[Mike Irwin]

From AP & New York Daily News

"Atheist group objects to steel 'cross' at Ground Zero

'This is a Christian religious advertisement, and allowing it to stay there is an insult'

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


A steel beam in the symmetrical shape of a cross — a remnant from the World Trade Center wreckage — has drawn criticism from an atheist group, which objects to the artifact being kept at Ground Zero as a religious emblem.

The trade center site is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the bistate governmental agency that also operates the region’s three major airports and bridges and tunnels connecting the two states.

“Many people who died on September 11 weren’t Christian. There were Jews, Muslims, and atheists who died,” Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists based in New Jersey, told The Trentonian newspaper for Monday’s editions. “This is a Christian religious advertisement, and allowing it to stay there is an insult to everyone who doesn’t believe in that particular religion.”

Johnson and her group, founded by the late Madelyn Murray O’Hare, is considering a lawsuit to prevent the beam from becoming part of any permanent memorial to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The beam was discovered two days after the attacks by construction worker Frank Silecchia as he searched for survivors.

A Franciscan priest, the Rev. Brian Jordan, blessed the cross and used it for months as a gathering place to celebrate Sunday Mass for ground zero workers and family members.

The names of fallen police officers and firefighters were also scribbled on the cross, along with the message “May God forgive their evil.”

Almost two years later, the 20-foot cross remains along Church Street, the eastern border of the 16-acre site. A petition was undertaken to make it a part of a permanent memorial.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corp., a city-state group overseeing the rebuilding of the area, has made no decisions on what a ground zero memorial would include."

[revlar]

The cross was neither forged nor placed there by the hand of man.

And so the hand of man should not remove it from that place.

[C.R.Sam]

If it was a privately financed enterprise; I would say let em build what they want.
However, tis a public funded operation and that a different colored horse.

I dislike the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill for this thing anyway. Just like I dislike the idea that the original WTC was built using public funds on siezed ex private property.

Sam

[Gray Peterson]

Did Coronach not say that religious related threads were not permitted and would be locked?

[Graystar]

At first sight this would appear to be like the 10 Commandments case in Alabama. However, I believe that a private enterprise held, and still holds, a lease on the property. I would think that the lease holder can do whatever he likes, and that the display is not any kind of violation of the 1st Amendment.

I would like to see it go, though...

[KC]

The WTC site is, I think, owned by the Port Authority. The buildings, not the ground, were privately owned. (I recall seeing an interview with the CEO of the corporation that owned the complex, and apperently he is obligated by his lease agreement to rebuild.)


"The cross was neither forged nor placed there by the hand of man."

Yes it was. It was cast, rolled, riveted, and then destroyed by man. Man and physics made those buildings what they were, and come down they way they did. There was nothing supernatural about this.

[Duncan Idaho]

Seems like the problem is that not only is there too much "publicly" owned (stolen) land, but that these folks are allowed to pick and choose where this supposed freedom from religion is to be exercised.


This is public land:http://washingtondcmetroweb.com/Images/Monuments/arlingtoncem_bg.jpg

I'd like to see them ask the .gov to take those Crosses, Stars of David, etc... off. I need a good laugh. :fire: :cuss: :fire:

I reckon that much like animal rights activists that only attack ladies wearing fur - rather than bikers wearing leather - that these "activists" would need to grow a collective "pair" before they would try taking those Crosses, Stars of David, etc. off.

Oh well. :barf:

[Justin]

To my mind this particular bit of scrap is just as important for its historical significance as its religious. After all, in the days following 9|11 that cross was photographed a lot. If it was used as a meeting place for those involved in the aftermath, that adds to its significance.

That said, I would have to say that I'd rather that any memorial that includes the cross simply notes it for its historical impact, and maybe make mention of the spiritual impact on those who were inclined to feel something because of it.

But to paint it as some sort of all-encompassing supernatural evidence of God's love, or concern, or whatever strikes me as being just as silly as the athiest bone-heads who want the thing completely removed.

Now that I've irked both sides of the debate...:uhoh:

[Duncan Idaho]

That said, I would have to say that I'd rather that any memorial that includes the cross simply notes it for its historical impact, and maybe make mention of the spiritual impact on those who were inclined to feel something because of it.See? That is all too reasonable. What sort of "Hey-hey-ho-ho" kind of protest chant goes with something as sensible as that? How would you ever expect the activists to really get their panties in a wad over something like that? Why...they wouldn't even be able to really put their hearts into the "Fight the Power! U.S. out of North America!" part of the festivities.

Justin, I hate to say this, but you are a bit of a wet blanket.

[greyhound]

What sort of "Hey-hey-ho-ho" kind of protest chant goes with something as sensible as that?

Hey Hey Ho Ho, religion in U.S. has got to go!

(Well, you asked:D )

[DigMe]

Anyone got an official link to this story?

brad cook

[buzz_knox]

To most, the cross symbolizes a final resting place as much as it does a particular religion. I'd daresay that some of the name written on it were not Christians nor put there by Christians, precisely for that reason: it wasn't seen as a testament to Christ, but as a way of recognizing those who fell. Given that aspect of it and the fact that this cross is a remnant of the actual towers, it should withstand a challenge, assuming the PA doesn't roll over and/or let it's attorneys bugger the case.

[Dorrin79]

Justin:
Now that I've irked both sides of the debate...

I'm an athiest, and I pretty much agree with what you said.

Athiests do themselves no favors in the public eye when they get all bent out of shape over such minor things. Save it for things that matter, like mandatory prayer in schools, or religion-based censorship, etc.

[revlar]

"religious related threads were not permitted"?

"piece of scrap"?

I would appear I have spoken out of turn.
I was unaware that expressions of faith were discouraged and/or disparaged by the Moderators of this board.

:(

My apologies.

[buzz_knox]

I was unaware that expressions of faith were discouraged and/or disparaged by the Moderators of this board.

Such threads have a tendency to become quite nasty, as religious issues (along with certain moral issues such as abortion) are so intensely personal that some people make their arguments personal as well.

[whitebear]

Brad -

Here are three links:

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jreynalds/c_062302_jreynalds_atheists-wtc-memorial.htm

http://www.wnbc.com/wtc/2463752/detail.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--groundzerocross0908sep08,0,967222.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Many more at:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wtc+cross+atheist+group

[Bruce H]

Or they could have rebuilt the site one story taller than the original. But no we have to have symbolism over substance. Too many idiots straining what little sanity is left.

[OF]

You know what I don't understand? If you don't believe, what do you care if others do?

It bugs the hell out of me that people who supposedly attach no significance to religious objects react as if they actually did have some kind of supernatural powers. It's like when (warning: gerneralization for the sake of argument) atheists find themselves amongst a group of people bowing their head in prayer and refuse to bow their heads. If you don't believe, then what skin is it off your nose to just go along and not insult the people who do believe?

It's ridiculous and it's rude.

- Gabe

[revlar]

Understood buzz_knox.

Still, if this thread is any indication, it would appear that expressions of faithlessness/anti-faith are allowed - if not encouraged.

Where's the "High Road" in that?

Perhaps the fact that the board allows the use of a devil smilie - but not an angel smilie - that alone should tell me all I need to know.

[OF]

Yes, we're all satanists here. Didn't you get the memo? See you at the baby sacrifice!

- Gabe

[buzz_knox]

And so it begins. Or, more accurately, ends.

[TallPine]

I guess I just don't see the big deal ... :confused:

A cross has become a more or less generally accepted symbol of a grave, outside of its christian significance.

All over MT, there are little white crosses erected along the roadsides to signify traffic fatalities. I'm sure many of those deceased were not "christians" but it is still a reminder of what can happen if you drive stupid.

Why can't we all just be a little more tolerant, and play in our own sandbox?

[Nightfall]

If the Star of David had fallen from the WTC, would those atheists still be as adamant about removing it? Mmmm, maybe not. Atheists in general sometimes seem to hold a special place in their heart for Christians, since they usually represent the most visible and palpable impact on their non-belief in the USA. Christians are just the popular ones around, combined with often being atheist anathema... well, you're just bound to catch the flack, aren't ya? :D

I say leave it be. It's a personal, impromptu happening that touched the lives of those who worked around Ground Zero. It ISN'T a government erected tribute to Christians. It's a privately important symbol of something that affected many there in the days following 9-11. It's for remembering, it's part of the history of the event, and this particular atheist thinks it should stay. Perhaps even become part of a permanent tribute combined with other religious (and non-religious) symbols to represent all those who perished, or worked to clean the site up.

[Mike Irwin]

"Anyone got an official link to this story?"

What would you consider to be official?

It's from New York Newsday via the Associated Press, not the New York Daily News (my bad).

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--groundzerocross0908sep08,0,967222.story

[revlar]

Golly gee GRD -

Didn't you just say; "what skin is it off your nose to...not insult the people who do believe"?

Oh that's right - your example was just a "generalization". Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

[Mike Irwin]

Chill out, people.

I didn't post this to become a venue for personal attacks based on religion.

I posted it as a catalyst for discussion on the continuing debate over whose rights are more important overall.

[buzz_knox]

Revlar, you are apparently missing the sarcasm in GRD's post, which was well deserved. You commented on the presence of a devil symbol but not an angel one. Are you aware of whether or not an angel symbol is even available? I've never seen one. If you'd care to provide one, it might make it. You didn't offer to do so, however, and instead maybe a back-handed slur against the owner/administrators of the board. That's what GRD was responding to.

[Kaylee]

Re the THR policy on religion threads.

No, this does not reflect any religious bias one way or another on the part of the moderators. Among the mods are Christians (including our Honorary Chaplain -- Preacherman), atheists, agnostics, a kinda-sorta pagan, and I'm sure I'm missing someone in there as I don't think we've ever actually taken a headcount.

The reason religious threads (among others) get closed down is because of EXACTLY what is starting to happen here. Namely, the discussion inevitably degenerates into a "well you're a religious nazi trying to force me to worship like you/no, you're an amoral aetheist ruining our Godly Nation" manure shoveling contest.

After numerous bad experiences along these lines, the decision was made to just prematurely close 'em before they got that far.

The reason for THAT is because we're all supposed to be on the same side. Tell me how it helps RKBA for our members to be at each other's throats over this kinda thing.

Now.. I'll break with tradition a little here and say that particular policy is one I'm not particularly thrilled with. I'd LIKE to see people here be able to discuss spirituality as it pertains to RKBA or L&P issues -- but as long as religious-based threads continue to degenerate into schoolyard fights, they WILL be summarily closed at THR and with good reason.

Now -- tell y'all what. Prove the mods wrong here. Prove that we all CAN discuss these matters civilly, without falling from The High Road and taking knives to each other's character over this. Though we've not discussed it, I think I can say for the others that if and when that happens, the THR staff will be amenable to lifting said ban.

(bans in general rub most all of us here the wrong way, after all. ;) )

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Andrew Rothman]

Oh, Lord, am I tired of hearing people say that crosses, Christmas trees and the like are not really religious symbols.

A cross is a Christian symbol. Remember, Jesus died on the cross, and it became, you know, the predominant symbol of the religion?

To most, the cross symbolizes a final resting place as much as it does a particular religion

Yeah, that's why you see so many crosses in Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist cemetaries. Oh, wait, no, you don't. Because it's a CHRISTIAN SYMBOL.

I don't have the legal background or specific knowledge to determine whether the memorial site is private or govenment property.

But it shouldn't matter. Why would even a private entity disrespect the wide range of religious backgrounds of the victims by memorializing them with a Christian symbol?

Matt

[gun-fucious]

IMHO, a couple of Iron workers most likely torched off the unsymetrical parts to the "cross".

Still as a "Found Art Object" its very impressive

they also made a really nice concrete base for it:

[revlar]

buzz_knox - No, I did not miss GRD'S sarcasm. But, it would seem, mine (regarding the devil smilie) WAS missed (and yes, an angel smilie does exist)

Kaylee - Thank you for the clarification, and most especially, for the open-mindedness. THAT's what I was looking for and you did not let me down.

[gun-fucious]

heres another picture from last July

Please surf the Memorial website, i worked on for the St. Paul's hospice:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0209/st_pauls/online_extra.html

The group opposed to the "Cross" most likely did not donate any effort to the disaster recovery. I saw people from every walk of life selflessly working at the hole.

the VR pictures of all the artwork sent in by school kids will bring a tear to your eye.

[OF]

Revlar,

If your bit about the angel was sarcastic, then my remark to you was undeserved and I apologize...although I did think it was funny. However, I believe you'll find the this board does not have any kind of 'anti-faith' agenda, and any comments of yours that insinuate such are misplaced.

- Gabe

[dustind]

This agnostic person thinks it is crazy to remove the cross that others put up, or atleast fixed up. It is not like our tax dollars went to making it out of nothing.

As for the cemetary, aren't the individual graves, or at least tombstones private property? Shouldn't people be able to say anything they want on them?

[buzz_knox]

Oh, Lord, am I tired of hearing people say that crosses, Christmas trees and the like are not really religious symbols.

Really? So when an atheist says "oh my god" have they now converted to a particular religion? Bull. And Christmas trees have no religious significance at all. The holiday used to but the tree doesn't.

Why would even a private entity disrespect the wide range of religious backgrounds of the victims by memorializing them with a Christian symbol?

You didn't read the article, did you? The cross was created by happenstance, as the last remnant of the towers still standing. The rescue workers used the last vestige of the towers as a place to memorialize their friends and co-workers who died, regardless of religion. Their act is what turned it into a memorial, not the shape of the beams. Why would anyone want to destroy that monument to the love and honor shown to the fallen?

[Mike Irwin]

"Why would even a private entity disrespect the wide range of religious backgrounds of the victims by memorializing them with a Christian symbol?"

That immediately assumes that the cross would be placed there with the sole purpose of showing disrespect to the non-Christians who died. It wouldn't be. It also wouldn't be the only item in the memorial, it would be part of the whole.

Using that logic, it could be said that displaying the American flag at the memorial would be a sign of disrespect to those who died who were not American citizens.

[MeekandMild]

baiting -- albeit tongue in cheek -- comment removed by moderator

[KC]

baiting comment removed by moderator.

[whitebear]

Brad -

Here are three links:

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/jreynalds/c_062302_jreynalds_atheists-wtc-memorial.htm

http://www.wnbc.com/wtc/2463752/detail.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--groundzerocross0908sep08,0,967222.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Many more at:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wtc+cross+atheist+group

[Dorrin79]

Oh, Lord, am I tired of hearing people say that crosses, Christmas trees and the like are not really religious symbols.

maybe, maybe not...

One could make a pretty valid case that the cross is a secularized symbol, nowadays. It really depends on the intention of its placement in a public forum. That's what the whole Alabama brouhaha was about, really. In a nutshell, my position is thus:

A religious symbol presented for a secular reason - it's a valuable relic, it's historically significant, or it's representational of some secular aspect, like a art period or what have you, is fine. This particular example clearly qualifies.

A religious symbol presented for a religious reason (like the Ten Com. in Alabama, or a huge wooden crucifix in the middle of the City Hall grounds) is NOT fine; it violates the 1st amendment (or the 1st by way of the 14th, depending on what level of gubmint we're talking about)

Regardless, the real people who should be offended here are the vampires . Everybody knows crosses are dangerous to them. Won't someone think of the undead!!!

:rolleyes:

[coldshot03/04]

baiting comment removed by moderator.

[buzz_knox]

reply to baiting comment removed by moderator

[KC]

reply to baiting comment removed by moderator

[Mike Irwin]

"Christmas tree..."

It's a lot more secular than a cross.

Germanic tribes were worshiping evergreens and other trees thousands of years ago. St. Boniface is supposed to have made the connection between the evergreen and the everlasting life that could be had through the acceptance of Christ.

Decorating trees at Christmas time didn't become popular in Germany until the 1500s, and apparently didn't really spread out to other parts of Europe, such as England, until Victorian times when Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, erected a tree in the family palace.

In Germany, it was apparently even common for Jewish families to bring evergreen trees into the home during the winter. Today, I know more than one Jewish family that has a Christmas tree, but with a twist... They decorate it with symbols more appropriate to their faith -- where they got the Star of David and Dredle twinkle lights is completely beyond me, but they've got them.

German immigrants brought the tradition to the United States, where it caught on faster than in Europe, apparently because it was easier to get pine trees in the United States.

Today Christmas trees are so much a generic symbol of the season that they really aren't much more religious than Rudolph or Frosty.

[buzz_knox]

reply to baiting comment removed by moderator

[Kaylee]

AHEM

Remember the part about "Prove the mods wrong here. Prove that we all CAN discuss these matters civilly, without falling from The High Road and taking knives to each other's character over this."

I just removed a slew of personal attacks and baiting comments, and the replies -- both reasoned and not. Now, I'll admit the paring was difficult, and I tried to be as impartial as possible. Regardless, to all I've offended there -- I'm sorry.

I'm not going to strip out any more catfights in this thread. If anything like it continues, the thread goes down, and the ban stays in force.

Let me reiterate -- IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS KIND OF ISSUE ON THR, DO NOT ATTACK YOUR FELLOW MEMBERS.


-K

[KC]

"And a comparison like that makes you no better than the person you protest against. Actually, such an insult makes you far worse in my eyes."

Oh, you support one brand of religious extremism, but not others? Simply because he wants to curbstomp 'unbelievers' in this country, instead of beating/shooting/torturing/etc them in other countries? Pat Robertson is somehow better than than a bin Laden when he says that 'We must take back America for Christ' when the other is promising to bathe this country in the blood of unbelievers?

[coldshot03/04]

Thanks alot MOD. What was I baiting? Freedom of speech is not allowed here or something?

[Phyphor]

Say "Lights out... "

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Kaylee, as the originator of this thread, I'm asking you to close it.

I had hoped that we could discuss this like adults; obviously I was sadly mistaken.



Just as an aside...

"Thanks alot MOD. What was I baiting? Freedom of speech is not allowed here or something?"

No, Coldshot, you do NOT.

This is a private board, not a governmental entity. As such, the owner of the board and/or his agents have the right to limit discussion in any way that they see fit.



I'll say this now...

Grow the :cuss: up, people.

[KC]

It isn't so much a lack of freedom of speech coldshot03/04, but a lack of tolerance for differing religious views. Arguments over religious symbols is one thing, but a promise of physical violence is quite another.

I can understand why some would want the cross to remain where it was. I could be persuaded that it should be made a part of a memorial. I don't think, however, that it would be appropriate that it should be made a centerpiece of a memorial. It wasn't so much that Christinanity was attacked (it was, but as a secondary target,) but the United States; it's people, the (usual) tolerance for varied theological practices, capitalism, etc.: it was our way of life that was assualted.

It was not vampires that attacked us, and it is therefor inappropriate to use a crucifix to ward them off. The people that did this clearly want a rleigious war; don't give them one. Nobody ever won a Crusade in the long term.

[Kaylee]

It's been suggested that I write some closing comments here.

The Staff has been reviewing this thread and its lessons quite a bit lately, as well as options for the future. Micromanaging user's posts is labor intensive, and demeaning to you. Bad idea. Letting a free for all flare up is likewise not an option. Summary banning of users for a single offense in one thread is overkill, and again.. labor intensive.

Sadly, the only remaining course of action was the one already settled on. Devisive threads -- religious ones among them -- are to going to be summarily closed. I wish it didn't have to be this way -- none of us like prior restraint.

But.. when the constant result of these threads is sniping between members that not only destroys our own community, but also presents an ugly view of the firearms community to the world at large on this site.. that's the least bad of the available options.

So.. to those of you who took the High Road here.. thank you. You've confirmed our impressions of the vast majority of our membership, and I apologize for the tack THR has to take in closing off some avenues of discussion. To those of you who didn't... I'm dissappointed.

Blanket ban stays.

Kaylee