Re: Battle over 9/11 cross at memorial site

[Sweetdeath]

I think a new skyscraper should simply be built. I never understood this memorializing mentality. Personally, if I had a close friend or relative die there, I wouldn't want it to become a bigger tourist attraction.

I'm sure the other reason they are doing it is to rake in more tourists to bring in the dough.  After all,  greedy corperate America is always asking "how do I make more money from such a tragedy?"   I mean, all I saw after 2001 were tshirts and mugs with bullshit patrioti crap on it. Whatever. e_e

[fester30]

Keep the cross and add mangled iron that looks like the symbol for the atom with an a in it

Based on something like this?

Yeah I guess that's the problem with the atheist symbol.  You won't coincidentally find that in random events of life like you will a lower-cased t. 

[Whitney]

Yeah I guess that's the problem with the atheist symbol. 

Is that even a universal atheist symbol or is it just the American Atheist logo?

They could plant a bunch of pansies and call it a freethought memorial garden.

[Sweetdeath]

Pansies are great flowers as well because they can survive harsh winters.

[Tank]

Yeah I guess that's the problem with the atheist symbol. 

Is that even a universal atheist symbol or is it just the American Atheist logo?

They could plant a bunch of pansies and call it a freethought memorial garden.

That would be so cool!

[Whitney]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/spirited-atheist/post/atheist-groups-frivolous-lawsuit-aims-to-bar-cross-from-911-museum/2011/08/01/gIQAgvATnI_blog.html

[Medusa]

I think if it's part of the museum exhibit (along with the other pieces they said they found at the site) I see no problem with it. If it's going to be turned into some church...then make it a church and not a museum. I'm not quite so sure what the big hubbub is about. I mean I see it. I just don't...get it.

[Davin]

I thought that the place was privately owned. If it is private then they should be able to put the cross up (I'd even say they could put up a fire fighter, buddy Jesus spraying Muslims), if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

[Tank]

I thought that the place was privately owned. If it is private then they should be able to put the cross up (I'd even say they could put up a fire fighter, buddy Jesus spraying Muslims), if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

Doesn't the New York Harbour Authority own the site? That was the basis of one of the conspiracy theories, that the NYHA wanted rid of the towers.

[Davin]

I thought that the place was privately owned. If it is private then they should be able to put the cross up (I'd even say they could put up a fire fighter, buddy Jesus spraying Muslims), if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

Doesn't the New York Harbour Authority own the site? That was the basis of one of the conspiracy theories, that the NYHA wanted rid of the towers.

Apparently it's complicated. Hopefuly those with access to all relevant documents (many of which are claimed to be missing), will be able to determine who owns the bits that they want to put the cross on and then determine whether it's governmental and not allowed or private and allowed.

[Whitney]

if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

It's a government funded memorial museum intended to serve as a place that displays various things related to the 9/11 events....as someone said on facebook; if AA wins then I want to be in town for when NY's gov owned/funded museums all have a sidewalk sale to rid themselves of their religiously symbolic artifacts.

Separation of Church and state doesn't mean censoring religion out of historic events.  People's reactions to a cross shaped piece of structural debris is a part of an account of the recovery efforts after 9/11.  One of the firefighter groups who helped with Murrah Building (OKC Bombing) rescue efforts wrote a message that included the word God on a wall and it was preserved as part of the Murrah Building memorial....it's just part of the events surrounding that day (and the days after) and doesn't distract from a secular appreciation of the memorial site or adjacent museum.

Tank...if it was private owned land the lawsuit would have been thrown out already.  The judge can't throw it out at a frivolous at this point because s/he has to give AA a chance to prove the physical and emotional damages they are claiming as the basis of their lawsuit...that's what's especially stupid about this; they are having to state that seeing a cross in a museum actually causes physical/mental damages to atheists; it's not being challenged solely on constitutional grounds (a flaw in our judicial system requires that damages be proven in order to have ground to sue).

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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/atheists-sue-to-ban-display-of-cross-shaped-beam-in-911-museum.html?_r=3&hp

I don't remember any atheists going to the 9/11 site and building a FSM shrine or spray painting on a big A as a memorial to fallen atheists....since we have no artifacts related to the event that can be displayed (at least none that I am aware of) there can't be any justified claim of exclusion.  It's not like they are commissioning an artist to build a cross statue to commemorate the day...

[Davin]

if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

It's a government funded memorial museum intended to serve as a place that displays various things related to the 9/11 events....as someone said on facebook; if AA wins then I want to be in town for when NY's gov owned/funded museums all have a sidewalk sale to rid themselves of their religiously symbolic artifacts.

That doesn't sound like a violation to me. In all the three articles I've just read about it, it's going to be inside as just another thing among lots of things. Serves me right for opening my mouth before actually reading about it, I had thought it was going be outside somewhere all alone.

[Sweetdeath]

Religious symbols can stay in a history textbook, in your house, or at a church, but there is no need for a giant metal cross at what is suppose to be a memorial site for all people who had losd at 9/11.

I just don't like it, and frankly I am tired of religion always in my face. I hope the NYA/AA do win the lawsuit. 

[Tank]

Tank...if it was private owned land the lawsuit would have been thrown out already.  The judge can't throw it out at a frivolous at this point because s/he has to give AA a chance to prove the physical and emotional damages they are claiming as the basis of their lawsuit...that's what's especially stupid about this; they are having to state that seeing a cross in a museum actually causes physical/mental damages to atheists; it's not being challenged solely on constitutional grounds (a flaw in our judicial system requires that damages be proven in order to have ground to sue).

How on Earth could a cross cause anybody physical and emotional damage? What a pile of unmitigated BS! Oh well if AA win there will undoubtedly be plenty of claims from some extremist Christians that the Pakistani flag or a mosque can cause 'physical and emotional damage'.

[fester30]

if it's government owned then they shouldn't be able to put any kind of religious symbol up.

It's a government funded memorial museum intended to serve as a place that displays various things related to the 9/11 events....as someone said on facebook; if AA wins then I want to be in town for when NY's gov owned/funded museums all have a sidewalk sale to rid themselves of their religiously symbolic artifacts.

That doesn't sound like a violation to me. In all the three articles I've just read about it, it's going to be inside as just another thing among lots of things. Serves me right for opening my mouth before actually reading about it, I had thought it was going be outside somewhere all alone.

I'm in the same boat.  I had only looked at the picture of the crane with the cross, and it looked like this giant cross would be at the entrance or on top of the museum, at which point I thought it was a clear problem.  Since it is only one exhibit out of a large number of exhibits in a museum, I think we can say the purpose of the museum itself isn't about celebrating the Christian faith of victims, but instead about remembering the victims and the images of the time.  I'd personally let this one go and focus on more important matters.