Article and comments!
Jul. 31st, 2011 12:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Atheists Sue to Block Display of Cross-Shaped Beam in 9/11 Museum
After I post the article, I post some of the SEVENTEEN PAGES of comments. Mostly just the funny ones, but some of the insightful ones as well.
In the days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, some workers and mourners at the World Trade Center site seized upon a cross-shaped steel beam found amid the rubble as a symbol of faith and hope.
For the past five years, the 17-foot-tall cross was displayed outside a nearby Catholic church. On Saturday it was moved again, to the site of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, where it is to be in the permanent collection.
But the move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. The lawsuit, in turn, provoked the ire of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, as well as others.
Now, the dispute over the “World Trade Center cross” is becoming the latest in a string of heated conflicts over how to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks. It comes less than two months before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and in the wake of a feverish debate over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque within blocks of the trade center site.
Marc D. Stern, who is the associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and has long studied church-state issues, said the lawsuit presented “an extra-difficult case.”
“It’s a significant part of the story of the reaction to the attack, and that is a secular piece of history,” he said. “It’s also very clear from the repeated blessing of the cross, and the way believers speak about the cross, that it has intense present religious meaning to many people. And both of those narratives about this cross are correct.”
Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law, described the lawsuit as “plausible.” The outcome, he said, could depend on how the beam was displayed when the museum opened.
“If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” Professor Lupu said. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”
The atheists’ lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, lists multiple defendants, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
“The challenged cross constitutes an unlawful attempt to promote a specific religion on governmental land,” the lawsuit charged.
David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, said the suit’s goal was either the removal of the cross or what he called “equal representation.”
“They can allow every religious position to put in a symbol of equal size and stature, or they can take it all out, but they don’t get to pick and choose,” Mr. Silverman said.
And if atheists could put a symbol in the museum, what would it be? Perhaps an atom, Mr. Silverman suggested, “because we’re all made out of atoms,” or maybe a depiction of a firefighter carrying a victim. “It would be about helping,” he said. “It would not be derogatory against any religion or anybody.”
The Port Authority, which owns the land where the museum is being built, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the city’s Law Department said the city had not yet been notified of the suit. Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, said that the cross was clearly of historical significance and that the lawsuit was “without merit.”
“We have a responsibility at the museum to use the authentic artifacts that really came from the site itself to tell the story of not only what happened on 9/11, but the nine-month recovery period,” he said, adding that the cross was an artifact with “very true meaning.”
“It provided comfort to hundreds and hundreds of people who were working in some of the most hellish conditions imaginable,” he said.
The Rev. Brian J. Jordan, a Franciscan priest who began holding Mass by the cross in September 2001, described the lawsuit as “the bizarre ramblings of angry minds.”
“One person might pray in front of it; another person would just ignore it; another person might say, ‘What’s this all about?’ ” he said.
The American Center for Law and Justice said it planned to file a brief in opposition to the atheist group’s lawsuit. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the group, said the suit was “bordering on the absurd.”
He pointed to parts of the lawsuit naming four individual atheists, who are described as having suffered “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.”
“They want their day in court,” Mr. Sekulow said. “I don’t think it’s going to be a long day.”
~~~~~~
So there's the article, and I'm sure most of you will have well-formed and reasonable opinions. Not like some of the commenters. (I'm only quoting the silly ones I disagree with, because I'm going to pretend the other ones don't exist. They do, though.)
Also, I'm sure you can all share your opinions without also having to share your credentials. "I believe in God and I think this!" "I'm a Christian and I think that!" "I'm a pastor, a freakin' pastor, and this is my opinion!" "I'm an atheist, they're wrong!" "I'm an atheist, they're right!" Sheesh, clearly all this proves is that what you believe about god(s) has nothing to do with what you think about anything else! (Judging by word choice, I have a nagging suspicion there's also a lot of second and third and fourth usernames there as well.)
ON the day of 9/11 Atheist Jew Muslim Christian Hindu All fell on their Knees praying To God for Mercy Protection CRYING OUT FOR FORGIVENESS because at that moment of danger when the body is threatened a bolt of lightening jolted the SOUL that wallowed in sin and with an agonising wail Cries out to the Lord MERCY! MERCY! MERCY! - leave the Cross were it is and wake up America get rid of satan’s laws for the right of the Unborn have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO LIFE and This Nation found under God His laws and only His laws must be obeyed or greater disasters will definitely come FOR THE HAND OF GOD will not tolerate such a sinful nation as America
I think this is English, but it's hard to tell.
What did our Founding Fathers have to say about religion?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god.", Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.", Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.", John Madison
“Lighthouses are more helpful than Churches”, Benjamin Franklin
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves of, for their own purpose", Thomas Jefferson
This comment is highly necessary because every 12th comment is about how the Founding Fathers were all, like, ultra-devout. Not only is this a lie, but it's untrue! You can't just make up your own facts, folks!
"Offensive"?
That some people have certain beliefs not shared by others?
Why is that "offensive"?
And this is the Captain of the Missing-the-Point Brigade. Let's use little bitty words: The. State. Should. Not. Favor. Your. Beliefs.
"Put God back in our schools, put Christmas back where it belongs and Don't even think about ever and I mean ever taking "In God We Trust" off of our nations currency!"
Aside from the fact that "In God We Trust" was added recently to the currency, does it occur to people that the main argument against adding it was that it cheapens religion and faith? (Did these folks miss the sermon on the moneylenders?)
As far as God being in schools, these folks also are missing the part of the Bible that talks about not praying in public "like hypocrites". Sheesh, *I* know that part's in there, why don't they? (Not that students aren't allowed to pray in public in public schools. They totally are! So stop making things up, guys.)
And as far as Christmas, the Pilgrims never celebrated that. It was papist on the one hand and pagan on the other. Modern celebration of Christmas is just that - modern. All imported and then added to with commercial fervor. And you can look it up.
I am a Christian, and I attend a fairly conservative Presbyterian denomination, but I am strongly opposed to displaying the cross in the musuem. It is disturbing to me that so many supposed Christians in this country insist on forcing their views on others. I wonder whether they really understand either the Gospel or the U.S. Constitution. If you want to demonstrate your Christian faith, great - I suggest that you begin by helping the poor. That should keep you busy for a while.
Thank you :)
If you don't want to worship (or even look at) the cross, then by all means don't. However, to deny the those who do believe some meaning and some solace in the cross's presence is selfish beyond belief. Wake-up New Yorkers ... it's not all about you! If you don't believe, it's simply a piece of metal.
Again with missing the point. It's not what I or any random atheist believes about it. It's NOT just "a piece of metal" because *other people* are going around imbuing it with meaning. And if people want solace from it, fine - keep it at the church! Or pick another church to keep it at. It's not like there aren't scads of them in that area.
there apparently is no tolerance for Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the USA, but it is, by far, the religion practiced by a majority of Americans. It's about time we give respect to Christianity along with all other religions!!!
Repeat after me: If you are living in the US, and you are a Christian, you are not being persecuted for your faith. You almost certainly aren't even experiencing more minor forms of discrimination. You are quite possibly being rewarded for your faith in ways beyond the spiritual.
There are actual Christians actually being persecuted today. You're not one of them. You might want to ask any of them what they think of the "lack of tolerance" you think you experience.
To nullify the argument that it is 'partially government funded' and on 'government property,' so are the national cemeteries where our soldiers are buried with crosses to mark their graves. Why not go after all of those, too? Craving media attention much?
I would absolutely "go after all of those" if those crosses were marking the graves of non-Christians. Happily, there is a range of religious symbols on those headstones, to suit each individual soldier.
If you have no belief in God or Christ why are you afraid to let any one who does believe express it? How can something that you believe doesn't exist harm you?
This person has never heard of the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust, I guess. How anybody can doubt that a society that consciously works to exclude and marginalize you can become dangerous to you, I don't understand. (And that one isn't limited to any particular brand of belief.)
In the end, the mere presence of the cross is not offensive. It's how it is presented.
Indeed.
To those who find the cross an inappropriate symbol, and are offended by it, I wish to say, I am sorry my Christian faith bothers you, sincerely I am, and I understand that the perception you may have.
It's all about her. Wow.
Nobody cares about YOUR faith, dear. They care about the government promoting it, though. You can believe what you want, just so long as you're not trying to make it seem like it's more normal than anything else, or expected.
Basically, the position of the plaintiffs is that they want to block plans to show the intersecting metal beams, which they are certain have no moral signifigance, because someone else (evidently the first responders, bystanders, and others) do ascribe moral signifigance to the intersecting metal beams.
Thanks for making things up!
This country is becoming immoral and God is watching. Between legalizing immoral marriages to not allowing our freedom to our Christian beliefs I can not see us remaining the one time all strong nation that people looked to for strength and freedom.
This comment sums up what's wrong here, very neatly. By not putting a religious symbol up in the museum, we'd be personally preventing her from having freedom of religion. SHE needs to have the museum set up the way SHE likes it. Or else the country will fall, or something.
If you are an atheist, that means you do not believe. What's the problem with having a cross if you do not believe in it? There are billions of people who have strong faith and do believe. That cross is a symbol of hope and peace. If you don't believe in it, it shouldn't bother you.
Yeah, again I say, the problem isn't the cross, the problem is the Christians. And not just any old Christians, but the ones who think that because they happen to be Christian that means the rest of us should go along with it.
If it wasn't deliberately fashioned by a human being, how can it be considered a religious symbol?
Maybe by dint of being sanctified and having mass performed there over and over again?
The majority of graves in the U.S. are adorned with a Crucifix.
The majority of dead people in the US are Catholic?
Yeah, there's about 17 pages of that, and almost all of the comments are inane.
After I post the article, I post some of the SEVENTEEN PAGES of comments. Mostly just the funny ones, but some of the insightful ones as well.
In the days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, some workers and mourners at the World Trade Center site seized upon a cross-shaped steel beam found amid the rubble as a symbol of faith and hope.
For the past five years, the 17-foot-tall cross was displayed outside a nearby Catholic church. On Saturday it was moved again, to the site of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, where it is to be in the permanent collection.
But the move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. The lawsuit, in turn, provoked the ire of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, as well as others.
Now, the dispute over the “World Trade Center cross” is becoming the latest in a string of heated conflicts over how to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks. It comes less than two months before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and in the wake of a feverish debate over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque within blocks of the trade center site.
Marc D. Stern, who is the associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and has long studied church-state issues, said the lawsuit presented “an extra-difficult case.”
“It’s a significant part of the story of the reaction to the attack, and that is a secular piece of history,” he said. “It’s also very clear from the repeated blessing of the cross, and the way believers speak about the cross, that it has intense present religious meaning to many people. And both of those narratives about this cross are correct.”
Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law, described the lawsuit as “plausible.” The outcome, he said, could depend on how the beam was displayed when the museum opened.
“If the cross is presented in a way that ties it to the history of its discovery and the religious perception of it by some firefighters or neighbors, then the museum would be framing it as a historical artifact, rather than as a symbol deserving religious reverence,” Professor Lupu said. “I think if it were framed in that way, it could be effectively defended on the merits.”
The atheists’ lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, lists multiple defendants, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
“The challenged cross constitutes an unlawful attempt to promote a specific religion on governmental land,” the lawsuit charged.
David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, said the suit’s goal was either the removal of the cross or what he called “equal representation.”
“They can allow every religious position to put in a symbol of equal size and stature, or they can take it all out, but they don’t get to pick and choose,” Mr. Silverman said.
And if atheists could put a symbol in the museum, what would it be? Perhaps an atom, Mr. Silverman suggested, “because we’re all made out of atoms,” or maybe a depiction of a firefighter carrying a victim. “It would be about helping,” he said. “It would not be derogatory against any religion or anybody.”
The Port Authority, which owns the land where the museum is being built, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the city’s Law Department said the city had not yet been notified of the suit. Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, said that the cross was clearly of historical significance and that the lawsuit was “without merit.”
“We have a responsibility at the museum to use the authentic artifacts that really came from the site itself to tell the story of not only what happened on 9/11, but the nine-month recovery period,” he said, adding that the cross was an artifact with “very true meaning.”
“It provided comfort to hundreds and hundreds of people who were working in some of the most hellish conditions imaginable,” he said.
The Rev. Brian J. Jordan, a Franciscan priest who began holding Mass by the cross in September 2001, described the lawsuit as “the bizarre ramblings of angry minds.”
“One person might pray in front of it; another person would just ignore it; another person might say, ‘What’s this all about?’ ” he said.
The American Center for Law and Justice said it planned to file a brief in opposition to the atheist group’s lawsuit. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the group, said the suit was “bordering on the absurd.”
He pointed to parts of the lawsuit naming four individual atheists, who are described as having suffered “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.”
“They want their day in court,” Mr. Sekulow said. “I don’t think it’s going to be a long day.”
So there's the article, and I'm sure most of you will have well-formed and reasonable opinions. Not like some of the commenters. (I'm only quoting the silly ones I disagree with, because I'm going to pretend the other ones don't exist. They do, though.)
Also, I'm sure you can all share your opinions without also having to share your credentials. "I believe in God and I think this!" "I'm a Christian and I think that!" "I'm a pastor, a freakin' pastor, and this is my opinion!" "I'm an atheist, they're wrong!" "I'm an atheist, they're right!" Sheesh, clearly all this proves is that what you believe about god(s) has nothing to do with what you think about anything else! (Judging by word choice, I have a nagging suspicion there's also a lot of second and third and fourth usernames there as well.)
ON the day of 9/11 Atheist Jew Muslim Christian Hindu All fell on their Knees praying To God for Mercy Protection CRYING OUT FOR FORGIVENESS because at that moment of danger when the body is threatened a bolt of lightening jolted the SOUL that wallowed in sin and with an agonising wail Cries out to the Lord MERCY! MERCY! MERCY! - leave the Cross were it is and wake up America get rid of satan’s laws for the right of the Unborn have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO LIFE and This Nation found under God His laws and only His laws must be obeyed or greater disasters will definitely come FOR THE HAND OF GOD will not tolerate such a sinful nation as America
I think this is English, but it's hard to tell.
What did our Founding Fathers have to say about religion?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god.", Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.", Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason.
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.", John Madison
“Lighthouses are more helpful than Churches”, Benjamin Franklin
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves of, for their own purpose", Thomas Jefferson
This comment is highly necessary because every 12th comment is about how the Founding Fathers were all, like, ultra-devout. Not only is this a lie, but it's untrue! You can't just make up your own facts, folks!
"Offensive"?
That some people have certain beliefs not shared by others?
Why is that "offensive"?
And this is the Captain of the Missing-the-Point Brigade. Let's use little bitty words: The. State. Should. Not. Favor. Your. Beliefs.
"Put God back in our schools, put Christmas back where it belongs and Don't even think about ever and I mean ever taking "In God We Trust" off of our nations currency!"
Aside from the fact that "In God We Trust" was added recently to the currency, does it occur to people that the main argument against adding it was that it cheapens religion and faith? (Did these folks miss the sermon on the moneylenders?)
As far as God being in schools, these folks also are missing the part of the Bible that talks about not praying in public "like hypocrites". Sheesh, *I* know that part's in there, why don't they? (Not that students aren't allowed to pray in public in public schools. They totally are! So stop making things up, guys.)
And as far as Christmas, the Pilgrims never celebrated that. It was papist on the one hand and pagan on the other. Modern celebration of Christmas is just that - modern. All imported and then added to with commercial fervor. And you can look it up.
I am a Christian, and I attend a fairly conservative Presbyterian denomination, but I am strongly opposed to displaying the cross in the musuem. It is disturbing to me that so many supposed Christians in this country insist on forcing their views on others. I wonder whether they really understand either the Gospel or the U.S. Constitution. If you want to demonstrate your Christian faith, great - I suggest that you begin by helping the poor. That should keep you busy for a while.
Thank you :)
If you don't want to worship (or even look at) the cross, then by all means don't. However, to deny the those who do believe some meaning and some solace in the cross's presence is selfish beyond belief. Wake-up New Yorkers ... it's not all about you! If you don't believe, it's simply a piece of metal.
Again with missing the point. It's not what I or any random atheist believes about it. It's NOT just "a piece of metal" because *other people* are going around imbuing it with meaning. And if people want solace from it, fine - keep it at the church! Or pick another church to keep it at. It's not like there aren't scads of them in that area.
there apparently is no tolerance for Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the USA, but it is, by far, the religion practiced by a majority of Americans. It's about time we give respect to Christianity along with all other religions!!!
Repeat after me: If you are living in the US, and you are a Christian, you are not being persecuted for your faith. You almost certainly aren't even experiencing more minor forms of discrimination. You are quite possibly being rewarded for your faith in ways beyond the spiritual.
There are actual Christians actually being persecuted today. You're not one of them. You might want to ask any of them what they think of the "lack of tolerance" you think you experience.
To nullify the argument that it is 'partially government funded' and on 'government property,' so are the national cemeteries where our soldiers are buried with crosses to mark their graves. Why not go after all of those, too? Craving media attention much?
I would absolutely "go after all of those" if those crosses were marking the graves of non-Christians. Happily, there is a range of religious symbols on those headstones, to suit each individual soldier.
If you have no belief in God or Christ why are you afraid to let any one who does believe express it? How can something that you believe doesn't exist harm you?
This person has never heard of the Spanish Inquisition or the Holocaust, I guess. How anybody can doubt that a society that consciously works to exclude and marginalize you can become dangerous to you, I don't understand. (And that one isn't limited to any particular brand of belief.)
In the end, the mere presence of the cross is not offensive. It's how it is presented.
Indeed.
To those who find the cross an inappropriate symbol, and are offended by it, I wish to say, I am sorry my Christian faith bothers you, sincerely I am, and I understand that the perception you may have.
It's all about her. Wow.
Nobody cares about YOUR faith, dear. They care about the government promoting it, though. You can believe what you want, just so long as you're not trying to make it seem like it's more normal than anything else, or expected.
Basically, the position of the plaintiffs is that they want to block plans to show the intersecting metal beams, which they are certain have no moral signifigance, because someone else (evidently the first responders, bystanders, and others) do ascribe moral signifigance to the intersecting metal beams.
Thanks for making things up!
This country is becoming immoral and God is watching. Between legalizing immoral marriages to not allowing our freedom to our Christian beliefs I can not see us remaining the one time all strong nation that people looked to for strength and freedom.
This comment sums up what's wrong here, very neatly. By not putting a religious symbol up in the museum, we'd be personally preventing her from having freedom of religion. SHE needs to have the museum set up the way SHE likes it. Or else the country will fall, or something.
If you are an atheist, that means you do not believe. What's the problem with having a cross if you do not believe in it? There are billions of people who have strong faith and do believe. That cross is a symbol of hope and peace. If you don't believe in it, it shouldn't bother you.
Yeah, again I say, the problem isn't the cross, the problem is the Christians. And not just any old Christians, but the ones who think that because they happen to be Christian that means the rest of us should go along with it.
If it wasn't deliberately fashioned by a human being, how can it be considered a religious symbol?
Maybe by dint of being sanctified and having mass performed there over and over again?
The majority of graves in the U.S. are adorned with a Crucifix.
The majority of dead people in the US are Catholic?
Yeah, there's about 17 pages of that, and almost all of the comments are inane.
