Harp3339. You obviously failed economics. Government spending is attributable to something called the "money multiplier." The number of times a dollar changes hands intrinsically increases the value of the dollar, and even moreso in service economies such as the one the US has developed. A dollar the government takes is usually reissued to government contractors who then pay their employees who go and buy something else. It's not like the government is hoarding dollars, if anything they aren't collecting enough...
Again, read my above statement and see if Dunning-Kruger applies to you!
Timbo, as an Ivy League educated liberal, you have insulted me beyond belief. Before you start spouting off about how simple everything is, and how only real world experience pays off and theories and academic studies are junk, please brush up on one of my favorite academic studies known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think it represents you fairly well. Your diatribe had no semblance of evidentiary support and relied entirely on name-calling.
While I understand how people such as yourself could hold such resentment to truly educated individuals who can back up their sentiments with evidence and theory, I don't believe it's constructive to the dialogue as a whole. In fact, to use one of your favorite words, I think it's "stupid." So please, for your benefit and for the benefit of others, look up the ego bias known as the Dunning Kruger Effect and learn your place.
As I've said before, there are reasons I won't have farmers performing open-heart surgery. There are reasons I won't let a bus driver fly an airplane. The same goes for informed discussions on economic policy. Those who cannot support themselves with fact and knowledge have no business spouting their so-called "opinions."
We like to say in the United States that everyone has the right to free speech, but I would like to add that we all have the duty to use it responsibly. Your comments, as divisive and ignorant as they are, are a breach of that duty.
Well, if you are correct, L4F, we will go to hell. But I have doubts as to whether you are correct. Name one other way that NAZIs and secularists are similar. Really, communists were much more secular than NAZIs were, so if I were you I would use that fear-mongering hyperbole instead. I mean, that is only if you care about accuracy, which doesn't seem to be the case. So, are we NAZIs or are we communists? Historically, these two groups really didn't get along very well. Did you know Thomas Jefferson was a secularist? Which branch of secularism did he adhere to, the NAZI party or the Communist Party?
It qualifies as a government sponsorship of religion because tax dollars are spent towards it. There's a three pronged test the federal government devised during Lemon v. Kurtzman for the issue of giving out aid to private schools to determine whether parochial schools should receive aid. The test for all government sponsorship is as follows:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
It's very loose language, but if any one of these rules are broken it is considered a government sponsorship of religion. Is there a secular purpose in admitting a cross into the government-funded memorial/museum?
There is not, as without religious connotation it would simply be "rubble." You miss the point where there exists a balance between Freedom Of and Freedom From. There are many people who do not share your open embrace of religion on public grounds and those people are entitled to not be confronted with it in public spaces.
If the value of the rubble is that it represents a religious ideology, then no, it may not be government-sponsored. So, I pose a hypothetical. Assume the rubble was not in the shape of the cross, would it be allowed into the museum (e.g., the rest of the WTC)? Probably not. The primary reason it is being let in is because of it's religious symbolism, which makes government sponsorship of it in violation of the 1st Amendment. This is the same case as the Ten Commandments, with the religious object switched, and we all know how that played out.