I have no problem with the cross being there. If it brings comfort to a great number of people, both rescue workers and families of victims, then lets let them have that comfort. That must go for other religious and non-religious symbols as well though.
I personally don’t want religion in my government but there is a difference between separation of church and state, and people being able to practice their religion in their personal lives. And many people have a very personal connection to this place. The athiests involved could use an injection of compassion IMHO.
Another non-Christian checking in to say that as long as other religious (or humanist) symbols are not excluded-- and as long as the cross is not displayed in such a way as to imply a universal representation of victims-- it’s really no big deal.
Atheist organizations should spend more time on human services and other endeavors which would really promote humanism and free thought (both of which include supporting religious expression by others) rather than constantly defining themselves in opposition to Christianity. As can be witnessed by the reactions of atheists in this thread, those organizations do not really represent the views of most atheists/agnostics, most of whom are simply quietly skeptical without being strident about it.
Let the Christians mourn their dead in their own way, and let everyone do the same, respectively. I say leave it for now, but don’t make it part of the permanent memorial.
Sadly, not yet. Basically, Larry Siverstein has a 100-year lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the quasi-public entity which owns the ground and which “owned” the buildings until Silverstein took out the long lease. Substantial legal wrangling over just who “controls” the site has so far been settled – Silverstein bought onto the Liberty Tower plan after some changes were made, avoiding ligitation, etc. There may come a time to settle that question once and for all in the courts, but so far it’s been in everyone’s interest not to ask it.
Mmm hmm. No question. I’d particularly like to see a crescent in memory of the Muslims who were killed when the buildings collapsed, considering the religious affiliation of the perpetrators.
Although, compared with the relatively simple cross shape, you might be a little hard-pressed to find a fallen girder that happened to resemble a Star of David.
As a “devout” atheist, I at first saw this as parallel to the Ten Commandments controversy in Alabama. But iit’s a totally different context, and I really have to make a huge exception in this case. Normally, a crucifix stands for much that is contrary to some of my most cherished beliefs, but in this case I know **exactly **what that cross symbolizes, and it should stay precisely where it is.
That being said, I’d love to see the addition of other religious and non-religious symbols, the more the better. This was a tragedy that touched **all **of us, regardless of our beliefs. I personally lost two friends in that heinous massacre, one Christian and one Jewish/agnostic, and anything that honors them cannot be a bad thing. That site is a wound that should never heal, and we are all doing what we can to deal with the insanity that it represents.
I think Ms. Johnson is way off base here. With friends like these…
If the property is not government property, why not? Those beams in the shape of a cross are part of the history of the recovery. The cross has meaning for some survivors. Don’t destroy the history or the comfort that it brings to some.
But I do think it is a great idea to add other symbols. I wonder what symbol atheists would choose – a flower? a combination of a telescope and a microscope? a chain of hands surrounding a building?
Thanks to the atheists among us who have shown such sensitivity and openness in this particular thread. You guys are aces…
Thank you, manny. It sounds to me like the site is under the control (subject to restrictions in the lease, no doubt) of a private entity, not the Port Authority. If that is indeed the case, then the decision whether or not to keep the cross memorial properly belongs to the leaseholders, not the government.
In all fairness, I seriously doubt the cross would be subject to Establishment Clause challenge even if it were controlled by the government. As part of a wider memorial–which it certainly would be–it would present no legal problem at all under the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence. I can’t remember the names, but the relevant precedents are the Christmas display cases, which held that religious symbolism is perfectly fine as long as it is part of a multi-religious display celebrating something or other.
Okay, I’m a little bit fuzzy on the details. But I’m still right.
As I strive to put aside my disdain for this woman and her organization, recognizing that she has every right to her beliefs (or NON-BELIEFS), I have to say that the wishes of the workers, the victims, and their loved ones are the ones that should prevail. If the members of those groups want the cross to remain, then it remains, not because I am a Christian and happen to respect the symbol but because the people making the decisions down there HAVE to be the ones personally affected by the evil.
I would have to say, lets please be democratic here…if we want to be sensitive and sensible then leave the steel beam cross up for those whom this means something, and add symbols of all the other religions/or not of all other casualties.
There will be a memorial erected on this site at some point in time and I think that it is only right to have something that represents all those affected… This was a WORLD TRADE CENTER.
No fooling. I think Ms. Johnson has more in common with a certain Mr. Phelps, in terms of inappropriate injection of politicized religion into a tragic situation, than she has to Judge Moore’s opponents.
Let people grieve; let them have the symbols they need for grieving. The site is big enough to accommodate the rituals of many different faiths, and of atheists and other nontheists. As long as sincere efforts to include other rituals are respected, I see no problem with this at all.
IIRC, there’s a few crosses over in Arlington; it would be in the worst of taste to try to remove those.
The workers, the victims and their loved ones who are not Christian should be memorialized with the appropriate symbolism when the permanent memorial is installed, and this cross should be in place for the Christians.
This is a burial ground, the dirt in the pit is full of the remains of thousands. There is room for the sacred symbols of all, and soon enough they will be there.
I suppose Ms. Johnson will complain about that in time, as well.
Another atheist/humanist chiming in here…I really think it should stay. Regardless of its symbolism, it is respectful to those who’ve fallen and those who are left behind. The names of the firefighters and police officers written on the cross beams and the use of it as a point of worship for those of a particular faith should ensure it a place in history. This isn’t an attempt to proselytize anyone as was the case of the Ten Commandments Judge, it’s simply a connection for those who are gone. I guess the only thing that would be nice to have would be a plaque to describe how this cross came to be.
(and FWIW, I think there’d be a definite distinction between the “natural” way this cross came to be as opposed to some group making a cross out of the beam and sticking it at Ground Zero. If it were man-made, I could see the AA getting up in arms a bit about this, but right now, it just seems rather foolish, insensitive, and sad.)
As I drive down the Abby/Mission highway, there are crosses erected every so often for those who’ve died in car accidents. What about those who’ve lost people in accidents? What about those who have killed someone in an accident? What about those who lost non-Christians in accidents? Well I have to say if you don’t believe in God, why do you care what is put up? Sure, I can see someone getting bent out of shape if ONLY a cross was displayed, but honestly get real. I don’t think a cross is always a Christian symbol, nor do I believe everyone who uses one is Christian. So if it’s so offensive, maybe you can go tell those grieving people who’ve lost loved ones that the pain you experience from seeing that is more than you can bear, and since it’s obviously greater than the healing they experience by doing it, and ask them to remove it?
There are a few atheist groups that have symbols (e.g. the American Atheist Society, with their A inside a broken atom), but there’s no one special symbol for atheism itself. Atheists as a whole don’t usually consider themselves to be a “group” with the kind of tribal bond that members of a particular religion or citizens of a particular nation tend to have.
The closest thing I’ve seen to a general “atheist symbol” is the Darwin fish, and that’s not so much a symbol of atheism as a symbol of protest against Biblical Creationists.
