Atheist Group Files Lawsuit To Stop Display of World Trade Center Cross

[The Straight Story]

Atheist Group Files Lawsuit To Stop Display of World Trade Center Cross



A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit in New York to stop the display of the World Trade Center cross at a memorial of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The cross is made up of two intersecting steel beams that held up when the twin towers collapsed. It's iconic to some, but the atheist group says the cross serves of as a reminder that God didn't stop 3,000 people from being killed. They also object to the display of a religious symbol using public funds.

The lawsuit names several defendants, including the state of New Jersey and the city of New York.

The cross was recently moved from near a church to its new home at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum.

http://www.lex18.com/news/atheist-group-files-lawsuit-to-stop-display-of-world-trade-center-cross

[LAGC]

1. I wonder how all the Jewish and Muslim victims at the WTC feel about that cross?

Can't imagine they are too plussed about it, either.

[Adsos Letter]

4. First thing that came to my mind too.

[Drahthaardogs]

111. Why does it matter?

I would support a Star of David to be displayed for the Jews who died in 9-11 and I would support anything the muslim would want as well. This is about the victims, not about proselytizing. Is putting a cross on a place where 3000 people died, many never recovered, and a significant portion who were Christian such a bad thing?

[Luminous Animal]

113. Putting a cross up is proselytizing. It also flat out breaches the establishment clause.

The bill of rights protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. There are churches galore in NYC. There is absolutely no reason to create a Christian monument on secular land. And well established Constitutional reasons not to.

Really, why did Christians have to pick this fight?

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

121. Why did Christians have to pick this fight.. indeed

[Arugula Latte]

10. And the non-believer victims, as well.

[LanternWaste]

25. About the same as descendants of 15,776...

About the same as descendants of 45,776 Christians killed during the holocaust when they enter the Holocaust Museum and see a Star of David?

[LAGC]

49. You really want to compare this to the Holocaust?

I know Godwin's law likes to rear its ugly head (sometimes earlier in some threads than in others) but I don't think the 9-11 suicide bombers were purposefully targeting just the Christians... they didn't single anyone out, they just killed indiscriminately, anyone who got in their way of their goal of bringing the SYMBOL of capitalist-imperialist might to the ground. They didn't give a fuck what any of the victims who got in their way believed in, unlike the Nazis who were very selective in their designs.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

105. Tell the Christians that.

They think everything is against them and they are the most persecuted people in the world. They persecute themselves. They like it.
Duckie

[BNJMN]

67. Interesting perspective, I honestly never thought of that. [nt]

[Raine]

85. Interesting point. THANKS, I hadn't thought of that. nt

[FLPanhandle]

2. If it's on private property, how could they sue?

If it's on government property, well...

[Xithras]

5. It's not.

The WTC site, including the new memorial, sits on land owned by the New York Port Authority. The Port Authority is a government agency, so the WTC site is public land.

[Brickbat]

3. The WTC was full of crosses and that didn't stop much of anything.

Those steelworkers, putting crosses up all over the place.

[MADem]

6. You know, I normally don't get too exorcised about these "public displays of religiosity" but

I do think this suit has a point.

I imagine the counter-argument will be that the cross served to galvanize a segment of the population and as a consequence has some sort of "historical" significance, or, that it isn't really a "cross," it is a couple of intersecting beams, and if people see it as a cross, that's their issue, not the state's.

When you get that queasy feeling about something, it's probably best to just not do it. The cross should have been left in the church, IMO. Too late for that now, though.

[Joanie Baloney]

43. Heh heh

You said galvanize.

Heh heh.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

106. Stop persecuting the Christians who were targeted in the WTC, traitor!!

How dare you!
:sarcasm:

[KurtNYC]

7. what a weird story -- no group named, no court filing cited

no legitimate basis for a lawsuit ("a reminder that God didn't stop 3,000 people from being killed" ?! and "display of a religious symbol using public funds"), no by-line, and no location.

I've seen more facts in a fortune cookie than this news story. And the fortune cookie named its source.

[cordelia]

119. From the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/atheists-sue-to-ban-display-of-cross-shaped-beam-in-911-museum.html

[Proles]

8. What do they want to do? Tear it down?

It's a historical portion of ground zero, don't see what the big deal is, and I'm saying this as an agnostic.

[lbrtbell]

12. I agree.

What are they supposed to do, tear down something that managed to survive the attacks?

Here's an idea--put up symbols of other religions beside it, then have a podium with nothing on it to represent the atheists.

There you go.

[NYC Liberal]

22. You do realize that it's not fixed in the ground? It's already been moved

several times.

It doesn't have to be scrapped and melted down. Put it on private property and use private funding.

[Proles]

42. Nah, I didn't in fact know that.

Still though... meh. I mean, certainly there ought to be bigger things to worry about, but that's just me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. No. Just move it back to the church it came from.

You do understand, don't you, that a cross is only a memorial to Christians? If you want to memorialize all these who died there, put up a monolith which has no religious connotations.

Otherwise, it's a statement of "This is where the first shot was fired which started the New Crusade".

[undeterred]

24. It didn't come from a church, that's the whole point.

[backscatter712]

35. So move it to a church, or some other private memorial site.

As long as it's on a private site, such as a church, they can do what they want.

Putting religious symbols on state property is unacceptable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. From the article.

"The cross was recently moved from near a church to its new home at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum."

[dmallind]

19. HISTORICAL PORTION? It's two beams joined at 90 degrees out of THOUSANDS so joined - by men. nt

[backscatter712]

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

At the same place and time where a couple thousand people were allowed by God to die horrible burning crushing deaths with zero intervention. But look, a couple pieces of steel joined at a 90 degree angle are sticking out of the ground in the shape of a cross!!! PRAISE THE LORD!!!

[Raine]

86. I agree nt

[Arugula Latte]

9. The cross is inappropriate. 100s of the victims weren't Xtian.

They should take it down.

[Nye Bevan]

48. The majority of the victims were Christian.

I would not have a problem with a Star of David to commemorate an atrocity where most victims were Jewish.

[Arugula Latte]

52. Why do they need any religious symbol?

If you have one for one group, you should represent everybody, and that is impossible.

I'm sick and tired of the need of so many Xtians to shove their "faith" into everyone's face. Maybe they're insecure and need validation by having big showy displays.

[Cid_B]

98. Existing is not shoving it into your face...

... some people need a better hobby...

[Luminous Animal]

100. Putting a Christian symbol in a public space is, indeed, shoving it into ones face.

I suppose these Jewish vets need a better hobby, too.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/05/jewish-war-vets-and-aclu-win-court-declares-cross-on-public-land-unconstitutionalcross-on-public-land-in-san-diego-is-unconstitutional-federal-court-rules-the-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-did-no/

[Cid_B]

101. Yup....

Of all the issues that affect veterans this is at the bottom of the list. Energy and resources can be expended for greater benefit and more efficiently.

[Luminous Animal]

108. That's rather Christian of you. Some people believe that fighting for civil rights

is very important.

[Cid_B]

110. I'm sure...

... the veteran divorcees, drug addicts, PTSD sufferers and those who have lost their homes would disagree.

Not saying it isn't an issue. I'm saying that on the 1-10 scale it is a 1 relative to the other important veterans issues.

[Luminous Animal]

112. So, supposedly, veterans have fought in our wars in order to protect the American way of life...

the American way of life has some guidelines that we call The Constitution. What is the point of protecting the American way of life if our founding document is eroded?

[NoGOPZone]

11. Can I sue over the idea that finding crossed beams in skyscraper wreckage is significant? nt

[Bill McBlueState]

69. +1 n/t

[RKP5637]

13. hmmmmm... cross celebrating god's destruction of the WTC? It happened on

his watch.

[Scottybeamer70]

14. I don't see why there should be ANY religious symbol at that

site. It's just inappropriate for all concerned.

[backscatter712]

38. Imagine the reaction if they found a bent piece of steel in the shape of a cresent and mounted it.

Oh wait, we already know what would happen - look at the hoopla over the proposed construction of an Islamic center two blocks away, on private property... "IT'S THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE!!! BURN IT!!! IT'S OSAMA BIN LADEN'S SHRINE OF CELEBRATION!!!" :eyes:

But oh look, two pieces of steel in a 90 degree joint were found sticking out of the rubble: PRAISE JESUS!!!

[Critters2]

82. There almost certainly were beams melted into crescents.

But no one crazy enough to be looking for them.

[Tunkamerica]

15. one of the commentors said it's a giant t for taliban

[RC]

17. +1

:thumbsup: Works for me.
Now if they would just move it back top where they got it.

[Vinca]

18. Stuff like this gives atheists a bad name.

I'm an atheist, but if a cross at the WTC site gives anyone solace, I'm happy it's there.

[cayanne]

20. Not me

I'm tired of Christianity being always pushed in my face, starting in grade school and still going on 60+ years later. Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, Atheists, and many other religions don't try to indoctrinate me for my entire lifetime. Every county and city commissioners meeting I go to has to start with a prayer and I'm tired of it. What about giving solace to others besides Christians.

No matter how many times I tell people that I don't want their god back into my life they just do not get it. many will respond that they will pray for me, Sheeeez! Enough already!

[LanternWaste]

29. Just like politics, philosophies, arts, etc

"'m tired of Christianity being always pushed in my face, starting in grade school and still going on 60+ years late..."

Just like politics, philosophies, arts, etc. Tough to avoid having those "pushed in my face" too.

[COLGATE4]

63. Flip answer to a serious comment. The poster (and those of

us who think like him/her) is making the point that those of us who are not Christians are tired of having Xianity pushed in our face at government sponsored places and events, i.e. schools, gov't meetings that insist on starting with a prayer, etc. It's our government too. You can avoid having RW politics pushed in our face - but you can't avoid having RW Xianity pushed in your face when you're part of a captive audience. You should give these violations of the 1st Amendment the seriousness it merits.

[GSLevel9]

30. then ignore them.

Everyone and their brother, the federal government and even the First Lady are pushing in my face to stop eating junk food and eat like a herbivorous mammal.

I don't WANT to eat what they're pushing... so I lol and ignore them.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Yes, because their message is on our currency, we make pledges that mention vegetables,

we have entire federal holidays devoted to vegetables...

You should sue, the right to be free of vegetable propaganda is enshrined in our Constitution.

[GSLevel9]

36. lol good reply.

If they made a National Asparagus Day I wouldn't GIVE a RATS ASS.

I'd say "What a ridiculous and stupid occasion for a Holiday".

At the same time... I'd respect people's rights to worship an Asparagus. Who cares?

[Luminous Animal]

40. Quite a few people did and do. Including the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.

I care. It is a government endorsed encroachment of a specific religious doctrine.

[humblebum]

76. Yes, that's generally called freedom of speech and religion. You have it too. nt

[NYC Liberal]

21. I'm not. Put it on private property without using taxpayer funds.

I never liked it.

[Bluebear]

23. The message is that Islam attacked a Christian nation, it's not for solace.

[FLPanhandle]

26. Religion was a cause of the attack.

I don't think there should be any religious symbols at all permitted there.

[idiotgardener]

27. You mean asking for the law to be followed and for our rights to be respected?

The law doesn't say "anything that gives anyone solace is fine".

I imagine some sacrificed animals would give some people solace. Should we add those to the display?

[truebrit71]

31. Not me. This is implicit endorsement of one religion over all others...

...and it is wrong...not everybody that died that day was xtian ergo....

[alphafemale]

41. I'm agnostic at the very least. Leaning atheist.

But some atheists seem to choose to die on some very small hills.

[Luminous Animal]

96. Apparently, so do some Jews.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/05/jewish-war-vets-and-aclu-win-court-declares-cross-on-public-land-unconstitutionalcross-on-public-land-in-san-diego-is-unconstitutional-federal-court-rules-the-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-did-no/

[piratefish08]

44. that pesky Constitution doesn't bother you at all?

[Nye Bevan]

45. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's what the Constitution says, and I don't really see how that is being violated in this case.

[dmallind]

47. So if all public spaces had a giant Star of David, you wouldn't think

"Jeez somebody's pushing Judaism a bit here"?

[Vinca]

56. No. For starters, it's private property.

Wow - after reading some of the responses to what I initially posted I almost don't dare tell you about the half hour I spend alone in the sanctuary of a Baptist church admiring their beautiful real Tiffany window which was 100% religious in nature. What the heck kind of atheist am I anyway?

[NoGOPZone]

57. Public funds are involved. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a government agency. nt

[dmallind]

58. It most certainly is not - owned by NYPA.

I've been listening to Bruckner masses quite a lot lately. That doesn't make me an atheist Uncle Tom. Wanting crosses displayed on public land at taxpayers' expense, memorializing the deaths of hundreds who were not Christians, might very well though.

[Vinca]

60. Mea culpa. I didn't realize it was considered public property.

All the same, I am still happy if a person of any religion can get any comfort at that site from an image that means something to them. The funny part is, that "cross" looks like random beams . . . almost like an image of Jesus on a piece of toast.

[COLGATE4]

64. You really ought to look at some Constitutional Law before making

a blanket statement that's as ludicrous as this one.

[Nye Bevan]

66. Sorry, did I misquote the Constitution? What does it really say? (nt)

[humblebum]

78. It says exactly what you wrote and that is exactly what it means.

Religious symbols were everywhere when the Constitution was written, too.

[Luminous Animal]

95. Does this lawsuit give Jews a bad name?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/05/jewish-war-vets-and-aclu-win-court-declares-cross-on-public-land-unconstitutionalcross-on-public-land-in-san-diego-is-unconstitutional-federal-court-rules-the-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-did-no/

[GSLevel9]

28. Some people just wont leave others the fuck alone.

Don't tell people whom to marry, don't tell people what to put in a memorial. Damn nannies...

[Nye Bevan]

46. +1. This "atheist group" should just leave the victims the fuck alone.

Instead of telling them what they can't put in their memorial.

Good post.

[dmallind]

59. All those 100% Xian victims eh? nt

[Arugula Latte]

61. The nannies are the ones imposing their religion on others. nt

[wickerwoman]

114. Exactly,

putting their damn crosses all over everything like they own the place. Bibles by every hospital bed and in every hotel room. End times billboards everywhere, prayer in schools and before sporting events, trying to get the 10 commandments into courthouses, censoring textbooks, terrorizing women outside abortion clinics and firebombing doctors...

How hard is it to just keep your shit to yourself and not try to claim a national tragedy as exclusively your own loss to advance your own agenda?

I'm assuming your username means you're a government employee. If so, you should really have a better understanding of the concept of separation of church and state. This is not a "Christian" nation and memorials on public land should reflect that. Not only Christians died that day and, unlike the Holocaust, they were not killed *because* they were Christian. They were killed because they were American. And putting up a big ass cross just serves to continue the offensive conflation of the two.

I knew three people who died in the WTC. One was Jewish. One was an atheist. Another was a communist. The third one in particular would be spitting nails at the thought of being buried under a huge cross. It's not "nannying" to point out how grossly disrespectful and inappropriate this "memorial" is. It splits people apart at exactly the point where they should be coming together.

[Luminous Animal]

115. +! Why do Christians have to pick this fight?

[backscatter712]

32. So let me get this straight...

Nearly 3,000 people are killed in the WTC when the buildings collapse - oh well, that's God's will. Because It's All Part Of The Plan, those people had to die without God lifting His finger for them.

But at the same time, a couple pieces of steel connected to each other in the shape of a cross somehow sticks out of the rubble? LORD IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!

[Arugula Latte]

53. Amazing how it always works out with gawd coming out clean as a whistle, huh?

That guy's got some good PR, lemme tell ya.

[spanone]

34. they should have multi-religious symbol....or no religious symbol at all

[marions ghost]

39. right

n/t

[Solly Mack]

50. Jesus in toast and now intersecting steel I-beams as a *holy* instrument of torture.

Why not the concrete rubble as the (resurrection) stone that rolled away from the cave?

That shit is just sad.

[GoneOffShore]

54. Not a miracle - there aren't any - and should not be part of the memorial

I'm glad they're suing.

[Rex]

55. I don't blame them...what about all the other religous people that

died in those buildings? I know, I know, America is a Christian nation and if I don't like it there are probably thousands of fundamentalists that would love to shoot me in the face for even mentioning other religions as being given equal footing at GZ.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. That cross it totally inappropriate IMO. n/t

[onenote]

65. Question for those that are really upset about the placement of the "cross".

Do you think that all religious art should be pulled from public museums and galleries and displayed only in private collections that are completely unsupported by any government funding?

[Taverner]

68. Apples and oranges nt

[onenote]

73. Peaches and Herb

Care to explain the distinctions and why they are relevant?

[Taverner]

74. Sure. The WTC 'cross' is not religious art

It was not created by man, in an effort to describe god

Instead, it was a random event, which our minds, trained to see patterns in everything, decided that it must be 'a sign'

Religious art tells us much more than just religion. Certain pieces of religious art tell us about the artist's father, family, loved ones, etc.

Take something as straightforward as Michaelangelo's 'the David'

Sure, it's a sculpture of marble meant to represent King David from the Old Testament. Only it isn't. In fact most art historians agree that it was based on Michaelangelo's then lover. The care given to each detail, right down to the 'money section' shows a kind of affection that one would have for someone they care deeply and romantically about. In fact, if you didn't know the piece's title and history, you probably wouldn't see anything religious in it whatsoever.

The 'cross' at the WTC is nothing of this sort. It is two steel poles, welded together by construction workers to support the WTC.

[onenote]

77. everyone's an art critic.

Why can't two pieces of welded metal be art? Certainly you can't be suggesting that crosses aren't "religious art" can you? THere are museums that have all sorts of crucifixes in their collections, including rudimentary primitive crosses. Are these not art? And if you think they're not art but can be justified as being displayed on public property because they have historical significance -- well, that could be said about the WTC cross.

I don't plan to go worship at it any more than any of the numerous religious icons and objects I see in museums, but I'm not offended by it being there for its artistic/historical reasons.

[Taverner]

79. Is Mt McKinley art?

Is the Colorado River art?

Sure they're beautiful but to be art, one would assume there is an artist

And in the case of the 'cross' there is none

I am offended because once again, a self-appointed Christian is trying to force their belief down my throat

[Rex]

80. You do make a point that cannot be argued rationally against.

Unless people want to call God or Mother Nature the artist! I don't.

[deaniac21]

70. OH, THE HORROR!

[Taverner]

81. Ahhh once again it's OK for Christians to shove religion down our throat

:eyes:

[deaniac21]

97. As long as they aren't shoving one up my ass, I got better

things to worry about.

[Old Troop]

71. Oh my goodness. It was featured in an iconic photograph and was

a part of the story at the time.

[humblebum]

72. It was there before and it is there again. nt

[LAGC]

87. We'll see for how long. (n/t)

[glinda]

75. Always thought that was inappropriate. Glad some are speaking up.

[Arugula Latte]

83. Idea: Someone please put a big circle with a red slash through it in front of that thing.

[cordelia]

88. Idea: Have at it.

[Union Scribe]

84. How bigoted of the building to fall down with such a pattern in its steel.

Two beams welded across each other, my word, what a horrible thing. Stop the presses and whatnot.

Buildings should have to only have beams that intersect at acute and obtuse angles to prevent this sort of hate crime from happening again.

[GoneOffShore]

89. .....

:eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

90. Meh. I have no problem with it. It's a historical artifact, it belongs in a museum.

For the record, I do not believe in God, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. But I also have no problem with museums of history that house, say, religious artifacts from the Middle Ages. I do not have a problem with an art museum that includes paintings of the Pieta. And I do not have a problem with a 9/11 Museum that houses these steel beams.

[socialshockwave]

91. I'm a Christian

And I agree with you.

If atheists and agnostics don't want to view it - they don't have to go and see it. I don't think anyone should be forced to believe in anything - or forcing someone to believe in nothing.

[SteppingRazor]

92. For me, the only question that matters is whether the thing has historical value.

And clearly it does. It made news in the immediate aftermath, it was the subject of many photos and several writeups. Given all that, it seems pretty obvious that if you're going to have a museum dedicated to the events of September 11, the thing should be in there. Why not? A couple hundred years from now, people familiar with those photos will be happy to see the real thing, preserved as it should be.

Obviously, for people in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, this artifact had religious significance. But the religious significance of an object in no way detracts from its historical value.

[socialshockwave]

94. Oh, very much agreed.

[GoneOffShore]

99. Can you perhaps explain the "historical value" to me?

It's two pieces of steel i-beam that through coincidence happen to be shaped like a religious symbol standing on the site of an attack.

I don't see the historical significance. Any more than I see any significance in a piece of toast or a taco that appears to have a man or woman's face on it.

If those pieces of steel had been nudged over 45 degrees this thing would have been sent to the scrap heap with the rest of the WTC wreckage. And it's a great shame that it wasn't.

[SteppingRazor]

102. If the face-in-a-sandwich had been connected to a major historical event...

I would argue it has historical value as well. For example, if, say, the king of England choked to death while eating this sandwich, then the remainder of the face sandwich (facewich?) should go in a museum. Make sense?

[GoneOffShore]

103. Nope. Just a sandwich.

The circumstances surrounding the sandwich are far more important.

I've seen the camera that Cartier-Bresson used to take some of his quintessential pictures. It's interesting but it's still just a camera.

What's important are the images that he produced. The tool that he used to produce them, not so much.

[SteppingRazor]

104. But the cross, on the other hand, is not just a cross.

I really don't see how this is at all confusing. It's a museum entirely dedicated to 9/11. Why would this not be in there?

[GoneOffShore]

107. Because it's not a "cross" !

it's a piece of steel that happens to look like one.

Humans look for patterns. The WTC was constructed with steel i-beams that intersected at 90 degrees. There is no cross, just coincidence.

The grasping at straws searching for "meaning" thing has always escaped me.

I'll quote Douglas Adams here -

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[SteppingRazor]

116. As I mentioned at the beginning of this subthread...

I'm an atheist. And I've referred to the cross several times as the "thing" and the "artifact" in this subthread for the very reason you mention. I recognize that this is simple symbolism writ silly. But what I think is irrelevant, as is what you think.

Let me try again.

This is a 9/11 Museum.

This is a piece of one of the buildings destroyed on 9/11.

For whatever reason, it is a piece of the building that has been photographed more often than others -- that is, laid down in the historical record more than others.

Because of all of this, it belongs in a museum dedicated specifically to the events of 9/11.

[GoneOffShore]

117. I disagree with you, but as you say, what we think is irrelevant.

I also disagree that two pieces of steel, left standing by chance, are in any way significant to this museum..

Photos of those who died - yes. This "thing", as you properly put it, not so much.

Needless to say, I'm neither contributing to or visiting something that will, almost certainly, be "Disneyfied" in 10 years. It is, after all, what we Americans do.

[GreenPartyVoter]

93. If they present it as debris preserved from the attack, that's one thing, but to

cast it in a religious context is something else. Not to belittle those who hold it dear to themselves, but for my own self it's a big meh. It has no more religious meaning than the tendrils of smoke from the fires that day that people claimed to have seen the devil's face in. As debris it breaks my heart, but I don't buy it as a religious icon.

:shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

109. Good call - It's that whole "It must mean something" meme

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. "The cross serves as a reminder that God didn't stop 3000 people from being killed"

Maybe I'll start taking these "atheist groups" seriously when they don't invoke the "god" they don't believe in so damn frequently.

[piratefish08]

120. "atheist groups"

:rofl:


we're such a 'groupy' bunch, what with our weekly meetings to sing and discuss stuff we don't believe in. and stuff.


the tax deductions from the gov kick ass too!