Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

quote:

---

Plaintiffs Dennis Horvitz and Kenneth Bronstein are members of American
Atheists and are Atheists reared in the Jewish tradition. They find the cross,
a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture,
and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American
citizens.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiff Jane Everhart is a member of American Atheists and is an Atheist
with a Catholic background. She finds the use of governmental action to
place a cross within the September 11 Memorial and Museum, which was
designed to memorialize all casualties of the World Trade Center, to be an
insult to every non-Christian survivor of that attack.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiff Mark Panzarino is a member of American Atheists. Plaintiff Mark
Panzarino was brother to Frank Joseph Panzarino, an inactive Marine
reservist who assisted in the rescue work for two weeks after the September
11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (hereinafter the 9/11
attack). Assisting in the rescues took its toll on his health, and Frank
Joseph Panzarino succumbed to weakened lung syndrome in 2005. As a
survivor of the 9/11 attack and family member of one of the brave
responders to the 9/11 attack, Mark Panzarino is appalled that the state has permitted a symbol of Christianity to represent a tragedy that affected
all Americans. The Panzarinos unequivocally do not wish for a cross to
represent Frank Joseph Panzarino’s sacrifice unless it is a Lutheran Cross.

---

quote:

---

The September 11 Memorial and Museum will be on a site owned by the
Port Authority. Thus, the Memorial and Museum and its exhibits are a
government action.

---

quote:

---

The September 11 Memorial and Museum will be largely funded with
money from the government. Accordingly, actions taken by the September
11 Memorial and Museum also constitute governmental action.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiff American Atheists opposed inclusion of a cross on the grounds
that other religious groups were not given the opportunity for a similar faithbased
memorial at the site of an American tragedy.

---

quote:

---

On multiple occasions, plaintiff American Atheists publicly offered to
provide a memorial for the September 11 Memorial and Museum, at its own
cost, to represent the approximately 500 non-religious victims of the attack
on the World Trade Center.

​

Plaintiff American Atheists never received a response.

---

quote:

---

No other religious or non-religious group has been permitted a
memorial.

---

quote:

---

As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the
cross, plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages for
which they have no clear, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek
a declaration that the inclusion of a cross at the September 11 Memorial
and Museum, in the absence of equal acknowledgment of those non-
Christians who also were victims of the 9/11 attack, is unconstitutional.
American Atheists seek injunctive relieve against inclusion of the cross
and/or an order that a memorial to the non-religious Americans who fell
victim to the 9/11 attack be placed within the September 11 Memorial and
Museum near the cross.

---

The full argument can be read here

That if a government funds or owns something, that something should be secular in its purpose and execution, without exception. Well most law has sculpted the interpretation of the Amendments. After all, 'atheism' is considered a religion for the purposes of the Constitution, even though technically it is 'beyond the scope'. The interpretation here is that the intent of the amendment was for government to be secular and show favour to no religion.It then takes the Madison approach of, It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. , as Dr A posted earlier.

It suggests that the museum isn't open yet. The land is Port Authority and was before the cross was installed. So this cross, which was blessed before hand, has been installed on Port Authority land. This apparently should be construed as government action.

That's right, Britain does not presently have an absolute separation of church and state. That said, our politicians tend to be much more secular in their public speech than their American counterparts. The subject matter of this thread however, are a group calling themselves American Atheists and their interpretation of the US Constitution... So I'm not sure why you brought up the British system and the Commonwealth.

I'm not sure how something being secular without exception isn't 'total, absolute separation' of politics and religion. I think you are reading them as saying something they aren't. They aren't saying all politicians should be atheists, or non-practicing or. I'm not really sure what other notion you might have had in mind.If you want to have an idea as to the American Atheist's viewpoint, you might like to look to Thomas Jefferson, whom they cite as inspiration for their position on church and state.

quote:

---

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

---

The American Atheists believe this wall should be total and absolute. That is, no exceptions given in some cases here and there. No laissez-faire attitudes towards the wall. The wall is absolute, and should not be crossed. Government should not advocate a religion, shouldn't show favour to a religion, have any opinions implicit or explicit regarding any particular religion. Politicians are free to do these things, but not as part of government action. Opening a museum that essentially commemorates the dead, on government property can be construed as government action. And if that action even implies favour of one religion, the American Atheists believe it is proper to call it out and elicit change - or at least that's kind of their mission statement. There might be a secular purpose for displaying the cross, but it does also seem to be showing favour to a particular religious group, and about that religious group's focus of spiritual attention is of some kind of special importance to the WTC site. You have to admit, claiming that some religious people found religious significance in the cross after the disaster as a secular reason to have it at the museum is pushing things a little.Edited by Modulous, : illicit change? Is that what drug dealers give?

The Christian rescuers.

And this shows implicit favour to the Christian rescuers and victims over the non-Christian rescuers and victims. And since this is a government action, it cannot do that without bending the wall which the American Atheists regard as 'absolute'.

Yes it might.The reason that rubble 'helped some of the rescuers' is because they were Christians and they felt that finding their religious symbol was a sign that God had not abandoned them. That's the reason they gave:

quote:

---

I saw Calvary in the midst of all the wreckage, the disaster...It was a sign that God didn’t desert us.

---

source. I agree, that they are not explicitly endorsing Christianity, and a valid argument might be brought forward that suggests it is a historical object, deserving to be in the place that memorialises the WTC attack. I can also see why a Christian religious symbol, blessed by a Christian minister displayed prominently on government property is problematic for a group that believes that the government shouldn't be taking any action that might be construed to favour one religion: Especially if other faiths do not get their own expressions of belief with regards to the WTC attacks historically preserved.

Having a secular purpose is only one prong of the Lemon test. The others are that it must not have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting a religion and that it must not cause unnecessary government entanglement with religion.It can easily be argued that a religious symbol, blessed by a priest and looked upon as a symbol of God's presence by a certain subset of Christian rescuers, advances a particular religion. The argument comes down to whether or not that is its primary effect or if the 'secular rationale' is the primary effect (or indeed, are they the same effect 'spun' in different ways?)The third prong, 'unnecessary entanglement' could also be argued, I would have thought. In fairness, I could probably find IDists that said Of Pandas and People is a secular book with secular intent. If they are making the decision to install a religious symbol in a government funded museum on government property, of course they are going to say they are doing it for secular purposes. Saying it is easy, they might even believe it, but is it true?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Only the Christians found comfort in it, for religious reasons. It may be museum worthy, but that doesn't mean it's primary effect is not one that promotes religion. It doesn't need to be an agenda, consciously devised. Two Christian memorials and a memorial from the father of Christianity. That's marginally more inclusive, but it certainly seems a biased to the 'Judeo-Christian' side of the fence.

In that case:"Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to celebrate our friends and family getting into heaven and our enemies being sent to hell. What a marvellous thing 9/11 was, bringing our family to God the way it did - thank God and His miracles! God is Great! Everybody here is of course utterly happy as nobody died and we'll be seeing them soon in paradise where we'll live in gold houses. Let us hope this latest Anthrax scare is real this time, proving that God is ready to accept us into his home. In the meantime:Thank you and please give me $300 so I can buy a new car to glorify God!"I don't mean any genuine disrespect. Funerals are not the time for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and atheists don't have a monopoly on positive spins at a time of mourning. What happened on 9/11 was not 'ultimately wrong'. It was the real kind of wrong. Not at all. It was a contravention of moral principles that I believe represent one of the fairest ways for humanity to relate to one another. But I'm not ultimate.0 Do you have any reason to suppose I am not true to my philosophy? Do you even know what it is? There is no theist philosophy is there? My philosophy tells me emergent properties exist, and thus people are not 'just molecules', otherwise corpses would be people, which they aren't. Honesty, for a person who has the power to create the heavens and the earth - and the power to commit global genocide, you'd think schlepping around the arse-end of nowhere while Rome was happening for a few decades performing local miracles for the uneducated and then getting executed before retutrning to heaven is hardly going to any 'lengths'. Compared to his earlier work, it seems kind lacklustre.Sending a 3ft deep 20 mile radius pile of meat to a starving people would be going to more lengths to prove his love. Numbers 11:31 - as long as he didn't curse them at the same time, of course. Numbers 11:33. To drive the point home. Not being a theist tells you nothing about my philosophy. To demonstrate this: You and Mohammed Atta are/were theists. His philosophy was wildly different than yours, correct? Naturally, I'm pro-justice. My desires aren't informative of reality. Why? Is it conditional love? I can tell you He isn't. I've had religious delusions, there were many plus sides. Included in the downsides were a judgemental simple-minded character coupled with the arrogance that comes from knowing that I was absolutely right and I will one day be vindicated.We have similar brains, it's likely we've both experienced this 'greatest feeling' and I'm willing to bet so have Muslims, including Atta and Buddhists and Hindus. I don't need to believe in certain stories to experience it, I doubt you do, either. Unfortunately Christ didn't describe it, so anyone who thinks they have achieved being born from on high is potentially deluding themselves with an intoxicated blend of hubris.

Everything and nothing, baby.First of all most of my religious life was as a young person. I became an atheist in my early 20s, though I didn't call myself that right away. I'm in my mid 30s now. My adult life is considerably different than my child life.On the other hand, I still enjoy 'spiritual' experiences on a fairly regular basis, and what I believe about them doesn't inhibit them. If anything, knowing that I don't have to be at the mercy of a divine third party, means they might happen more regularly as I don't feel guilty for trying to 'force it'.If you think that I am in fact arrogant and simple-minded you are more than welcome to do so. I note with amusement that you felt your clichd retort was so awesome you arrogantly believe it didn't require support. What truth do you think that I am 'sure of'? We call it 'human nature'. I'm not sure this is a complete sentence.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.