Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center 9/11 Cross

It is hard to argue the logic the atheist group is using. The issue seems to be that they said it at all. When the sensitivity of people's feelings trumps and is used as an excuse to stifle logic, you know that you must be dealing with religious people and their typical irrational beliefs.

Should Christian Symbol Be Removed?

A national atheist group has filed a lawsuit to block the inclusion of the famous '9/11 cross' from a memorial at the World Trade Center site.
The cross, a fused steel t-joint which served to gird the towers before they fell, was unearthed from the rubble following the attacks. Unusual for its proportions resembling the Christian cross, it quickly became a symbol of hope for men and women coping with the horror of the day.
It was moved to nearby St. Peter's church in 2006, where it bore a plaque which read: "The Cross at Ground Zero - Founded September 13, 2001; Blessed October 4, 2001; Temporarily Relocated October 15, 2006. Will return to WTC Museum, a sign of comfort for all."
The cross was moved back to the World Trade Center site on July 23, but according to the American Atheists, it should have stayed at St. Peter's.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon," the group's president, David Silverman, said in a press release:

"It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It's a truly ridiculous assertion."

 

It seems like a legitimate grievance to me. We are talking about a national monument after all.

 

So now a hunk or rubble from a collapsed building that looks like a cross is now seen as the government establishing religion or preventing someone from practicing theirs. Some atheists are every bit as much zealots and extremists as any religion. I await the day we have to sandblast off all the references to God in the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Not to mention in the Washington Monument...which also has at least one cross, some scripture and plenty of references to God and Lord.

Is that memorial even going to be a government owned or run site? I thought it was going to be owned and operated by a non-profit corp?

 

It's called a national monument. I think that implies government funding. You know, I think I saw a piece of twisted metal that looked like a satanic pentagram. Should we erect that too? If I had my way, I’d leave all religions out of the mix. Wasn't it in the name of a religion that the towers were brought down in the first place? It’s kind of like have a national memorial to those that lost their lives at Pearl Harbor by erecting a imperial Japanese symbol.....Oh, in the shape of the rising sun. Christians should learn when to sit down and shut up for a change and stop all the wounded duck theatrics.

 

If a farmer gets government funding to not grow crops does that mean he can't erect crosses in his empty fields. If the memorial is not government owned or operated, then the whiners can go squat.

I am not particularly religious and can't remember the last time I went to church but I can recognize zealotry and extremism when I see it. And these atheists bringing that suit seem to have it in spades. Especially if the entity is not government owned or operated. Radical Fundamentalist Atheists on a Crusade, so to speak. lol

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...ists-vs--the-ground-zero-cross?xrs=share_copy

 

I don't remember the last time someone thanked you for bringing sanity to this circus. You consistently and successfully shine a spotlight on both the conservative and liberal extremism that is rampant on Partisan Lines. So thank you for interjecting some logic into the sea of insanity around here.

 

Naw, that's Clembo. I am just a sheet disturber.

I did look into this a little and it seems the government owns the land but does not own or run the memorial. That is done by an NPO. So, I really think the case is pretty much BS. And I doubt there is much rationale in saying that something like that can't be displayed upon leased land. I think that would be as silly as saying that they can't display it since they received government money.

Even if it were a government owned and operated entity, it would be pretty easy to argue that this is an artifact being displayed in a museum. I am sure there are crosses being displayed in the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art and probably a bunch of other federal museums and galleries.

This same group apparently has threatened to sue over the 'Seven in Heaven' street name. That might actually have more merit than the cross lawsuit they filed. But probably not. I'd hate to see St Louis renamed Louis. It would kind of lose it's flair. And no one better tell them about Corpus Christi or their heads will explode.

 

I am not particularly anti-religious but I have to ask is this private property or public property? Isn't the zealotry really found in those that are trying to make this a Christian flavored monument while the Atheist are basically saying that this should be multi-religious or non-religious? Really, where is the zealotry here?

 

It appears the government owns the land but not the museum or memorial. That is owned by an NPO. Why the government owns the land...ya got me. Why do they own cabins on a lake in California that they lease out? Does that prohibit the people leasing the cabins from displaying crosses? There are churches on military bases. They have crosses. The government owns Indian Reservations. Can they have their religious items there? Do they have to display other religions items? Should we display an atom at the 9/11 memorial? Was there an atom shaped piece of the wreckage that was saved and became part of the history of the site? Do we need to make sure that there are an equal number of Atom, Crescent Moon, Star of David, Buddha, etc sculptures, and paintings and artifacts in all our national museums and art galleries? And, like I posted before, there is scripture in the Washington Memorial. Does that need to be eradicated? What about the references to God in other national memorials? It really seems like a silly lawsuit and argument to me. But, we'll see what the courts say.

I read in one of the articles that, when asked if they were worried about bad PR over the threat of a Seven in Heaven street sign lawsuit, they said no, they got 25 new members when the story broke. Sounds like just run of the mill spreading the Gospel to increase the flock, so to speak.

 

I didn't mean for this to come down to just another separation of church and state argument. We've had plenty of those in this forum with little in the way of resolution. What I think is at issue here besides the obvious separation of church and state question is the fundamental idea that even Jon Stewart got wrong, should we being putting a Christian trademark on this tragedy at all and for what purpose? Why Christian? Why only Christian? Did only Christians die in this attack? Did no Atheists die on 9/11. Did no Muslims die, Jews, Buddhists, etc?
I think it is important to not let one religion take ownership of a symbol as powerful and dear to the American people as this monument. I think it would only further their cause in the end and why should the rest of us be in the business of pushing Christianity?

 

Nope, you did not mean for it to come down to its only logical nexus. How is your normal liberal/atheist logic working for you?

 

Eliminating separation of church and state discussion, about 75% of the US identifies as Christians so I think it would be kind of expected that there might be a better chance of a piece like this becoming a part of the history of the site than an Atom or a Budda or whatever.

And apparently, some people, probably part of the 75% that are Christians, found and made that cross part of the history of the site. It was a part of the cleanup and the aftermath and part of the story of both. I think it qualifies as an artifact of the site based upon its history. Is it the Christian's fault that the Atheists (or Muslims or Wiccans) didn't find piece of rubble during cleanup and do the same thing? I don't think so.

 

I can't understand why people like dr moen, phd and his ilk can't just let Christians worship as they see fit. If you want to worship, worship. If you want to hate, hate.

 

I can't think of a group that is more into hate than the "Christians" in this country.

 

I would submit that if one does "hate" they aren't living a true Christian life. Calling themselves Christian doesn't make them Christians. If you want to hate, dr moen, phd, feel free to hate all you want just don't force your hatred onto others.

 

Liberals - and I have lots of your hate documented.

 

I would submit that you are making a circular argument. Christians are not fanatical until they commit an act of violence, then they are not Christians. I don't even know why you brought up hate. It seemed kind of weirdly out of left field but strangely normal for you. As long as you did bring up hate, do you find it interesting that Right-wing Christian groups are the number one purveyors of terrorist acts in this country?
The Norway shooter was a Christian by his own admission. He cites Fox News contributor and Right-wing whack-job Pam Geller.
In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Oslo, Norway, the manifesto of accused killer Anders Behring Breivik is being examined, and commenters are noting that he frequently cited fringe, so-called "antijihad" writers including Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller. Geller has long been a reliable source for Fox when the network needs or wants to highlight far-right, fringe, and extremist opinions -- and Geller has only benefited from the exposure. And now that the opinions Geller proudly holds have been connected to a horrific act of violence…
Look at the Christian abortion fanatics. They'll come right to your church and murder you. Christians have used God to justify any kind of violence they wish to commit. You can't indict all Christians just like you can't indict all Muslims for the violence of some of their members. But when someone does commit violence in the name of their religion, we seem to forgive the Christians and indict the entire Muslim religion. The common element to both is fanaticism inspired by perhaps minor sects of both Islam and Christianity but in this country, we have media outlets like Fox fanning the flames of hatred. It isn’t the religions we should focus our scrutiny on but more the people that incite those to violence like Fox News.

 

We made it all the way to Fox News! I had my doubts for a while but deep down I knew we could do it.