Should the cross-like beams be included in the World Trade Center museum?

1. 0

   savvydatingposted 10 years ago

   Should the cross-like beams be included in the World Trade Center museum?
   
   "American Atheists, an activist group committed to church-state separatism, has long fought the presence of the symbol, which was formed by steel beams and discovered at the World Trade Center site in the wake of the terror attack."  Billy Hallowell, from The Blaze.   
   Are the beams not a part of American history? What's your take?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 65

   wmhoward4posted 10 years ago

   If someone is offended by those crosses, they need to seek help. What would happen if Christians demanded that symbols of other faiths be removed? Pagan Zodiacs would have to go. Lions in front of buildings? No way. They were used to eat Christians in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD. The five pointed stars on our flag would also have to go. We also would not want to see four people on a horse at the same time as well. Gets ridiculus doesn't it?
   
   The Athiests involved are just taking their hate/revenge out on people of faith. They are not as offended as they claim. They are actually the intolerant ones. Many of the victims of 911 pleaded for God's help as their last moment approached. Don't take this from them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, wmhoward4.

      replyreport
3. 58

   retief2000posted 10 years ago

   Of course, if for no other reason then to annoy those so easily and foolishly offended.

   replyreport
4. 87

   Amanda108posted 10 years ago

   Absolutely the symbol should be included! Whether or not an atheist or non-Christian religious person believes the cross has any meaning is irrelevant because the fact is this cross *did* mean something to a lot of people which simply makes it a part of the history - which is what a museum is for.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Amanda108. So true. Why have a museum if it doesn't represent the significant aspects of a historical event?

      replyreport
5. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   This is one of those situations where, yes, it technically violates the church/state rule. However, it does so in such a non-threatening way that American Atheists just end up looking like D-bags. I'm an atheist and I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, but fighting this particular battle doesn't seem worth it. And there is certainly an argument to be made that it's a historical symbol more than it is a religious one, in much the same way that the U.S. is historically Christian leaning. I wish American Atheists would focus more on humanitarian efforts, rather than these shock campaigns, but I certainly hope Christian's aren't judging all atheists based on the actions of this one organization.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      M.T. Dremer. A fair comment. I appreciate your input.

      replyreport
6. 78

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   The atheist group in this case does not have any interest in excluding the cross from the museum. Their concern is that the prominence and size of the cross relative to other comparable faith objects is overwhelming and creates a sense of the one being promoted over all others. This they believe is exclusionary to those of different faiths.
   
   They have a legitimate point and It is worth having a conversation about. In this case, I don't really agree with them because the government had absolutely nothing to do with the objects in question obtaining significance. It isn't the government's fault that the one symbol held in esteem by Christians happens to be gigantic.
   
   Whether we agree or disagree, I fully support the suit. the judicial system is a critical component of our system that helps to secure, defend, and advance our human rights. Citizens championing civil rights really don't deserve to be called "intolerant" or be accused of "taking their hate/revenge out on people of faith," but overly dramatic and under-informed seems to be par for the course these days.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi junkseller. The lawyers, though, were over-the-top in stating,“Named plaintiffs have suffered, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and mental pain from the knowledge that they are made to feel excluded..." Secular items will be included...

      replyreport
   2. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Suing requires standing which requires injury. It's pretty common to see these types of claimed injuries (and very difficult to disprove as being real). I don't really agree with them, I just don't find any harm in the conversation.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      savvydatingposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi junkseller. The museum owner does not object to having an atheist symbol present, though no one knows what it would look like... So I guess a discussion has ensued. We'll see how it all plays out. I imagine the cross will stay, but who knows?

      replyreport