An atheist group is suing The National September 11 Memorial and Museum to take down a religious cross-shaped beam. The group says that it promotes the Christian religion.
Last year the American Atheists' legal director, Edwin Kagin, said that the display represents "a violation of both federal and New York law in that public funds will be used to establish the Christian religion on public land."
According to CBS News, this week the museum filed court papers to have the lawsuit thrown out.
President of American Atheists, David Silverman, said that it's "a clear instance of a violation of the separation of church and state in its extreme."
"This shrine is a cross. It was picked up, trimmed, polished, the word 'Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated. This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11."
Silverman said that the cross should be removed or the museum should acknowledge everybody who died in this tragedy. "We're talking about public lands, we're talking about public funds, we're talking about congressionally ordered public funds. We're talking about an 18-foot memorial, this is grossly inappropriate. We feel very strongly that this is an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it about Christians, even though it's not about Christians at all."
The museum has no comment on what Silverman said.
It's true that the museum considers itself to be an "independent non-profit corporation" but is it right to allow a cross with Jesus' name carved on it to represent all the people who were killed at the site? Why is just the Christian faith represented when many other faiths should be acknowledged as well?
In recent years Christians have argued that the law not allowing Christmas trees be placed in public areas is taking the joy out of the holiday season. But if one religion is acknowledged shouldn't every religion be represented?
Some parents also complain that public schools aren't allowed to have Christmas parties but can only have holiday parties. Is this really a problem?
Private non-profit organizations can legally put up a religious symbol but the The National September 11 Memorial and Museum is a museum that represents everyone who was killed during 9/11, not just Christians.
People claim that the United States is a Christian country but in fact it isn't. The US is a country that lets people pray to whichever God they choose and one religion cannot be set above the others.
Maybe the museum should think twice about the religious cross and consider everyone who they are supposedly paying tribute to.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
I never have claimed to be the most intelligent member here on GN, but, I am smart enough to have been able, to thus far decipher the majority of the trash extremist write in their comments. However, in all sincerity, after reading your posted ramblings three times, it still made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I want ask you to explain what is was, that you were trying to say, because I am sure that you would be unable to do so.
As an unbiased observer, it would be my opinion that you need some serious help and you need it fast.
IMO, It is past time for the Federal Government to put an end to the Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Catholic, Christian propagandist assault upon the rest of society.
And it is just this sort of demonizing that led to the shooting at the family research council the other day!
With your opinion noted, I would submit in responsive debate, that it was an armed assailant with a mental illness who was issued a license to carry a firearm that committed the heinous act !!!
You know Dan, one those well armed citizens you extremist conservatives are always defending their Constitutional "Right to Bear Arms". One of those honest citizens whom you gun activist believe are being singled out to have their guns taken away.
Don't thank us reasonably minded people, for your own actions of presenting a mentally ill person with the right to carry a gun, thereby providing him with the ability to shoot innocent people.
It's just like you Hollier Than Thou Christians, you want your rights protected, but when those rights cause problems, you want to place the blame on the very people who have been warning you that excessive rights can cause problems.
No Dan, not this time.
Sorry Scott,
But we Hollier than thou Christians are all for disclosing the mental health issues of gun buyers, it's just that you progressives have enacted politically correct laws the shield such information from even law enforcement who is responsible for issuing said license to carry.
"Don't thank us reasonably minded people"
Nope! I blame you!
"excessive rights"
Never has more transparent words been spoken to reveal the true nature of you progressives....In your arrogance you believe you should be able to decide which rights are to be available to society.
In your arrogance you believe you should be able to decide which rights are to be available to society.
I will not argue that point, since it may be true in some instances, I really do not know since I am not a Congressman empowered with the duty to legislate laws.
However, such is not unlike you conservatives who in your own arrogance, attempt to decide which Constitutional laws all Americans should obey and which ones were not written as you Christians extremist would like them to have been written. Therefore such laws can be ignored and the opposit meaning of the law wrongly argued by those of the Christian faith. (Separation of Church and State, is one that comes to mind)
Scott,
Now you are charged with proving your accusations...Please show us where I have suggested that:
"Americans should obey and which ones were not written as you Christians extremist would like them to have been written. "
Here let me elaborate...You can't do it..You can't show it.....because I have never suggested it.
Dirt bag.
Many times here on GN, you have argued that the Constitutional article on the Separation of Church and State, as being discriminatorily written against those of the Christian faith. You have made that reference on articles mostly having something to do with a Constitutional right to place religious symbols on/in places other than those owned by the church.
That to me, means that you wish others to obey your religious beliefs, in regards to what the Constitution's article actually should mean. Because, it is your belief that the Constitution was written poorly on that particular article. Therefore, items of faith should not be removed from public or government property.
Dan, you may not want to admit it, but that position means that you believe that your religion over rides any article of the Constitution which your religion disagrees in principle with. Therefore you expect everyone to obey your religious views and your religious interpetation and position on/of the Constitution
Now as to the "Dirt Bag" reference you included in your responsive comment. I want respond, since to do so, would only begin a tit for tat dialogue to see which of us can say the most filthy thing about the other. For me, such childish behavior is not worth the time nor would it serve to demonstrate my point of view on the issue we were supposedly debating. Further, it would not be fair to turn the authors article nor the other members, for the two of us to turn the provided commentary spaces of this article into a battle ground for the two of us to vent our vengence upon each other.
I have noted that once a person with an opposing view, gets the upper hand in a debate with you, that person often receives such disparaging responses from you. Just an observation, but that must be a terrible character flaw to live with, especially for a person such as you, who often claims to be a Christian.