Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Frankly - As an atheist I wouldn't give a flying testicle what symbol was put above my grave. However.... Why have they put a cross there rather than a swastika, a statue of Bugs Bunny or a Ying Yang symbol then?

I get that.But do the non-Christian views of the families/friends of those killed hold any sway over whether or not this is appropriate?

In this case shouldn't they?

Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.

Then why not display the item in some random orientation? On it's side or whatever.

Are you suggesting that the orientation of this object was related to it's role as an object of inspiration in some way? Gosh - I wonder why that might be......C'mon CS - Let's stop playing dum. If this thing were just an artefact of 9/11 rather than an overtly religious symbol it's orientation would be utterly irrelevant. It's orientation is not utterly irrelevant because it's religious symbolism is entirely based on it's crucifix-like appearance. So stop evading this fact and just be honest about it.Now my personal atheistic take on this is - So what? If people want to find religious meaning in rusty girders then I am happy to let them get on with it. If it played a part in the events of 9/11 as a religious symbol then I personally wouldn't object to it being in a museum for that reason. Because it is related to the tragedy of 9/11 it will be treated more seriously and more solemnly but in principle finding meaning in rusty girders is really no different to finding inspiration by seeing Jesus's face in a piece of burnt toast or an oddly shaped cheese puff shaped like Moses. The meaning exists only in the heads of the believers.People imbuing things with symbolic meaning, religious or otherwise, is just what people will inevitably do. Especially in times of tragedy, crisis and high emotion. In my view it isn't worth getting upset about.However - Others who do have reason to object to this as a specifically religious object certainly have a case. And you refusing to face that case on the basis that it is just some 9/11 artefact that has no specific overtly religious non-secular role is frankly dishonest.Why not admit it's religious nature and argue that it should be there anyway? Wouldn't that be the more honest approach here?

Is this object a pair of rusty girders that is a relic of 9/11 or is it in effect a giant crucifix? That is the question here.The former would pass the Lemon test, the latter (I am guessing) probably not. The former would not require that the girders are displayed in any particular orientation. The latter demands that unless displayed as a giant crucifix the object loses all significant meaning and thus it's reason for being included in the museum at all.So the answer here is obvious. It is an overtly religious symbol. This is pretty inarguable unless you think the object could be displayed in a non-crucifix orientation without losing it's symbolic significance. Then why could you not give a straight answer as to why this object needs to be displayed as a crucifix? I am no expert in US law but it does seem that there is at least a legal question to be asked here. But I was more thinking of those non-Christians (whether other faiths or no faith at all) affected by 9/11 who may not want a giant crucifix at the memorial museum. Surely they have a say too - No? And here you unwittingly hit the nail on the head. If something already in place acquires religious significance then, by definition, it wasn't placed there because of it's religious significance.In this case the object has been put in place because of it's religious significance. That is the objection as I understand it.

Well if it wants a place in an entirely secular museum then it needs to be just a pair of rusty girders that can be orientated any which way.If it has religious significance as well then it needs to be displayed as a crucifix.How do you think this item should be displayed in the museum? And why? Then why not display then object on it's side (or whatever)?Don't evade the question - Just tell me why it has to be displayed as a crucifix.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then the answer is obvious. Include it in the museum but display it on it's side or in any other way that is non-crucifix-like.Secular purpose satisfied. Overt religious symbolism avoided.Problem solved.

But throughout this thread you have said it passes the lemon test because it had a secular purpose. Any secular purpose it may have had cannot be dependent on it being displayed as a religious symbol can it? So put the "piece of rubble" in the museum but avoid orientating it in a Christian crucifix-like manner.What's wrong with that?Or do you think NOT being displayed in a crucifix-like manner takes something away from this "secular" object?

Personally I would include it in the museum. As I said back in Message 150But I can see why others (e.g. of other faiths) might have objections to it's inclusion as an overtly and specifically Christian symbol. With regard to the legality or otherwise - There at least seems a question to be asked.My conversation with CS is borne from what I see as his dishonesty in pretending that this object is just a "piece of rubble" that has a "secular purpose" and which could meaningfully be included on this basis even if it weren't displayed as a crucifix-like object.This is just nonsense.Unless displayed as a Christian style cross the object loses all the meaning for which it has been included in the first place. I honestly don't know why CS seems unable to just acknowledge this.

Irrelevant to what?It's role in the events of 9/11.....?Or it's role in the museum? (in which case it can be displayed sideways, upside down or in any non-crucifix-like orientation) without losing any of it's "secular purpose") I have. Answer me one question honestly and non-evasively.If this item were displayed in the museum upside down would those who want it included in the museum be happy with that display choice? If not why not?

Yes those complaints are justified.A heart is a symbol of love and hope and if displayed upside down it loses that meaning.In exactly the same way that a Christian cross lose it's religious symbolism if displayed upside down......

CS did you ever actually read what I wrote in Message 150....? Your much stated position is that this thing has "secular purpose". It has no role or purpose except as a religious symbol. Why can't you juts admit that and then make a case for it's inclusion anyway? AZ has made the best case for it's inclusion whilst acknowledging that it's entire historical significance is as a religious symbol. Symbolism which is completely lost if the thing is displayed as anything other than a religious symbol. Why can't you do the same without bleating on about "secular purpose". Dude - If I put this thing in the museum I would put it in as a crucifix-like cross because it loses all symbolic meaning and thus all historical value otherwise. Because I can see for a fact that it has to be displayed as a religious symbol because that is all it is. I am not the one claiming that it has "secular purpose". You are.So (again) - Answer me one question honestly and non-evasively.If this "secular" item were displayed in the museum upside down would those who want it included in the museum be happy with that display choice? If not why not?

All the arguments that can be made for including the cross can be made for your hypothetical heart. None of the arguments against the cross really apply. So yes there is no reason not to include it at all. As I said in Message 150 my own atheistically inclined perspective is that such symbolism is essentially inevitable and I don't personally have a problem including the cross in the museum. I think a case can be made for it's inclusion but not on the ridiculous basis that CS is advocating of it having "secular purpose". It's only has any purpose or historical role in the events of 9/11 at all as a religious symbol. This should just be acknowledged as the fact that it is before any further arguments are put forwards.Because it is undeniably a specifically Christian symbol I can certainly see why those of other faiths or those of no faith who are more determined than I to avoid being misrepresented in some sense might object to it's inclusion in a memorial dedicated to all those affected by 9/11.AZPaul has made the best case for the cross being included regardless of it's overt role as a religious symbol and Rrhain has a pretty decent point when he says that it best satisfies it's role where it is and should just remain at the church where it has already been placed specifically as a religious symbol.What exactly the US legal/constitutional situation is with regard to all of this I don't know.So in this particular debate, aside from finding CS's evasiveness just fucking annoying and less than honest, I am being a bit of a fence sitter.