Religion
Related: About this forum9/11 Museum To Atheists And The 9/11 Cross Lawsuit: Are You Kidding?
http://gothamist.com/2012/08/15/911_museum_to_atheists_and_the_911.phpBy Jen Chung in News on August 15, 2012 6:16 PM
Last year, atheists sued the 9/11 Memorial and Museum over the establishment's decision to include the so-called "9/11 cross." Atheists had claimed it would violate the First Amendment, but now the museum is asking for a court to end the suit, because, "As a threshold matter, the 9/11 Museum is an independent non-profit corporation. Its curators decisions to display particular objects, such as the artifact, in the museum are not state actions to which Constitutional protections apply."
The cross is made of two beams found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and American Atheists Inc. said last year, "The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It's a truly ridiculous assertion. It will just be a Christian icon, in the middle of OUR museum. This will not happen without a fight."
The Post has the details on the 9/11 Memorial and Museum's court filing:
After its discovery, the artifact was venerated by certain workers during the course of the rescue and recovery operation at Ground Zero, including in religious services conducted by a priest, the court papers say.
Many of them came to regard the artifact as a source of comfort and spiritual symbolism during their time at Ground Zero, and they treated it as such.
The museum also blasts the atheists for suggesting that a 17-foot-high A for Atheists or an American Atheists lapel button also be included in its exhibition.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)I have no more respect for fanatical atheists than I do for fanatical Christians (or religious nuts of other persuasions). The museum isn't even a government-run entity, so the First Amendment doesn't apply; they can put anything in it they damn please. This lawsuit isn't doing non-religious people any favors - just makes atheists look intolerant and dumb.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The actions of these fanatical atheists are no different than the fanatical Christians who murder abortion doctors, shoot up Sikh temples, and want the country to be ruled by biblical principles (or at least their opinion of what biblical principles are).
For those so impaired:
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)as some religious fanatics are or have been in the past. All I'm saying is that I don't respect fanaticism of any kind, religious or otherwise.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"I have no more respect for fanatical atheists than I do for fanatical Christians"
You said have "no more" respect for what you term "fanatical" atheists (who are filing a lawsuit) than you do for fanatical Christians, who are killing people.
I have a LOT more respect for people who are using peaceful, legal avenues to address issues they have versus those who are killing others in cold blood. Perhaps that's just me?
Would you like to reconsider your words?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)I give you, for example, Josef Stalin, an atheist who, along with Lenin, considered religion to be the opiate of the masses. Stalin outlawed almost all exercise of any religion, and caused the execution of over 100,000 Orthdox priests, monks and nuns during the '30s.
Fanaticism is always bad; it is especially bad when it kills people. I do not intend to equate the filing of a frivolous, stupid lawsuit with the Spanish Inquisition; however, I do maintain that extreme devotion to any belief system can ultimately lead to very bad results.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)How on earth are the atheists pursuing this lawsuit "fanatics" in any sense of the term? They have nothing at all to do with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, or any other infamous names you want to drop.
Your attitude is scary.
unblock
(51,982 posts)the cross for christians is worthy of inclusion, but putting ANYTHING in there for atheists, even a little button, nevermind something comparable in size, is just silly?
i wonder if they'll also include a koran or anything else to favorably honor the american muslims from among the 3,000 killed that day?
Jim__
(14,045 posts)The cross is part of the remains of the WTC, that's why it's being put in the museum.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'd say there were more than a few "A"-like shapes. But those didn't mean anything.
Then again, 9/11 is for Christians only. Nobody else died or lost anyone that day. Sorry I forgot that key fact.
frylock
(34,825 posts)a fucking MIRACLE i tells you!!1
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)and the reason the museum wants to keep it is that it was pulled out of the rubble of the WTC - it's made of steel beams that were part of the structure, and is therefore an artifact of 9/11, regardless of any religious significance it might have. If a 17' "A" or some other item with similar provenance had come out of the wreck of the WTC, I think the museum would include it as well. The point is not to "honor" any particular religion (or a non-religion) but to display significant 9/11 artifacts, and people can attribute whatever significance to them that they choose.
I really don't see a problem with it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that in the wreckage of a very tall building comprised of steel beams connected at right angles that one would actually find a piece of the wreckage that was made up of two intersecting beams. for the the impaired.
And are you serious with the "attribute whatever significance to them that they choose"? This is a Christian icon. Period. That is why people have a hard on for it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)that is collecting 9/11 artifacts. Personally, I don't attribute religious significance to the cross but I think it's an interesting and appropriate object to include in the collection. And it doesn't bother me that other people do attribute religious, specifically Christian, significance to it. The really important point is that the museum is not operated, funded or controlled by the government; therefore it can include whatever it wants without violating anybody's First Amendment rights.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and put a straight beam piece with no intersecting piece? Just a straight vertical line? Why do you think nobody got all hot an bothered about a piece like that?
This is clearly Christian and to make it the only/main piece is insulting and exclusionary. The fact that people don't see that on a progressive discussion board is disappointing.
unblock
(51,982 posts)and surely there was a crecent shape somewhere in the rubble.
do we hear about them?
of course not.
this is nothing but christianity taking an event important to all of america and planting their own flag on it and claiming it as their own.
if christians want to talk about a cross in the rubble in their own churches, by all means, they are free to do so.
but to put this sort of thing into an exhibit meant to be open to the public and not just christians is obnoxious and insulting and exclusionary.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This cross took on significance during the clean up and has meaning to some people.
How does that harm anyone? It doesn't stamp the museum as christian, it is just one of the artifacts on display.
This is much ado about nothing. It excludes no one.
unblock
(51,982 posts)this is harmless and non-exclusionary in the same way that "i get the pie, you get the crust" is sharing.
oh wait, they're objecting to even a tiny lapel button to honor the atheists among the victims.
so actually, it's harmless and non-exclusionary in the same way "i get the pie, you get the tin" is sharing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Excluding a lapel pin seems silly, but I haven't read anything about why they are taking that position.
FWIW, I generally prefer the crust to the pie.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is not irrational for the 9/11 Museum not to feature those items in the museum; as [museum director Alice] Greenwald explained, the 9/11 Museum is not in the business of providing equal time for faiths, we are in the business of telling the story of 9/11 and the victims of 9/11, the court papers say.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/cross_check_DJtUTQuCLLKx5POU8BhhJJ#ixzz23jO0rIdt
rexcat
(3,622 posts)In all probablity people of all faiths and those without faith died on that tragic day but by putting up this "cross" it sure looks like all but the Christians are being ignored.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Had there been other religious symbols that took on an important or central role during that time, they may have displayed those as well.
As it is, the other 999 artifacts apparently have no religious significance.
Are you aware that this was not constructed for the museum but was found during the days following 9/11 and became a gathering point for those who were doing some of the worst jobs?
To leave it out would be to rewrite the history in order to satisfy what exactly?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)the Jesus on the toast thing and leave it at that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)and sits on government-owned land?
Again I ask, what if a Muslim or Jewish or other minority religious group had filed this lawsuit? Would you be so quick to bash them like you are doing to atheists?
I'm well aware you won't answer me, though, since I'm being shunned (though not ignored).
Response to trotsky (Reply #33)
The Velveteen Ocelot This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to trotsky (Reply #33)
The Velveteen Ocelot This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)Many charities, museums, etc., are tax-exempt. That, and the fact that they are situated on government-owned land, doesn't mean they are governmental entities or that their actions constitute government action. There has to be some active entanglement of the government with the actions of the private entity, beyond mere tax status or land use. The "state action doctrine" requires a private institution to exercise state power before its actions can be considered governmental actions for the purposes of constitutional restrictions.
And yes, I'd feel exactly the same way if some other religious group had filed the lawsuit. I'm not bashing atheists (I am not religious myself); I'm bashing a frivolous, pointless lawsuit. I am very much in favor of the efforts by Mickey Weinstein to stop religious proselytization at the Air Force Academy, for example.
So there, I answered you. I don't think you care, though, since your mind is already made up (notwithstanding established principles of constitutional law).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But then, you've stated outright you don't have any more respect for these atheists, who are peacefully pursuing legal avenues, than you do for militant Christians who murder.
So you'll have to pardon me if I don't respect your judgment on this issue.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)and attribute symbolic or religious significance to them? And if so, did they ask the museum to include them? And did the museum turn them down?
In other words, were similarly-found or created items located among the WTC rubble offered for inclusion but rejected by the museum because they symbolized the "wrong" religion?
If so, that would be a valid basis for complaint, or even a boycott. But it's still not a viable lawsuit because the museum is not a government entity with an obligation to treat all religious viewpoints equally.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)a manifestation of a sense of superiority? That, in itself, is an absurdly glib response. Or are you suggesting that some kinds of fanaticism are better than others?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...who are peacefully pursuing legal means to handle their grievances into the same boat as people who kill others to settle their grievances? That would strike me as somebody attempting to establish a sense of superiority over a group they disagree with.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Stalin! Lenin! Mao! Pol Pot! *sputter* *spit*
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They have no legal case, as far as I can tell, and they really have no moral base.
The cross has a history. To confect an *artifact* just because is silly.
They really need to find some true cases of discrimination and state/church separation issues and spend their time/money on those. This case just hurts some and helps no one, imo.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)(especially schools) have favored Christianity over other religions, or over non-religion. Those actions are clearly unconstitutional and those are battles that deserve to be fought. This one isn't.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Is it *necessary* to include this artifact in what's supposed to be a museum to commemorate 9/11 for everyone?
Side question: What if it were a group of Muslims objecting to the cross? Would you have the same opinion? Answer honestly. That is, if you dare respond.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)You can object and find it offensive all you want - you have the right to do so - but the museum also has the right to include the piece in its collection. My criticism of the lawsuit is that there is no legal basis for it because the museum is not a government entity. It's just stupid to sue when there's no cause of action - nobody's right to religious freedom is infringed where there's no government action. They'll be thrown out of court, waste time and money and look foolish. There are other, better battles to be fought.
Pretty much every art or historical museum in this country includes items that are religious in some way. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example, has a huge collection of works with religious themes, primarily Christian. Should those works be removed because there isn't an "atheist" collection?
unblock
(51,982 posts)among them are simply to call attention to an unjust situation, to pressure the other side into settlement, or to have an eventual effect on public policy and future legislation or constitutional interpretation.
my view is that it is offensive and obnoxious and such things must be challenged. a lawsuit may well not get far, but a mere press conference of some atheists whining would accomplish even less.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,293 posts)or a good-faith argument for the suit, he or she is likely to be fined; the lawsuit will be thrown out of court and the client will have to pay the other side's attorney's fees. That's Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and most state courts have similar rules. So starting a lawsuit just to get attention or force a settlement can be a very bad idea unless you can point to some legal justification for it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's not quite as clear cut as you think.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Presumably too busy to do anything to stop the atrocity carried out in his name (or at least one of his names), he did at least leave one of his signs to comfort the bereaved. Nice work.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)that it isn't a religious icon, just a nice piece of rubble for the museum, wouldn't care if it had been erected upside down.