Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

But I do believe it passes the test.You of all people should know that you can't know what I believe. I've been looking online for links to those involved explaining how it helped them but haven't found much anything. I've mentioned some ways in which it could've helped already, but it doesn't really matter that much to my position. Even if it was just a mark for a meeting place, then that could help in the rescue. A simple morale boost would be very helpful. The specifics just aren't that important.

There's two seperate points there that you've tied together into a different position than the one I'm taking.Yes, the original source of its meaning stems from its religious symbolism. The other point was that an item doesn't have to have religious symbolism to end up being used like this one was. The religious symbolism is irrelevant.I've maintained an honest and fairly consistent poistion here that is unlike the one you've just described me as holding. Go back and read my posts again.

My position. And apparently, AZPaul3's as well::

quote:

---

Yes, the Cross is an overtly religious symbol. Yes, the beams' shape as a cross were found in the wreckage and purposely erected on the site as an overtly religious symbol. Religious or not, the Cross was an integral part of the history of the event, which is not just the bombing but the recovery afterwords, and has bonafide value as a historic object inseparable from the event.

---

. "Those who want it included" is not some homogeneous group that could be blanketly described as being happy or unhappy with that display choice. I already answered that the cross displayed upside-down might be seen as disrespectful to the rescuer who were there that got the help from it.But you still haven't answered my question: Why modify the cross so that it is upside-down? I see no reason to do so.

Please catch up on what's already been posted: Message 59:

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.

---

Message 127:

quote:

---

How exactly did it help them?

Spiritual comfort in a time of high stress. Increase morale. Some sort of effort consilience. I dunno, I wasn't there. I'm just taking their word for it.

---

Message 144:

quote:

---

Its secular to me because:

• Its from the actual building, i.e. its an artifact from the site itself
  ​
• It played an important role in the resue operation

---

. In a museum that was exhibiting things that have helped DMV workers, showing how Kali did could be done in a secular way, yes.

Yes, did you read what I wrote in my reply in Message 151? Because I do think it has a secular purpose. Did you see my Message 191? I already have. These two positions are compatible. I don't know. "Those who want it included" is not some homogeneous group that could be blanketly described as being happy or unhappy with that display choice. I already answered that the cross displayed upside-down might be seen as disrespectful to the rescuers who were there that got the help from it.

I don't know the specifics of how the rescuers employed this cross during their operation, but it very easily could have had secular purposes. The fact that it was originally recognized as a religious symbol does not eliminate the secular purposes it has afterwards.If it was used as a marker for a meeting place, then that is a secular purpose. In general, I don't think that having a spiritual aspect automatically makes something non-secular. It needs to be tied to a specific religion.I think non-christians found spiritual comfort in the cross too so there could be a case here for the provision of spiritual comfort being non-sectarian. Why?

But not just that. I already have. But it does have purpose other than as a religious symbol. Why can't you just admit that?

I don't really know the specifics, but I think it was a marker for a meeting place during the rescue operations. The fact that its a piece of one of the actual building gives it historical value. (Did you hear that they're trying to save other pieces of the buildings too, even thought they don't look like religious symbols?) It could have increased morale. Too, providing spiritual comfort doesn't necessarily make it sectarian or non-secular.But, the main reason I've come to accept that it has a role outside that of a religious symbol is because the officials at the museum, itself, said that that is why they are including it.

When I was surfing around for the ways in which the cross had helped during the recue operation, I saw where a jewish man was saying that he found spiritual comfort in as well, even though he wasn't a christian. Because "secular" just means being seperate from any particular religion and being 'spiritual' doesn't mean being part of any particular religion. Haven't you ever heard some hippy chick say: "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." I disagree. "Secular" does not mean materialistic and being spritual doesn't mean being a part of a particular religion. Something can be spiritual and secular. I disagree with that too. Here, they should be mentioned because of the roles they played in the aftermath of the Sept. 11th attacks, just like the museum officials said.

If... could... sure.But its not *just* a bit of building and its already mounted upright (so you'd need a reason to modify it to be placed differently). No. Quote me where I've said it has nothing to do with any specifc religion.This particular item obviously has something to do with a specific religion. I said that "providing spiritual comfort" doesn't necessarily make something sectarian or non-secular. Or maybe you're just wrong. That has been my argument the whole time... part of which is that it also has a secular purpose.

Yes, Nugs. EVERY Muslim that has EVER seen a cross has found spiritual comfort in it EVERY time Of course. EVERY Buddhist that sees a cross instantly received spiritual comfort EVERY time the lay their eyes on it Oh yeah... and this is my coffee mug: Geez, you're gettin' to be about as bad as Theodoric.

No, I disagree. Having religious symbolism is not enough to warrant its going, especially since it passes the Lemon Test. Is that because you can't see smileys or because you don't know what they mean? I don't doubt that there are some people that are offended by it. I mean, the OP mentions a lawsuit with people claiming exactly that.But that doesn't matter to the legal debate.

I don't know what you're typing about...

Mostly, I'm just taking the museum officials' word for it. I did try to find some webpages discribing how the cross helped during the rescue but I didn't find very much... apparently it marked a place to meet, made people feel better, and helped in the recovery efforts. That on top of it being an actual piece of the buildings makes it museum-worthy. How do you know? Who are you to determine how much significance is enough? That's up to the museum officials and they agree with me. Nobody cares about your oppinion on suffiicient significance. No, I'm not claiming that. I said: In general, I don't think that having a spiritual aspect automatically makes something non-secular. I read where a jewish man said that he found spiritual comfort in it too, even though he wasn't a christian. The purpose of the cross is to be a historical artefact that tells the history of 9/11 because of the role it played in the aftermath of the attacks, according to the museum officials. Disrespecting the religious patina that people have painted on it does not remove that purpose. Who is doing that complaining? This thread is about the lawsuit the AA filed that claims the cross need to be removed. I'm arguing that there is not enough reason to remove it and there is enough reason to keep it, I'm not complaining about the consequences of removing it. Oh really? How many pieces are there? I read that they were desperately trying to save the remaining pieces of rubble, that have no religious significance at all, because they were running out of them.

"Secular" means not tied to a specific religion. "Spiritual" is not tied to a specific religion. Ergo, spiritual can be secular.Secular does not mean materialistic. Are you familiar with the Lemon Test? A thing has to have a secular purpose without having the primary effect of advancing religoin nor result in unessessary entanglement of government and religion. Anything that doesn't have a secular purpose or has the primary effect of advancing religions or results in unessassary entanglement of government and religion.