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

Man, going through all of these pages, I really have to say that we are divided!

I think the atheists are well within their rights to complain (trust me, they DO about everything else) and I'm a pagan. I agree much more with atheists in logic and the.pursuit of reason. Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand. While this may be a symbol of those who did their damnedest to help those in peril, Christians and their one God weren't the only ones prsent that day. I was only 14but we watched in our middle schoola and were sent home to watch it oceans over and over and over and over again for several weeks. I was a practicing pagan, then, too, and I cried and I prayed, I worked magick, I donated what I could, I called anyone I knew that lived around there or worked around there. (My uncle actually MISSED the train that would have taken him there that morning, and it was a simple 2 or 3 hour job, ugh I don't how I would have been able to compreh end that scenario if he were on time!) I don't like when religions get pushy or when atheists act holier-than-thou or belittling, but perhaps the atheists should have approached.this lawsuit differently, if they had to have one at all.

It still comes from a constitutional view, and respect of legal rights, not necessarily of a disdain or dislike of religions. For some that may DEFINITELY be the case, but usually when atheists go to court it's not necessarily with the excuses and reason of a personal nature, it's generally based off the need to keep church and state separated, and often times to disparage the over representation of a part a particular belief. Of Course they're most vocal against Christians; they are the most vocal religion and most vocal about how it should be a part of our lives lol. They probably would have nothing to say against any one belief if everyone had a more equal opportunity to be vocal, heard and considered. Then they would just gave scathing remarks for all of us with equal vehemence! Lol.

I personally would prefer if NO ways of faith and life ever had to go to court for anything other than to preside over legal matters such as jury and helping mold their country together for the better. But seeing that that's a perfect world, then the only time I would rather see all walks of life in a court room to fight for their right to be, practice and share.

There are people on here making a big fuss over missing the truth. The truth is that these people died horrific and irreversible deaths and they ALL need to be represented, honored, remembered. Christians may feel that this "piece of rubble" signifies EVERYONE, because that's what they want to BELIEVE. Those that are "offended" do NOT believe this to be the case and would like either that symbol to be pulled down or have their own representation for those that were lost. I think they should keep that symbol there to represent everyone but make sure that everyone is still represented as others feel are suited. If it's a religious symbol, so be it. If not, I still don't care, as long as others are properly represented. I'd still go see it and I would still be moved.

Everyone on here insulting other's intelligence isn't really necessary; just discuss the ridiculousness of this lawsuit, or whether you feel it's justified! I don't think they need to have it removed. I think they need to practice what they preach: Equality and recognition for each walk of life, whether or not they agree with it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

OK Doc then I misunderstood what you were saying it really did read different to me.

I can see where you are coming from now, but I can only agree halfway. The reason I can only agree halfway is because you are basing this on the assumption that no one there that day has objections to how the cross is being placed at the museum however I don't see anyone that was there that day coming out and fighting for it to be placed the way it is now either.

Truth be told I had heard that a huge portion of those that were there are sick many have already died and I can't imagine that many would wish to be caught up in this squabble. If I had been there debating such things as this would be below me I would think. I someone came to my door asking me to argue for or against such things I think I would tell them to get a life and leave me be. lol.


It is at court and a decision will be made one way or another on it which I will accept. Though it does make an interesting topic for us to discuss. How does it make you feel, what precedent does it set, is it legal and how, and I am sure there are other issues which we all have our own takes on.

Personally I wish they had taken a more historical approach at displaying it instead of the one they decided to go with I think it would have had a far more powerful and profane(secular) effect that way where I don't think there would be a court case now.

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

originally posted by: Annee
That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG!

Can you post a picture of the cross at the entrance please.

a reply to: peck420

There are pictures of it on page 19 and page 23 of the thread. There are some pics on other pages as well but you get the idea with those.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: peck420

There are pictures of it on page 19 and page 23 of the thread. There are some pics on other pages as well but you get the idea with those.

Wow...nice pictures...what are those...2, maybe 3 years old now?

The cross is currently underground, in the museum. It's not at the entrance (as some would claim), it's not the forefront of some grand Christian display...no, it's in a room with a couple other dozen artifacts, all arranged in no particular order...just like every other artifact.

Here is a picture of the cross...a current picture.



The curators have given it no more care and attention than any other artifact in their building, yet every body here wants to jump on the bandwagon and turn this into some grand Christian conspiracy.

Comical if it didn't illustrate the ridiculousness of the main stream American society.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

My, how intense. How bigoted. How full of hatred that one would deny an artifact that the first responders--not armchair warriors, not the eternally offended--comfort and solace it's rightfull place in the pages of history.

That you find it "offensive" is just an example of your intolerance and bigotry--nothing more, nothing less. I

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

OK Doc then I misunderstood what you were saying it really did read different to me.

I can see where you are coming from now, but I can only agree halfway. The reason I can only agree halfway is because you are basing this on the assumption that no one there that day has objections to how the cross is being placed at the museum however I don't see anyone that was there that day coming out and fighting for it to be placed the way it is now either.

Truth be told I had heard that a huge portion of those that were there are sick many have already died and I can't imagine that many would wish to be caught up in this squabble. If I had been there debating such things as this would be below me I would think. I someone came to my door asking me to argue for or against such things I think I would tell them to get a life and leave me be. lol.


It is at court and a decision will be made one way or another on it which I will accept. Though it does make an interesting topic for us to discuss. How does it make you feel, what precedent does it set, is it legal and how, and I am sure there are other issues which we all have our own takes on.

Personally I wish they had taken a more historical approach at displaying it instead of the one they decided to go with I think it would have had a far more powerful and profane(secular) effect that way where I don't think there would be a court case now.

That's the point. Those who were there, be they Christian, Jewish, athiest, Muslim, or whatever don't have a problem with this. Only those who seek offense at any little thing from the comfort of their living rooms have a problem with this. Let them have their memorial and for goodness sake stop trying to tear down other people's memorials to satisfy some undying bigotry and hatred. Seriously, it sounds like some people want to go tearing up crosses out of Arlington.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I thought Arlington was protected because each gravestone is their own personal space. Not all gravestones are crosses. Cemetaries are protected under a different set of guidelines.

So I don't think that is a very good comparison to make.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

My, how intense. How bigoted. How full of hatred that one would deny an artifact that the first responders--not armchair warriors, not the eternally offended--comfort and solace it's rightfull place in the pages of history.

That you find it "offensive" is just an example of your intolerance and bigotry--nothing more, nothing less. I

And, of course, you'd feel exactly the same way if a huge Buddah got blown out, landing in the rubble and was deemed a "sign" of hope.

Was then erected in the same manner as this cross, and Chrustisns we're shut out.

I know you damn well wouldn't and Christians would be marching on city hall and picketing, yada yada. Just like they always do when they're "persecuted".

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

My, how intense. How bigoted. How full of hatred that one would deny an artifact that the first responders--not armchair warriors, not the eternally offended--comfort and solace it's rightfull place in the pages of history.

That you find it "offensive" is just an example of your intolerance and bigotry--nothing more, nothing less. I

And, of course, you'd feel exactly the same way if a huge Buddah got blown out, landing in the rubble and was deemed a "sign" of hope.

Was then erected in the same manner as this cross, and Chrustisns we're shut out.

I know you damn well wouldn't and Christians would be marching on city hall and picketing, yada yada. Just like they always do when they're "persecuted".

Yeah. Bulk#. Justify your own bigotry any way your want, it's still bigotry. I don't care if the first responders thought a cluster of wires was a sign from the Flying Spaghetti Monster--it had relavence to them and that's what the point is, not the prejudices of the sideline sitters and malcontents.

a reply to: peck420

See I don't have any problem with that. BTW that is the first time I have seen it as it stands even the article from FOX in the OP shows a picture of it siting outside.

I think they did fairly good job on the display.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

I thought Arlington was protected because each gravestone is their own personal space. Not all gravestones are crosses. Cemetaries are protected under a different set of guidelines.

So I don't think that is a very good comparison to make.

It is. There are religious symbols on taxpayer land, which is what people claim is the issue. Dremel off all religious symbols and just leave names and serial numbers. Then the anti-theists can be smugly satisfied that they ruined a memorial that they had nothing to do with and hurt them in no way.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

My, how intense. How bigoted. How full of hatred that one would deny an artifact that the first responders--not armchair warriors, not the eternally offended--comfort and solace it's rightfull place in the pages of history.

That you find it "offensive" is just an example of your intolerance and bigotry--nothing more, nothing less. I

And, of course, you'd feel exactly the same way if a huge Buddah got blown out, landing in the rubble and was deemed a "sign" of hope.

Was then erected in the same manner as this cross, and Chrustisns we're shut out.

I know you damn well wouldn't and Christians would be marching on city hall and picketing, yada yada. Just like they always do when they're "persecuted".

Yeah. Bulk#. Justify your own bigotry any way your want, it's still bigotry. I don't care if the first responders thought a cluster of wires was a sign from the Flying Spaghetti Monster--it had relavence to them and that's what the point is, not the prejudices of the sideline sitters and malcontents.

I was raised Christian and believed most of my life. I'm not coming from an ignorant perspective.

Because I don't agree with or support your viewpoint makes me a bigot? Not even.

I'm actually speaking for all and non beliefs.

You're the one being singularly inclusive, excluding everyone else.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It is.

It is??? It is what? It is protected because each grave is their personal plot and afforded the same rights as when they served? ( Remember we could ware a religious symbol with our uniform)

It is because cemeteries have always fallen under another set of guidelines?

It is because they a personal markers? (grave stones)

Even the tomb of the unknown soldier has a cross there was a court case on it and if I remember correctly it remains because of the reasons I listed.

Your comparison or Arlington tombstones to an arbitrary cross isn't even in the same league. Furthermore at Arlington you will see symbols of all faiths there is even ones for atheists to which the 1000 plus other people not of the Christian faith which died that day at the towers do not have their symbols on display at the memorial.

You made a real bad comparison there so I am surprised you keep trying to push it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NavyDoc

It is.

It is??? It is what? It is protected because each grave is their personal plot and afforded the same rights as when they served? ( Remember we could ware a religious symbol with our uniform)

It is because cemeteries have always fallen under another set of guidelines?

It is because they a personal markers? (grave stones)

Even the tomb of the unknown soldier has a cross there was a court case on it and if I remember correctly it remains because of the reasons I listed.

Your comparison or Arlington tombstones to an arbitrary cross isn't even in the same league. Furthermore at Arlington you will see symbols of all faiths there is even ones for atheists to which the 1000 plus other people not of the Christian faith which died that day at the towers do not have their symbols on display at the memorial.

You made a real bad comparison there so I am surprised you keep trying to push it.

So you are saying that the seperation of church and state is total except for exemptions? That does not make it total dies it? The cemetery is taxpayer funded and if people think that no religious symbology should exist on taxpayer funded property, then it should include Arlington, otherwise they are being inconsistent. Should religious symbols be allowed on taxpayer funded property or not? If exceptions are made for one type of memorial then why not another? Are we consistent or disingenuous about our position?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DragynWyllow
Instead of taking down the cross, however, I would petition for other monuments to be added alongside the cross. If only Christians died, I could understand.

There are displays and other memorials on the inside that are non-Christian - - - minus any atheist display - as they were rejected.

Whoever is in charge of making decisions on this memorial is clearly Christian biased and needs to be replaced.

That huge Christian cross at the entrance is just WRONG! And IMO offensive to every non-Christian that was in someway a victim of 911.

My daughter is Christian. Even she is offended by the arrogancy of it.

My, how intense. How bigoted. How full of hatred that one would deny an artifact that the first responders--not armchair warriors, not the eternally offended--comfort and solace it's rightfull place in the pages of history.

That you find it "offensive" is just an example of your intolerance and bigotry--nothing more, nothing less. I

And, of course, you'd feel exactly the same way if a huge Buddah got blown out, landing in the rubble and was deemed a "sign" of hope.

Was then erected in the same manner as this cross, and Chrustisns we're shut out.

I know you damn well wouldn't and Christians would be marching on city hall and picketing, yada yada. Just like they always do when they're "persecuted".

Who is saying that anyone has to be shut out? Throughout the many pages of this thread, people have been saying that it would fine for others to put up their own religious symbols.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't feel like looking up the old case about the tomb of the unknown, but each plot is treated as a person and each person just as when we served is allowed a personal religious symbol. It is about personal rights at Arlington. Military cemeteries are mostly maintained by VA and fall under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Army. If your comparison held any water then not only would all symbols need be removed then there would no longer be any Military Chaplins. The key thing to focus on dealing with Arlington and other military cemeteries is they still fall under the military jurisdiction.

Also keeping the symbols from each individual soldier would "prohibiting the free exercise" of each individuals religion. Since the cemeteries are inclusive of all religions and symbols they are not endorsing any particular religion. The state itself is separate in that matter of the church.

This thread has become more personal than on topic...
Closed for review.

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review