Atheist group objects to inclusion of "steel cross" at WTC memorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike Irwin

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
7,956
Location
Below the Manson-Nixon line in Virginia...
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.â€

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.â€

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."
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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:
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:
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Justin:
Now that I've irked both sides of the debate...
Click to expand...

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

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

- Gabe
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top