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

[RecoveringKinkoid]

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.

I'm curious why, if the star of David is cut from recovered steel, why you don't refer to that as a piece of rubble also.

And I'm also curious why you don't mention that you have a problem with it being included.

[Gravekeeper]

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

^-.-^

You have a lot more patience for this circular headache than I do. -.-

All that matters TO THE LAWSUIT is that it's government land and government funds. So, yes, church-state separation does apply.

Seriously, something can be historic AND religious AND displayed in a musuem as a result. It does not violate church and state. Otherwise the Smithsonian Institute would have to shovel out thousands of items.

Religion is part of history, whether you like it or not, and a significant portion of many musuems exhibits and artifacts are religious in nature. So, as has been explained several times, it does not matter if the cross is displayed in the musuem part of the complex.

[Nyoibo]

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

Can you please show me where, in anything that talks about separation of church and state it mentions "except in museums"?

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.

^-.-^

I'd think the lawyers for American Atheists would know a bit about the separation between church and state and they seem to believe there is legal standing, "my lawyer's better than your lawyer" doesn't hold up as an arguement.

[Andara Bledin]

Can you please show me where, in anything that talks about separation of church and state it mentions "except in museums"?

What I find most amusing in this entire discussion is that in the rush to decry the cross' inclusion in the museum collection, those attempting to keep it out are guilty of the very thing they are claiming it would be doing: violating the separation of church and state clause that is part of the First Amendment.

The separation of church and state not only forbids the state from putting up any display that gives the appearance of endorsement of any particular religion, but it also forbids the state from interfering in any display that includes religious items that are subsequently displayed with and alongside non-religious items.

In point of fact, the very thing that American Atheists is using to try to attack the display is that which prevents the display from being attacked at all.

Those who still cannot grasp this concept should take the time to actually learn about the laws that govern the land, particularly before they try to use those laws to defend their own religious intolerance and bigotry.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Can you please show me where, in anything that talks about separation of church and state it mentions "except in museums"?

The purpose of the museum should allow it. The museum is about people's ways of coping with the tragedy, which is a part of the history of the event. Or should we not allow any religious artifacts in museums?

It played a part in coping. It BELONGS in a museum. Other religious objects belong there too.

In a museum of history, (which, in essence, this is) it would be ridiculous to say that history needs to be rewritten to ensure that separation of church and state is maintained.

This is not an object of worship or veneration. It is a tool to educate future people on the reactions to this event, and to remind those who experienced them of the chaos, tragedy, and emotion of 9/11.

Religion played a part in people's reactions. And so, religion should play a part in documenting the reactions. People flocked to this object, even though it was simply a piece of rubble that looked coincidentally like a cross.

At first, I was against the idea that the cross be put at a memorial. Because I assumed, based on what I was told, that it was placed like a large gravestone, as an important centerpiece of the memorial. That, for me, would be a violation of church and state.

The first amendment says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part (up to 'thereof;') is obviously what's important here. Making it something standing 'in memoriam' of the fallen would violate separation of Church and State. But that is not the context of the exhibit. It is not saying "This is how we memorialize the fallen" but "This is how other people memorialized the fallen, look around the museum area and you wills ee other memorials."

The separation of Church and State is something I feel very strongly about, and at first, I would have signed on with a lawsuit like that, despite the incredibly improper and insulting part about 'their god who couldn't be bothered...'. But the more I read, the more I realize that the lawsuit misrepresents the case.

I'd think the lawyers for American Atheists would know a bit about the separation between church and state and they seem to believe there is legal standing, "my lawyer's better than your lawyer" doesn't hold up as an arguement.

Yes, yes it does. Because the question up for debate is 'is this suit valid'. "This suit is valid because the people who filed it say its valid" is not a good answer. A good answer would be to find an outside source concurring, explaining why it is. The validity of the suit, and therefore the person filing it, is what is up for debate. Their needs to be evidence BEYOND the fact that it was filed.

[Gravekeeper]

Hey, did you know the Smithsonian has 1982 Buddhist artifacts? But only 440 Christian ones. Someone should get on that. ;p

[Nyoibo]

Ok, what exactly do people think the lawsuit is about, because it seems people are jumping on the "They want to ban t3h cross ooh noes!" The lawsuit is about equal or no representation of religions, let me reiterate EQUAL or no representation.

[Gravekeeper]

Ok, what exactly do people think the lawsuit is about, because it seems people are jumping on the "They want to ban t3h cross ooh noes!" The lawsuit is about equal or no representation of religions, let me reiterate EQUAL or no representation.

The counterpoint being made is that representation does not matter within a musuem. As I still haven't seen any written proclaimation that they're going to hang the cross in the memorial for Jeebus.

[AdminAssistant]

This is not an object of worship or veneration.

Oh bullshit.

I have been to Ground Zero with a group of Christians and it absolutely is an object of veneration/worship. They saw it and lost their shit, hurried as close to it as possible and prayed. If/when it becomes a museum exhibit, you can bet that people will do the same thing.

[Andara Bledin]

Hey, did you know the Smithsonian has 1982 Buddhist artifacts? But only 440 Christian ones. Someone should get on that. ;p

This isn't about equality and never has been.

This is a big anti-theist dog and pony show designed to get the AA leader in the news and maybe even scare up donations for his cause. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that could have been better spent on actual transgressions that need to be redressed but, unfortunately, they don't make for juicy headlines and spots on televised debate panels.

If/when it becomes a museum exhibit, you can bet that people will do the same thing.

So?

No part of the separation of church and state says, "Oh, and if people are going to lose their shit over an item you can't have it installed as part of your display."

Every single argument in favor of the lawsuit has been entirely and utterly irrelevant, holding nothing more substantial that cobwebs and being used to try to hide a mass of out and out bigotry and lies.

Article at Temple of the Future, a Humanist website:
Cross with American Atheists
Article at the Washington Post:
The complete idiot’s guide to: protecting ‘American Atheists’
Article (referencing the above) at American Center for Law & Justice:
Angry Atheists at it Again: More Attacks No Substance
Supreme Court Decision regarding a case very similar to this in which the plantiff, Summum, was suing due to the inclusion of a Ten Commandments monument in a public park but would not include one for the Seven Aphorisms of Summum:
Deicision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UTAH, ET AL. v. SUMMUM, Decided February 25, 2009 (pdf)
Note, the above case has striking similarity to the current one and is a glimpse of how this one, too, will be shut down.


^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh bullshit.

I have been to Ground Zero with a group of Christians and it absolutely is an object of veneration/worship. They saw it and lost their shit, hurried as close to it as possible and prayed. If/when it becomes a museum exhibit, you can bet that people will do the same thing.

I fail to see the relevance to the rest of my point. My point was that that is not what it is in the museum for. I explained why it is in the museum, which is its purpose. People reacting to its presence are not the state or a church, they are individuals.

It is an object of veneration, I'm sure, but it is not in the museum to be venerated. As I explained.

[HYHYBT]

The "equal representation" line is, and is intended to be, nonsense unless there exist such equivalent ARTIFACTS which served a similar purpose for other religions, and those equivalent artifacts are currently being rejected. Is there any evidence that this is the case?

The goal instead seems to me to be the eradication, to the greatest extent possible, of publicly-visible religious symbols. They mostly cannot be barred from private property, but that desert cross business a couple years ago proves that, at least for some involved in this sort of thing (who may have nothing to do with the current case) it's not *really* about who owns the land. As I understand it, that one went like this:
"You have to get rid of that cross. It's on government-owned land."
"OK, we'll sell the land then. That way it will be on private property and they can do what they like."
"WAAAAA!!! You found a loophole! That's not good enough. It has to come DOWN!"
Court comes up with a way it can stay; cross is promptly stolen. Good luck stealing this one.

[Gravekeeper]

This is a big anti-theist dog and pony show designed to get the AA leader in the news and maybe even scare up donations for his cause. It's a waste of time, money, and resources that could have been better spent on actual transgressions that need to be redressed but, unfortunately, they don't make for juicy headlines and spots on televised debate panels.

That was basically my first impression when I heard about this, yeah.

[Evandril]

Ok, what exactly do people think the lawsuit is about, because it seems people are jumping on the "They want to ban t3h cross ooh noes!" The lawsuit is about equal or no representation of religions, let me reiterate EQUAL or no representation.

Can I start a lawsuit to get scientology artifacts put in the museum displays about the crusades? It's all about religion, why doesn't that one have representation? That's not equal!!

If it wasn't there when the historical event happened, it does not belong in a museum display about said event. If you can show there are other religious artifacts that were part of 9/11 and the aftermath that are being refused, that's one thing...but the fact they aren't displaying things that they *don't have* doesn't sound like discrimination to me.

[Andara Bledin]

The fun part is that according to the Supreme Court decision that I linked to earlier, it could be the only religious item in the entire collection as long as the policy for submission and acceptance was fair and unbiased in any manner.

^-.-^