Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

I think "the cross" has cultural significance in most Western societies that goes beyond religion. It symbolizes making sacrifices for our fellow man (e.g. the Red Cross, which is not overtly religious).

Why they were chosen is irrelevant to the cultual significance that they actually have today.

You included what you interpret the current meanings to be. Others do not necessarily interpret a cross as a religious symbol.For one thing, it is non-denominational. It is associated with a culture that happens to have a lot of Christian roots. It is not necessarily associated with particular religious beliefs.

I was talking specifically about a culture with Christian roots as opposed to religious practices. What part of that did you miss? I beilieve in much of what the fictional character Jesus stood for but I don't consider myself a Christian. I also believe in much of what the fictional character Frodo stood for but I don't call it religious. I have a crucifix that I made myself. My fundy friends and relatives are either puzzled or horrified. Or, you assume that every stranger you see wearing a cross is a Christian.I, for one, have a Jesus fish bracelet and a WWJD necklace. Do they count?

The cross has religious meaning for some and other meanings for others. Nonsense. The US is culturally Christian and yet we see you guys arguing all the time that it isn't a "Christian nation". Sure it does. Well, they do. Most atheists celebrate Christmas and Easter, don't they? But they do it in a cultural way instead of a religious way. Sure it is. That's what I tell Christians all the time. What matters is the message, not the messenger. Unfortunately, some religious people have it reversed, like you do. As I mentioned to NoNukes, and he agreed, the origin of the symbol is irrelevant. Things change. Certainly not. I wear them because I believe in the message, not the messenger.

When you think of the Red Cross, do you honestly think of religion? Or do you think of helping people?

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's just the two most obvious examples that came to mind. If you want more possibilities: I don't know what you think "the cross in question" is. I'm talking about crosses in general in Western culture.

I have a collection of about seventy nativity scenes. In my experience, everybody celebrates Easter pretty much the same way. Some people go to church on Easter who don't attend on a regular basis. Otherwise, Easter is pretty much a secular holiday, like Valentine's Day but with different candy.

Some cross that atheists wanted to remove but the powers-that-be agree with me that it has cultural significance in addition to any religious significance that it might have. Congratulations on being able to see beyond the literal for once. The Red Cross is one example of a cross whose implications go beyond the religious. The cross in the OP, according to the powers-that-be, is apparently another example.

I'm agreeing with the organizers of the 9/11 memorial, who consider the cross a symbol of hope for everybody. Yes, that's my point. Yes. No.If you had been reading my posts faithfully, you'd know these things. On the contrary, belief in what somebody says is far more important than the trivial question of whether that somebody actually existed. What matters more, the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had or the guy who mentioned he had it? See the OP: the organizers of the 9/11 memorial. Only me and the courts, eh? Then I think I'm in fairly good company. Maybe the courts are reading my posts like you should be, but I doubt that they made their ruling solely on my say-so. Jesus' message was, "Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself." Most religions say pretty much the same thing. I wear a symbol that represents that message.

That pretty much is my reasoning.

You're skipping a step in your logic. The cross was chosen as a meeting point because of its spiritual significance and because it was easily recognizeable. It was chosen for the museum because it was chosen by the rescuers. If they had chosen a beam bent into the shape of a duck, that would be in the museum instead.

If and when another court overturns the ruling, we can discuss their reasoning.

The bullshit is yours. The museum chose a symbol of hope. The people who had the hope happened to be Christians. Only a handful of atheists seem to see that as a constitutional problem.

I'd be willing to bet that a large number would associate it with something other than religion. If they were paying attention to why it was included in the memorial, they'd say it was hope that more victims would be rescued. Salvation from the wreckage, yes. "Eternal salvation" not necessarily. It's funny how you self-styled experts on religious symbols don't know the difference between a cross and a crucifix.The fundies that I know make a huge distinction. A crucifix would have no more religious significance to them than a portrait of Satan.In the broad sense, a cross may be a religious symbol but it means different things to different denominations.