ok now-are we blind to irony, better remove that beam

[Rapscallion]

If even a single person turned to a Darwin-fish in the aftermath of the attacks as a coping mechanism, then it should be included. Because that's what the museum display is about: How people coped in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

^-.-^

No reason to turn to a Darwin-fish as it's not actually a symbol that represents comfort.

However, if you read the actual complaint *cough* - hang on, Jack Faire did that bit for me.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I've actually read the entire complaint, in all of it's ignorant glory.

The complaint is predicated on the cross being part of a memorial or some such, which it is very much not. It is part of a historical display.

Unless we don't care about lying to future generations, it belongs there and some made-up statue created for the supposed purpose of equality does not.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Actually, those are half of the known symbols mentioned in news articles. Please, do at least a little bit of research.

Wait, what? I've only seen two religious symbols mentioned in any of the articles about the cross hunk of rubble - the cross, which was given automatic acceptance into the memorial, and the Star of David, which was rejected several times before finally being allowed in. What other symbols are you referring to? (Links would be helpful.)

There is a third display mentioned. The one created by American Atheists. But it's not a symbol nor religious. It's just a display. It was also rejected for inclusion in the memorial. (It's hard to divide 3 in half.)

[Nyoibo]

Please take the time to read the complaint. They are calling for the removal of the cross, an item of historic significance in a display of history, specifically because "equal time" has not been given to other non-Christian items.

I've read the 19 page lawsuit, also several articles, from one article

This can either be done with a totally neutral memorial that concentrates on the tragedy and not religion, or one that allows everyone to put up a display of equal size and prominence. In the latter case, we have offered to pay for a display ourselves. If everyone is provided equal treatment, we will drop our lawsuit, because fair is fair.

They are calling for either everyone to have fair representation or none, not to "Get rid of the cross because it's a sign of t3h stupid!" Now, to be fair, the lawsuit states "equal representation of non-religious people" but considering they're the American Atheists that's not surprising, however what the lawsuit does is set a precident so there is no need for other lawsuits for equal representation of peoples of every faith.

[Andara Bledin]

They are calling for either everyone to have fair representation or none, not to "Get rid of the cross because it's a sign of t3h stupid!"

The part you quoted is talking about a memorial, which is there, and which doesn't house the cross. The cross isn't part of any memorial.

It is in the museum. It has always been intended to be part of the museum, and as a historical artifact it belongs in the museum.

The lawsuit is based on the idea that the cross is part of some memorial which has never been correct, making the entire argument against it's presence a lie.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

The lawsuit is based on the idea that the cross is part of some memorial which has never been correct, making the entire argument against it's presence a lie.

^-.-^

Oh?

So it's an elementary school that was pushing for the inclusion of the cross? A couple of historians from the local university maybe?

Saying that it's not a memorial is insulting to most people's intelligence. Like most people I have read a lot, a lot of coverage of 9/11 but this lawsuit is the first I have heard of this cross.

You would think that if it was such an iconic and important thing that there would have been stories galore about how they found it. I mean I gotta say seems like it would be even be great fodder for a chicken soup type story.

You know of course then we could surround the cross with historically relevant details like how it was found and the reaction of the people who found it.

To me it seems like a back door memorial.

This part may get me hate mail but honestly a cross is one of the most common naturally occurring shapes and to include this as anything but a memorial means the equivalent of adding "OH my god Jesus' face is on this grilled cheese sandwich" to a display case in a museum.

[Ghel]

The part you quoted is talking about a memorial, which is there, and which doesn't house the cross. The cross isn't part of any memorial.

It is in the museum. It has always been intended to be part of the museum, and as a historical artifact it belongs in the museum.

This argument doesn't make any sense. Those who want the cross incorporated into the memorial and/or museum want it included because of the religious meaning they have placed on it. Would they want it included just as bad if it was set up "sideways" or "upside-down"? It's just a piece of rubble until the Christians look at it and say it looks like their religious symbol.

It makes no difference to the lawsuit whether the place where the cross is installed is called a museum or a memorial. All that matters is that the location is government land and the museum/memorial is government funded. As I've mentioned before, there would be no objection to the cross being installed in a memorial that was entirely privately-funded and on private land.

[Andara Bledin]

Saying that it's not a memorial is insulting to most people's intelligence. Like most people I have read a lot, a lot of coverage of 9/11 but this lawsuit is the first I have heard of this cross.

The oldest article I can find on it doing a very quick search is from October of 2002, just a year after it was found. At that point, there were already people fighting to have it be part of the memorial that everybody assumed would be created.

An article from 2006 indicates that the 9-11 cross was left in place, at ground zero, until such time as it had to be moved to protect it during construction. It wasn't until half a decade later that they even removed it from where it was found. At which point it was moved to the church as a safe haven until it's place at the memorial or museum (as this hadn't been decided at that time) could be secured.

The Snopes article regarding the cross' existence, dated 2008
The Wikipedia page

In fact, American Atheists have been protesting it's inclusion in the memorial since 2003. Article at Snopes

It makes no difference to the lawsuit whether the place where the cross is installed is called a museum or a memorial.

It makes all the difference in the world as to the purpose of the area in which the cross is included, both legally and ethically, and to claim otherwise is either willful ignorance or outright bigotry.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

It makes all the difference in the world as to the purpose of the area in which the cross is included, both legally and ethically, and to claim otherwise is either willful ignorance or outright bigotry.

Oh? What difference does it make, and how does it excuse religious prejudice perpetrated by government agencies? Please enlighten us.

...I started to say more here, but I realized I was just rewording my last post, so I'll skip it.

[jackfaire]

It makes all the difference in the world as to the purpose of the area in which the cross is included, both legally and ethically, and to claim otherwise is either willful ignorance or outright bigotry.

^-.-^

You would be right if it was being included as a piece of rubble. Then of course it wouldn't matter which part it was. A piece of rubble from the Berlin wall could be considered either a memorial or a museum piece.

However they aren't pushing for inclusion of the cross on the basis that it is rubble from the Towers or they would let it be displayed as a piece of rubble.

They are pushing for it's inclusion on the basis that they have assigned religious meaning to it.

[Andara Bledin]

Yet another outstanding article from another non-religious individual arguing against the American Atheists lawsuit as being misguided, this time hosted at The Richard Dawkins Foundation and originally published by the Washington Post.

From that article:

Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told me that “if the cross is being displayed in a museum as an artifact of the event with accompanying information about what it is and where it came from, it’s highly unlikely that a court would strike it down.”

and

We are talking about history, albeit quite recent history, and the fact that some firefighters and mourners seized on this piece of metal as on object of veneration does not remove it from history. The object (I keep calling it that because to me, it has no more spiritual significance than the face of Jesus that some people have discovered in a grilled cheese sandwich) is part of what New Yorkers lived through. It is not a statement of government endorsement of Christianity.

Anyone who continues to claim that the distinction between museum and memorial are irrelevant tells me that such persons aren't interested in the truth, or equality - all they want is to have their way regardless of the evidence showing that their way is not supported by law, precedent, or fact.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Anyone who continues to claim that the distinction between museum and memorial are irrelevant tells me that such persons aren't interested in the truth, or equality - all they want is to have their way regardless of the evidence showing that their way is not supported by law, precedent, or fact.

^-.-^

Then flip it on it's side and call it rubble from the towers. The religious aspect of it is not history it is an interpretation being given to it.

History is supposed to be about facts not about seeing a face on Mars.

[Ghel]

Then flip it on it's side and call it rubble from the towers. The religious aspect of it is not history it is an interpretation being given to it.

Absolutely. And take the accompanying sign off of it:

This is the part I find most objectionable in a government installation.

[Andara Bledin]

Then flip it on it's side and call it rubble from the towers. The religious aspect of it is not history it is an interpretation being given to it.

The museum display is about how people coped during the aftermath, which I have stated multiple times in this very thread, so I'm not certain how it could have been missed by anyone with a genuine interest in the issue at hand.

^-.-^

[Andara Bledin]

This is the part I find most objectionable in a government installation.

It happened. That is a piece of history.

Unless you want to lie about what happened, you have to accept that it exists.

As much as it might be unpleasant, the truth is the truth.

^-.-^