Atheists have sued over a make-shift cross fashioned from the World Trade Center rubble after 9/11 as an infringement of separation of church and state policy. The cross was constructed on the side of a church by responders of the tragic 9/11 attack as a memorial to the victims who died a horrible death at the hands of Islamist jihadists seeking to destroy the Western way of life and bring about worldwide Sharia, or in other words, a Caliphate. The cross was built as a reminder that peace shall overcome violence.
Yet, the cross, a Christian symbol of peace to millions around the world, bothers these atheists who are suing for equal opportunity, or “freedom of opportunity”, to have religious symbols from other religions as well as atheist symbols displayed at the museum.
Isn’t it a bit ironic that atheism, in effect “non-religion”, seeks equal rights on behalf of all religions, but even more awkward, seeks to have equal rights with religions? If the lawsuit granted privileges for all religions and non-religion to have equal opportunity to make a display for the 9/11 museum, what would the atheists erect as their monument, Darwin’s Tree of Life?
Would not court agreement with equal opportunity rights for non-religious expression at the 9/11 museum extrapolate into the freedom of opportunity for religion to enter into the public arena, perhaps as a counter to atheistic, non-religious Darwinian evolution?
In case you haven’t been paying attention, the notion that evolution is based strictly on science has come under scrutiny in recent years–absolute naturalism (i.e., non-religion, or atheism) is the foundation of evolution science. Naturalism has been exposed to be bankrupt as the fundamental mechanism for the advent of the first living cell, termed the origin of life, and should probably therefore be considered suspect in explaining the development of all other more complex life forms afterward.
With this in mind and using the argument of the atheist 9/11 lawsuit, should not super-naturalism be given equal opportunity with naturalism in the public sector? Should not Intelligent Design be given equal opportunity in public schools?
Currently, only dissent against evolution is legal in public schools on the basis of arguments and evidence founded in methodological naturalism. Yet, the evolution lobby has fought hard to marginalize any dissent from the questionable science of Darwinian evolution denying the very evidence set before them as credible. This may be why only one state has been brave enough to stand up for academic freedom for its students. This is an indicator of consensus bullying, not academic freedom.
In any event, at least in my most humble opinion, lawsuits like this one for 9/11 non-religious equal opportunity calls into question whether super-naturalism (ID) should be given equal opportunity with naturalistic evolution in the public sector.
After all, if atheistic naturalism has so far failed to pass the test, why not?