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

[jackfaire]

It happened. That is a piece of history.


^-.-^

Then your saying you do want to include other religions religious symbols.

I mean after all if we are accepting how people coped in the aftermath as part of history then it's entirely appropriate to include other religious symbols to show how people coped in the aftermath.

[Ghel]

It happened. That is a piece of history.

I had three thoughts about this statement, and I'm going put them in order, to hopefully highlight the problem with this statement.

You think the sign just "happened" in the same way that someone just happened to find a cross-shaped girder in a building full of cross-shaped girders?

No, obviously not. You're referring to the attacks on the World Trade Center, which actually happened. Yes, that is a part of history. The cross, however, is just a piece of rubble. It is not a part of the culture surrounding that moment in history, it is a a piece of rubble given elevated status by a religious group.

What if a neo-nazi had found a swastika formed from girders in the rubble? What if the group of neo-nazis he belonged to attached a plaque to it announcing that this was a sign that the Aryan race should rule over all other peoples? Would you think that the swastika with its sign attached should be part of the memorial? If not, how does this differ from the cross and attached sign that Christians want displayed in the memorial? (And no fair making arguments from popularity or tradition.)

[Hyena Dandy]

Then your saying you do want to include other religions religious symbols.

I was not aware she said she didn't want to include other symbols.

[jackfaire]

I was not aware she said she didn't want to include other symbols.

Then what is she arguing? Because that is my position I have no problem including their religious symbols for reasons that historically that is how they coped but other religions should be allowed to do the same or we are lying to the future and telling them that only Christians die in American tragedies and that no one else exists.

In fact we have never heard of the Native Americans who are they? Weren't Christian so I guess they didn't exist.

That is also the position of they atheists they want equal representation for all faiths.

In fact is essentially the whole point of this entire thread is that they shouldn't be the only ones allowed to put into history how they coped.

[BlaqueKatt]

It happened. That is a piece of history.

It IS NOT a "sign of comfort for all" that IS NOT HISTORICAL, or even FACTUAL

[Andara Bledin]

Then your saying you do want to include other religions religious symbols.

I keep saying that other religious symbols are already being included as well as probably the bulk of that particular display (which isn't even on the ground floor of the museum) being made up of entirely other, non-religious items. As it's not open, yet, I don't actually know what else has been included other than what is revealed in a few press releases, most of which are wasted on this mis-guided ill-conceived lawsuit.

You're referring to the attacks on the World Trade Center, which actually happened. Yes, that is a part of history. The cross, however, is just a piece of rubble. It is not a part of the culture surrounding that moment in history, it is a a piece of rubble given elevated status by a religious group.

No, I'm not referring to the attacks.

As I have stated a number of times depressingly far from 1 and quickly approaching double-digits, I am speaking of the purpose of the display in question, which is about how people dealt with the aftermath of the attacks in the period of time afterward. I do not know what time frame is actually covered by the display, but considering that the intersecting steel beams were found 2 days after the attack and were given a position of reverence by the crews working on the rubble, the item has a distinct and incontrovertible cultural significance tied to the September 11th attacks.

Properly, this should include a number of religious icons as well as a number of items not tied to any religion at all.

....

Now, to take on another issue that I realized earlier today: Equal representation.

The lawsuit claims that in order to receive equal representation, a non-religious item of the same size should be included. However, even the greatest estimates place the number of non-Christian victims at perhaps 20% of the total.

If one were to be honest, then truly equal representation would require all other icons to equal, in total, about 1/4 of the size of the cross.

Yes, that is a ridiculous assertion. But no more ridiculous that the lawsuit itself.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I keep saying that other religious symbols are already being included...

Yes, you keep saying that, but you don't provide a link. None of the articles I've been able to find have mentioned anything other than the cross piece of rubble and the star of David.

[Andara Bledin]

For those who are unaware, THIS is what the memorial will look like. It is supposed to be 6 acres of trees, two reflecting pools set in the footprints of the original buildings with the names of the victims inscribed around their walls, and a building that will house a memorial pavilion in the above ground portion of the building, which will include an auditorium, an open area (likely including a refreshment section), a private suite reserved for families of victims, and a display of two of the original steel tridents from the towers enclosed in the atrium. The museum will be reached by taking an escalator below ground from the pavilion, one wall of which is part of the exposed slurry wall holding back the Hudson River, hundreds of oral accounts donated to the museum, as well as other items that include flashlights, jackets, helmets, gloves, wallets, IDs, photographs, a fire truck, collectibles, ticket stubs, mugs, letters, bits of rock, rubble, furniture, a bible fused to a piece of steel, emergency response gear, photographs, biographies, a prayer shawl, a star of David cut from recovered steel, a section of north tower antenna, twisted steel girders, the 36' tall last column, and a 17' tall piece of crossed girders.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

So, what, this is an argument from the relatively small size of the display, now? Are you really arguing that we should ignore a violation of church-state separation because the cross is only a small portion of the museum, which is, in turn, only a small portion of the memorial?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm saying the the argument for separation of church and state is bullshit.

Above ground, in the 8 acres of memorial display, it would matter.

Below ground, in the museum, it's irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant.

Particularly when you realize that the cross itself does not enjoy the sort of significant prominence within the display that is claimed and that would be necessary for there to even be a conflict. It's not even the largest or most impressive item in the collection, even within the same room.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

So you're arguing that because the cross is being displayed below ground that we should ignore this violation of church-state separation.

Note that I'm not arguing that the lawsuit is a good idea, but I am arguing that the reasoning behind the complaint is valid. I, personally, have no problem with the cross being on display as part of a "Reaction to the Attacks" collection. I would have a problem with it if the current plaque, which I posted above, is included with the cross. I would not have a problem if a different plaque was posted, along the lines of: "Found in the rubble by <guy's name> on September 13, 2001, this cross has been seen as a symbol of hope*, in the aftermath of the attacks, by Christians around the nation." The only stipulation is that other religious groups who want their religions represented with displays in the museum must be allowed as well, in order to avoid a government endorsement of a particular religion.

*I don't think it means what they think it means. If the Christians are right about this piece of rubble being a sign from their God, what is it a sign of? I see two options: Malice (“I orchestrated or allowed the attacks, then left a sign in the rubble to draw more sheep into my flock.”) or Incompetence (“I couldn’t stop the attacks or warn anybody about them, but here’s a piece of rubble as a sign that I still love you.”).

[Andara Bledin]

This is the last time I'll say this because if you can't understand this by now it's not for lack being informed:

There is no separation of church and state required for a museum display. Nothing is being ignored.

So, yes, the fact that it is below ground, as part of the museum and not the memorial makes a difference.

I am arguing that the lawsuit failed before it was ever filed and I'd be ashamed to have my name attached to such a thing as a plaintiff. The fact that they're getting worked up into such a froth over what was a major item for many thousands of people and which is enjoying a relative minor berth at the museum indicates some disconnect between the reality we all share and the reality in their heads.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

Wait...How will a sign stating the cross "will return to the wtc museum" be on display IN the museum? That seems fairly strange to me, personally. For the church holding onto the cross, of course it's a holy relic, just as the star of david was for the group that donated it, so their sign *they* are using while holding onto it will reflect that. I'm sure if the church had some relics from the Pope or the like, while under the church's care, they would be viewed as holy items...but once inside the museum, I'd fully expect the staff to view them as historical relics, not holy ones.

[Ghel]

This should be the last time I have to say this, but it doesn't matter if the location is called a memorial or a museum or anything else. All that matters TO THE LAWSUIT is that it's government land and government funds. So, yes, church-state separation does apply.

[Andara Bledin]

The people who make it their business to fight for separation of church and state, who know more about it than probably everybody on this board put together, say there is no legal standing for the lawsuit. (quoted in a previous post with a link to the article)

The lawsuit can say what it wants. It's still wrong.

^-.-^