I am a Jewish agnostic, and I think the atheists are butthurt.

Whether they like it or not, the story of those days did involve that cross. And hey, I'm not crazy about it, but there it is.

I don't think David Silverman does his group of atheists any special favors with the sarcastic story he gives.

Many people find it a source of comfort and hope. It seems to me the height of churlishness to take that away from people.

And yes, I'd still feel the same way if it were a star of david, a bodhi tree, or that ridiculous spaghetti monster.

Consider, for a moment, the interesting situation in South Carolina:
Though there are crosses by the hundreds painted and erected in memorial of those who died in traffic accidents, there is not one star of David.

That's right. Jews are simply not injured or killed in automobile accidents.

Is that true? Hell, no. It's a spin put on the situation by well-meaning but thoughtless people.

The identification of this part of rubble as a "religious" cross is simply wishful thinking–and not very good thinking at that. This was a selected artifact–one possibility out of hundreds of millions that could have been extracted from the wreckage. Physics, not faith, produced it.

Now, to the point: the destruction of the World Trade Center resulted from American foreign policy, no matter what you think of Osama bin Laden. I am not sure what percentage of the reconstruction is assisted by federal aid, but if tax money went there then the principle of "equal protection under the law" applies.

The application of law should not be suspended for convenience.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

If they put the cross front and center upon entering the museum I can see a clear objection to its inclusion, especially if nothing else was brought in.

The smartest thing to do would have been to build a non-denominational chapel and keep it in there. All this is going to do is get the 90% religiously observant pissed off.

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion."

And why not? All I ask is that my tax money not be squandered on religious ideas.

The 9-11 museum will include historical artifacts from the World Trade Center and from the terrorist attack that happened that day.

This "cross" is one of those artifacts. It is being displayed as one of those artifacts. Despite it being a Christian symbol; it is NOT being set up as an establishment of any one religion. Too bad these "got a bug up my butt" religion haters cannot see that.

Here's another news story showing how selfish the religion haters can be:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/07/grieving-california-mom-takes-down-cross-on-road-after-groups-protest-more/

I think the quote hits the spot: "It's so petty and sad that they have to complain over removing a cross"

Yep, petty and sad.

They would much rather inflict pain on those who lost loved ones than allow others to find some comfort in an otherwise harsh world in a way that they choose not to believe.

And why not? All I ask is that my tax money not be squandered on religious ideas. -- Radwaste at March 8, 2014 5:41 AM

In this case it's going to be about 60 square feet of floor space in about 10K of floor space.

Please calculate the cost.

The point is that arguing this is going to cost probably a few $100K in lawyers fees. The museum can argue that this is a historical artifact, and not a religious one. As wrong as the view may be, probably the American Atheists is probably going to lose.

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion."

And why not? All I ask is that my tax money not be squandered on religious ideas.

Posted by: Radwaste at March 8, 2014 5:41 AM

Are you assuming the museum was funded by the federal government?

Also, to meet your standard, do we remove all religious symbols from the graves at Arlington?

I have a lot of trouble distinguishing between a religious symbol, and a philosophical, or cultural one, since the three concepts are so closely related.

I see this also as pretty far afield from any establishment of a state religion, which is how the constitution addressed it with "separation of church and state"

AgnostiPagan, here. Two thoughts:

-- They aren't prohibiting the display of other religions' symbols.

-- The WTC Memorial is not, to the best of my knowledge, government property. If I recall correctly, it's mostly privately funded.

The text of the establishment clause of 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Did Congress make a law to cause this cross to be erected at the museum? No? Then the cross is not in violation of the Constitution. Next.

I'd amend that statement to "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from ever seeing of hearing about religion." Which is what some of these atheist groups are trying to force on others. Much of the problems are caused by the idea if 1 cent of government money is involved it all must be considered state. But that is a problem with government encroaching on non government areas rather than religion.

God is in the wreckage
See his holy aftermath
He won't stop your car from crashin'
Or keep trouble off your path
But look around for answers
A reason or something more
You'll find God there in the wreckage
But he's never there before

All I ask is that my tax money not be squandered on religious ideas.

All I ask is that mine not be squandered on a secularist orthodoxy.

Why are self identified atheists always such assholes?

I'm not a religious person, but I don't want to live in David Silverman's world either. He seems like a really shitty intolerant person.

You see the same personality type in atheist communities online - almost all of them are self righteous assholes. It's funny that they criticize Christians, because they're actually a lot like harcore conservative christians. And not just about religion, they get self righteous and condescending about pretty much anything - your gender, what you eat, your car, where you work, how many kids you have etc. etc.. It's just their default response to anything they disagree with. Atheism seems to attract people with

"All I ask is that mine not be squandered on a secularist orthodoxy."

Agreed. And since we all agree that Zuul is the One True God, all nonbelievers must submit or be roasted in the depths of a giant sloar.

It's in the government's best interest to only have one or two tax-supported nonviolent religions on a leash. Too bad if yours isn't one of them.

"Why are self identified atheists always such assholes?"

Because we don't have any vertically-haired gay-hooker-plooking meth-smoking hillbilly preachers weeping on TV for donations to pay off their luxury purchases?

I am the biggest non-believer ever and I think the "cross" is fine. I hate atheists who hate believers. Not believing is a rational choice, but I don't begrudge those who do believe. And this cross is less of a display of superstition than retaining ancient bones to Native American activist who want to burn sage over the bones.

Consider, for a moment, the interesting situation in South Carolina: Though there are crosses by the hundreds painted and erected in memorial of those who died in traffic accidents, there is not one star of David. ... That's right. Jews are simply not injured or killed in automobile accidents. ~ Radwaste

A memorial at or near the death site is not part of Jewish tradition. It is, however, a part of the pagan tradition over which Christianity was imposed - appeasing the dead spirits, cleansing the site, etc.

And those roadside crosses are in states other than South Carolina. There's one a few blocks over from my house here in California.

This piece of steel is just a symbol, but of what?
Human symbols... and for those far away that day, as well as those who spent weeks in The Pit, caring for the dead, this was a touchstone to them. I dunno how the Jewish among those groups helping, took it. Maybe they had other symbols. Dunno what any pagans, or atheists used as symbols, either. Maybe they looked at firemen working to exhaustion, and took that as a symbol of the indomitable will of humans.

Everyone tries to find some symbol to hold onto, in the midst of despair...
Seeing one other human holding their own symbol, feeling their pain through empathy and compassion... is what welds us as a community.

Why are we putting a museum there at all. Why does this remembrance mean anything? We will all look at different things, and remember different things, but the museum is a focalpoint, on which to remember. The things the museum contains, will spell out a story for those who seek it. People will use that space to process their grief, and in the future to learn about what was.

That each religion or faith, or belief system, has a piece of that, isn"t in question. Even if the belief is in "nothing".

We all can believe in something, even if it's each other, that makes us strong. If the Dali Lama sends a prayer for peace on a piece of paper... that could be in the museum too. If Mr. Atheist wants to send a message of hope, he can do that. Or if he was to suggest that a burned out fire engine would be a symbol of sacrifice and indomitable will... in keeping with atheist belief ... more power to him.
But he doesn't get the veto for what anyone else will see.

If The People, and what this tragedy means to them, were important to this atheist guy, he would seek to build them up.

What he desires, though, is power. The power to tell others what they can and cannot do. To dictate what they can and cannot believe.

I don"t see how this is an establishment issue, but I do see where militant atheists get their rep.

If this is a question of where's the money from, that is easily solved...

Because we don't have any vertically-haired gay-hooker-plooking meth-smoking hillbilly preachers weeping on TV for donations to pay off their luxury purchases? ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 8, 2014 9:55 AM

Then you should get some, immediately.

"If you don't receive the Big-Haired Evangelists channel, you need to march right down to your cable company and throw rocks through the windows until you get it, because these people are way more entertaining than any space alien you will ever see on Star Trek." ~ Dave Barry

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/29/60911/keeping-abreast-of-the-news.html

If the 9/11 Museum has to remove a religious artifact, do the Field Museum in Chicago and the National History Museum in New York and the Smithsonian in Washington also have to remove religious artifacts on display? 'cause they've got a bunch of fertility symbols, ancient statuary, and other flagrant displays of religious symbology.

And do the state-supported schools and professional teams with Native American mascots have to give up the eagle-feathered headdresses on their mascots? As we've been told by many trying to eliminate those politically incorrect mascots, they have religious significance for Native Americans and their commercial use is offensive.

Will government buildings now be required to have 13th floor - since triskaidekaphobia is not rational and is mere superstition?

swissarmyd is right. It's not about religion or freedom from religion. It's about power: "What he desires, though, is power. The power to tell others what they can and cannot do. To dictate what they can and cannot believe."

I'm agnostic at best and if you want to pray before a meal (even at my house), you're free to do so. If you want to pray before a football game, I'll bow my head and be silent during your prayer. It's called tolerance.

paul: Why are self identified atheists always such assholes?

I've never encountered a self-described atheist that I would call an asshole. Most of them seem to be decent people and respectful of my own beliefs, even if they don't share them.

Perhaps its because the mild-mannered atheists don't make the news by protesting any observation of religion.

It was moved to nearby St. Peter's church in 2006, where it bore a plaque which read: "The Cross at Ground Zero - Founded September 13, 2001; Blessed October 4, 2001;...

This has always puzzled me. What does it mean to have something "blessed"? Would this make a similarly shaped piece of girder somehow less powerful?

I'm a Christian, but I always considered "blessing" objects to be silly. Clergy do not the ability to somehow infuse objects with godly power.

>> I've never encountered a self-described atheist that I would call an asshole.

I have, but I should clarify that by 'self identified' I mean those who hold themselves out at representatives of Atheism, not just someone who is an atheist. I know plenty of people who are atheists, who aren't assholes.

But if you're familiar w/ the atheist and skeptics community online, I think it's hard to deny that there is an unusually high representation of pissy self righteous assholes.

I disagree. I'm all for the “more speech, not less” principle--but not religious speech on government property. We have robust private property rights for that. Putting the cross in place amounts to a subsidy for religious speech--the government is providing at the people's cost an avenue for the monument, the government will guard the monument and maintain it. And I don't like government subsidies for anything, but especially not for religious speech. This sort of tacit subsidy upsets the freedom of conscience. As a matter of course, a number of religious minorities won't be able to participate in the public forum, which marginalizes such people. It is a message: "You are not one of us." I find it grossly offensive.

Would it have been okay in 1789? Probably. By the same token, so would incarcerating members of the press who published salacious materials that we accept as perfectly normal today, or arresting members of a gay pride parade. The liberty of speech and of the press was evolving as matter of common law in 1789; the religious clauses from which that liberty sprung were as well.

Beautifully said, Swissarmyd

Patrick, based on his views as quoted here, I think you'd call Silverman an asshole. The folks at Pharyngula (with whom you seem to agree on nearly all political/social views) certainly do, and they're atheists themselves.

With any group there will be assholes. Some have a higher % others less so. One guiding condition of assholes is closed minds closed ears and ever open mouth. Because of that last part, they tend to always be the most visible and noticed members of that group.
Do I know many asshole atheists, unfortunately several, it may have to do with being close to DC, and far too many lawyers gov't types.
Amy is definitely not one, she has very open ears and an open mind.

Rex, first, thanks for the link on Silverman and Holloway. Silverman an asshole? I went to the page wanting to agree with you, but I don't. Yes, he's a bit cocky and arrogant. Who the hell is he to decide who's a conservative and who isn't? And what control does he have over who gets "dropped" from conservatism. (Though I agree that the statement that Jesus wrote the Constitution definitely merits not being taken seriously.)

But I also have to concede that he has some good points. A party that claims to be so anti-big government has no business in being anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, or anti-euthanasia. I'm not big on issues that don't really affect the population at large.

So, if the terminally-ill bed-ridden invalid doesn't wish to wait for nature to take its course and put an end to his misery, what is that to me? Or anyone else?

And I happen to agree that what we call conservatism is more like theocracy (with an equal part of plutocracy thrown in).

Paul, thanks for the clarification. I would suspicious of anyone who held himself as the atheism representative, particularly if he considers it his business to antagonize theists.

I agree Joe - both that Amy is not an asshole, and that assholes tend to make themselves conspicuous.

I obviously haven't done a formal study of why so many public Atheists are assholes, it's just a consistent trait that I've observed over many years from the vantage point of someone interested in skepticism. And frankly I'd like to see the skeptics community better distinguish itself from activist atheism, because it's apparent that a lot of these atheists are only selectively skeptical - their skepticism often doesn't apply to their ideology, for example. Many of them are reflexively PC and want to distort skepticism to endorse their preferred political beliefs.

Patrick, I was referring to Silverman's conservative views (fiscal conservative, owns guns) that I figured you'd hate. Those are what the Pharyngulans are on about.

Paul, the activist atheists (at least those you'll find at the link) would love to distinguish themselves from skeptics--because conservative and libertarian atheists "taint the Atheist Movement" (their term). Your last sentence describes them perfectly, if a bit too mildly.

So, the other 2 q? Bugging me... the original article was from 2011... and I couldn't tell who won or lost looking around the web... so, hows it going? And? Far as I can tell this is a privately funded museum, so what's the problem?

"As a matter of course, a number of religious minorities won't be able to participate in the public forum, which marginalizes such people. It is a message: "You are not one of us." I find it grossly offensive."

Posted by: Mario at March 8, 2014 2:12 PM

The part that I find grossly offensive is the descriptive line that this cross, held up because so many people view it as a symbol of the crucifixion of Christ and Christianity, is "a source of comfort to all."

The metal marvel may be a source of comfort to Christians. Describing it however as "a source of comfort to all" is arrogant, and pretentious in the way it runs roughshod over the religious and cultural identity of many people who come to grieve and does not represent many who died there.

Delete that arrogant claim. Then handle the rest as Amy suggested (move it over, give the context, etc.).

"The metal marvel may be a source of comfort to Christians. Describing it however as "a source of comfort to all" is arrogant, and pretentious in the way it runs roughshod over the religious and cultural identity of many people who come to grieve and does not represent many who died there."

Ah yes, the perpetually offended grievance industry, who are welcome to put up memorials tailored to their own beliefs.

We were warned about this in the seventies. It no longer discriminatory or offensive to do bad things to people.

Now you can offend them, by not being "inclusive" enough, and not "respecting their sensibilities".

This is how everything a public organization does ends up bowdlerized. Anything that is inclusive enough to offend no one, stands for exactly nothing.

No one has a constitutional right to not be offended.

I'm not arguing the Constitution.

I'm saying that if their goal is to create a memorial that serves as a memorial to all who died there that day, and to curate and display mementos that sanctify those who were lost while educating, and perhaps offering space to comfort, those who survived and those who come to learn - then the central location of the cross and especially the assertion that the presence of the cross is a source of comfort "to all" - fails.

Fails in a very big, pertinent way.

...at best it's as infantile as getting someone the gift you want for Christmas.

At worst it is horribly opportunistic (win one for Christ! Plant the team flag here!).

Put that cross where it belongs, physically and in its curated description - which is in the course of things, not front, center, and of service to everyone.

Fails in a very big, pertinent way.

Posted by: Michelle at March 9, 2014 9:19 AM

Who cares? Objects don't have meaning. People read into objects the meanings that they chose.

Why should you be butthurt by the wording or the display of a twisted piece of metal by a private organization?

Presumably the people who are putting together the display, care.

Go to an art museum. The historical context of each piece gives it different meanings over time (and with a lesser degree of relevance, with each reader). There's usually a descriptive card next to each piece to help the reader appreciate the importance of each piece. The pieces are displayed next to other pieces and sometimes placed within and outside the museum (Philly's Calder lineage starts inside the museum and continues outward down the boulevard, displaying the work of two or three generations of Calders) as part of the communication.

Without the curator there is no intention, without the reader there is no meaning, and when there is a disconnect between the two there is no successful communication.

Take, for example, the instance of the artistically illiterate reader of a Calder mobile at the Pittsburhg Airport, who took the initiative to paint it... Black and Gold. (Go Steelers!)

I care because I care. I care about art, communication, connection, comforting people who are grieving, honoring inherent human dignity, and I especially care about integrity - alignment - between one's words and one's actions, including self expression.

It's fair game to look at a public display put forth by a private organization and call out a disconnect between the stated intention and the follow-through.

Claiming that that the presence of the cross is "a source of comfort to all" lands with me like a cheap shot, using what should be an opportunity to sanctify to instead "score one for Christ."

Claiming that that the presence of the cross is "a source of comfort to all" lands with me like a cheap shot, using what should be an opportunity to sanctify to instead "score one for Christ."

Posted by: Michelle at March 9, 2014 10:19 AM

In other words, you are butthurt, because their interpretation doesn't line up with your sensibilities.

Michelle I don't think the cross is going to bear that statement - that's from St. Peters, which is a catholic church.

Paul, thank you for the clarification.

Isab - nope. I don't know how else to spell it out for you, so I'll leave it at that and move on.

Why should you be butthurt by the wording or the display of a twisted piece of metal by a private organization? Posted by: Isab

3 reasons.
1. Not all christians venerate the cross
2. Not everyone is a christian
3. They are using public funds to promote a narrow religious interpretation.

People of many faiths and no faith died that day.

Why does one of millions of welded cross beams become magical?

And if you look closely at the photos, the "cross" being installed at the WTC memorial is not the same "cross" discovered in the vault of the wreckage.

"3 reasons.
1. Not all christians venerate the cross
2. Not everyone is a christian
3. They are using public funds to promote a narrow religious interpretation.

People of many faiths and no faith died that day."

So you also are butthurt because your sensibilities are offended, and you think you have some sort of right to not be offended. Got it.

No, I think the law states that GOVERNMENT money should not be used to promote RELIGIOUS icons.

Especially a religious icon which promotes only a handful of sub sects of one religion out of thousands.

How do we know it is religious? The religious people claimed it so. My solution would be to put it on its side so it looks like an x.

And as I said, as it quite obviously is not the same cross as the one originally reported on, the argument that it is is a lie

"Why should you be butthurt by the wording or the display of a twisted piece of metal by a private organization?"

Exactly why no one should be upset when the Islamic Terrorist Pilots Association, a private club for exclusive and invited members only, puts up a welded steel crescent and a plaque celebrating Allah for granting victory on 9/11.

At Ground Zero.

On Easter.

Exactly why no one should be upset when the Islamic Terrorist Pilots Association, a private club for exclusive and invited members only, puts up a welded steel crescent and a plaque celebrating Allah for granting victory on 9/11.

At Ground Zero.

On Easter.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 9, 2014 10:11 PM

I don't have a double standard here, like you apparently think I do.

As long as they own the property they are using, I have no issues with that,

And if they want to do it temporarily on public property, the state of New York should grant a permit.

Just like the Nazi's got to march in Skokie,

I also love it when illegal immigrants hold demonstrations. (I don't think it advances their cause much)

Im not religious. None of this has any meaning for me, and I am for as much free speech as possible.

I don't think the government should be about protecting your feelings.

@ Gog
" puts up a welded steel crescent "
No different to me than if a non religious but political group wanted to erect a giant hand giving a middle finger, with the words suck it A.
No religious implications, but same sentiment.
To me no difference, but I think you somehow see enormous difference.