Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193? This has gone way beyond being deliberately obtuse and is now in reading comprehension territory. For the umpteenth time, Rrhain, it is the history, the curatorial value for a museum. That is its "other" significance, just as I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193. The Cross was there, in that form, at that time.Let me repeat that for you in case you did not catch the meaning this time either.The Cross's significance is that it was there. It is history. Secular or not, sectarian or not, it is a significant part of the site's history. This direct historical tie to the event is all that matters just as I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.Straggler's Heart, for all its emotional significance no matter what it was made of, was not there in that form on that site. It had no part in the history of the event. It has no other value than artistic. It carries no curatorial value like the Cross does. For the same reason as the Cross, if these pieces could be located and certified then these would be of curatorial value and would be valuable additions to the museum. Not because of any secular or non-secular symbolism but because they were there: unique significant artifacts of the history being preserved.Your only objection to the collection of the Cross as an historical artifact is that during the event it had a religious meaning. You are so blinded by your abhorrence of the religion that history itself is cast aside. Bullshit. Is that your idea of this museum's charge? To display rubble? Not a big history fan, are you. Ah, well what other could we expect from a history blind irrational "rubble boy"? Not in your history blind eyes. Thankfully this world does not revolve around your personal likes and dislikes. I know of no legislative or administrative act that requires or denies to the curators of this museum any artifact that they deem in their professional opinion to be curatorial and thus should or should not be part of the museum's holdings.The museum serves a secular purpose. There is, nor can there be, any "religious" test of the curatorial value for any piece.The fact that some of the artifacts have some religious meaning does not constitute "an excessive government entanglement with religion," nor can the museum's inclusion of these artifacts be seen as having "the primary purpose of either advancing or inhibiting religion."Your objection is borne of your own personal irrational abhorrence and is rejected. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Well, thank you. BTW, the "where it is" is now in the WTC Museum. The Cross was moved into its final home, as a display in the museum, July 23. That will be decided in the court. What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that the First Amendment carries not only the "establishment" clause (thou shalt not establish any religion) but also the "Free Speech" clause (thou shalt not prohibit free expression).That a group, of any persuasion, would seek to dictate to a secular museum what can and cannot be displayed based solely on that they find an artifact "offensive" is a violation of the museum's free speech, free expression rights. If the City of Skokie (a predominantly jewish town) could not stop the Nazi's from marching through their park because they found it "offensive" then I don't think some group of fellow atheists has any standing to dictate the content of a museum no matter that they find some display "offensive."Given the secular purpose of the museum to preserving the WTC history any attempt to censor a display on purely religious or anti-religious grounds is a First Amendment violation itself. It cuts both ways.And make no mistake here. This is an attempt at censorship.Rrhain and others object and would censor the display because they find it "offensive" to their religious (non-religious) views. Too damn bad.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : corrections

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?

Yes I have read your post and your "secular purpose" amounts to people finding "spiritual comfort" in a specifically Christian religious symbol. Go figure. My frikkin arse you don't know!!! Why can't you just admit that the role of this object was as a religious symbol? Whether or not it should be included in the museum as a religious symbol is a perfectly legitimate debate. But your insistence that it should be included because it has some sort of purpose other than as a religious symbol is nonsensical. What? Surely not? Gosh - You mean the rescuers who gave this object it's "secular purpose" as a result of finding it "spiritually comforting" are going to be upset if it isn't displayed as an overtly religious symbol?Well I never................

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?

So we agree that it is a religious symbol. We therefore presumably also agree that in it's role as a religious symbol it:A) Provided spiritual comfort.
B) Gained historical significance for providing this spiritual comfort in a historic event.What role outside of that of a religious symbol does it have?Enlighten me here CS. Be specific.

Why do you think that? Be specific.Why do you believe that "spiritual" anything can be considered "secular" under any circumstances? "Spiritual" is virtually synonymous with "religious," particularly as the term is used to describe the cross.If an object is placed in a museum because it offered spiritual comfort, then that reasoning is non-secular.If an object has a secular purpose for being placed in a museum, any spiritual feelings or reasoning is irrelevant, so why should they be mentioned?

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.

Sure - Like bits of the Berlin wall. But if it were just a "bit of building" it could be placed on it's side, upside down or whatever couldn't it? Which is where Cavedivers example of something like a heart shape would come into play. But a giant Christian crucifix-shaped object just happened to spiritually inspire a bunch of people and you are claiming that it has nothing to do with any specific religion? Seriously? Then they are in the same denial that you are. But I guess it is easier to make silly assertions about a giant crucifix having a "secular purpose" than to actually make the argument (that I would have some sympathy for) that it deserves to be in the museum as a religious symbol significant to the events of 9/11.

Ok, I hadn't really been picturing this, but I have just thought about the presentation of the cross. If it was placed in an upright, traditional sense, I can see the problem as it could be construed as bringing the "religious significance" into the museum. Placing it upside down is just ridiculous as it looks like a deliberate attempt to offend. But placing it on its side, portraying perhaps the position in which it was found, is probably how I think it should be shown.

Unfortunately it was found as it is shown, hence the religious aspect, if it was lying down it would've been just a piece of cross shaped scrap, I am sure there was many. Here is at least one different one, top pix, that didn't gain notoriety. Bottom one is the one at the memorial.

What better symbol than a cross to show and remember what misery and destruction religion can lead to. I understand the AA want all faiths represented but what a sight that would be to behold and what exactly would they choose as the atheist memorial. (Madalyn Murray O'Hair their founder was refused a memorial on the grounds it would be vandalised)How about just another building?

No they suggested a fireman carrying a victim, seems much more appropriate IMO.Welcome to EvC.AbE,Personally I think this image would make a fine statue, sort of reminds me of a picture of a group of marines raising a flag. That picture made a fine statue for the Marine Corps War Memorial. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Except for the fact that xtians don't see it that way. They see it as jeebus being there for them after allowing the murder of thousands of people. At least he helped them clean up the mess he allowed?