Atheists continue battle against World Trade Center cross at memorial

[rug]

September 10th, 2012
06:15 PM ET
By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Eleven years after the World Trade Center attack, the billion dollar memorial and museum dedicated to the victims of 9/11 is just half that - a memorial without an operating museum.

And though a dispute between New York City’s mayor and New York’s governor is responsible for delaying the opening, a separate legal battle is aimed at blocking one museum exhibit in particular: a large cross made of one of the twin tower’s T-beams that became a national symbol in the days after the 2001 attacks.

A national group called American Atheists is suing the museum to stop the display of the cross, arguing that a religious symbol has no place in a memorial that’s backed by public funds and that is supposed to serve as a monument to victims of many different religions - and to those who had no religion at all.

“It is important that it not be displayed to the exclusion of everyone else,” said David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, which first filed suit in July 2011. “This case is about inclusion, it is not about the elimination of religion, it is about the inclusion of everyone.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/atheists-continue-battle-against-world-trade-center-cross-at-memorial/comment-page-1/

[MrDiaz]

1. lol

“This case is about inclusion, it is not about the elimination of religion, it is about the inclusion of everyone.” How do you include everyone without taking out religion?

[rfranklin]

2. Are they going to include the crescent moon symbol of the Islam? How about the Star of David?

Then there should be a Buddha, and maybe the Hindu swastika and the Rastafarian flag? After all, there were Muslims and people of all those other religions killed by the terrorists as well.

[cbayer]

11. Were any of those things found in the rubble? Did any of those things take on

significance for some of the people doing the clean up?

If so, they most certainly should be displayed.

[JoePhilly]

51. I doubt any one would have noticed them.

But I find the idea that a God worthy of worship, would allow this event, and then leave a Cross after.

[cbayer]

52. Who said anything a bout a god *allowing* or *leaving* anything.

That's such a narrow, fundamentalist view of god.

[JoePhilly]

53. You suggested it.

You can pretend other, but it is pretty clear in your post.

[cbayer]

54. I in no way suggested that. If that is what you read, then I wasn't clear.

People under extreme pressure identified a symbol that took on meaning for them. It became a gathering place for some people and grew in significance. It deserves a place in the museum for that reason.

I never said it had anything to do with a god or any kind of intervention by a god.

[HockeyMom]

3. Put it in the Museum, not at the Memorial

That way it will be an artifact, which it really is, and not a religious symbol.

[cbayer]

8. It is at the museum.

[Goblinmonger]

4. So an article with no new information published on Sept 10

Wonder what the agenda there was? Wonder what your agenda for posting about this exact same thing again with no new information is, too?

[rexcat]

5. It gets his post count up...

other than that more flame-bait.

[rug]

7. It's not my lawsuit.

[rexcat]

12. I didn't say it was...

I was responding to Goblinmonger's post, not yours.

on edit: and I see your weak response downstream to Goblinmonger's post, as usual.

[rug]

14. You did respond to him but you made the usual snide comment about me.

And then, of course, you include in this post another snide personal remark.

If you want to talk about someone, expect a response. In the meantime, try posting something of substance rather than gossiping about other DUers.

[rexcat]

17. Substance? See post 13.

[rug]

18. I did and it has no substance.

That "wreakage" was an emotional focal point of the recovery.

[rexcat]

20. This country and New York City in particular...

has not recovered from the attack of 9/11/2001. Despite the fact that OBL is dead our democracy has been trashed. Unfortunately it was trashed by "us" (in the general sense). We, as a country have not addressed the issues that perpetrated the hatred by the people who attacked us on that horrible day. Most Americans don't understand what our government, in our name, has done to many countries around the world. We have toppled legitimate governments and supported dictators and despots in the Middle East, Central America, South America and elsewhere so American corporations can make more money and you think a twisted piece of steel that happens to look like a "cross" is going to help I don't buy it.

[rug]

27. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, with one exception.

The lawsuit addresses none of that. It is solely in service of a single issue: no religion in the public square. That is the ultimate distraction from what you put your finger on.

[rexcat]

29. I will respectfully disagree with you...

as far as the lawsuit but as an atheist I see things differently than you concerning religious issues.

It is ashame that we, as a country, can't come to grips with what we have done concerning our foreign policy over the course of 230+ years. I am afraid the corporations in this country have too much power and the United Citizens decision consolitated that power. Hopefully there will be an amendment to the constitution to overturn this abomination.

[rug]

6. It's 9/11.

[Goblinmonger]

10. No shit, Capt Obvious.

Nice of the writer to take the opportunity of the patriotism-fest that is 9/11 to take a jab at atheists with a rehash of stuff that has been covered in the past months with nothing new to offer. You, too.

[rug]

15. Yes shit, Capt. Persecuted.

The fact is this is an ongoing lawsuit involving the 9/11 Memorial. This is 9/11. If it embarasses you to talk about it, that's life. You must be brittle if you consider an article on a lawsuit brought by an atheist organization to be a "jab at atheists".

[Goblinmonger]

16. I'll talk about it whenever you want

Want do you want to consider that we haven't already gone through?

Then, after I answer a couple of your questions and discuss it with you, are you actually going to answer some questions and discuss something about your church?

Edited to add: Of course you know that the point being made by me here is that you and the author of the piece are latching on to the emotional bullshit of the day to bash atheists since no new information is out there about this lawsuit. But, again, let's discuss it. Let me know the burning points you want to chat about.

[rug]

19. I'll discuss it when you're in a less friable state.

Perhaps next time you can reply directly to the post without this mating dance.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Maybe you can stop being passive aggressive about it

and just own up to the fact that you took opportunity that the emotion of 9/11 provided to take a stab at atheist with something that provides no new insight.

[rug]

24. Maybe you can stop imputing motives to others that suit your world view.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Then do tell.

Why did you post a story that is the exact same story you have posted before with nothing new added to the mix?

[cbayer]

9. What would the atheist group like displayed? They don't say.

Was there a star of David found at the site that took on significance? Any other symbolic items belonging to other religions that are being excluded? Was there an icon that the non-religious were drawn to that is not being exhibited?

Most likely, everything else at this museum is without religious significance, making the secular exhibits far more prevalent that this one religious one.

From the article:

“I think the odds of a court ordering the cross removed are literally zero,” said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s legal analyst. “The museum is not building a place for religious worship, they are preserving a historical relic that was meaningful to a great many people and part of the story of 9/11.”

[rexcat]

13. The "cross" is an aberration of the wreakage...

and coincidentally looks like a religious relic. It has no real religious meaning but the christians are trying their damnest to make it so.

[Leontius]

22. My favorite line in the article "This case is about inclusion,....of everyone."

while their only fight is to exclude a Christian symbol from the museum.

[Goblinmonger]

31. For somebody who claims to not understand privilege

You sure show it in spades.

[onager]

23. Sorry I couldn't stop the airplanes...

...but I left a nice cross in the rubble. Please display it forever in a prominent place, so all the other infidel scum know which is the REAL religion.

Thanks,

God

[rug]

25. Gee, God sounds so bitter and small.

[rexcat]

26. And you accuse me and others having no substance...

I gave you some meat in post #20 but you never responded. You stated you did not see substance so at that point in two different OPs(including this one) I changed my tenor. Have you? We all have different outlooks on this subject but I sure don't know where you are coming from or going to on this. This is not a simple black and white issue. It is complicated.

I understand cbayer not responding to me since she has me on total ignore and is nice since I don't have to deal with her but I am questioning your motives at this point.

[rug]

28. I just responded to #20.

It's an insightful post.

This #23, however, is a cartoon.

[onager]

32. Thanks! Nice to see you and Pat Robertson fighting Evil Atheists together.

From the article:

While atheist blogs and publications have pushed this case, spearheaded by American Atheists, conservative religious groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice have cited it as an example of growing anti-Christian sentiment and have filed an amicus brief in support of his display.

The ACLJ was created and funded by Rev. Pat to counter the ACLU.

If you want to add your name to their amicus brief, here ya go:

http://aclj.org/american-heritage/committee-to-protect-the-ground-zero-cross

Long as I'm here, this is a sure sign they're trying to pull a fast one. The old "Well, it's not that, but even if it were..." gambit:

In documents submitted to the court, the museum defends the inclusion of the cross, saying that “the 9/11 Museum is an independent nonprofit corporation. Its curators’ decisions to display particular objects, such as the Artifact, in the Museum are not state actions to which Constitutional protections apply.”

In the same documents, the museum argues that even if constitutional protections apply, “there is no legal authority for the proposition that a museum is prohibited from displaying an item with historical, cultural or artistic significance merely because that item also has religious significance.”

Interesting that Rev. Jordan "declined interview requests." Unfortunately, before he started declining, he let the mask slip just a little too far:

In the same interview, Jordan argued that the reason it should be included is because most of the victims were Christians - “the plurality of which were Catholic,” Jordan said.

But it has NOTHING TO DO with Xianity, dammit! Strictly a historical thingamajig and stuff.

There's a cartoon here, all right. But a much funnier one than my post #23.

[rug]

33. If that's what you see, you should have something checked.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Do you distance yourself from the ACLJ?

I was going to let you go on a little longer about all this before pointing out that you are basically on the same side as Robertson, but onager beat me to it.

Do you disagree with the position of the ACLJ?

[rug]

35. Oh, please.

Fine example of blunt thinking there.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I notice you didn't answer the question.

You posted the article and, as usual, weren't clear about your thoughts on the article.

I assume you read the article. It should be an easy answer to the question.

Do you agree with the position of the ACLJ?

[rug]

37. It's an insulting question, as well as a stupid one.

Where have I seen this before?

[Goblinmonger]

38. No idea why it is insulting, but, here, I'll answer it first:

I don't support the position of the ACLJ.

That didn't feel so bad.

Now your turn. Do you support or agree with the position of the ACLJ?

And I'm not accusing you of anything? I'm asking you what your thoughts are on the article that you posted. If you didn't want to talk about it, I assume you wouldn't have posted it.

[rug]

39. Let me see, why on earth is this insulting?

"you are basically on the same side as Robertson"

Don't waste any more time trying feigning disingenuity. You're much too transparent, and saturated, for that.

[Goblinmonger]

40. If you answer the question

I'll edit that post if it doesn't match your answer.

Hell, I'll even edit it to say I wrongly accused you of being on the same side as Robertson.

Do you support or agree with the position of the ACLJ?

[rug]

41. You really are in no position to bargain with me.

Why don't you give that question of yours your best guess.

[Goblinmonger]

42. I'm not bargaining with you.

I could give two shits about your thoughts on that post of mine. You posted the article and have tended to support the position that the atheists are out of line for this. That is also the position of the ACLJ. I'm not saying you are exactly like Robertson, but you are on the same side of the argument as he is on this one.

But, hell, maybe I'm wrong about that. So I asked.

I was also pretty damn sure that you wouldn't answer the question making me edit my post.

But the offer is still there. If I made an incorrect statement about your position on this, I will edit the post to declare that I wrongly accused you of being on the same side of this issue as Robertson. Just answer the question:

Do you support or agree with the position of the ACLJ on this issue?

[rug]

43. No, you're not.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Still no answer, huh?

I don't get it. You don't want to be on record being on the side of atheists? Seriously, I don't understand why you won't answer.

Do you support or agree with the position of the ACLJ?

[rug]

45. "on record"

I'll say it again: post your best guess.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Why would I need to guess?

You are engaged in a conversation with me. You can just answer the question. It's not a hard question. It's not a "gotcha" question. It's not a loaded question.

Do you agree with or support the position of the ACLJ on this issue? You either do or you don't. There is no nuance here? They disagree with the atheists lawsuit regarding the memorial. Do you agree with them?

[rug]

47. Do you honestly not know the answer?

Are you honestly unable to separate an argument from the conclusion?

Do you honestly not understand how the same conclusion can be reached for diametrically different reasons?

Are you in fact that obtuse?

BTW, your statement, "They disagree with the atheists lawsuit regarding the memorial" improperly frames the issue. Do you know why they disagree? Do you know why I do? I'll give you a hint. They are considerably different.

You're right, it's not a loaded question; it's a poor question unsuitable to carry any weight.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

48. I oppose the atheists on this one

Since it is quite clear that their "is not about the elimination of religion, it is about the inclusion of everyone" is a flat-out lie. They want to exclude Christians.

On the other hand, the ACLJ argument is equally bogus.

[Leontius]

49. So you support "Christian privilege" according to

certain people here. Shame on you.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Nope that isn't privilege

At least you are consistent in not getting it.

It is an example of completely twisting the argument into something unrecognizable. And a little bit of a persecution complex.

[Leontius]

55. Yes sir you are a real .

We both point out the same lie in the article and you say one is privileged thinking and the other is not. You have the nerve to use the word consistent in your post. For someone who claims to teach English you sure don't seem to have a grasp on simple definitions of words. Then again that's not really why you do it is it.

[Goblinmonger]

57. I'm sure this is going to be far too nuanced for you, but here it goes

You said "their only fight" is to exclude Christians. That indicates a MUCH DIFFERENT mind set than saying that inclusion is a lie (still disagree with that position greatly). Additionally, you did not denounce the bullshit position of the ACLJ as was done in the post above.

Those two things make it pretty clear that you are coming at this from a position of privilege whereas the other isn't. Add to that the posting history of the two of you and it is crystal clear.

And for the 4 years I competed in and the 15 years I coached college debate, one of my specialties was definitional arguments, so, come at me, bro, I'd love to discuss definitions with you.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

56. Which part of "the ACLJ argument is also bogus" do you have difficulty with?

[cbayer]

58. Which part of the ACLJ argument do you think is bogus?

I can't really locate their *argument*.

[Goblinmonger]

59. From the article

The case has gained national attention and has become important to many atheists and religious Americans alike. While atheist blogs and publications have pushed this case, spearheaded by American Atheists, conservative religious groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice have cited it as an example of growing anti-Christian sentiment and have filed an amicus brief in support of his display.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

61. This bit

In the same interview, Jordan argued that the reason it should be included is because most of the victims were Christians - “the plurality of which were Catholic,” Jordan said.

It makes no difference who the victims were.

[cbayer]

62. I agree that that is bogus.

[Leontius]

67. Rev Brian Jordan

is a Catholic priest who was at the site with the workers not from the ACLJ.

[Leontius]

66. Don't know anything about the ACLJ argument from this article

I was using your post to point out the hypocritical bullshit of another poster in this thread and they popped up right on schedule with more. I agree with your comment on the original lawsuit and might agree about ACLJ statement if i knew what it was.

[mr blur]

60. Persecution!

Don't you just love it?!

[rug]

65. Except it's not theists here claiming persecution and filing a lawsuit.

[mr blur]

63. Look, the murderers didn't attack Christians on 9/11, they attacked Americans.

Christians are already included in any memorial because of their shared humanity. Along with any atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, black people, Asian people, Muslims, veterans, tourists, Republicans, Democrats and anyone else who died.

I happen to spend my days in a wheelchair - if I had been in the US on vacation on that day and died at the WTC, my family wouldn't be insisting that this symbol:



should be displayed to stand for everyone who died.

Over here in the UK on 9/11 the intense wave of public feeling wasn't for "all those poor Christians who were killed", it was for "all those poor people who were killed"

To presume that the cross stands for everyone who died is the height of arrogance and, quite frankly, cheapens the whole thing. It's the last place that religious arrogance should be displayed, considering that it was some other culture's religious arrogance that caused the disaster in the first place.

[cbayer]

64. If the symbol which you offer had been discovered in the rubble and become a central

point for some people to gather, share, mourn and receive some solace, you would have an argument here.

No one presumes that the cross stands for everyone who died, only that it played a significant role in the events following 9/11 for some people.

There will be many artifacts that don't speak to everyone and there will be many which speak very specifically to some.

This is merely one of those - no more, no less.