Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

No, they disagree and that's why they're putting it into the museum. It has historical significance as being a piece of the actual building and also having significance to those participating in the rescue. Sort of, but I doubt the rescuers see it that way. Its both, but that's not why its being included in the museum. Its in there for the historic value.It has to be this specific piece, and it was significant to the rescuers because of the way it was displayed.

I said good day sir!

Right, so they can't use a piece that wasn't as a piece that was. And that that helped them during the rescue. I doubt that.You don't have any religious sentiment so you're not allowed to comment on it Except that this specific piece actually helped in the resue efforts. I didn't realize you were a part of that rescue operation and had direct insight into the significance it played for them. What else can you tell me about it?

They don't need a display that was a piece of the building. They have a piece of the building that held a significance for the resuers. Its not just any old cross, that it was a part of the actual building is part of the historical significance. 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. I suppose that if a Chinese guy, or a non-Christian, brought something that should be included in the museum, then they would include that in the museum too. Huh?

Wuss.What's your opinion? I think it does. I've already explained why. I meant, why a courtroom...But I guess that is beside the point. That's almost right. You're referring to "The Ten Commandments" as a general thing, but we need to be talking about a specific item. Some historically important artifact that is in the image of the Ten Commandments could be secular. Just because its the Ten Commandments doesn't automatically make it non-secular. There's plenty of religious paintings in government museums.

So you've accepted that it helped people and have no argument against why it, legally, can be included in the museum.We're now left with: That's fine, but we don't legislate by tastes.

And I said you were right, but then wondered why you picked a courthouse. Although, I don't think the blessing are in any way helping. I dunno, I think there needs to be more to it than just that. It should have some kind of significance outside of the religion.Like with this cross being a piece of the actual building and then also providing help to the rescue workers, the religious nature is secondary to that for being secular and considered worthy of the museum, imho. Just like a painting... Or historical value, which could stem from their religious significance. Too, some of them aren't really that good, but are included because of where they were from. No, it would still maintain its historical value. But it wouldn't lose the historical secular value that it has and is being included in the museum for. All the religious stuff is irrelevant. And if it was a giant vagina people would've fapped to it. So what? Get enough people fapping to it so that it becomes historically significant and you could put that in a museum too.

And also that it could have raised morale and coordinated the effort. Its not just a religious symbol. Okay, that doesn't take away from the non-religious reasons for including it. That wouldn't have a secular purpose like this cross does.

But so what? It does have it. It passes the test. They'd have been lying, so yeah. Or are you asking as if those things honestly hadn't been done? If it would have the secular-ness, then it'd have it regardless of its shape, so I'm not seeing why it matters. I don't think it should matter how it became secular, but I do not think it happens like you're describing.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

That it became important because of its religious significance does not come into play, imho.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Why?Might as well just display it as sat while the resuers drew inspiration from it.

That has been my position the whole time. I have admitted it is religious, and that that doesn't matter, and I have not denied that it is religious. I've argued that it passes the Lemon Test so it should be allowed. From a legal standpoint? (we are talking about a lawsuit here) Then present that case. You have my argument for why it passes the Lemon Test and should be allowed. Nobody has really addressed it from what I've seen. If we have to take this thing out of the government's place because it has a religious nature, then wouldn't that mean that if people imbued an object in a government's place with religious meaning, then that thing would have to be removed too?

Its both, plus it was a resource used by the rescuers. A crucifix can pass the Lemon Test by having a secular purpose. Didn't realize I hadn't... They are free to express their opinion, or file a lawsuit (as in this case), but as to whether it is allowable or not is up to the judge. They don't really have a say in that. And we have a direct quote from the ones who put it in place saying that the object has not been put in place because of it's religious significance, but because of the secular reasons that I've already mention. That objection is just plain old wrong.

I disagree. Religious items can be placed in entirely secular museums if they also have a secular purpose. Minor quibble: "crucifix" implies that it has a statue of Jesus crucified to it. However the museum wants.... Why? I don't suppose it has to be, its just the way it is.

That's right. And if it does fail the Lemon Test, then I don't have any problem with it being removed. Let's say there was a rosary that was used to flag a place in the underground railroad, or something. I think it'd be museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of and don't think the fact that its a religious piece should make it unworthy.50 years from now when people look at this cross in an exhibit explaining that it was an actual piece of the building that the rescuers found comfort in, I think they're gonna thinl its museum-worthy because of the cool shit it was a part of too. Sure. I could argue either side of that one. I suppose, for me personally, it depends on how it is displayed. If its all shrine-like and religiony-looking then it'd be worse than if it was just displayed all booring-like as any other museum pieces are... then it'd be just another exhibit.But the claim came from the museum president... I doubt he has some agenda to christian-ize this memorial.I was looking for more stuff on him...This was worth repeating:

quote:

---

In addition to the Cross, other religious artifacts that will be displayed in the 9/11 Memorial Museum's historical exhibition include a Star of David cut from World Trade Center steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during the recovery effort.source

---

But if it passes the Lemon Test and can be allowed in the museum as-is, then there is no problem to be solved in the first place.