American Atheists Work To Keep WTC Cross Out Of 9/11 Museum

[hrmjustin]

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Arguments were heard Thursday in a case brought by an atheist group against placing what’s known as the World Trade Center cross in the National September 11 Museum.

As WCBS 880′s Marla Diamond reported, the lawyer for the 9/11 museum, Mark Alcott, called the steel beam cross an artifact during oral arguments at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

But American Atheists attorney Edwin Kagan called the 17-foot-tall crossed beams a religious symbol that only gives one story of the people who suffered and has no place on government-owned land. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the site where the museum is located.
play

Judge Reena Raggi said there are countless other religious artifacts on display at many museums. She asked the lawyer for the American Atheists if their goal was to censure history.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/06/american-atheists-work-to-keep-wtc-cross-out-of-911-museum/

[cbayer]

1. It's an artifact not an endorsement.

What a waste of time and money to challenge this.

[hrmjustin]

2. I agree.

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit they have the right to stand on principle.

[hrmjustin]

3. Btw I went over 30,000 posts.

I guess I talk a lot.

[cbayer]

4. Well, congratulations Justin.

[hrmjustin]

5. Thanks.

[Dorian Gray]

176. Impressive

bc I can't imagine the day when I get to 10,000. I've been in the 7s for over a year. (But I post way more sporadically than you!)

[DashOneBravo]

28. Exactly

That's because no matter what happens, someone will see a chance to act all butt hurt.

I'm sure lawyers weren't involved.

Edit .. I went over 10 posts. So I'm the FNG.

[LostOne4Ever]

30. Welcome to DU

And welcome to the religion forum!



Where nothing is sacred except the cows and the alcohol

[DashOneBravo]

175. Wait..

Eat the cows. Save the booze

[cbayer]

32. Welcome to DU and to the Religion Group, DashOneBravo.

[DashOneBravo]

174. Two of you

Thank you both for the welcome.

[hrmjustin]

55. The AA group is just folloeing their principles.

Nothing wrong in that at all.

[stopbush]

67. Because atheists are such a privileged minority in this country that they should just shut up

and enjoy the fact that their Constitutional rights are never trampled on by the religious.

[Jim__]

6. Short of excluding the cross-shaped beam, the atheists want a plaque ..., “Athists died here, too."

I wonder if that's what they really want it to say.

[hrmjustin]

7. I understand some of it is just the principle of it for some but I think they are getting this wrong

[Jim__]

8. I think they're getting it wrong too.

[cbayer]

9. Muslims died there too.

The cross was a gathering place for people at a time of unspeakable misery.

It meant many things to many people.

[Jim__]

11. I think the advice, "Pick your battles," applies here.

[cbayer]

12. Agree. There is some really egregious stuff going on out there.

Clear intrusions on the first amendment that are actually harmful.

[stopbush]

59. You're not an atheist, so you don't get to pick their battles for them.

[cbayer]

61. Really? You don't have any idea what I am.

I have the right to my opinion and you don't have the right to decide what I am or I am not.

[stopbush]

64. You can have your opinion. It just has no weight when it comes to the atheists deciding

what battles they pick to fight.

Your words: "What a waste of time and money to challenge this."

As a non-believer and an American, I totally disagree with you. It's never a waste of time and money to fight for Constitutional principles.

[cbayer]

68. Again, you make assumptions about what I am based on your preconceived

notions of what you think I should be and the fact that I don't fit your narrative.

You are certainly within your rights to disagree with me, but you have no more standing than I do.

I don't think this is about constitutional principles, and I say this as a strong advocate for 1st amendment separation.

I think there are some really egregious things going on and that AA should be using their time and resources to address those, not this. This just alienates people, something Mr. Silverman appears to be perfecting.

[stopbush]

81. Silverman's actions don't alienate me.

How can this not be about Constitutional principles? The only reason people saw this piece of rubble as being "meaningful" was because it reminded them of the Xian cross. Can you give me any other reason for people finding meaning in that particular piece of rubble besides the Xian cross?

Ergo, the only reason to include it as an artifact of the attack is because people saw it as a religious symbol.

That makes it an issue of Constitutional principle.

[cbayer]

99. Of course they don't alienate you.

But they do alienate all the people who worked on the site and felt this to be a meaningful symbol.

Even if it were true that only christians found meaning in this, which every story I have read completely contradicts, so what?

I ask you again, should all religious symbols be removed from the museum, or just this one?

[Trajan]

84. Maybe he has read your posts?

It's not like you hide your intense theism in your writings here ...

Perhaps you are also making assumptions

[cbayer]

91. Which posts? I'm not a theist.

I do, however, defend theists from the religophobic.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. Right. Doesn't this game of yours get tiresome, even to you?

[trotsky]

114. You're not an atheist, because you've said that label doesn't apply to you.

It's on the record for anyone to see, cbayer.

It's really sad to see you play this game over and over - you seem to delight in confusing people so you can launch into attacking them when they make an erroneous assumption.

[stopbush]

58. And this is a good battle to pick as it has become a high-profile story,

due entirely to the fact that the museum wouldn't make an accommodation for the atheists' concerns.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Arguing for the cross is Christian privilege.

Plain and simple. To not see the message this sends at a government museum means you need to look beyond the lens of the privilege.

Means many thing to many people. Bullshit. It's a giant fucking cross.

[Leontius]

13. The last I heard the museum is a private non profit foundation

has that changed.

[Goblinmonger]

20. In case you missed it in the OP

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the site where the museum is located.

[Leontius]

121. Still doesn't change the fact that the museum is a private non-profit foundation does it?

[Goblinmonger]

125. Still doesn't change the 1st Amendment separation issues does it?

[Leontius]

131. Yes it does

[hrmjustin]

14. Sorry but they will loose. It was a part of the story and gave comfort to many people on the

site and in this city.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Look, it's a sign from god!

Two beams still attached at right angles out of 200,000 TONS of steel beams, all of which were originally attached at right angles...

This is meaningful. It's a miracle!


Stop the presses!

This is what I mean when I say, humans are predisposed to see patterns in random noise.

[hrmjustin]

16. For some of us who live here and lost people it is meaningful.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. And for some of us who lost people it is meaningless...

... and using the memory of our dead friends as a cudgel to get your way seems to me pretty damn low.

[hrmjustin]

24. Well I am sorry for your loss, but it is staying and I bet if you ask most nyers they would

want it to stay.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. You do realize AA isn't necessarily fighting to remove the cross, don't you?

They are arguing that all religions receive equal representation at the memorial or the cross be removed. Do you think this is unfair?

[hrmjustin]

26. Yes I am aware of that and I am for the equal representation.

[cbayer]

33. I do not believe that is an accurate statement.

The museum has never taken the position that other religious artifacts would not have equal representation and there are many others included in the museum.

And, IIRC, this particular piece is not even in the museum proper, but outside on the grounds.

Where are you getting that information?

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. From the complaint AA filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York

As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross, plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages for which they have no clear, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the inclusions of a cross at the September 11 Memorial and Museum, in the absense of equal acknowledgement of those non-Christians who also were victims o the 9/11 attack, is unconstitutional. American Atheists seek injunctive relieve against the inclusion of the cross and/or an order that a memorial to the non-religious Americans who fell victim to the 9/11 attack be placed within the September 11 Memorial and Museum near the cross. Named plaintiffs also seek injunctive relieve against the inclusion of the cross, together with nominal damages, costs, and attorney fees.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2011/07/WTC_Complaint_final__2_unsigned.pdf

I can't speak to the museum's position on including other religious/non-religious displays near the cross, but AA has made it clear they are willing to cover the cost of such a display were it allowed. If the museum were willing to indulge them, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.

[trotsky]

38. You mean - *gasp* - that this ISN'T just about mean stupid atheists...

being mean and stupid? That this could have all been settled easily and quietly if the powers that be would just allow for an equivalent memorial for non-believers? That the whole reason this is an issue at all is because Christians are insisting their symbol is the only one that matters?

Well I'm sure plenty of people in this thread will change their tune based on that news! Or not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. Apparently, this Silverman guy is some kind of bigoted devil

I wouldn't have guessed it after meeting him.

And someone should really tell his wife, seeing as she's a believer and all...

[CBGLuthier]

107. No, the atheists are not being mean and stupid. Petty as fuck, sure.

Clueless and classless. yep.


The 9/11 steel beam thing is a matter of the history of the event. No one is disrespecting atheists by including it at the memorial without some stupid as fuck plaque saying atheists died too.

Fucking petty bullshit from SOME atheists. As an atheist I do not approve.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Really?

So when the AA said, "Hey, you should put something in there to commemorate the death of non-believers. We'll pay for it and show it to you so you know it's classy" and the response was "fuck you," it's the AA that's being "petty, clueless, and classless?"

Do you write for HuffPo?

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. "Do you write for HuffPo?"

LOL

If his/her next post is about nipple slips or plus-sized models, I think we can file it under "plausible".

[skepticscott]

130. Wouldn't be surprised

Huff Po seems to be a Mecca for the "thank you god, that I'm not like other atheists" atheists. With Salon close behind.

[trotsky]

115. What if it were Jews lobbying to have a Star of David displayed?

And the museum refused, and legal action was taken.

Would you call those Jews "petty as fuck"?

[kwassa]

119. LOL!!!! and I knew the next response would be from Tro...

[cbayer]

40. I appreciate that information and wonder why an agreement can't be reached.

From further reading, I think the position that the museum is taking is that to artificially create something (like a plaque honoring atheists) is not consistent with the mission of the museum, which is to display artifacts.

There are also all kinds of other religious and non-religious artifacts on display, and they feel there has been no discrimination or promotion of one group over another.

[trotsky]

41. The museum's mission statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_September_11_Memorial_%26_Museum

The Memorial Mission:
Remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women, and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001.
Respect this place made sacred through tragic loss.
Recognize the endurance of those who survived, the courage of those who risked their lives to save others, and the compassion of all who supported us in our darkest hours.
May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized, and the spirit reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance.

I see nothing in there about the mission being to display artifacts. Did you make that up? Why are you so damn insistent on painting Silverman and AA as the bad guys here, cbayer?

[Warren Stupidity]

117. It is because she is not a theist.

[stopbush]

72. Too bad Jesus didn't die in the electric chair,

because if an electric chair had emerged from the rubble of the WTC, that could really be seen as a sign from god.

[cbayer]

17. No one is saying it's a sign from god or a miracle.

It was merely an artifact that people felt comforted by and used as a place to give and receive solace.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. A curious behavior.

I genuinely do not understand the presence of the most common geometric shape in the framework of a high-rise giving anyone comfort in this tragedy.

It makes about as much sense as Islamic extremists slamming planes into the buildings in the first place.

Which is to say; no sense at all.

[cbayer]

31. When one finds oneself in a situation of indescribable tragedy, things take on meaning.

You may not understand that or have never been in that situation, but I assure you it is not uncommon and makes plenty of sense.

It could have been anything, but it happens to be this.

Comparing this to islamic extremists slamming planes into buildings is just another bit of religiophobic extremism on your part.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. They assigned symbolic meaning to the twin towers that wasn't real.

The motive may be different (healing versus destruction) but the mechanism appears to be the same. (So too, it's strangeness)

[cbayer]

57. I am still amazed that you would try to make some kind of comparison

between this artifact and flying planes into the towers.

The mechanism is not the same at all. The meaning is not the same at all.

It's not strange. When one is in the middle of tragedy, things take on meaning. It's an important part of healing and doing what needs to be done.

Do you think they should not allow this artifact to stand? Should all religious artifacts be removed as well?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Again, it's finding meaning where none exists.

There were LOTS of candidate 'crosses' in the rubble, some even sticking out at similar angles. There's another on display that had an aluminium sheet 'draped' over one side of it.

All statistically probable given the materials at hand.
It's like seeing 'god' in a bowl of alphabits cereal. Who cares. Trivial. It's only three letters.

Given the specifications in the Koran against murder, or even the complete and utter ineffectiveness to alter US economic international policy, again, my comparison is to the mechanism of investing meaning where none exists.

[cbayer]

66. So what? People found meaning, that means there is meaning.

Why do you get to decide what is meaningful and what is not.

No one claimed to see god. They found a place they could gather to provide each other with solace and support.

Have you ever been through something like this personally? During Katrina, we developed rituals and found meeting places that were indispensable at the time.

How arrogant to take the position that it is meaningless and compare it to a bowl of alphabets cereal.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. You're doing it again.

I compared its formation (a cross in the rubble of a building with, essentially, 200,000 tons of crosses built-in) to the formation of a word, like 'god' in a bowl of alphabits.

Not sure why you have to feign offense at everything.


The person who found the cross claimed it was a 'miracle'. There's nothing 'miraculous' about it. It's the probabilistically unavoidable outcome of a building's destruction.

If there were NO crosses, that would actually be sort of unusual.

[cbayer]

80. I'm not feigning offense. You posts are, in fact offensive.

So what if some felt it was a miracle? What difference does it make?

I ask you again - have you ever personally been in a situation similar to this?

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I can look out my window and see a memorial to 17 humans that died on 9/11.

Some of whom I knew.

Yes, I have 'been in a situation' similar to this, as well as other situations involving death and destruction, and hope and recovery. I have had occasion to comfort the living, and the dying.


What I said is as subjectively offensive to you, as that beam is subjectively meaningful to someone else. Please ponder on that for a moment.

[cbayer]

92. And does that memorial have any meaning to you?

Is there anything about it that is symbolic?

I am sorry that you had losses and only would wish that you would recognize that what is meaningful to some may not be meaningful to others.

But if it does not harm anyone, why take it away from them?

Offense is generally subjective and when someone tells you they have been offended by something you have said, you might want to ponder on that for a moment instead of taking the position that they are just feigning offense.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. The memorial itself, no.

No meaning at all. Someday, it will likely be paved over. I'm a little surprised it's lasted this long. Also, the trees planted in it, are going to be a problem at some point, and will have to be removed.

I said feigning offense, because of the way you paraphrased my point. I compared the symbolic formation of meaning (a cross or the word god) not a beam from a building in which thousands of people died, to a bowl of cereal. You always seem to change what I said, to make it something it wasn't. It is vexing.

[stopbush]

65. Funny how the Xians are able to find religious "meaning" in everything, not just tragedies.

Seeing Jesus in a peanut butter sandwich is just as meaningful as seeing him in a "cross" at the WTC site.

[cbayer]

69. It is silly at best and really arrogant at worst to compare this to seeing Jesus in

a peanut butter sandwich.

This artifact was meaningful to lots of people, including people of various faiths and non-believers. It was a meeting place where people gathered to give support and solace.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. It's not an 'artifact'. It's two beams bolted and welded together at right angles.

Just like 200k tons worth of other beams similarly attached at right angles.

[cbayer]

87. Well, they better get you down there right away so that you can decide

what is an artifact, what really has meaning and what is just garbage and should go.

I am sure they would greatly appreciate your authority in this matter.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Things are not imbued with magical powers just because we wish it.

If you collected all the pieces of wood held by various churches as authentic pieces of the crucifix of Jesus himself, and put them together, the thing would probably be a hundred feet tall.

Each piece is revered, and has meaning to the people who believe in it. But they cannot all be parts of the actual crucifix. Meaning, people are investing meaning in those pieces that cannot be true. AND, it doesn't change the material of the wood. If you left that wood lying around and didn't explain it to someone who found it, it would just be a piece of wood. Nothing more, to the observer that found it.


Do you understand now what I meant when I said humans invest meaning where none exists?

[cbayer]

96. The word magic has not been used except by you, as far as I can see.

Things can have a great deal of meaning or significance without being "magic".

People invest meaning where they see meaning. If no meaning exists there for you, then it is meaningless to you. That doesn't make it meaningless.

In driving through Mexico, I have passed hundreds of shrines set up for those that have died on the road. They are all pretty meaningless to me, but having watched people tend them and visit them, I would be a fool to take the position that they are not meaningful.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Magic, miracle, supernatural, christian, pick whatever word you want.

It amounts to the same precise meaning.

How many people does it take to make something meaningful? What if it's someone else's 'thing' and people imbued it with meaning, extending some sort of claim to it?

If passers-by decided the shrub in your front yard was a manifestation of the virgin mary, could you still trim it, if they stand around worshipping at it all day?

(Little known secret, the 'cross' had to be cut into that shape by the ironworker that extricated it. It wasn't in a recognizable crucifix configuration as a product of the collapse, the horizontal piece made it more of an 'X'.)

[cbayer]

100. I couldn't give you an exact number, but in this particular case 100's of

people found it meaningful.

Religious people often turn to religion during terrible times. The symbols and artifacts that arise have historical significance.

Why take that away from them?

Should all religious symbols be removed from the museum?

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Maybe I should elucidate a bit on why the explicitly christian imagery concerns me.

Remember when the President of the United States said this:

"This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile. And American people must be patient,"

If all comers were given equal access to 'artifacts' in the museum, to place things there, that all the people who died can and are represented, cool beans. Stick the cross in there.

But I am concerned about a Christian-centric theme to it, and given the political results of that attack, and the wars that ensued, and the alliteration of the President himself, the use of 'crusade'...

Well. That's concerning.

Talk of crusades, dragging around a 20 ton crucifix... I hope you can see how that might be troubling to a non-Christian.

[cbayer]

106. I share your concern about a christian centric theme

and as best I can tell the curators have also shared that concern.

If there is evidence that that is not the case, the AA lawyers really haven't focused on that at all.

I understand the concern and I think it's worth the discussion.

Although the president tried to make this his own private holy war, it was a time when people of many faiths and those with none came together to comfort each other.

There was particular sensitivity towards Muslim americans. Religious and non-religious groups came together to comfort each other. Sometimes it was in churches, other times in mosques or synagogues and at others in completely secular places.

The cross was one of those places and the stories and experiences of those that found solace there should not be dismissed.

If there were things that had as much meaning for others that were being excluded, that would be worth a lawsuit.

But this?

I don't think there was much religious discrimination at the site during the horrible weeks and months that followed. People found comfort where they could and gave it when they were able.

[stopbush]

78. Silly and arrogant? Really? Sillier than believing a piece of rubble is a sign from god?

More arrogant than believing your god-of-choice is the only god who provided a religious icon in the rubble?

Don't think so.

[cbayer]

88. At least equally as silly and arrogant as the things you describe.

But you, just like them, have a right to your opinion.

I've not seen anything anywhere that would indicate that there are christians who are taking the position that god chose only them to give a symbol to.

Have you? Or did you just make that up?

Every story I have read said this became a meeting place for people of all faiths and for non-believers as well.

It became an "interfaith" symbol and a place people went for support and solace.

If that give some atheists dyspepsia and headaches (and that is actually what is being claimed), they are very sensitive flowers indeed.

[stopbush]

56. Exactly. The Xians seem to believe the cross came first, then people realized

that such a structure also worked when constructing other things, like buildings, rather than being the other way around.

[cbayer]

71. I've never read a thing about this that would lend credence

to your interpretation.

[stopbush]

74. Really? Then why do the Xians view this piece of construction rubble

as a sign from god? Do other religious types for whom a symbol of execution (the cross) is not a religious icon view the piece of construction rubble under discussion to be meaningful, comforting or a sign from god?

[trotsky]

36. "No one"? Really?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018270/World-Trade-Center-cross-moved-permanent-home-9-11-Memorial-Museum.html

It was a symbol of hope for many working on rescue and recovery there, so much so that the construction worker who discovered it believes he stumbled on to a miracle.

Looks like you speak only for yourself, not for everyone.

[rug]

18. No one objected to seeing a red cross on 9/11.

[hrmjustin]

21. Very true!

[goldent]

22. We live in a world of strange games.

[okasha]

27. +100

[stopbush]

63. The Red Cross is NOT a religious symbol.

"The Red Cross symbol is a red cross that has arms of the same length on a white background. This symbol is recognizable anywhere as the symbol of the Red Cross and protection. It was the original protection symbol that was declared at the Geneva Convention in 1864. It is a uniform and neutral protection symbol. The Red Cross is defined as a protection symbol in different parts of the 1964 and 1949 Geneva Convention." (Source: Ask)

Were the Red Cross a Xian symbol, the vertical beam would be longer than the horizontal beam, no?

Crossing two lines is as basic as one can get when it comes to creating a symbol (X marks the spot). It's also the most-basic way to build something (tie two sticks together). It happened to be a cheap, simple and OBVIOUS way to construct an instrument of torture and death (a crucifixion cross).

Sometimes a cross is just a cross, not a religious symbol.

[cbayer]

73. Exactly. And sometimes two steel beams are just artifacts, not religious symbols.

And even if they are, there are other religious symbols in the museum.

Should they all be removed, or just this one?

[stopbush]

76. What are the other non-Xian religious symbols in the museum?

What are the symbols that non-believers will identify with in the museum?

I don't know. I'm asking. I assume you know the answer.

I'm all for the construction rubble symbol remaining, even as a religious symbol as long as other religions and non-believers get EQUAL representation in the museum and/or on the grounds of the museum.

[cbayer]

86. Well, non-believers can relate to just about anything in there.

I read an article today that said that people made many different religious symbols out of things they found there and that those things were being displayed - star of david, crescents, dharma wheel, maltese crosses

What exactly do you propose should be included to represent atheists? Should all artifacts that have any religious significance be removed from all museums?

[AtheistCrusader]

95. It has been repeatedly blessed and declared a miracle by multiple religious entites...

What meaning could it possibly have to a non-Christian?

[cbayer]

97. I think it was blessed once, but if you have additional information on

that I would be glad to look at it.

And even so, what difference does it make.

If you read about this, you will see it repeatedly mentioned that this artifact took on meaning for many who are not christian.

I guess you would have to ask them what meaning it had for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. I've read about a couple different such ceremonies.

Seems like it happens every time they move it. Not really germane to the point though, I guess. Just pointing it out.


I would be curious what meaning it has to a total non-Christian. I'm not seeing any clearly identifiable commentary online about such people though. Not saying it doesn't exist, just don't know how to find it.

[cbayer]

103. Pretty much every article I have read has talked about how it became a

meeting place for people of many faiths and people of no faith.

It's not hard to find.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I've seen that claim.

I've seen no evidence of it.

[rug]

110. I'm sure there must be another reason why there's also a red crescent.

[MellowDem]

126. Because people were assuming the cross was religious...

when it wasn't. But, because religion, gotta have a red crescent symbol for when in Muslim areas even at is part of the same organization. There's religious social coherence for you.

[rug]

129. There is only one reason the Red Crescent was adopted.

They opposed the religious significance of the Red Cross.

Even with the equal length bars.

[MellowDem]

157. Yep, from their own website....

When the red crescent was first adopted...

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm

"During the war between Russia and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire declared that it would use the red crescent on a white background in place of the red cross. While respecting the red cross symbol, the Ottoman authorities believed that the red cross was, by its very nature, offensive to Muslim soldiers. The red crescent was temporarily accepted for the duration of this conflict."

Ah, the social coherence religion offers us.

[stopbush]

153. Of course there is. Do a little research. In the meanwhile:

The Seven Principles of the Red Cross/Crescent:

Humanity
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.
Impartiality
It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.
Neutrality
In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
Independence
The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.
Voluntary Service
It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.
Unity
There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.
Universality
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.

[rug]

154. The purposes are identical, as is the Magen David Adom.

The difference is in their symbols.







Now why would that be?

[stopbush]

163. The Star of David is both a religious and a secular icon.

Its use as a Jewish symbol for Red Cross/Crescent/MDA activities is secular, as the "7 principles" of the Red organizations are quite specific that they have no religious bent.

That's why that would be.

[rug]

166. So is the WTC cross.

Circle closed.

[stopbush]

167. Wrong. Please explain how the WTC cross is a secular symbol.

[rug]

168. How is 9/11 a secular symbol?

Whether you like it or not, the WTC, including these girders, and the human response to it, one of which is this cross, are part of history.

You don't get to rewrite history to remove the parts you don't like.

If you're bored, go remove the last sentence of the Gettysburg Address. It's goverment-sponsored endorsement.

[stopbush]

169. Answering a question with a question is what I expect from tea baggers.

So tell me - how is the WTC a secular symbol? Or, you can come from the perspective of how it is not a religious symbol if you like.

BTW - you're wrong about the Gettysburg Address. That was a speech given by a president. It has no force in law as an endorsement of religion, any more than a Congresscritter saying the USA is a Xian nation is a government-sponsored endorsement, any more than Obama ending every speech he gives with the words, "god bless you, and god bless the USA" is a government endorsement of religion. Those are all exercises in free speech by individuals who happen to be employed by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

[rug]

170. Reacting to headlines is what I expect from the bigots and the intellectually lazy.

Read it again.

BTW - neither is the WTC cross.

[stopbush]

171. I read it the first time. You failed to make a cogent argument/reply to my question.

I'd ask you to try again, but I think that would be a fool's errand.

We're probably done here.

BTW - the "bigot" shot was gratuitous and misguided. You're usually better than that.

[rug]

172. Wrong. I failed to give you an answer you like.

BTW -your "teabagger" reference was gratuitous and misguided.

[LostOne4Ever]

29. My oh my

What wonderfully progressive (and factual) comments at the bottom of the article. The logic there is impeccable, the facts undeniable...



The whole thing is dumb. I rather spend my time worrying about helping the living than wasting time and resources on lost causes like this. Yet again, another bad choice of battles for the AA.

But what are you to expect when you let a conservative run your organization? Pointless wastes of time and resources for idiotic symbolic gestures. This is probably up there with the rethugs trying to repeal the PP-ACA 50 times.

Congratulations Mr. Silverman, you got your symbol and now have so incensed every theists in the country that you have set us back years in the PR department....people whose support we will need to get the changes we want.

That said, how hard would it be to put up a plaque honoring everyone of all faiths? Really? Would it cost a lot, or break the bank? Why not be inclusive? If a plaque is too much why not just dedicate a piece of rubble to everyone?

Oh wait, one side wants to have its symbol but no one from any of the other sides! I see no privilege in that. Nope none at all...

[cbayer]

34. I think AA needs a leadership overhaul.

They have the potential to be a very vital and positive organization at this point, but I think they've got the wrong captain.

I don't think there has ever been an objection to putting up a plaque honoring everyone of all faiths and no faiths. But that's not what they are suing for. And I have never heard of anyone saying that they didn't want symbols from other religions. According to the article, these are already a part of the museum.

[Goblinmonger]

44. So what's wrong with Silverman?

What has he done that is so bad and evil? None of this would have happened if AA were allowed to pay for a monument to the non-believers that died on 9/11. No court case. No fighting the cross being put up. Nothing. And because of that he's the "wrong captain?"

[LostOne4Ever]

79. It is my understanding (from the article)

That they asked for a plaque simply stating that atheists died there too. That does not seem like too great a request to me.

Short of excluding the cross-shaped beam, the atheists want a plaque stating, “Atheists died here, too.”

“Museums don’t censor history, they don’t make up history. They tell history as it happened and the cross is part of the history and the plaque is not,” Eric Baxter with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said.

Yet, despite this, it is AA who are being framed as the bad guys here. Again, it is public land, atheists did die there, why not? Who would it hurt? Why is asking for a plaque for equal time such a huge problem?

Im just really frustrated with how this, and other issues involving the AA are being framed. I feel AA are in the right, but they actually think the media is going to cover things fairly. Hell, the part about the plaque is buried in that article as a small footnote at the end.

[cbayer]

89. I would hope they would come up with a better phrase than that.

It seems really poorly thought out.

Anyway, I haven't been able to figure out what the issue is with the whole plaque thing. It seems harmless enough and as best I can tell the museum has rejected this because they are focused on artifacts.

But who knows. Considering the whole thing is overrun with lawyers, it could just be a pissing match at this point.

AA is an important organization that has a lot of very important work to do. They have made some missteps recently, imo, including the whole CPAC debacle and the hiring of Edwina Rogers.

I don't think they are bad guys, but I think they are having some leadership issues and that this case is a poor choice and will only alienate people around a profoundly sensitive issue.

[trotsky]

35. Well, look at the "progressive" comments right here on DU.

Basically, it's "fuck those stupid rude atheists, they need to shut up and submit to the Christian majority."

[hrmjustin]

42. edit I did not see all the comments when I spoke. sorry.

[Goblinmonger]

43. So "someone will find a way to act all butthurt"

Isn't close enough for you? They have to pick their battles?

It's OK if you admit that you are coming at this from a point of Christian privilege. I won't think less of you for admitting that.

And given that the AA has said this would all be solved if there were something included for the death of non-believers, might shed some light on how even your comments in this thread are of the "they should just shut up" variety.

[hrmjustin]

45. I never said they should shut up. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I never said you did. Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that some of your comments can come across as this variety. Specifically I referred to the "pick your battles" sub-thread in which you partook. The AA offered to pay for a non-believers monument to be put up in the museum and were rejected. So they brought it to court. They did pick their battles. They were shot down by the Christian majority. Perhaps you should be pointing your "pick your battles" smugness a those that initially denied the request and support the AA in what is a reasonable request.

[hrmjustin]

50. I said I support the AA reauest for a spot for non-believers.

[Goblinmonger]

52. I do know that

So why the "pick your battles" rhetoric? They wanted what you said they should get. They are just trying to make that happen the way you do in the legal system.

This may shock you, but I have nothing against you. You seem like a nice guy. I'm sure we could have a beer and get along just fine. It just seems like you don't understand the view from this side of things. Perhaps I come off a little sharply sometimes, but I'm trying to let you know that this isn't about atheists wanting theists to die off and go away. It's about wanting to live in a world where we aren't the scum of the earth. And studies support that the majority of society in the US sees us that way. It would be nice if people on a progressive board didn't think that, too. And fighting against what the AA is trying to do here--or even dismissing it as a fight that shouldn't be fought rather than being angry that the were excluded--really, in my opinion, just props the system that sees atheists as the worst of the worst and a nuisance.

[hrmjustin]

53. I should have chose my words more carefully.

And we get along just fine.

[Dorian Gray]

177. I think this post is very important

in a lot of ways. It makes me see (sometimes I need a reminder) that people feel devalued by society in general. I know that's been a refrain, but it's easy to forget that humans feel devalued when the snark is flying.

[LostOne4Ever]

155. I just read about them offering to pay for it

Then saw your comments.

Seriously?

And yet the AA are the bad guys?

This is bullshit. The article didn't even bother to mention that tidbit. I was annoyed at the article before, im furious now.

[hrmjustin]

47. I am sorry I did not see the but hurt comment.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Can you see how that reads to non-believers

It's that attitude that we deal with all the time. AA offered to pay for a monument and were rejected so they brought it to court and apparently that is acting butt hurt. And you and others just continue with the "not a good decision" and "pick your battle" and all the other rhetoric. It's Christian privilege and nobody here wants to admit it.

[hrmjustin]

51. Yes I can see that is hurtful.

I have no doubt you and others encounter it.

I get grief here at times for my beliefs and in real life, but not the same as Atheists in religious dominated areas.

[hrmjustin]

46. I am sorry I did not see the comment from uptop.

[trotsky]

62. It was not just that one comment.

The same sentiments have been expressed by multiple people in this thread, including yourself.

[hrmjustin]

70. what did I say that you disliked?

[LostOne4Ever]

85. Any other group

And we would see comments about embracing inclusiveness.

Why is adding a plaque such a freaking big deal? Why are we getting framed as the bad guys here?

But just because someone is liberal on other issues does not prevent one from lashing out in a knee jerk fashion when it comes to us.

[kwassa]

120. well, there are some stupid and rude atheist comments in this thread.

as if that ever changed anything here.

Carry on.

[trotsky]

158. Those fucking atheists deserve it, don't they, kwassa?

You are truly an amazing Christian. Stay classy.

[kwassa]

159. I knew you would respond.

like a moth to a flame.

[trotsky]

165. Just like I knew you would respond.

Like a good Christian would, of course, to be abusive, insulting, and dismissive. Just like Jesus would want you to be.

Keep being a great example of what's wrong with your religion, kwassa.

[skepticscott]

164. Amazing how some people here believe

that because something hasn't changed THEIR mind, that it can't possibly have changed anyone's mind. And strange that those people are always the religionistas and their appeasers and apologists.

[rug]

123. Since you put it in quotes you should be able to provide the link.

You wouldn't be posting a dishonest statement, would you?

[LostOne4Ever]

156. Im taking back my critisim of the AA on this

THEY OFFERED TO PAY FOR THE FREAKING PLAQUE!!!

This is nothing more than a hit piece to make them and atheists in general look bad!!!

[HockeyMom]

82. Donate it to St. Paul's Church

which was right next to the Towers. Let people go see it on the church's property, and for FREE.

[hrmjustin]

83. Thats an idea.

[cbayer]

102. I believe the cross is outside of the actual museum and can already be seen for free.

[HockeyMom]

111. If I am correct, that museum

is on 18th Street, far away from Ground Zero. Also, from what I heard, that museum charges $25 admission to see the artifacts from 9/11. SCREW THAT.

Donate it to the church next to where the Towers were. Is St. Paul's going to charge $25 admission? If religious people consider this some kind of religious icon or "sign", then get it to a RELIGIOUS entity. Who is going to object to a supposed cross on a church grounds?

[Jim__]

112. I think it's at 85 West St.

[center][/center]

[goldent]

122. The museum I have seen is in the memorial plaza

very close to the footprint fountains of the twin towers, but when I was there, it was still under construction. You need to have a get a ticket to get into the memorial but they are very cheap (maybe free?). I don't know if there will be any additional charge to get into the museum - I would hope not.

[Jim__]

113. It looks like it's inside.

There is a video here. It shows the cross inside the museum - about 1:50 into the video.

[cbayer]

118. I am unable to watch videos, so will take your word for it.

At one time, it was to be outside. They may have changed.

[goldent]

124. I don't know why American Atheists are doing this...

as it seems they have no chance at winning. But what sometimes happens with groups like this is a rich benefactor will make a large donation contingent on the group taking some action (like this lawsuit). You can try to reason with them and say their money could be better used in other ways, but sometimes they don't care, and say "take it or leave it." Most groups take it.

[MellowDem]

127. It's just Christian privilege at work....

Ho-hum.

[hrmjustin]

128. The people of this city took comfort from this cross.

[MellowDem]

132. And because Christian privilege...

It's now on government property. If there were 100 Christians only in the world, it wouldn't be there. But it holds a privileged position in our society because Christians do, so it gets exempted from the rules.

[hrmjustin]

133. It is a part of the 9-11 story so that is why it is in the museum.

[MellowDem]

134. It's part of the 9/11 story because of Christian privilege.

[hrmjustin]

135. It is a part of the story it is. It was a part of the debris and had meaning to people.

[MellowDem]

136. Because of Christian privilege, that religious meaning...

is now on government property.

[hrmjustin]

138. Part of the story.

[cbayer]

139. It's on property being leased from the port authority and managed by a secular group.

And they have made it very clear that it's significance has to do with the role it played after 9/11 and have not endorsed any particular religion.

The courts so far have not seen this an an exemption. It does not endorse any religion and is only part of an exhibit.

Should all the stars of david be removed from the holocaust museum? It's on government property.

[MellowDem]

144. It played a role because of its religious meaning...

quite obviously so.

Stars of David were used as symbols to persecute Jews, so there is a secular purpose if made in the right context. If there were some memorial to the victims of the Holocaust on government property that was just a giant Star of David, that would be a violation of the Constitution IMHO.

The cross, here, is only there because of its religious meaning. It wasn't fashioned by Muslim terrorists to persecute Christians.

[cbayer]

146. So what? Religion icons and artifacts are an important part of history

whether they played a positive role, as this did, or a negative one, as the start of david did during the holocaust.

Should everything with a religious connection be removed from history books and museums?

That's a very bad idea.

[MellowDem]

148. Not at all...

To describe and educate on secular history. This cross has nothing to do with describing or educating on secular history.

[cbayer]

149. The event involved religion.

The museum is not just about describing and educating on secular history, nor should it be.

[MellowDem]

150. Secular history includes religion...

And should definitely describe how religious beliefs were part of the attacks. To call the cross a piece of secular history when the only meaning it was given was religious ones by Christians is very disingenuous, but it's also a reflection of privilege.

[hrmjustin]

147. It is debris not a religious artifact.

[Mariana]

161. It's a sculpture made from debris.

I think that's a little more accurate. It was cut out into that shape intentionally.

[cbayer]

137. What makes it christian privilege?

Are the other religious artifacts muslim privilege? jewish privilege?

Are the secular artifacts, which greatly outnumber any religious artifacts, atheist privilege?

[MellowDem]

140. If they're put on government property....

yes. Because it's a violation of the Constitution, and it takes privilege to get away with that in many cases, especially when it comes to religion in the US. Atheism and secularism are two distinct concepts. Secular artifacts aren't "atheist".

[hrmjustin]

141. How it is a violation of US law?

[cbayer]

143. It's not and the court is very likely to rule once again that it is not.

[hrmjustin]

145. I agree.

[cbayer]

142. So should the other religious artifacts be removed as well?

This has nothing to do with privilege. This is a museum which has artifacts from an event. There were religious aspects to that event, and they are being displayed.

Had there been a significant and meaningful atheist artifact, I feel assured that it would be displayed as well, as religious artifacts from others groups are there.

[goldent]

160. The director of the museum is Alice Greenwald

Some interesting quotes:

In a telephone interview yesterday from Washington, Ms. Greenwald, 54, said she was not daunted by the potent influence of the family members but welcomed their input in conceiving the museum.

"They have to have a privileged voice in the process," Ms. Greenwald said. "By the same token, you have to create a narrative that allows your visitor to come in and understand what happened. It's a partnership."

...

"We need to say, what's our goal, who's our audience, what's the big message we want people to take away, what do they need to know?" Ms. Greenwald said. She added that she hoped to build a "programmatic consensus" although there would inevitably be some "creative tension."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/arts/design/08gree.html

From her message on the museum website

Providing visitors with access to the historic assets preserved at the World Trade Center site, the Museum will display both the monumental artifacts associated with the events of 9/11 and focus on the human dimension of history by narrating the personal stories behind these events.

I don't sense she is a "fundy" but you never know where they might be lurking.

[MellowDem]

162. I don't think she's a fundy either...

But it's still Christian privilege at work. Moderate Christians rarely recognize it either. Heck quite a few former Christians don't, it's so pervasive.

[goldent]

173. She came from the Holocaust Museum in Washington

Imagine the religious privilege there!

[Ed Suspicious]

151. As an Atheist who has no interest in proselytizing the god of anti-religion I find this fight to be

idiotic.

[Warpy]

152. Well, newyork.cbslocal, the word is "censor"

I don't think there would be any objection if the crossed beam were placed on its side. It's portrayal as a loaded religious image rather insults the hundreds of Muslims and Jews who died in those buildings on 9/11. Some Christians, as usual, want to pretend they were the only ones there.

A reading of the names of the dead should be reason enough to change the position of the blasted and burned beams, which do belong in the exhibit, away from a cross, which does not.