Sept. 11 memorial defends display of steel cross
NEW YORK (AP) - A judge should toss out a lawsuit by a national atheists group seeking to stop the display of a cross-shaped steel beam found among the wreckage of the World Trade Center, lawyers for the operators of the Sept. 11 memorial at ground zero say.
The lawyers said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Monday that the 17-foot-tall beam will be displayed as a historical object because it tells part of the story of the rescue and recovery effort after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which destroyed the twin towers and killed thousands of people.
They said the display of the cross among 1,000 artifacts, photos, oral histories and videos is no different from the showing of hundreds of religious paintings routinely displayed at government-supported art museums.
The nonprofit group American Atheists sued the National September 11 Memorial & Museum's operators last year, saying the beam's display would be unconstitutional. A message left with a lawyer for the group was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Lawyers for the memorial operators said in their papers that the steel beam, found by rescue workers two days after the terror attacks, was an inspiration. They said workers "took solace in its symbolism as they searched for survivors and found mostly victims."
The lawyers noted that the museum is an independent non-profit corporation and decisions by its curators about what to display are not state actions subject to constitutional protection.
"But even if the independent decisions of a non-governmental body could constitute state action, there is no legal authority for the proposition that a museum is prohibited from displaying an item with historical, cultural or artistic significance merely because that item also has religious significance," the lawyers said.
They accused the atheists group of seeking "to revise history to eliminate religion from its retelling, ignoring the fact that the people most closely tied to the September 11 tragedy responded in varied ways, including, in some cases, turning to their respective faiths."
The museum, which is mostly underground, was scheduled to open this year, but delays have left its opening date uncertain.
The lawyers said in papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Monday that the 17-foot-tall beam will be displayed as a historical object because it tells part of the story of the rescue and recovery effort after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which destroyed the twin towers and killed thousands of people.
They said the display of the cross among 1,000 artifacts, photos, oral histories and videos is no different from the showing of hundreds of religious paintings routinely displayed at government-supported art museums.
The nonprofit group American Atheists sued the National September 11 Memorial & Museum's operators last year, saying the beam's display would be unconstitutional. A message left with a lawyer for the group was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Lawyers for the memorial operators said in their papers that the steel beam, found by rescue workers two days after the terror attacks, was an inspiration. They said workers "took solace in its symbolism as they searched for survivors and found mostly victims."
The lawyers noted that the museum is an independent non-profit corporation and decisions by its curators about what to display are not state actions subject to constitutional protection.
"But even if the independent decisions of a non-governmental body could constitute state action, there is no legal authority for the proposition that a museum is prohibited from displaying an item with historical, cultural or artistic significance merely because that item also has religious significance," the lawyers said.
They accused the atheists group of seeking "to revise history to eliminate religion from its retelling, ignoring the fact that the people most closely tied to the September 11 tragedy responded in varied ways, including, in some cases, turning to their respective faiths."
The museum, which is mostly underground, was scheduled to open this year, but delays have left its opening date uncertain.
Did a bit more digging this morning and found the complaint filed by American Atheists. Unless this group is lying in its brief, I think they are right. There is just too much government involvement and funding in this case to allow this memorial to become a religious shrine.
Â
The site is public land and the project is largely funded with public monies. Initially, American Atheists simply asked that symbols for other religions be included but there were arrogantly rebuffed because apparently only Christianity matters. As well, the supposed miraculous cross has been altered by the workers on the site to make it more cross-like which diminishes any claim of uniqueness of the artifact.
Â
One of the plaintiffs is the brother of one of the first responders who later died in 2005 due to the inhalation of the airborne debris during the rescue. This brother rightly wants his brother's religious perspective honored, again a request that was rebuffed by the Christian supremacists in charge of the project.Â
Â
This could all have simply been avoided had the Christians in charge not been intent on using this memorial site as nothing but another sordid attempt to advance and advertise their religion. Given the government funding this does rise to a governmental act and thus no religious preference should be allowed.Â
Â
Importantly, the relief being sought is simply the addition of symbols that represent all of the victims, not just the favored few.Â
Â
For those who like to read complaints:
Â
http://atheists.org/upload/WTCFirstAmendedComplaintFinal.pdfÂ
 @kennewickman  Initially, American Atheists simply asked that symbols for other religions be included but there were arrogantly rebuffed because apparently only Christianity matters
------------------------------------------
This is the part that is so messed up. They threw a fit over a civic center being built around the corner on private property with private money.
Now they want to errect an actual religious symbol on public property with public money and when people have a problem with that, they scream "persecution."
Â
I say it is time to break out the lions and show these people what persecution really is because I am pretty surethat being persecuted means more than, "You are not letting me force my views on you."
Â
 @T H I S Christians are unique as far as "persecuted groups" go. They have millions of churches across America, I see derelict street preachers in downtown areas in every city, radio stations up the wazzo, book stores all over the place, enough Televangelist channels to make the mind reel, they have their marketing on our coins and currency and they are not being rounded up. Maybe it is just me but I am having a hard time calling all this a 'Christian Holocaust'.
 @kennewickman 1st paragraph: Seems like a reasonable position to me. In fact, I kind of think that even accepting non-profit status from a government has the potential to compromise a church's message.
2nd paragraph: Heh! Me too! Sometimes I even dig up my own copy of the Book of Mormon or The Kingdom interlinear translation by the JWs.
 @relatively For me it has always been about, and will always be about, government involvement. Be it a street preacher or a mega-church, I just don't care what people do. Once any religious organization wants public money, it becomes a whole different story.
Â
As for the "just talking to them about it", that might be true for some but not for me. I will gladly debate any pair of young Mormon boys at my front door, any Jehovah Witness or any corner Scientologist looking for recruits. I don't approach them but if they approach me I will turn the tables on them and make them defend their religion rather than preach it.Â
 @kennewickman  @T H I S Good point -- It's hard to argue that Christians are really persecuted in America.
On the other side, though, Americans do seem to have a rather interesting definition of "force." In other countries "forcing my religion on someone" involves giving them a "convert or die" ultimatum. Here it often means just talking to them about it.
Fine, let em take it down. Then we can counter sue the Atheists for it not being there for our beliefs.Â
These atheist bully groups like to intimidate local cities and schools. threatening to sue them if they use the word Jesus, God, Christmas or Easter- gasp- BUT KNOW THIS- A very large majority of Americans believe in God, or consider themself religious,or spiritual. So don't let these bullies push you around
 @Saving Grace And at least 20% of Americans are NOT Christians. You must be a firm believer in the "Tyranny of the Majority" and totally reject the constitutional protections for minorities.
While I am not a religious person myself, I feel that people have the right to display the cross as long as other religious groups can display their own symbols without complaints.
@3rase Yep, if you do it for one faith, you should do it for all of them. If they are a private group, no one can force them to do that but it would be the polite thing to do.
 @kennewickman No law says that.
 @kennewickman By the way, the memorial is also going to include a Star of David. Both the cross and the star will be inside the museum once it is completed.
Â
http://www.911memorial.org/blog/911-memorial-president-joe-daniels-wtc-cross-part-history-updated
Â
Â
 @kennewickman Can you give me a link to a source that shows that other groups requested that their symbols be displayed there and they were denied?
 @glamdring2012 Apparently, you would be wrong about that. Other groups did come forward but were kicked to the curb for having the audacity to not be Christians. As well, the cross was altered to make it look more like a cross so it isn't some magical proof of anything. Sorry there guy but facts turn out to be kind of  useful in these types of things.Â
 @glamdring2012 Neat group of people you Christians. Some people set out to create a memorial for the victims and they decide that they will commemorate the religion of only the Christians. If anyone wants the religion of any of the others recognized, well, the families of those victims need to come forward and what, beg? I guess it would be too much for a group of Christian zealots to even admit that there are those who don't share their particular set of mythical beliefs.Â
 @kennewickman  Well I don't see any other religious groups coming forward and wanting to put up their symbols. If they want their symbols included, they should come forward.
Â
The main reason this particular symbol was put up is because it was World Trade Center wreckage that happened to look like a cross. Despite what some people like yourself think of the cross...most people do see it as a symbol of hope and peace (including many non-Christians), so they felt it was appropriate to place it there. There hasn't been any wreckage that resembles any other religious symbols that I am aware of. If there was, and only the cross was put up, than you would have an argument.
 @kennewickman Good night Kenne, sleep well knowing you're going to make great fertilizer one day.
@Saving Grace Yeah, no law says Christians have to be polite and include the religious symbols of the various faiths of all those who died and not just the Christians. No, there is no law that says Christians have to be polite or even decent human beings.
Explain to me what the harm is in displaying a piece of metal that happens to resemble a cross? Sounds like a bunch of intolerant athiests to me.
 @Lord Farquad It does no harm at all. People like kennewickman are miserably unhappy and can't stand to see others celebrate or displayin public their acts of faith in a higher power. How pathetic.
 @Saving Grace Yeah, I am miserable. Let's see, I have been married almost 36 years, two great kids all successful in their careers, and everything I physically need. I worked in banking, played my cards right with money and retired at age 54. I spend my days golfing or pursing my woodworking hobby. I ski in the winter and otherwise travel when and to where I want. Yeah, life is horrible, I best get me some Jesus.Â
Â
Or, maybe it is closer to what John Lennon wrote:"God is a concept by which we measure our pain"Â
@Lord Farquad Since there were Mulims, Jews, Atheists and who knows what else that we're killed that day, are you okay with all the religious symbols being incorporated into the memorial? Would some "piece of metal" symbolizing atheism be okay? Symbolizing Islam? Or is this just a deal for Christians?
 @kennewickman  @Lord If there WERE some symbol of other religions OR of atheism found at the twin towers site during the rescue, people would have attached hope to it LONG ago.
These atheists groups are liars and trouble makers. Why any judge even allows these clowns in the courtroom is unAmerican.
 @Saving Grace Because all citizens have rights, not just smug Christian zealots who think the world revolves around them.Â
 @kennewickman Where do you derive your moral code?
 @Saving Grace That question is actually meaningless. You start by some assumption that there must be some god or goddesses creating morals. Nope, it is just stuff we human animals figure out so that we can live together.
Â
As to comportment with friends and family, I was going to ask you the same thing.
 @Saving Grace It's called reasonable society. You can't pin it on divine revelation, it's elementary for social animals (the one exception being "you can do bad things if you can get away with it", which is always an available option but few groups write it out so explicitly)
 @kennewickman You explained your morals, but not where you got them.
 @kennewickman But where does that line of thinking come from? Where did it originate? Are you capable of answeing or commenting without being so arrogant and condescending? Geez, are you like this in person, and to your friends and family?
 @Saving Grace The answer to that is probably out of your league. They don't come from a book because no human needs a book for this stuff, it is all just too elementary. In short, it is basic ethics; don't hurt others, don't steal from others, honor your commitments to others, leave others in peace to follow their own path, defend yourself as needed, work together so everyone can live.  All of these are simple thoughts that predate all religions, no religion can claim these as their own. They work quite well actually. Yours don't.Â
As a militant atheist myself, this group has this one wrong I think. If the whole deal is a private organization and has rec'd no public monies, grants of land or in-kind support from any level of government, then there is no issue and they should quickly withdraw their suit. If it is truly a private deal then it is just like anything else, they are free to display what they will. However, if even a single penny of government money has gone into this project, it then falls under state action and all religious symbols should be included if any are to be included at all. Although they are free to do as they will, it appears that the Christian cross will be the only religious symbolism included which doesn't fairly represent those of different faiths that died there. I don't know this group or support them but they might need new in-house counsel.
 @kennewickman WHAT symbol from another religion was FOUND at the site?
I don't pretend to have all of the answers but I'm certain of one thing...neither do the atheists. They will have to learn how to activate the muscles in the neck that turns their head so that they don't have to look at the cross. It's not like the Christmas trees that cause so much trouble. Those things are truly a threat, evidently.
It kind of perks my curiosity how in this country of freedom of religion how many people would deny them. It seems that most atheists are committed to denying that right to any person that would express their belief in public. It seems that anyone that believes in this country would be willing to let everyone make that choice without being ridiculed. Even though I don't agree with all beliefs, I make no derogatory comments, and do not try to deny others their beliefs.
Â
This cross hurts no one, and is certianly not a symbol of forcing beliefs on anyone. If you think I'm wrong for being a Christian, why can't the snide and belittling remarks be kept silent in an effort to allow the freedoms that we enjoy to be a part of living in this great land of freedom?
 @WARevolution This group as I said above likely has this legally wrong unless I am missing some key detail that would reveal government funding or involvement. No credible atheist that I know of is truly seeking to deny religious rights to anyone seeking to express in public. On the contrary, I totally support true freedom of religion for all people, the last thing that should ever happen is that someone comes up with a list of "approved" religions.  The issue is government involvement, there is just no way that our government can become involved in supporting or recommending any religious activity or belief and do it in a fair and even-handed way. Which is why stuff like placing the 10 Commandments on court house lawns is so contentious, they may represent the views of some citizens but certainly not all.  As a taxpayer, I don't believe I should have to confront a written message as I enter a courthouse tell me that I shall have no other God before me. As to the snide remarks, you will just have to get used to it. Atheists, agnostics and those of minority religions have throughout history been harassed, denied legal rights, publicly humiliated, tortured and murder by the majority religions. It seems a bit late to suddenly be calling for mutual respect. As well, there are facts in this  universe. If someone wants to proclaim x, y or z in public, they should expect to be challenged on the facts of their assertions. Just because someone wraps something up in the mantel of religion does not entitle it to mandatory respect.Â
 @kennewickman Even if they did use public money it is NOT unconsttutional. Prove that it is. Congress paid for bibles and handed them out to new representatives.
 @relatively  @Saving Grace Uh C.S. Lewis was an awesome Christian writer, love his works.
 @Saving Grace But plenty of non-Christians appreciate the teachings of Jesus. C.S.Lewis addressed his "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" trilemma to people who consider Jesus to be a great moral teacher but reject his claims about himself.
 @kennewickman That is what you want to believe. Jefferson, as you said in another post, cut the verses said by Jesus and he compiled those into one book. CORRECT? You even admitted that elsewhere. Thsi book was referred to as: The Jefferson Bible. He believed in the parables and morals Jesus taught. .
@Saving Grace No, he clearly handed out his version, he just took out the stupid. It was pretty thin by the time he was done. What he handed out was not a religious tome but a simple collection of basic moral principles. You said Congress passed out Bibles. They didn't, they passed out what was no longer the Bible. Jefferson was big on the study of all sorts of things and did not constrain within any religious faith.
 @kennewickman Oh, I think it's VERY true and you can't prove otherwise. Your link has nothing to do with the fact that the US Congress handed out Jefferson bibles to new members for 50 straight years. For those of you who do not know what a Jefferson bible is, TJ sliced and diced out all of the , what we call, red letter verses by Jesus, and compiled them into a book. Kenne here will squeal it isn't so, but we have tangible proof. :D
 @Saving Grace Actually, you are wrong on both counts. But please, display your historical ignorance and keep pushing that "Congress, purveryor of fine Bibles since 1776" Barton nonsense. You will look like a genius.Â
Â
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19840
Further proof that atheists can be just as dogmatic and pushy about their world views and beliefs as any religious person.
 @glamdring2012 Turns out that the dogmatic and pushy best described the Christians who control this project and refused to allow other religious symbols based upon their own interior beliefs in the superiority of Christianity. Given that the supposed cross has been altered, any claim that the cross is only being displayed to its uniqueness as an object shaped by the collapse then falls flat. Had the managing group allowed other religious symbols to also be crafted and then displayed there would be no case.Â
 @kennewickman So you are saying that the 9/11 memorial is controlled by Christians? I don't know where you are getting your information from. I would sure like to see a link from you showing that the managing group denied requests from other religions to put up their symbols.
Sorry, modern atheists...you've become just as intolerant, whiny and tiresome as you claim believers to be.
I deplore any one who has to whine and moan because they think that the world would be better only with their way of thinking, by this I mean the athesists that do the sueing everytime something like this comes up. Why can't you coexist like everyone else is expected to? I was alway told don't judge lest you be willing to be judged. I don't see anything wrong with this cross, it is a simple sign of Hope. Don't you atheists beleive in things like Hope, Love, Peace and Honor or is that beyond your ability to think about others? Why is it that what I see of atheists is so self-centered?
 @Dvossjr "was alway told don't judge lest you be willing to be judged."
OK, so the "christians" are going to stop judging gays and move on?
Â
"Don't you atheists beleive in things like Hope, Love, Peace and Honor"
Yes, and we do not need some mystery man in the sky to make us do it either
Â
Â
Â
 @T H I S  @Dvossjr Actually, it is the atheist group teaching the Christians a thing or two about "Hope, Love, Peace and Honor". Other religious groups asked that other religious symbols be used and were kicked to the curb. It turns out that it takes a group of atheists to force the Christians to practice some of their greatly advertised love and include other people and peacefully honor those who practice a different religion. The group running the project has suddenly relented and will now "allow" a Jewish symbol but no others, they think this minimal inclusion will get them off the hook for this taxpayer funded project. It won't. They know they are in trouble on this one.Â
 @kennewickman  It is the "everyone else should act with cristian values" attitude project by so many christians who then do anything but act like christians that have really gotten them in trouble.
Â
 @Dvossjr Because atheists like Kennewickman, Miller, This, etc ... are the most intolerant hate filled people there are. They expect you to bow & accept their beliefs, but they show total intolerance for anyone else's beliefs.
 @Gaikokujin Actually, no. I simply expect you not to go shoving your judo-christian values in my face with my tax dollars.
Â
So what you just did there, is your usual projection. You are rather good at that. You should teach a course in it. Â
 @T H I S  @Gaikokujin ROFL & you have missed it also. You are a religious zealot as well, except as an atheist you have decided to create your own god, yourself, & your own religion, moral relativism. As to the "judging part? Please, you judge everyone so give me a break. I am not on the cross & I am not a victim, that is what you the atheist keep crying out about, that you are victims every time you have crosses, hear about the cross.
 @Gaikokujin The point you missed, because you are a religious zealot, is that (unlike you) I amnot going to judge members of a religion over the actions of a few.
But I will judge you over the actions of the majority.
Now get back up on your cross, you arestill acting like pathetic hypocritical judeo-christian victim.
 @T H I S Unlike me nothing. David Koresh wasn't a Christian, but of course you already know that. For you any "white guy" that holds up a bible is a "christian." When have I ever said the poor shouldn't be helped. As to the muslim stories, BS !!! In any of those stories I am commenting regarding those"peaceful" muslims that are murdering others.
 @GaikokujinÂ
If by attack, you mean, "call them out on their BS," then yes, You are correct.
And it is projection because any and every story about muslims, you are there to condem the entire religion for the actions of a few. but then the tables are turnedon you, well... suddenly, you are a persecutted victim. And what is really ironic is, I am usually calling out christians for stuff that almost all christians do.
Unlike you, I am not going to judge all christians on the actions of David Koresh.
But I will call out the fact that most christians in this country are very selective on what parts of the bible they think society should follow. And I will call out the fact that most christians in this country will talk about peace and love and respect, and then go out of their way to judge others.  The will spend millions to keep some people from getting married because that is what Jesus would do, right?
The christians in this country will rally around us spending aas much on our military as the entire rest of the planet combined and then throw a fit when our government tries to help poor and needy people in our country.
Â
So yes, I wil call you out for being the dishonest hypocrites that you are. And if you think I am wrong, then I expect emperical evidence. And the next time a story about muslims comes up, you can show the same respect you demand.
Â
Â
Want respect? Earn it. Otherwise, STFU and get back up on your cross.
 @T H I S Uh no projection there at all. You have posted many angry intolerant comments about Christians in these forums in any articles where a Christian speaks up, whether the article has anything whatsoever to do with anything related to "tax dollars being used to pay for anything". You attack Christians in your posts any chance you can get so please give a break with this "projection" crap.
 @Gaikokujin Nope, I don't expect you to bow to any belief except your own, I have none that one could bow to. I do expect you to keep your garbage off government property though. Do whatever you want to on your property, I could care less.Â
 @Dvossjr While I disagree with the legal premise this group is trying to pursue, most of the lawsuits by atheist groups are well-considered. I don't believe that I, as a taxpayer, should be required to support religious messages from our government. You seem to be calling for coexistence but that can't work if by that you mean I have to help pay for religious iconography and messages on government property. On private property a church can do anything it wants, it is all about government involvement.
Â
The self-centered ones generally are the ones who say to themselves "our message is so nice that I can't imagine that anyone would not like it and they would have to be really despicable people to complain". Other people see the Christian message as one of mental enslavement and don't feel obligated to support it.Â
 @kennewickman I wonder why the US Congress authorized the printing of the first English bible back in ....1782.
Philadelphia, September 10th, 1782.
Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on Mr. Aitken's Memorial."
Whereupon, RESOLVED, THAT the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.
CHA. THOMSON, Sec'ry.
 @Commenter87643 You might want to re-think what is a credible source.Â
 @kennewickman I've been reading this discussion with some interest. But you present no particularly credible references for your claims. Perhaps you could try again.
 @Saving Grace Are you referring to this Aug 15 article? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/david-barton-vs-his-critics-theblazes-extensive-analysis-of-their-claims-thomas-jeffersons-faith/
It sounds pretty balanced to me (presenting Throckmorton's criticisms and Barton's responses and letting the reader decide). Also, the World Magazine articles that kennewickman linked to earlier take a pretty neutral stance. (World is known for being both theologically and politically conservative.) I hadn't heard of Throckmorton before, but Grove City is certainly not a hotbed of liberalism, and it seems unlikely that his goal is to somehow undermine America's Christian roots.
Although it would be nice to claim another founding father as a Christian, I don't think we can in Jefferson's case. Barton's claim that Jefferson had intended his gutted Bible for evangelism seems a little ridiculous, considering that he had cut all the good news out of it.
 @kennewickman Your link confirms what I said. Throckmorton scum is right there disputing Bartons book only to promote his own. Surely he was behind the threats. So typical of your kind. Know this, Bartons book will be published. Â
@Saving Grace BTW, your contention that Barton's deserved downfall is due to some sort of liberal and godless conspiracy you need to know that even The Discovery Institute and Liberty University have dropped him like a rock. No real historian takes him seriously. He simply falls into the well-known category of "Liars for Jesus"' apparently the kind of group you admire. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2012/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-david-barton-controversy/
@Saving Grace Yeah, I guess it is a sign of confidence when your own publisher actually pulls the book from circulation based upon the author's blatant fabrication.
 @kennewickman Bwahahah. Throckmorton...another self proclaimed member of the intelligentsia like you think you get to decide. Make me laugh. The story is on The Blaze, transcript and links to Throckmortons very own ...what do you call it, oh ya, hypocrisy.
@Saving Grace
Wow, that explains a whole lot, you are a David Barton groupie. The fact this this recently defrocked 'liar-for-jesus' charlatan historian was dumped by his publisher and his books pulled ought to tell you something.
Â
I am very familiar with this boldfaced lie that Barton has been hawking across America. Oddly enough, real historians contradict every word of it. Essentially, the only thing that happened was that, as a favor to Aitken, Congress agreed to have the his bible checked for accuracy. No government money was spent on producing and his edition was never sold with the imprimatur of Congress. The only thing that happened was that Congress commended his edition authorized, it had the force of one of our current "National Cherry Pie Day" type deals.Â
Â
You gotta get out more! Sadly for you, your boy has been in the news lately and his lies for Jesus have finally come home to roost. I encourage to do some research before you ingest any more of his swill, it will rot your brain.Â
Â
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0813/The-Jefferson-Lies-is-recalled-by-publisher-Thomas-Nelson
Â