn’t HE have to permit others to have things THEIR way now and then?

You know, people used to have good manners. If they weren’t perhaps themselves religious, but they found themselves in a gathering where some of the people wanted to hear a person (even a clergy person) speak about religion, that person didn’t stand up and whine, “I’m not religious! You people are hurting my widdle feewings, you should all shut up because you are FORCING me to listen to what I don’t want to hear, so I will force YOU to have to stop and do as I say”. Rather, they either sat quietly and listened (because hey, they might LEARN something) or sat quietly and recited to themselves vulgar limericks or whatever tickled their fancy, and --here’s the big shocker–didn’t act like their lives had been RUINED because for a few minutes in a day oh gasp and horror, they didn’t get to have everying going ‘their way’.

NOT that I am directing this at any person here. I’m talking about hypothetical situations among a group of people years ago, you know, like 50 years back when people still had inhibitions and didn’t think that made them abnormal. . .

 

[Hokomai]

Well gee whiz, how come the ‘mixed group’ has to cater to the one who doesn’t WANT to hear?

Why does the one who doesn’t ‘want’ to hear get things HIS way? Why doesn’t HE have to permit others to have things THEIR way now and then?

You know, people used to have good manners. If they weren’t perhaps themselves religious, but they found themselves in a gathering where some of the people wanted to hear a person (even a clergy person) speak about religion, that person didn’t stand up and whine, “I’m not religious! You people are hurting my widdle feewings, you should all shut up because you are FORCING me to listen to what I don’t want to hear, so I will force YOU to have to stop and do as I say”. Rather, they either sat quietly and listened (because hey, they might LEARN something) or sat quietly and recited to themselves vulgar limericks or whatever tickled their fancy, and --here’s the big shocker–didn’t act like their lives had been RUINED because for a few minutes in a day oh gasp and horror, they didn’t get to have everying going ‘their way’.

NOT that I am directing this at any person here. I’m talking about hypothetical situations among a group of people years ago, you know, like 50 years back when people still had inhibitions and didn’t think that made them abnormal. . .

Nice.

 

[Hokomai]

Then we should have two ceremonies, one for religious people and one for non-religious people? Or three or four, or five, for members of various faiths, all so non-religious peple won’t have to be exposed to any of that icky religious stuff that might rub off on them and damage their delecate psyches?

That might tie up an awful lot of Bloomberg’s time. I think he’s a liberal twit, but I’m sure that he does have other things to do. Six identical ceremonies (“Ok, who’s up now? The Sikhs?” “No, Mr. Mayor—the Sikhs are at 10:45. You’re doing the Hindus right now”) takes quite a while.

No, I was thinking of one ceremony, at which leaders elected by the people, and therefore able to represent them, express those views which are common, and not divisive, and respect those who died. It would be appropriate also to say that there are many different ways of thinking about and explaining death, that all these ways and thoughts will be present among those gathered, and that this formal commemoration will not replace, or exclude the other events which people will hold, individually or collectively, to remember what happened.

And once again can I point out that you are attributing to me statements or beliefs which I have not expressed, and do not hold (damage to psyches). Debates are always better when things said are debated, rather than things assumed or attributed.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, I was thinking of one ceremony, at which leaders elected by the people, and therefore able to represent them, express those views which are common, and not divisive, and respect those who died. It would be appropriate also to say that there are many different ways of thinking about and explaining death, that all these ways and thoughts will be present among those gathered, and that this formal commemoration will not replace, or exclude the other events which people will hold, individually or collectively, to remember what happened.

And once again can I point out that you are attributing to me statements or beliefs which I have not expressed, and do not hold (damage to psyches). Debates are always better when things said are debated, rather than things assumed or attributed.

Wait, “express those views which are common and not divisive”. . .um, SURELY you are not telling us that religious views are UNCOMMON and DIVISIVE, are you?

Can you tell me what other conclusion one would logically draw when you have repeatedly said that clergy people ‘should not be there’, and you THEN say that the ceremony SHOULD express ‘only those views which are common, not divisive, and respect those who died’??? If clergy people should not be allowed to express their views, and you say what the ceremony SHOULD express, then SURELY logically what you are IMPLYING is that ANY RELIGIOUS VIEW is not only ‘uncommon’, but it is also ‘divisive’ and indeed ‘disrespectful to those who died’ for any person to express any kind of ‘religious sentiment’ in speech.

Isn’t that what you are implying?

And you base this on what? Your opinion? The opinion of certain ‘people’ with credentials, vast studied based on years of data, the wishes of the families of the dead and the ‘view’ as far as is known of the dead. . .or is it just that you have been brainwashed into thinking that ‘religion’ is something that should be kept ‘private’, and not 'inflicted onto others?"

Strange. I don’t care to hear vulgar or foul language when I go outside my home. . .but hey, we have ‘free speech’ in this country. But you’re telling me I can’t hear ‘religious views’ spoken at a ceremony. . .

Strange. I don’t care to hear about the sexual practices and activities of people, whether it’s by hearing them broadcast on TV, written in the newspapers or magazines, presented on the Internet, OR loudly spoken in the public venue everywhere I go. . .but hey, we have "free speech’ in this country. But I can’t hear ‘religious views’ spoken at a ceremony.

I can people expressing anarchy views, communist views, ‘free love’ views, atheist views, in language that would make a sailor blush, everywhere I go throughout the U.S.A. . .because we have "free speech’ in this country. BUT I can’t hear’religious views’ spoken in a ceremony.

The inmates are running the asylum.

 

[CatholicFireman]

If it’s true it’s kind of ironic considering that one of the first to die that day was the fire department’s Catholic chaplain, Father Mychal Judge. In fact he is listed by the medical examiner’s office as victim No. 1

He died performing his priestly duties.

 

[Hokomai]

Wait, “express those views which are common and not divisive”. . .um, SURELY you are not telling us that religious views are UNCOMMON and DIVISIVE, are you?

Can you tell me what other conclusion one would logically draw when you have repeatedly said that clergy people ‘should not be there’, and you THEN say that the ceremony SHOULD express ‘only those views which are common, not divisive, and respect those who died’??? If clergy people should not be allowed to express their views, and you say what the ceremony SHOULD express, then SURELY logically what you are IMPLYING is that ANY RELIGIOUS VIEW is not only ‘uncommon’, but it is also ‘divisive’ and indeed ‘disrespectful to those who died’ for any person to express any kind of ‘religious sentiment’ in speech.

Isn’t that what you are implying?

And you base this on what? Your opinion? The opinion of certain ‘people’ with credentials, vast studied based on years of data, the wishes of the families of the dead and the ‘view’ as far as is known of the dead. . .or is it just that you have been brainwashed into thinking that ‘religion’ is something that should be kept ‘private’, and not 'inflicted onto others?"

Strange. I don’t care to hear vulgar or foul language when I go outside my home. . .but hey, we have ‘free speech’ in this country. But you’re telling me I can’t hear ‘religious views’ spoken at a ceremony. . .

Strange. I don’t care to hear about the sexual practices and activities of people, whether it’s by hearing them broadcast on TV, written in the newspapers or magazines, presented on the Internet, OR loudly spoken in the public venue everywhere I go. . .but hey, we have "free speech’ in this country. But I can’t hear ‘religious views’ spoken at a ceremony.

I can people expressing anarchy views, communist views, ‘free love’ views, atheist views, in language that would make a sailor blush, everywhere I go throughout the U.S.A. . .because we have "free speech’ in this country. BUT I can’t hear’religious views’ spoken in a ceremony.

The inmates are running the asylum.

The word ‘common’ in this context means ‘held by all’, not ‘frequently occurring’. Implications are made. Inferences are drawn. You are drawing inferences unreasonably from what I have said. I have not implied those things. I have said what I meant, and I meant no more.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

No, I was thinking of one ceremony, at which leaders elected by the people, and therefore able to represent them, express those views which are common, and not divisive, and respect those who died. It would be appropriate also to say that there are many different ways of thinking about and explaining death, that all these ways and thoughts will be present among those gathered, and that this formal commemoration will not replace, or exclude the other events which people will hold, individually or collectively, to remember what happened.

And once again can I point out that you are attributing to me statements or beliefs which I have not expressed, and do not hold (damage to psyches). Debates are always better when things said are debated, rather than things assumed or attributed.

So what about the people who didn’t vote in those elected officials? Should those who voted for the opposite of whoever is talking just be banned as well? After all according to you the ceremony should only express view “which are common, and not divisive” and what is more divisive than politics?!

I still am waiting to hear a better excuse why the minority atheists attending should be indulged by BANNING religious clergy from attending this ceremony. Honestly I cannot see anything more divisive and damaging to the ceremony than the lingering reminder that the Mayor is patron to the kind of militant atheists that believe religion is the root of all evil.

 

[Hokomai]

So what about the people who didn’t vote in those elected officials? Should those who voted for the opposite of whoever is talking just be banned as well? After all according to you the ceremony should only express view “which are common, and not divisive” and what is more divisive than politics?!

I still am waiting to hear a better excuse why the minority atheists attending should be indulged by BANNING religious clergy from attending this ceremony. Honestly I cannot see anything more divisive and damaging to the ceremony than the lingering reminder that the Mayor is patron to the kind of militant atheists that believe religion is the root of all evil.

I certainly don’t think religion is the root of all evil. But it was certainly the root of the 9/11 evil.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I think it would be appropriate, given the religious demographics of New York City, to have a Jewish Rabbi, a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Pastor, and a Muslim Imam speak briefly/pray a prayer at the ceremony. People of all of these faiths were murdered in the attacks on 9-11. Just my two cents.

 

[empacae]

Geeze-o,

Between this and those that have their knickers in a knot over the WTC memorial cross beams cross, it’s a wonder if anything spitual can be uttered or expressed at all outside our homes and places of worship.

I mean how long before the demands of the anti-religious are brought to bare on the rest of us. Why stop at the cross at the memorial, before the wacko haters of God go through Arlington cemetary with a hacksaw to cut all the cross beams of the monument stones, crying, “SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Thomas Jefferson! 1st Ammendment! Freeeeedom from Religion… BLAH BLAH BLAA BAH BAH! BAH!”

I wonder if Sodom and Gomorah had it so good?

emp

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I certainly don’t think religion is the root of all evil. But it was certainly the root of the 9/11 evil.

Still waiting for the answer to why atheists get to have special treatment and be shielded from having to hear clergy talk about the victims of 9/11.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I certainly don’t think religion is the root of all evil. But it was certainly the root of the 9/11 evil.

No, it was NOT. A handful of Muslims who wrongly interpreted their religious writings acted in defiance of the truth of religion. People who claim to act in “God’s name” while performing evil actions are not doing this because of RELIGION but because of their own desires, often in defiance of what their religion actually teaches. So don’t blame religion. IT wasn’t the root of this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Still waiting for the answer to why atheists get to have special treatment and be shielded from having to hear clergy talk about the victims of 9/11.

I think we’ll have a long wait if people are (wrongly) convinced that somehow ‘religion’ was behind this action of 9/11 when it was NOT.

Plus we aren’t indifferentists here. “Religion” is all rooted in the concept of love and service to God’, and the main monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to love and serve the same God. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and other nonChristian religions also have a concept of love and service and if not a ‘one God’, they have a reverence for life. Basically only the most fringey groups of people (Westboro Baptists, Satanists) etc. have completely diverged from true religion into a wrongheaded quasi religion. . .and they weren’t involved in 9/11. And of the Muslims who were involved, we heard pretty darn quickly from moderate speakers that this action was NOT what their religion actually taught. And even the Muslims who ‘supported’ (or didn’t decry) the actions didn’t do so because the ‘infidel’ was hurt, but in a NATIONALIST show of “We hate the U.S. because we feel it has disrespected us, not only in religion though some of us are theocratic states, but simply by the evil actions of some of its people.” It’s not religion, it’s anger against our CULTURE which drives some of the fanatics. They couldn’t care less about our religion in the U.S. They didn’t target the Catholic Churches in the country, they didn’t try to bomb churches on a Sunday, or temples on a Saturday, or go after the USCCB or bomb the Cathedrals or the Salt Lake City Tabernacle or ANYTHING like that. They didn’t care about the religion of the people in the World Trade Center, for all they knew everybody working there could have been Muslim too! They were angry that our culture is more ‘admired’ than theirs. It’s not ‘religion’ at all.