Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Those working at Ground Zero happened upon a curious bending and fusing of a girder. It was bent around into a heart shape. In the midst of all the carnage, here was a symbol that love still survived no matter how much hatred was unleashed upon it. That heart-shaped girder was placed in a prominant position and gave hope and inspiration to the workers each day. Much later, a museum dedicated to the 9/11 attack made an exhibit of the girder. But for some reason they placed it upside down. Complaints were made. Were those complaints justified?

Sorry, double post. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Ok, fair enough. Should the "heart" be included in the museum? Should the "cross" be included in the museum?

Well, that's the crux (sorry)Its historical significance rests on how big a "handful" we have, irrespective of whether we are talking about the "heart" or the "cross". If it really is a handful, then it's a piece of twisted metal - throw it away. But if it is all but a handful, then I think we're on to something with some historical significance.

Or say a Mosque just down the road?

But that's the point. I can't really see how any argument could be for the cross' exclusion that doesn't also include the heart. Otherwise religion seems to be being treated as some special case, which is precisely what I thought we would want to avoid! I would put it like this. The cross has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "religious significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Similarly with the heart: the heart has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "symbolic significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Similarly with the OBL-shaped bit of metal they found, that looks like it has an arrow through his head: it has significance to the workers on the site - therefore there is possible reason to include it in the museum. You may ask what type of significance, and the answer is obviously "retributional significance". But it is the *significance* that makes it possibly suitable for inclusion.Personally, I don't like singling out religion as something that requires special treatment.

See, that's where I have a problem - the cross had significance to (allegedly) a large number of those clearing the site, and so that is all that maaters. I don't give a shit that the significance was religious, and I have zero interest in anyone having a problem with it, whether atheist or other-religion. It's not there for them, it's there for those that found it significant.If a bunch of Moslem workers found a crescent shaped girder that spoke to them of Allah's grace, and that He obviously frowned on the actions of OBL and co., then that could be included as well. And I would have just as little time for the enevitable shit-storm that would ensue

There is much art in which I personally have little interest, and some that positively annoys the fuck out of me, but my taxes still pay for the national museums to buy the stuff. I guess it's called being part of "society".

I get that. What has that to do with what is included in a national museum? Are all religious artefacts to be excluded?On a publicly-funded archaeological dig, are religious sites to be ignored?On a publicly-funded sociological study, are religious beliefs to be ignored? Let us, for sake of argument, say that it had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Do you still maintain that it does not belong in a museum?Let us, for sake of argument, say that my heart-shaped girder had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Could that belong in a museum?Let us, for sake of argument, say that my OSL-shaped girder had significance to *all* the workers on the site. Could that belong in a museum?

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.