Judge tells atheist group to stop being whiny biddies

In some feel good news today a federal appeals court said this week that an atheist group trying to keep the Ground Zero Cross out of the National September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights.

The cross measures 17 feet high and is a the remains of two I beams that survived the destruction to remain standing.  Those on the ground at the time and in the weeks following 9/11 took solace at the cross and it became an indelible symbol of resolution and hope for many.

Apparently that doesn’t mean diddly squat to some atheists who got their panties in a bunch about the cross being in a museum dedicated to 9/11.  The group, American Atheists filed suit back in 2011 trying to have the cross removed because they claimed it was “offensive” and violated their “constitutional rights.”

Well, the appeals court had something to say about that which, when summed up goes something like this: Grow a set you sniveling bunch of pansies.

The judge in the matter has given the American Atheists until July 14th to file supplemental legal briefs to explain what actual injury they are suffering instead of, as he views it, the equivalent to them throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way.

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.”

Boo friggin hoo for the poor atheists.  I like who Eric Baxter, lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty put it:

Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get ‘dyspepsia’ over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.  Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with.  The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.”

So good for the judge to actually require these atheists to actually PROVE that some damage has been done to them.

Why do I bring this up?  Because it is the same method that many gun grabbers like to use in order to eliminate gun owners from carrying.  Since mouth drooling gun grabbers have no actual case in which to legally deny people the right to keep and BEAR arms, they simply say that they are offended by the idea, that they are intimidated by people who carry and feel threatened etc.

It is these nonsensical notions that every time some progressive nut case throws a hissy fit, we as a society must somehow bend over backwards and discard our rights in order to please them that has our country teetering on the bring of socialist statehood.

You don’t like the cross?  Don’t worship it.

You don’t like my gun? Don’t carry one.

You think that your dislikes should somehow trump my RIGHTS?  Go suck a lemon sad sack, because I ain’t buyin what yer peddlin.


Send this to friend