« life, archived | Main | 184 »

symbol

You can pretty much guess what the subject is going to be on this page for the next two days. Feel free to pass it by until Friday if it makes you uncomfortable or angry, or whatever you feel about people who can't move on.

I listen to Curtis and Kuby on my way to work every day. Yesterday (or maybe it was Monday) they were talking about an atheist group that wants to remove the cross - the cross that came from deep within the World Trade Center - because it is a religious symbol.

Susanna wrote about this yesterday:

Now consider this: Yesterday a group of atheists in New Jersey began agitating for the cross at the WTC site to be removed, and not included in a memorial of the site. They cry "separation of church and state", of course, which is a construct of the latter half of the 20th century, not a Constitutional fact.

I heard about it on the radio, and dug around all four NYC papers, FoxNews, the NJ papers and WaPo without finding anything about it. But Ron Kuby, a lawyer and talk show host on WABC radio in NYC - himself an atheist and communist - denounced the effort. He said that, in his judgment, the cross was neither inappropriate nor unconstitutional: the former because it represents a lot of people who died in the WTC attack, and the latter because it would be a part of a larger memorial that is broad in scope.

I am an atheist and I said the other day, when I wrote again about that cross; it is not so much a symbol of god or a symbol of religion as a symbol of hope. Perhaps for some it represents the hope that their loved ones are somewhere above now, watching over them. For some it could be a symbol that we will rise again from the ashes. Yes, for many people it represents God, and for them, that is a good thing. Why take that away from them? This isn't a case of one person trying to force a religion on someone, it's not a matter of separation of church and state. It's a reminder and a promise and a prayer for the dead and symbol of strength and hope all rolled into one powerful memorial. Not a man-made memorial, but one that lay there among the victims, one that is forged of their ash and skin and bones, of the fires that raged, of the papers that burned, of the oil that spilled, of the ghosts that remain.

Leave it be.

Comments

Why would anyone want to remove a miracle?

I don't get some people's motivations in life sometimes

Whether we feel like it or not, we are all moving on. That doesn't mean we are forgetting, necessarily.

The only people who forget are the people who choose to.

The separation of church and state argument is without merit. There was a Greek Orthodox Church on that site, now gone. Vaporized.

At the very least, the cross is a stand-in for the one that was on that church.

Ironic, too, that the Christian church that has most suffered at the hands of Muslims throughout the centuries is the one destroyed.

i'm a pagan, and that cross has never bothered me. It says, to me, "Something terrible happened here, and i am here to remind you". A cross is an X, and X marks the spot.

Susanna: They cry "separation of church and state", of course, which is a construct of the latter half of the 20th century, not a Constitutional fact.

Wrong. The full name of the concept is a "wall of separation of church and state". It was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. It has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court in 1879 (hardly the "latter half of the 20th century") in the Reynolds vs. U.S. as "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In 1947's Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

I'll reserve my personal opinion on the cross until I can examine the circumstances more.

The last sentence should read: "Ironic, too, that the Christian church that has most suffered at the hands of Muslims throughout the centuries had one of its churches destroyed."

Susanna mentions in her article that she can't find a link to a news story about it. Here's one from Newsday (I posted it on her site, too):

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--groundzerocross0908sep08,0,967222.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

I could be mistaken and probably am, but isn't (wasn't) the WTC on private not government property and also not a gov't institution? If the cross is on private property, then IMO there is no case.

cardeblu: I could be mistaken and probably am, but isn't (wasn't) the WTC on private not government property and also not a gov't institution? If the cross is on private property, then IMO there is no case.

What's going to be the tricky part of the case is that the WTC was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. We not only have government involvement, but governmental authority across two states. So, instead of starting at, say, a New York courthouse, the case could start at a higher level.

ok so is central park a city owned property?

the reason i ask is i believe there is a religous monument standing in the park
Isis' Obelisk
so would that have to come down too?

how bout the sacred indian mounds here in minnesota they are on state property?

im not sure (ive never been there)but i would recon that there is a totum poll in atleast one state park in the pacific northwest

sure none of these religions have the fallowing that christianity has but they still have a couple thousand or even one worshiper they would constitute a religion and then therefore have to be removed from public land.
the cross should stay. it wasnt put there it wasnt planed it just happened should we start cutting down trees that look like crosses?

well thats enough from me
LM

Citing the disputable assertion that the separation of Church and state is an invention of the latter part of the 20th century is the wrong (and I think a very dangerous) argument. Personally, I don't think that the separation of church and state has much if any bearing on the issue. However, it is wrong to dismiss out of hand the objections of non-Christians to the cross as a major memorialization symbol in a place where many many non-Christians died. The cross does not represent hope to everyone. The cross is a symbol of crucifixion, of suffering, persecution and genocide. Those who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus have no reason to see the cross as anything but an ugly reminder of the various forms of torture which humans subject each other to, not the least of which was perpetrated by Christians themselves.

It is no miracle that a geometric form commonly used in construction emerged from the rubble of the World Trade Center. It is a piece of the building. It is as infused with the remains of victims, as is any other piece of the structure. For that reason alone, I think it is a valid and valuable memorial. But I also understand the discomfort. I say leave the cross... but don't try to pretend that it's a symbol that everyone relates to. It is not.

(A) Not a miracle - just one of thousands of beams, any of which could have fallen in that configuration.

(B) "Separation of church and state?" Asshats - that only applies in government matters, not on private property. On private property, you're fre to put up or leave up any religious displays you like.

© Hey,if you want to leave a torture device up in your backyard, feel free.

Joseph J. Finn: "Separation of church and state?" Asshats - that only applies in government matters, not on private property. On private property, you're fre to put up or leave up any religious displays you like.

It's my understanding that the owners of the building, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a governmental organization.

Joseph J. Finn: Hey,if you want to leave a torture device up in your backyard, feel free.

Perhaps there's no more appropriate symbol for the 9/11 attack than that which simultaneously represents religion and a means of execution.

Leave the cross where it`s at.No commitee put it there.No Christian sect put it there.No government decree put it there.It was just THERE,so why can`t people leave it alone?

joatmoaf: Leave the cross where it`s at.No commitee put it there.No Christian sect put it there.No government decree put it there.It was just THERE,so why can`t people leave it alone?

According to the stories I've read, the objection is to making it a part of the permanent 9/11 memorial.

SCOTTC:
Yeah?And?

Asshats, all of em. There hatred for God is only beat out for their love of themselves.

More evidence for my contention that there are none more religious than an atheist on a holy crusade against religion. They are the reason I refuse to call myself an atheist.

remove the symbol. religion started this whole thing. the 9-11 victims died because of "my god can beat up your god" syndrome. god kills more people every year than drunk drivers, lung cancer, and g.w.b. combined.