Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'

a reply to: ketsuko

it has the opposite effect on people. you realize that right? people know the difference between lip service of "this is a free country" and "this is a free country but only for __________". historically, that has worked in favor of atheists because they were a clear minority, but as their numbers grow, they are soon going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place, and i'm concerned that they will not be as willing to extend us the freedoms that we have learned to extend to them over the last 200+ years. i mean i think we pretty much knew that what was going on in europe at the time was not even remotely humane but our leaders all had a rational outlook on religion, which helped. but what's happening now, is not a pleasant concept.

makes me anxious every so often.

a reply to: ketsuko

You need to take the conversation and question in context. NavyDoc said.

People who were actually doing something to help their fellow man, unlike athiests who sat back and let better men do the work, found inspiration and solace in that imagery.

That is claiming he knows atheists were not there or did nothing to help. You even said they probably were there. I am not even arguing for a atheist shrine nor am I saying the cross doesn't have its place there though I do believe the way they choose to display it is in poor form and taste.

What I do want to know is how Doc can make such a claim and if he has anything to back up his claim.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please try and view this from a different perspective. If there was a huge Satanic pentagram at ground zero, would you be comfortable with that? Would you be against its removal as much as you are against removing this cross?

As far as the memorial tile for columbine, that is over the top IMO. I agree that the memorial for that person should have been allowed to have a cross on it. A tile for a single person should have whatever was important to that person, and if that was a cross then i see no problem with it.

This situation with the cross at the 9/11 memorial is vastly different. It is not a memorial for a single person, but for everybody that was there, or was affected by the events of 9/11, world wide.

Whether its a cross, a star of David, a pentagram, or any other religious symbol, it has no business being part of a memorial that is there for everyone.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: ketsuko

As far as the memorial tile for columbine, that is over the top IMO. I agree that the memorial for that person should have been allowed to have a cross on it. A tile for a single person should have whatever was important to that person, and if that was a cross then i see no problem with it.

This situation with the cross at the 9/11 memorial is vastly different. It is not a memorial for a single person, but for everybody that was there, or was affected by the events of 9/11, world wide.

But the cross tile would have been part of a larger memorial. One of 160. How could you allow it on the memorial for everybody that was there and affected by the events of Columbine?

Surely the WTC Cross is not the only feature of the 911 Memorial site. It is one exhibit out of thousands of artifacts. How much of the 110,000 sq feet of the Sept 11 Memorial Museum is occupied by that cross? Would you say it was more than or less than 1/160th of the museum? It is not just one small part representing something that was important to some persons? If it is a cross, you should see no problem with it.

Your view point is not entirely internally consistent.

a reply to: _Del_

Please don't twist my twist my meaning.

The Columbine memorial was a collection of individual tiles that people could customize and add to the entire memorial.

What part of the cross at the heart of this thread has anything to do with a single person? Are there tiles on the cross i am not aware of? Is it signed by anyone?

As far as i know its a couple of I-beam that were cut to resemble the cross more accurately, blessed by the church, hung on the side of a church, then moved to the 9/11 museum.

Its not a place for individual tiles so you can not honestly compare it to columbine.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

The cross that is the subject of the thread is just one part of an entire memorial. It was collectively important to many people that day. I don't really see the difference.

a reply to: _Del_

One person =/= many people. That is the difference.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

As far as i know its a couple of I-beam that were cut to resemble the cross more accurately

That is how I saw it to but haven't found anything that says so definitively.
IMO if that was the case then it would make this even more cut and dry that it is in fact a religious symbol.

a reply to: xDeadcowx

It is less significant and important (edit: or acceptable or appropriate, pick a word. I wasn't trying to paint you in a corner) because of the greater amount of people who found it significant?

I'm really not trying to hound you about this. I just don't see the magic line where a cross for a memorial becomes "offensive" and "divisive" and when it is just a cross appropriate for a public memorial.

a reply to: _Del_

Its when the entire thing is one giant religious symbol.

I view this the same as a public school, since its funded by tax payer dollars. If someone put a cross in front of a school, I would be against it. If someone put a giant Satanic pentagram in front of a school, i would be equally against it.

Now on the other hand, like the Columbine memorial, if it is a collage of individual pieces that make a whole, i see no problem with those individual pieces having personal symbols on them. The main reason is because you might put a cross on yours, but I can put a big A, or nothing at all on mine. THAT is freedom of religion.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: ketsuko

it has the opposite effect on people. you realize that right? people know the difference between lip service of "this is a free country" and "this is a free country but only for __________". historically, that has worked in favor of atheists because they were a clear minority, but as their numbers grow, they are soon going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place, and i'm concerned that they will not be as willing to extend us the freedoms that we have learned to extend to them over the last 200+ years. i mean i think we pretty much knew that what was going on in europe at the time was not even remotely humane but our leaders all had a rational outlook on religion, which helped. but what's happening now, is not a pleasant concept.

makes me anxious every so often.

What? You have to be a troll. How has "this is a free country but only for (insert group)" worked for athiests? Even today atheists are mistreated and bullied. A couple of years ago a poll found that people would trust an criminal over an atheist. Atheists are and have been fighting for freedom of and from religion. An openly atheist presidential candidate could not win in the current political climate in the US. Religious people are still trying to control government and education. Atheists are often more rational than religious people because they don't hold to superstitions or holy books written by sheep herders. They look at facts. If anything you should be looking forward to the day atheist are a large group.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: _Del_

Please don't twist my twist my meaning.

The Columbine memorial was a collection of individual tiles that people could customize and add to the entire memorial.

What part of the cross at the heart of this thread has anything to do with a single person? Are there tiles on the cross i am not aware of? Is it signed by anyone?

As far as i know its a couple of I-beam that were cut to resemble the cross more accurately, blessed by the church, hung on the side of a church, then moved to the 9/11 museum.

Its not a place for individual tiles so you can not honestly compare it to columbine.

where do you think it should have been moved to, while the rebuilding was going on?
some street corner?


it wasn't cut, btw.

they should have just fenced off the whole shebang and kept the smoke going.

then there would be no moving on and no memorial to argue over.
people could come and see for them selves the horror that was perpetrated on that morning.

i think it would be quite moving.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: _Del_

Its when the entire thing is one giant religious symbol.

The memorial museum is not a giant religious symbol. One relatively small part of the museum contains a big cross. Many, many people found meaning in that personal symbol. Many, many other artifacts are included. Most of which are secular (the Survival Tree, etc). I'm failing to see the difference. Is it just the size of the artifact?

The infamous “Miracle Cross” is in the After section and, in spite of my worst anti-theist, humanist imaginings, I’m okay with what the museum has done. It’s not treated as a “miracle” nor given any special place or attention. It stands in a small grouping of artifacts that the exhibit card said gave some workers “spiritual solace.” Let’s face it: the damned thing is part of the 9/11 story. It was dragged out of the wreckage by construction workers, who did make a big deal of it (as did professional theists with agendas) and it was part of the media circus for a long while. But the museum treats it as just one more artifact among many. You really could walk by it without noticing it, and while I stood there at least 10 minutes taking notes, I did not see any special attention being paid to it.

thehumanist.com...

From what I've heard there was a Jewish prayer shawl found among the other artifacts. It doesn't sound so imposing that it is establishing a national religion, does it? Clearly the judge did not think so.

Perhaps we shall just agree to disagree. Like I said, I wasn't trying to badger you -- I just don't see the violation of anyone's rights, and was trying to see what the difference was to you between the Columbine Memorial and this one.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: _Del_

Its when the entire thing is one giant religious symbol.

I view this the same as a public school, since its funded by tax payer dollars. If someone put a cross in front of a school, I would be against it. If someone put a giant Satanic pentagram in front of a school, i would be equally against it.

Now on the other hand, like the Columbine memorial, if it is a collage of individual pieces that make a whole, i see no problem with those individual pieces having personal symbols on them. The main reason is because you might put a cross on yours, but I can put a big A, or nothing at all on mine. THAT is freedom of religion.

oh yes! freedom.

you can put a big nothing on yours. sweet!

if you had your way, who is supposed to take down all the stuff you don't like?
and are atheists ready to put up the money for removal? who pays for court costs, coz they will have have a court order.

but then you will have an atheist symbol of nothing which violates the church/state/public money/and single out 1 group of people for special treatment.

a group of people that does not have the community's best interest in mind, btw.

a reply to: acmpnsfal

ya ok, there are too many as it is.

and sheep herders? really? no wonder people don't trust you guys.

and your people want to rule?!

and how are atheists being mistreated/bullied in the real world?

a reply to: tsingtao

Well I say there aren't enough! Yes sheep/goat herders that was the predominant occupation of those who lived in that part of the world, during that time period. Yes, yes we do..well I do, can't speak for the rest of us.

Atheists being bullied:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

I got a question for you Doc. How do you know there was no known atheist first responders?

Is that a little known fact I am unaware of. Were all the first responders polled and as for the ones who died that day were they well known religionists or were their families asked?


I am real curious because you said it like it was a fact that no atheists were first responders.

I don't think I said that there were no atheist first responders. Can you point that bit out to me?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: undo

I don't know why you said all of that or how it pertains to the question I asked of Doc about how he could possibly know that there were not any atheist first responders. Even if they did die in the collapse I am sure they had family and friends that survived which would know their beliefs or non beliefs.

But that is interesting that if someone with no one to speak for them dies they are just assumed to be Christian in the US. Seeing that they were in such a dangerous field of work I would think they would have had their beliefs on record.

I found it interesting that when I was in the military there wasn't an option for atheists the closest was no-preference. If I could I would have put throw a big party and make sure my ashes wind up in the ocean not the damn dump like it was found out they were doing with other soldiers ashes.

But I didn't say that. What I was getting on about was that those who were in the rubble contributing to the issue found the cross inspiring and was pointing out to the atheist I was discussing the matter with that they, who were in the rubble, should have more consideration than an atheist who wasn't involved who felt "uncomfortable" by the symbol from the comfort of their living room chair. Certainly there were atheists in the first responders, but we don't hear them coming out and complaining. Why? Because they were there and get it and don't begrudge what their comrades found comforting.

originally posted by: acmpnsfal
a reply to: tsingtao

Well I say there aren't enough! Yes sheep/goat herders that was the predominant occupation of those who lived in that part of the world, during that time period. Yes, yes we do..well I do, can't speak for the rest of us.

Atheists being bullied:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

egads, people can be so mobbish.
here's the problem. when a mason says god, they don't necessarily mean the bible god or the koran god or the buddhist god or hindu god, in fact, if you read the country's founding documents closer, it sounds as if they are saying that nature's god is a sort of divine principle of the scientific universe, that naturally endows people with rights because there's no religious reason to claim otherwise. it cant be said that any one race or family line, are an exclusive divine lineage but rather all are endowed with the same natural divine rights as a sort of universal divine lineage. that other people view nature's god as their literal god(s) is just ecumenical in their way of thinking, as they are free people who have natural rights from birth as products of nature's god. if that makes sense. (they were deists).

so i think the god claims in american legal documents may not be exactly the same as traditional views of god as a being but rather god as a principle of the universe.

a reply to: undo

here's the problem. when a mason says god, they don't necessarily mean the bible god or the koran god or the buddhist god or hindu god, in fact, if you read the country's founding documents closer, it sounds as if they are saying that nature's god is a sort of divine principle of the scientific universe, that naturally endows people with rights because there's no religious reason to claim otherwise. it cant be said that any one race or family line, are an exclusive divine lineage but rather all are endowed with the same natural divine rights as a sort of universal divine lineage. that other people view nature's god as their literal god(s) is just ecumenical in their way of thinking, as they are free people who have natural rights from birth as products of nature's god. if that makes sense. (they were deists).

so i think the god claims in american legal documents may not be exactly the same as traditional views of god as a being but rather god as a principle of the universe.

The "Founders" were very careful NOT to use the word "GOD" in any of the founding/constitutional documents for the very reason you've presented. They were careful NOT to suggest that "The Creator", who endowed us with all our rights, was the biblical god, the Muslim Allah, or the Native American "Great Spirit", etc.

They made sure that their documents never allowed for presidents, governor's, bodies of the senate or congress to wrap their rulings or legislations in divinity.