Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum

[rug]

Amid the rubble of the World Trade Center after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, workers found a cross-shaped metal beam that some saw as a symbol of hope amid the ruins. While the cleanup continued, the beam was moved to a nearby Catholic church and is now slated to be housed in the permanent collection of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. But American Atheists, a New Jersey-based group with an unerring nose for for the scent of publicity, has now filed a lawsuit to bar the inclusion of the “cross,” because it is a symbol of Christianity, in the government-financed museum.

This suit not only misconstrues the First Amendment but detracts from the seriousness of the many genuine violations of the separation of church and state that have become embedded in our society. Yes, it would be a violation of the establishment clause if the battered cross-shaped object were displayed at the entrance as the museum’s official symbol. And I’d be the first to go to court to get it removed. But there is no evidence that the museum intends this piece, when the building opens, to be anything but one exhibit in a large collection that will include many other objects belonging to the history of that day and its aftermath. It is now being installed in an underground section of the future museum.

Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told me that “if the cross is being displayed in a museum as an artifact of the event with accompanying information about what it is and where it came from, it’s highly unlikely that a court would strike it down.”

The 9/11 museum is intended to reflect as much as possible about the varied ways in which New Yorkers responded not only on that terrible day but in the following weeks and months.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/spirited-atheist/post/atheist-groups-frivolous-lawsuit-aims-to-bar-cross-from-911-museum/2011/08/01/gIQAgvATnI_blog.html

[fascisthunter]

1. why should there be a cross? Did only christians die that day?

[rug]

2. From the article:

"Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told me that “if the cross is being displayed in a museum as an artifact of the event with accompanying information about what it is and where it came from, it’s highly unlikely that a court would strike it down.”

"The 9/11 museum is intended to reflect as much as possible about the varied ways in which New Yorkers responded not only on that terrible day but in the following weeks and months.

"The museum will doubtless contain examples of the impromptu memorials that sprang up at ground zero and throughout Manhattan, with pictures of the dead and the missing that also contain many religious symbols. I saw many Stars of David and a few small statues of Buddha at those memorials in the weeks after the attacks. Should they be eliminated too, if there weren’t enough symbols of other faiths and secular thinking?"

[Warpy]

3. Apparently so, just like they think they're going to be the only ones in heaven

if there's an afterlife, at all.

I doubt they'll be able to do anything about this one, though, since it's a piece of the wreckage, itself, and not constructed specifically as a religious object nor placed into a specifically religious setting.

I shudder to think what would happen if all cross shaped objects were banned, starting with the letter "t" and the plus sign.

If, however, they ever identify it as a religious shrine of some sort, they'll be due a real fight.

[fascisthunter]

4. Yeah, I see it was an artifact.... so they are covered

[darkstar3]

6. Who said anyone wanted to ban "all cross shaped objects"

Religious imagery has no place on public land. That's why the 10 commandments can't go in front of a courthouse. That's why manger scenes can't go in front of city hall. The list goes on.

[Warpy]

7. That seems to be the aim of this suit

especially since the cross shaped piece of wreckage in question was once housed in a church. I guess there's no way to disinfect it.

This is one suit I wish had never been filed. Had they tried to turn the area into some sort of Christian shrine, they'd have had more of a point and much more of a case.

Until then, it's frivolous, wasteful, and ultimately damaging to atheists.

[darkstar3]

8. "Seems to be"

Bullshit. It's all about singular religious imagery on public property. There's no "seems to be" about it. Why is it that people have such a problem understanding the difference between the free exercise of a person and the establishment by a government? It's not like it's fuckin' hard to get...

[rug]

12. It's safe to assume the author has no such problem.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/about_susan_jacoby.html

[darkstar3]

13. And?

[rug]

15. It's not like it's fuckin' hard to get...

[darkstar3]

18. Why must you always fall back to fallacious argumentation?

In this case, you are using argument from authority. You believe that because the author, a supposed authority, disagrees with me, that my point is therefore invalid. Logic and argumentation don't work that way. How many fallacies can you invoke in a 24 hour period? I'm willing to bet your next response to me grazes one...

[rug]

20. Frankly, her credentials and experience give significantly greater weight to her opinion than yours.

Your misuse of this fallacy would put your opinion on the same level as that of a fifth grader.

Not that I would disagree.

[darkstar3]

23. Once again, you do not grasp how logical fallacy works.

Sad for you. To be clear, you can't simply invoke someone's credentials and automatically dismiss or invalidate someone else's point.

[rug]

27. Let me see, that would be reductio ad ridiculum.

"Sad for you" is highly persuasive.

Bye.

[darkstar3]

28. LOL, you Googled that just now, didn't you?

See you again when you try for the last word...

[darkstar3]

5. Dismissal in the topic sentence. Nice.

"Frivolous" my ass. The rejection of the creep of religion into state sponsorship has to start somewhere.

[hlthe2b]

9. I think this falls under the addage "pick your battles"...

the thing is an artifact and its sybolism lies in the eyes of the beholder. This is a lawsuit destined to fail, but surely amenable to lots of propaganda by those on the RW convinced that Christianity is under some assault. I agree with the analyst from Americans United for Separation of Church and State in that this lawsuit detracts from the truly serious violations of church state separation. Pick your battles and pick them well.

[darkstar3]

11. Find me an American who doesn't recognize a cross as a Christian symbol.

"eyes of the beholder"? Not so much...

[hlthe2b]

14. It is iron bars that in destruction formed a "t"

Do all recognize it has a similar form as a crucifix. Of course. But, it is a coincidental remnant of destruction. If you want to see it as a crucifix, you surely will. Others will simply see it as an artifact of destruction. Symbolism is like that.

Losing argument here, I'd bet my bottom dollar on that. Yet, at a time when we have idiots pushing forward the dismantling of science education in the name of creationism or dismantle any kind of useful sex education, THIS is the legal fight they want to engage in? Very short-sighted, inconsequential and a losing fight.

[darkstar3]

16. You forgot to gripe about your pony.

One thing at a time. We need to win the small battles before we're geared up for the nasty ones.

BTW: On your symbolism argument, admitting that "all recognize it has a similar form as a crucifix" was the only nail needed in that coffin.

[hlthe2b]

21. ...

You sound like you want to hold your breath until you turn blue to get your way. Most people get past that and can focus on winning arguments and the big picture.

[darkstar3]

25. You're not winning anything if all you're doing is standing on the sidelines

"keeping your powder dry."

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

43. If you can not discuss without personal attacks & accusations

then I have NOTHING to discuss with you. Rudeness and nasty rhetoric hardly make your case.

[arcane1]

10. I, for one, am extremely relieved...

that they didn't find the image of Jesus on a piece of charred ceiling tile.

[Odin2005]

17. Nice headline bias there, WaPo!

:puke:

[rug]

22. Is it that much different from the text?

"What I find dismaying about lawsuits of this kind is that they make it more difficult to focus public attention on real and serious violations of the separation of church and state".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Yeah... well... no, they're both just like, her opinion, man.

[rug]

31. Workin' that meme

[Goblinmonger]

40. Like what?

What CAN the nasty foul atheists go after, then. Will you and the esteemed author of this bullshit piece please make a list for us so that we know what is acceptable?

[backscatter712]

19. Someone here didn't read the First Amendment...

What part of the Establishment Clause don't you understand?

[laconicsax]

26. Silly goose! The establishment clause only applies to non-Christian religions.

Everyone knows that Christian symbols are really just generic symbols that Christians happen to use. Just ask Scalia--he http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/10/08/scalia-downplays-power-of-the-christian-cross/">certainly feels that way.

[saras]

24. The atheist in me says it belongs there...

Given Christian millenialism's contribution to 9-11, it should be in the museum, but for a different reason then Christians might desire.

[rrneck]

29. Wow. How could anyone have found

anything in the shape of a cross in the wreckage if a gigantic grid? What an incredible coincidence!

Just goes to prove the divine power of skillful marketing and logo design. Praise the miracle of product placement.

[backscatter712]

33. LORD, IT'S A MIRACLE!!!

He couldn't be bothered to do anything to prevent the deaths of 3,000 people, but He showed us His love and grace by putting his calling card in the rubble, which just happened to have a bunch of structural members joined at 90 degrees to each other.

[frogmarch]

32. Atheist group’s lawsuit aims to bar frivolous 'cross' from 9/11 museum

I really have no problem with the cross-shaped artifact. If Christians want to use it to praise their deity in spite of what happened on 9/11, fine with me.

[backscatter712]

34. Why can't they have the cross-shaped debris put in a church or private facility to do that?

Nobody's objecting to that. The objection is putting it in a government-owned piece of property, which amounts to government endorsement of religion.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Because they HAVE to put that toe just beyond the line.

You know how you order a kid to stay out of some place and he'll stay behind the limit but put his toe into the disallowed area just to annoy you? Same thing.

[okasha]

36. do you object to housing,

say, El Greco's or Leonardo's religiously based works in publicly funded museums? Annunciations, Nativities and such by the Flemish masters?

What about statues of Egyptian, Greek and Roman divinities?

Latin American religious imagery in the forms of jaguars and feathered serpents? Codices?

What about relics of the Holocaust?

[trotsky]

37. Are you saying the WTC cross is a piece of art created by a master?

Or that it was personal property of a Christian who died because of their religious beliefs?

Then your examples are not relevant. Keep in mind, the lawsuit is not outright demanding the removal of the cross, it's fighting for the INCLUSION of other faiths too. Do you think that is a bad thing?

[Goblinmonger]

41. Does this government museum allow ONLY Christian "art"

because that's the case here. If the strawman you create were related to this WTC site, there would be no Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Latin American or other art. Just all christian all the time. See, THAT'S what the nasty foul atheists are fighting for. Inclusion of ALL religions and to stop the government from sponsoring just one.

[Goblinmonger]

38. delete

my bad

[deacon_sephiroth]

42. Good luck to them

and if they don't have another place to stick that cross, I've got a suggestion! ^^

[Jim__]

44. They're objecting to the display of debris.

Sure, some people see it as a religious symbol. Other people will see it as the ultimate symbol of irony.


Did these same people join with Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms in objecting to the government's (partial) funding of Serrano's Piss Christ:



If not, why not. They are now in the same league as those clowns.

[Goblinmonger]

45. You really think those are the same.

Then really there is nothing to be said to you because you just aren't off base, you are in a different ball park for a different sport.

[Iggo]

46. First Amendment? Establishment Clause?

Oh, the frivolity!

[Vehl]

47. This is not frivolous nt

[Taverner]

48. Yeah, I guess the First Ammendment is "frivolous"

[_ed_]

49. Establishment Clause?

If we're putting up a cross, I demand equal representation from every religion in the world, living or dead.

How will we honor all these gods? http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm