Atheist group suing to prevent display of World Trade Center cross at 9/11 Memorial
By Jeff MillsJuly 27th, 2011, 12:30 pmComments (73)
The secular organization American Atheists filed a lawsuit on Monday, protesting the display of the World Trade Center cross — consisting of two intersecting steel beams found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero following 9/11 — at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in lower Manhattan. The cross was moved from a church to the 9/11 Memorial over the weekend, receiving a ceremonial blessing from Father Brian Jordan, a Franciscan monk.
The group, of course, objects to what they perceive as the unconstitutional imposition of religious doctrine in the public sphere, taking umbrage at the fact of a Christian cross being the sole religious object included in a memorial partially subsidized by tax dollars. They wrote on their website:
"We love this country, and our constitution. We honor the dead and respect the families, which is why we will not allow the many Christians who died to get preferential representation over the many non-Christians who suffered the same fate. This was an attack against America, not Christianity, and Christianity does not deserve special placement just because THEY think the girders look like their religious symbol."
Whether you think American Atheists have a point or not, it's just a shame that their motivated reasoning and legal action have to distract from the bottom line, which is that a lot of pain and suffering was caused by these terrorist attacks, and the Memorial is a way to heal and show love for the victims. These fringe groups miss the point when they stir up the pot and call attention to themselves. The Christian cross is not a symbol of exclusion, inherently disregarding victims of other faiths. But maybe they should just fashion symbols representing every religion out of wreckage recovered from Ground Zero, or have nothing at all.
Again, from the American Atheists' website:
"The cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men a few times, and presented as a reminder that God, in his infinite power of goodness, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists, or stop the fire, or hold up the buildings to stop 3000 people from being crushed, cared enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. Ridiculous."
Also ridiculous is a frivolous lawsuit, crying for tort reform, that names, among others, the state of New Jersey, the city of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Christie, and Father Jordan as defendants. Is this what they teach at Camp Quest?
Commentarium (73 Comments)
As an atheist, I have no problems with the cross being in a museum. After all, the Smithsonian has religious icons in its collection.
I am not necessarily upset by it but I can see how people could be upset by the implications of it being there.
Wow, Hooksexup. How did the atheist "fringe group" call attention to itself? They didn't mention atheism at all in the statements issued. The quote above simply mentions non-Christians. That includes Jews, Muslims, etc. But really, most astonishing is JM's statement, "The Christian cross is not a symbol of exclusion, inherently disregarding victims of other faiths." Christ, man, maybe you can score a job writing copy for the Heritage Foundation. Anyway, I believe their point is that any attempt "to heal and show love for the victims" (as the writer here puts it) is undermined by choosing a religious symbol that some don't hold dear. The cross says, "this is a Christian place of mourning" or "this is where we memorialize the Christian victims." No, it doesn't prevent others from mourning or healing there, but it does make them, well, "others." Is THAT what you think a memorial should do?
Is it me or is Hooksexup becoming more preachy and judgemental lately? Or maybe I just never noticed it before.
It's definitely gotten more opinionated.
As an atheist i do have a problem of having crosses being paid by tax dollars in order to be displayed as religious icons in a public space.
Btw...religion is by definition something that creates exclusion. The christian cross IS a symbol of exclusion and does disregard other faiths. Stating otherwise is to be ignorant of history or religion as a social phenomena.
By definition, religion creates exclusion? Care to justify that? It's meaningless.
Never mind, I just realized that my whole life is meaningless.
I'm an atheist. I live in St. Louis, moved here from Maryland. I feel so alienated
"Whether you think American Atheists have a point or not, it's just a shame that their motivated reasoning and legal action have to distract from the bottom line, which is that a lot of pain and suffering was caused by these terrorist attacks, and the Memorial is a way to heal and show love for the victims."
Here's the problem though, to atheist, the cross is a distraction from the bottom line of a lot of pain and suffering that was caused by these terrorist attacks and the memorial is way to show love for the victims... all the victims, not just the Christian ones.
That's the problem we have with all of the religious symbols that are forced on us by any and all religions, including a lot of Christianity. The argument from the religious side is that its not hurting anybody, but it is... it's being exclusive of a group of people who suffered as much as the next person.
Beautifully said. Wish the actual atheist activist had put it so well.
Agreed, 100%.
Well said.
"Whether you think American Atheists have a point or not, it's just a shame that their motivated reasoning and legal action have to distract from the bottom line, which is that a lot of pain and suffering was caused by these terrorist attacks, and the Memorial is a way to heal and show love for the victims." Because in the past ten years, that bottom line has been completely ignored. Come on, now.
And if the Christian is not a symbol of exclusion, it surely isn't a symbol of interfaith inclusion either. I think they have a decent point, especially when you consider the anti-Muslim rhetoric underlying most commemorations of 9/11.
"Public sphere" -- is it public property, or private property? If the latter, I should think that the owner(s) could display whatever symbols they wanted. I'm not a lawyer, though.
They are not imposing any religious doctorine on the people who don't believe. For those that do believe and have lost loved ones this can now be a place of prayer for them and having that cross there does provide extra comfort. For those who don't believe just ignore it, think of it as a flagpole or statue because like those other objects this one holds no significance in your life so why bother talking about it or suing someone for it. Just like that pastor that celebrated Burn The Koran Day, that book like this cross are not actually causing any harm so it shouldn't bother you.
So it'd be cool to just flip that cross upside-down too and just tell people to ignore it? Or how about if you have Jewish friends or family who died in the attacks, you go visit the memorial, and you see a huge group of Christians praying for their loved ones, but no Star of David anywhere? You're saying that doesn't make it look like the Christian suffering was more important and more validated at the site?
And Jeff, how is a group of American standing up for their rights frivolous? For the people who hate the intolerance and exclusion that the worst parts of Christianity embody, they don't want to have to see a giant cross shoved in their face at public memorials. You want people to come together around a symbol? How about two towers standing next to each other?
"The Christian cross is not a symbol of exclusion" jeff as soon as you wrote this you should have deleted it and forgotten about the story. This single phrase shows indisputably you don't know what your talking about in the least. The cross as others have already pointed out is a symbol of exclusion, at best.
Funny, it's the one sentence that I agreed with.
Yeah, I knew that phrase had the potential to be misinterpreted as I was writing it. Let me try to be a little clearer, equidae. First off, I'm not defending Christianity or the cross. And I just meant that the idea of the cross is not supposed to signal exclusion. Obviously, different religions are demarcated by different teachings and symbols, but I was thinking of Jesus preaching love and forgiveness of all. If the cross could talk, it probably wouldn't say, "I'm the only game in town, get out of here Star of David." A star and crescent being displayed would obviously be a little trickier, considering the circumstances. My point really was that the Memorial shouldn't be about religions and atheist groups, but about the victims. Maybe there shouldn't be any religious symbols there at all, so no one feels excluded. People can make good technical points on the semantics, but then it's like we're arguing about the relative merits of stonecutting in a cemetery, and forgetting about the souls laid to rest. I like to see all the differing points of view, it shows that we have a thriving democracy and can agree to disagree.
The idea of the cross is not supposed to mean exclusion--to Christians. What it does, is to mark a place as Christian, whether you care about it or not. You're saying a star of David or a crescent would be tricky, and seem to assume that somehow the cross wouldn't? How does that work?
But you're right: what should matter in this story are the souls laid to rest. So canning the cross seems like the best thing to do, IMO. That, and how about looking into how all the first responders got fucked over by city and state government? Or maye they'll buy them crosses when they die of cancer.
On a different note, I'm sure you're sincere in that last sentence, but it still makes you sound like Rick Santorum talking at the podium while the heckler is getting kicked out... Just saying.
an instrument of torture and execution can never be a symbol for inclusion. Even excluding it's original use as a means of execution, the cross has been the symbol of the parabalani, inquisition, conquistadors, and pedophiles more numerous than I care to count. The cross is no symbol of equality and inclusion and never could be, as it has always been the idol de rigueur of thugs, bigots, and rapists. It is all these things regardless of the invented platitudes and plagiary of some fictional sophist.
I agree that that statement was completely off-base and incorrect. As a clarifier @John Son I think JeffMills was saying a crescent and star being displayed would be tricky because of the Muslim faith being linked to the attacks, he didn't mean displaying the star of david would be tricky. The Christian cross may not be *intended* to signal exclusion, but that is entirely a Christian viewpoint you are coming from and you (the author) are not considering approaching the issue from other faiths or an atheist standpoint at all. Yes, the Christian cross does INHERENTLY disregard victims of other faiths because it assumes everybody is Christian or other religions aren't important enough to be represented. No religious symbols should be included in such a memorial, where muslims died alongside christians and jews and atheists.
JeffMills, you say you meant that the memorial shouldn't be about religious groups or atheist groups, but in the article you wrote you condemn the atheist group for trying to get religious imagery removed from that very memorial. Religious imagery shouldn't be involved. People of all sorts of faiths and creeds dies in those towers. To use one religious symbol is myopic and to defend its use is nothing short of asinine.
***an instrument of torture and execution can never be a symbol for inclusion. Even excluding it's original use as a means of execution, the cross has been the symbol of the parabalani, inquisition, conquistadors, and pedophiles more numerous than I care to count. The cross is no symbol of equality and inclusion and never could be, as it has always been the idol de rigueur of thugs, bigots, and rapists.***
Just because corrupt people may co-opt a(n intendedly positive) symbol (as a wolf donning sheep's clothing) to execute their own misdeeds under, doesn't nullify or eradicate that symbol's original/actual intent. The Nazis stole the Indian swastika, which was and REMAINS a symbol of prosperity and good fortune. The Cross was/is and always will be a(/the intended) symbol of love and redemption, irrespective of what whores along the way (mis)appropriate it. So if & when you see a cross and see an instrument of torture and execution, then that's on your use of mind, and no-one elses. It's exactly the same as if a Native American Indian told you the only real reality the American Flag symbolised was the worst imperialism that life could deliver - from their experience, how could you argue? You could reply back with whatever, and it wouldn't undo the reality of their (or their ancestor's)experiences that lay behind such an assertion. If any kind of whoring has taken place under whatever symbol, does that therefore completely eradicate the best that symbol is originated/designed to represent?
Bottom line is all symbols will mean different things to different people, and you can't make everyone happy all the time. The only real solution would be to ban all symbols from everywhere, but of course then noone would be happy.
1. The cross was an instrument of execution long before jesus is supposed to have lived.
2. Christianity and Jesus repeatedly throughout the new testament draw clear distinctions between jews and gentiles, jews being required to follow to the letter Mosaic law, while gentiles were only expected to live up to Noahide law, this is exclusionary as it draws a distinction between people and proscribes different laws by which they are to live.
3. Jesus and his early disciples variously ignore, or else endorse slavery. In the Epistle of Philemon the Apostle Paul returns a slave to his master in spite of the fact that the slave converts to christianity, it's worth noting also that the Philemon for which this is named is also a christian slave owner and leader of an early church.
4. While much is made of the New Testaments greater inclusion of women, women are nonetheless never declared the equals of men. For instance a woman had no authority outside the household, within which she remained subservient to her husband. Furthermore if a man divorces his wife, she, not he is an adulterer.
5. Jesus retains the Old Testament teaching that looking at a woman in lust is equal to the act of adultery itself.
6. The idea of Jesus sacrificing himself to cleanse humanity of it's collected sins is not only ridiculous it's also evil. What difference could the loss of life or blood make to an omnipotent metaphysical deity.
7. Hell is an incontrovertibly evil belief. That an individual should suffer cruel punishment eternally, while the repercussions of their alleged transgression are either made mute by the passage of time, or else did no harm but to the ego of your mythical man child in the sky.
The flag I pledge to is to is the flag of a country that is mature and wise enough to recognize it's transgressions and seek to ameliorate them. That means admitting that, that Native American's feelings are wholly justified by history, and attempting to live up those ideals. The cross however symbolizes no ideals, only depravity and man's inhumanity to his fellow man. It was devised to kill and to serve as a those who question it or whatever authority hides behind it, and it has dutifully served that purpose for over 2,000 years.
I personally don't care a jot about what Jesus said or did. The cross has (been generated to hold) a specific meaning to those who esteem it as a symbol, and it symbolises TO THEM the ideals of love & redemption. You can have all the problems you like with their perceiving it thus (based on, and beyond, the dogma you highlight), but THAT's how they perceive it/what they perceive it to represent. If others in the past haven't lived up to the ideals it as a symbol represents, then (the obvious counter runs) that's got nothing to do with the symbol, and everything to do with the human fallibilities and frailties of those who so acted.
Once again, it represents X to you, but Y to them. You can trot out all the reasons you want to justify your perceiving it as X, it doesn't make any difference to their perceiving/esteeming it to represent Y.
@equidae Thanks for doing what I'm just too exhausted to do any more. Anyone who says "Jesus/the cross are all about love and forgiveness" have never read the new testes.
@JeffMills Spoken like a true member of the majority. The default position in the US is Christianity. So what's the big deal, right? It's just a cross, you see crosses all the time, they don't MEAN anything... except that either the cross means something or it doesn't. If it does, it's inappropriate. If it doesn't, it's a meaningless distraction that should be removed.
@@equidae, if they think that it's only because of their willful ignorance, and I don't care a jot about the opinions of willfully ignorant fools.
Two giant buildings composed almost entirely of intersecting steel beams fall down. Out of the rubble we find (behold!) an intact intersection of steel beams where one is a little longer than the other three. *Obviously*, that there must be a sign from Jeezus.
Wonder if there were beams that resembled a mosque?
An irresistible tackiness meets an immovable tackiness.
Am i the only one who's offended by that fact that the cross is a hideous eyesore, regardless of its religious symbolism?
If we must use a symbol, shouldn't we use one that functions as a symbol for all the victims of the 9/11 attacks, not just the Christian ones?
Firstly, I can't believe this thread got so long. Secondly, this case will likely be thrown out. Government entities are allowed to financially support the placing of religious images so long as they are counterbalanced equally with other faiths or interfaith imagery. Thats why public (government) places can have Santa decorations at Christmas time.
The Supreme Court has been historically very supportive of keeping the "traditions" of christianity and otherwise inconsequential symbols intact in our public sphere ( ie. the pledge of allegiance, "in god we trust," etc).
Also, I formerly worked at a small 9/11 memorial and people REALLY love that cross, but for all you haters, they did cut beams into stars of david.
I don't care if they cut beams into Stars of David. It's not a place where religious imagery is appropriate in my opinion. Muslims, Hindis, atheists, agnostics, and who knows who else died that day, too. Just because the Christians get their way and some lip service is paid to the Jewish victims because beams were cut into Stars of David, that's supposed to make it right?
I never said it was right, I said it was legal. I was pointing out that there is already a wide variety of imagery that is legally permitted in the public sphere, and this scenario seems to fall under the umbrella of things already upheld by the highest court in our country.
Also, the stars of david aren't exactly lip service. Every victims family was given a star or a cross.... I'm not sure if they had a secular option, but I think it was just meant to be a nice gesture.
Every victim's family was given a star or a cross? I'm certain the Muslim and Hindu victims' families loved that.
either you are having an youthful idealistic phase, or you're and old fool.
The point was about previous legal precedent. I can see you are aching to find a reason to be offended, but maybe its time to move on.
I disagree with you, but I am trying to be civil. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you rather than being called a naive fool.
You say you never said it was right, only legal. It's legal to do a lot of things that aren't right. So, since we've established your opinion on the legality, what is your opinion as to whether it's right or wrong?
Does anyone agree with the idea that, for argument's sake, if a religious symbol absolutely has to be included at some kind of national memorial, it should represent that country's dominant religion, whether you agree with that religion or not?
No.
No, by that logic you could also justify excluding racial and sexual minorities from national memorials as well. Simply because one group, whatever it may be, is statistically larger than others doesn't justify the exclusion of those others. Every american citizen with an iota of patriotism suffered that day, not just Christians, not just Judeo-Christians, not just members of one of the Abrahamic faiths. Yet in spite of this you would exclude those who don't fit into descriptions, as if their suffering were somehow less deserving.
It's just a hypothetical question, equidae. Gun to head, if you had to pick a religious symbol, what would you choose? jr said that he would choose the almighty dollar sign, which, though while not religious, is witty. Since the U.S. is three-quarters Christian, do you think picking a cross makes sense? Or would you perhaps go the counterintuitive route and display a statue of Ganesh or Buddha, to symbolize the least represented, what makes this country great? I know it's a silly question, but I like to see what people think.
Argument Ad populum is a logical fallacy.
A religious symbol present in public spaces, paid by tax is wrong. period.
If the christians or whatever want their religious symbol up there. SURE! But you will have to pay for the symbol with your money.
Lastly: it can't be used as a means to justify religious survice in public space. period.
Exceptions to the rule? sure. Not this case.
Who would allow a HUGE flag with islamic symbology next to 9/11 ground?
Yeah, the European monarchies seemed to like that idea quite a bit, which led to persecution and death for members of non-dominant faiths. This is why the first amendment to the U.S. constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part of this amendment, the "Establishment Clause", has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court as forbidding government from supporting any particular faith or religious activity, even if others are not specifically excluded.
The U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and the very structure of our government were designed to prevent "majority rules" or "might makes right" attitudes from trampling the rights and freedoms of everyone else.
I'm sure you are enjoying your freedom of press and speech, and the lack of concern that you or your family will be taken into custody and tortured or killed because of what you write or say. Please let me enjoy my freedom from having to support religion of any kind.
Jeff, the point is that religious symbols shouldn't have to be included. I don't want to pick one as none of them represent me.
Hypothetically no symbol but the flag and the seal of the U.S. has any place in a national memorial.
I agree with equidae, but with less emphasis on "hypothetically" and more emphasis on, "in actuality".
I might add that in that case, the symbol should look like this: $
I would choose the Bahai star.
Atheists are just jealous they don't have such powerful symbols at their disposal. They have to go about things the hard way and use lawyers.
Seriously, what a pain in the ass.
We do indeed have powerful symbols of our own, perhaps you're familiar with REALITY.
Reality isn't a symbol.
Reality is as much a symbol as any instrument of torture. Think about it, every breath you draw, every flower you pick, every baseball thrown that returns to earth, is yet another reminder of the fact that there is not now, nor ever was anything as ridiculous and illogical as a god/ess/s. After all no ego maniac as cruelly authoritarian as the judeo-christian god would have allowed the existence of humanity, a species seemingly hell bent ,in spite of it's own least members, of making decisions for itself.
@equidae Let's run off together.
I'm an adamant atheist and there is no God, but I just can't get upset about this. People need to pick their battles better.
Would the atheists be pleased if other symbols of religions were included? Honestly, this is ridiculous. I'm a Christian and if I want to have my symbols in public, so be it! I wouldn't mind anyone else having their symbols for display either. I understand the argument the group is trying to make but it just makes them look like jerks. I agree with Wait Five Minutes--pick your battles if you really want to fight against all different religions.
Any idea how unwieldy that becomes, try to include all religions equally you wind up with hundreds of different religious symbols. Furthermore exactly what is the logic in memorializing real tragedies and real suffering with the symbols of made up father figures in the clouds. And once again the problem isn't or isn't just religous symbols, but that the memorial is paid for with tax money, and as it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". By all means display your symbols all you want, I'll mock you relentlessly but I won't stop you. You spend my tax dollars on them, that's another matter entirely.
It's a principle. If you sacrifice a principle because it's not "a hill to die on" then pretty soon you're in complete retreat. At some point after that, neo-cons are in power, Christianity becomes the state religion, it turns into a theocracy, the rights of others are trampled, and.. well... If you think I'm being dramatic, I could draw an analogy to the Nazi rise to power in Germany. Most people probably didn't really support it, but too few stood up to it.
Excellent conversation here. So if another group want's to put up their religious symbol it will be welcomed and won't meet any resistance?
Muslims died in those towers. Certainly nobody would object to a crescent and star there, right?
I don't understand what's so hard to understand.
Jeff, the thing is, no religious symbol absolutely has to be included in any kind of national memorial. Not in this country, it doesn't. And I know it was a figure of speech, but gun to head? Ticking timebomb? I like to think that in those hypothetical moments, American citizens would hypothetically act as if they do buy into their country's own values, like the separation of church and state.
Right on! Pull out all the crosses in Arlington cemetary! Replace them wiht non-religious symbols, like obelisks--oh, wait, those represent the Sun god Ra.
Well, tear out Arlington's crosses, the washington monument, and replace them with circles!
Oh, wait, those represent Zen.
Fuck it, no memorial. If you're an athesit, you know that nothing happens after you die, and therefore life has little meaning.
Your name is very telling.
Whereas, people have to wait to meet you at the furry convention to know you.
Doofus, obelisks do not represent only Ra, instead their individually dedicated to specific things, most of them commemorate individuals pharaohs or major battles. Incidentally yeah they would be more appropriate. And zen Buddhism is hardly the only religion to lay claim to symbols. There's nothing wrong with the crosses in arlington as they commemorate individuals, not all the dead there interred. If your going to participate in an argument, try to do more than pretend you know something, because everyone can tell pretense from know from truth.
Wow, Doofus. Just making my case for me with that brilliant comeback.
I wonder what Joseph Campbell would have said about all this.
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. "
Joseph Campbell
To place a permanent christian cross in a public place and to use it as a means to religious service: is wrong.
To Buy a christian cross with tax payers money: is wrong.
To have the freedom to move a christian cross paid by your own money and have a temporary memorial with a specific religious tradition in any public space, if approved by the local authorities - freedom of assembly: it's right.
A memorial shouldn't focus on any religious simbology. period
Good pull Dynamic. Here's another one: "Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies."
Joseph Campbell
Well, but fact is...i never said that religious metaphors are lies.
I defend the right of anyone to believe in whatever made up thing they want to believe in.
From people to have San Diego Comic con and dress equal to their super heros ( i see this as a sort of "modern religion") to people praying inside a rock made building to an ancient symbol of torture or as someone put it :
"jew on a stick" ( i am quoting, not supporting such informal expressions).
If people want to believe in Unicorns, Fairies, Invisible Magical flying Pigs, the flying spaghetti monster or God, whatever...it's their call. In their privacy or as a group manifesting their beliefs in proper place and time.
Either way...the USA is a secular state. Religious symbology is not to be paid by tax payers money and not to be put in a public space as a motive for regular religious practice. period.
You don't agree? Take it up to the Supreme Court. Sooner or later the religious nuts will start to pop out seriously (as seen in Norway, but not as bloody, i hope) and a serious national debate will occur.
Now you say something