Atheism

I'm with you EB - don't care either way. But it the disconnect between christian ideal and the actions of christians is interesting.

I think that it is this same type of mentality that killed Jesus if he did exist!

These would be the people who would have found pleasure in killing Jesus and they think to themselves that they would have never done such a thing.

Me either, except I'd slightly more like it there than not. Isn't it made of remaining steel beams? The one photo I saw looked pretty good to me.

To be sure of my opinion, I'd have to look at the planned area sketches or whatever they have to show how it would look - it's an aesthetic decision for me, as then it would seem there should be other faiths represented, and how would that look. Quite a jumble. And one single symbol of all faiths (and what about no faith?) seems inept as an idea to me.

So, to mull some more, much of the reason I like Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial is the strong while spare design fit into the land form to represent all who died. So, I'm not sure. Maybe I've changed my mind already, within one post.

I do care if there is a cross.

There is no need for religious symbolism, and while a cross may be "comforting" to some, it's not appropriate to grant special privilege. More than just Christians died on 9/11.

American Atheists have proposed two alternatives in which they'd remove their lawsuit.

1) Provide equal religious representation at the site memorial.

2) Build a secular memorial.

A
R
The later seems wiser.

But the hatred displayed there is horrifying. I agree with Art.

Yes, but the hatred expressed may not be from the ones planning the cross. I didn't get that from what I read.

Definitely.

One of the things that made Abuzz crash and burn was the irrational, over-the-top and vicious hatred of Muslims which swamped the place after September 11th. But the fact that the lunatic fringe is loud is not evidence that the lunatic fringe is representative.

I would object to having a cross at the site because it would be no time at all before self-serving preachers made the site into a pilgrimage site, and that would ruin it for everyone. How are the families of Jews who died in the attack giong to feel if they go there and the place is overrun by holy rollers?

If they are so crass as to exclude other beliefs, then I agree that it does not belong.

What i'm talking about is not any official or planned exclusion, but some opportunistic bible-thumper bringing in crowds of holy rollers to the point that nobody else wants to go there. I don't have a brief to defend anyone's religious freedom, or freedom from religion. But in public places, people have the right, confirmed again and again by the courts, to be free from religious activities. If they put up a cross there, it's going to become a pilgrimage site for the christian, patriotic lunatic fringe, and bible-thumping, cynical preachers will try to exploit that. Note that one of the posters in the thread at the blog site has equated people who object to the religious idea with being un-American.

I do get your point and I have to agree. I hope those who make the final decision will have enough foresight to see it as well.

Good point.

I am an atheist, and I usually stay away from the I'm-an-atheist-but crowd. BUT in this case, I disagree with American Atheists and their lawsuit.

The First Amendment does not require that states rewrite history to make it palatable for atheists. When religious symbols play a role in secular events, states can properly include them in their memorials for those events. Those cross-shaped steel beams became part of September 11's history when workers found them, erected them on the site's debris as a symbol of hope, and TV stations broadcast the story around the world. Like it or not, those beams are part of 9-11 history. Excluding them now amounts to rewriting it for non-Christians.

For an example that really violates the separation of church and state, here's Richard Perry, governor of Texas, advertising the Christian god as a cure for the nation's ailments.


It's part of an event called The Response, a joint venture of various organizations devoted to evangelical political activism.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans fought to preserve the institution of slavery. Do you suggest that as there are no statues of Confederate generals or soldiers in the Lincoln memorial, history has been "re-written" for them? History will always record the making and erection of the cross. Your argument is notional only, and to my mind, without force.

The Lincoln Memorial is about Lincoln, not about the Civil War in general. But yes, if we were talking about a memorial about the civil war in general, and if the designers omitted the confederate side of that war, that would amount to a rewriting of history to me.

I see. Well, then, the Romans did not execute people with cruciform gibbets, so there the christian "cross" is a re-writing of history. On that basis, i object to erecting this fanciful object at the site. Furthermore, by your quibble about the Lincoln memorial, the site of the twin towers is about those attacks, it's not about religion, so i object on that basis.

From a christian source, a description of Roman crucifixion practices. The crucifix upon which the putative Jesus would have been executed (if he actually ever existed, and if Pontius Pilate was so willing to flout his nations laws and truckle to a bunch of Jewish hill billies) would have had the form of a "T."

I never ran across those articles, or if I did forgot them soon enough - I just on the face of it don't mind the steel beam crucifix; it's strong, and now that I see the history you refer to (I knew it was from the site, but not all your details), mind it less, especially if it could somehow represent all of our sorrow, whatever our faith or lack of it.

But, I do see Set's point re what it can set off, and that is additive to what bothers me if all other possible religions (or not religions) of those who died have to be represented, bringing me back to aesthetics.

That is, back to why I liked the vietnam memorial solution of Maya Lin.

I need, as I said, to go see what is going on with the memorial site plans. In the case of Maya Lin's work, the memorial itself is the symbol for all, the names of the dead carved in granite that is, as a shape, buried in part in a formed earth berm.

I don't know that that is what is going on in the WTC memorial plan since I don't remember seeing the plans, at least lately.

Wonder what Maya Lin would have done. I remember reading about her comments back not that long after 9/11. Mostly they were about the street planning around the site, to the extent I remember. And I vaguely remember that she didn't want to be involved, busy doing other work.

I also figure that wacko lulus of many sorts will show up, no matter what the decision.

I think that they should be aloud to put a cross there but I would like to see every other known religious symbol put out there as well!
I would like to see an electric chair beside their cross Representing reason and us atheist, letting people know that if Jesus was killed during our life time that they might be wearing a electric chair on the chains around their necks.

I would like to give Christians things to think about!

Then there is, of course, the matter of representing the heritages of all those people at the site that day, and all of their sexual preferences, so that groups could connect to them.. oh, and all of the businesses.