Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

And that is something to be said for it.On the other hand, why refuse the atheists' offer to provide them with a non-religious memorial? It's not an unreasonable request.

I'm not sure how something being secular without exception isn't 'total, absolute separation' of politics and religion. I think you are reading them as saying something they aren't. They aren't saying all politicians should be atheists, or non-practicing or. I'm not really sure what other notion you might have had in mind.If you want to have an idea as to the American Atheist's viewpoint, you might like to look to Thomas Jefferson, whom they cite as inspiration for their position on church and state.

quote:

---

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

---

The American Atheists believe this wall should be total and absolute. That is, no exceptions given in some cases here and there. No laissez-faire attitudes towards the wall. The wall is absolute, and should not be crossed. Government should not advocate a religion, shouldn't show favour to a religion, have any opinions implicit or explicit regarding any particular religion. Politicians are free to do these things, but not as part of government action. Opening a museum that essentially commemorates the dead, on government property can be construed as government action. And if that action even implies favour of one religion, the American Atheists believe it is proper to call it out and elicit change - or at least that's kind of their mission statement. There might be a secular purpose for displaying the cross, but it does also seem to be showing favour to a particular religious group, and about that religious group's focus of spiritual attention is of some kind of special importance to the WTC site. You have to admit, claiming that some religious people found religious significance in the cross after the disaster as a secular reason to have it at the museum is pushing things a little.Edited by Modulous, : illicit change? Is that what drug dealers give?

I fail to see any relevance to your question (other than to troll me)...spiritual comfort is not religion
spiritual is not non-secular

I haven't seen that they've refused it, but yeah, it isn't unreasonable.

If they want to include a chunk of metal because it was important to the rescuers then it shouldn't matter why it was important to them. It shows favor to the rescuers, not to the religious group. Maybe a little, but not enough to get rid of it.

A number of non-christians have spoken out that they do not find any comfort from this symbol.The cross is a symbol of xianity. The only people who would find any significance from a cross are christians.Saying it is a spiritual symbol and not a religious one is ludicrous. Does any other spiritual group of people find spiritual anything in the cross? It is "spiritual" for christians.I ask again: do you, as a self defined christian, find spiritual comfort in the star of david or crescent moon? A simple yes or no will suffice. That word...I don't think it means what you think it means.....

And that's irrelevant. So what? I don't like strawberry icecreme but I don't bitch about the parlor having it.... Not necessarily. In your opinion, but not in mine. I don't know, and it doesn't matter.The cross was important to the rescuers and that makes it worth having at the site. Yes.Now explain how it is in any way relevant to the debate here? You're not contributing to or furthering the debate. You're trying to "catch" people with questions that are not relevant to the debate. The only reason I can think of is to get a rise out of them. That's trolling 101.

If your religion was only as important to you as what flavor ice cream you like, why hold it so dear to you or at all? I am quite certain that a large number of other people are a bit more serious about their choice of deity and how they get their "spiritual comfort". Perhaps you could name another group, then, that does find any spiritual anything in the cross? On the contrary. Everyone but you sees the cross as an inherantly religious symbol. Using said symbol to memoralize anyone does an extreme disservice to those who do not follow that faith or "spirituality". Yea, the christian ones. What about the other people?

You didn't explain why your question, that I answered, was relevant to this debate. You were just trolling, weren't you? What does that have to do with anything? Why does it have to be a religious group? And aren't people free to find spiritual confort in anything they want? I'm not seeing how this is relevant. I do see it as inherantly religious, but realize that that is irrelevant because that's not the reason they are putting it there.It passes the Lemon Test, it doesn't matter that its a cross. How? And what makes it so extreme? There could be non-christians who find spritual comfort in it. For people who don't, the cross should be irrelevant to them.

Frankly - As an atheist I wouldn't give a flying testicle what symbol was put above my grave. However.... Why have they put a cross there rather than a swastika, a statue of Bugs Bunny or a Ying Yang symbol then?

That's how I'd see it... But apparently the other guys thinks its an "extreme disservice" Because this specific piece of metal was important to the rescuers.

quote:

---

Museum officials said the cross was being displayed not because of its religious value but the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks.

​

"The mission of the National September 11 Memorial Museum is to tell the history of 9/11 through historic artefacts like the World Trade Center cross. This steel remnant became a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero, as well as for people around the world," museum president Joe Daniels said in a statement.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

It was to point out that the cross is only comforting to christians. Chrisitans would normally not find spiritual reprieve in the symbol of a different faith. Yes, CS, I was. This is all a big game I play. It's called a response. It was in response to you likening your faith to ice cream. Where did I say it had to be? I asked you to name a group of people who find spiritual anything in the cross. the point is is that the only group that comes to mind are christians. If you know if a different group, now would be a great time to mention it..... At the same time we CAN name groups of people who DO NOT find spiritual anything in the cross AND groups of people that take offense to it. I never said they weren't. It's just that the only people who DO find spiritual comfort/guidance/whatever in the cross ARE CHRISTIANS. Whether they be weekend warriors or fundamentalists. So they claim. But it is odd they don't allow any other symbol...... See, here is the thing. Some people actually give a shit. So much so that they debate the issues. These people are not the typoe of people who liken their faith, or lack thereof, to flavors of ice cream. I know YOU don't care, but there are people who do not want to be represented by christianity. Of course there could be. It's just that there doesn't seem to be.

I'm still not seeing any point from you that pertains to this debate... So? And that is irrelevant. It hasn't been decided yet.If they do, are you cool with the cross then? Having this cross in the museum does not represent people by christianity. What are you talking about? So?

I get that.But do the non-Christian views of the families/friends of those killed hold any sway over whether or not this is appropriate?

No, and they don't get to decide what pieces are in other museums either.