Group of atheists has filed a lawsuit

Which is the case here is it not?

Are any other symbols displayed on that site?Why not?

Apparently, a number of times and they were ignored.A government agency putting up a christian cross, ignoring requests from citizens they serve for equal consideration.You think this is proper?

Yes, the Cross is an overtly religious symbol. Yes, the beams' shape as a cross were found in the wreckage and purposely erected on the site as an overtly religious symbol. Religious or not, the Cross was an integral part of the history of the event, which is not just the bombing but the recovery afterwords, and has bonafide value as a historic object inseparable from the event.Other nationally sponsored museums include religious objects when the object has such an intimate tie to the theme or history of the display. For historical preservation it is the object's relation to the history that determines its value to the exhibit. Any legal hand wringing over some perceived religious overtones vis-a-vis government sponsorship of the preserving institution are not even a consideration.This same reasoning would not apply to the Cross of David display even though it is cut from the steel of the historical structure. It was made well after the event being remembered here. That display is solely for the partisan political purpose of placating one religious segment and has no bonafide historical relation to the event itself.Edited by AZPaul3, : proper usage

The only question to be asked is of the competence of any curator that would reject the Cross for display in this museum.At this point the Cross's historical value as linked directly to the preserved event far outwieghs its stand alone religious significance. It was there. It had significance. The curator's duty is to preserve the memory through the display and care of the significant objects surrounding the event.And since this is a curtorial act, and not a legislative one, the Lemon Test is of no significance whatsoever. There is no violation of Church-and-State. Nothing breaches the wall of separation. It is nothing but a curtorial decision and pretty much a no-brainer at that.

No need. It wasn't broken. ... at the time of the event with (admitted) religious significance during the event. Self-serving denial. Not good form.I suppose you would require the Smithsonian to ditch all the religious symbols in their collections for the same reason?As for the object's significance to the event and its obvious place in the history of the event, ask a curator. You won't like the answer, but reality often bites.

Sorry, Rrhain, your wishful fantasy does not equal reality for the rest of the world. As I said the object's historical value is linked directly to the preserved event and far outweighs the stand-alone religious significance you are so eager to taut as its only significance. You are wrong.It was found, unaltered from its present condition, on the site. It was adopted as a religious symbol by some of the workers. How many or few does not matter. It was prayed to. Messages for lost family, co-workers and friends were left at its base. It was an impromptu meeting site for the workers, not just religious meetings but planning meetings as well. It was an easily recognizable landmark on the recovery site.But let's forego the other uses and stay strictly with the religious. It was a religious symbol on site. It was a worship station on site. It was a shrine to the fallen on site. No other such artifact existed on site. It had a unique purpose on site that no other landmark had on site. Because if you had then the object's uniqueness within the history of the event, regardless of its religious overtones, would have bound that curator to its significance for the museum.I understand this religious symbology does not sit well with some. The time to lodge a protest was when the beams were first used in a religious role. But that would have taken a bigger set of balls than the American Atheists or anyone else in the country had at the time. Now, a decade later, the unique history of the object in its relation to the event is established, beyond doubt, and it is too damn late to piss and moan about.It is a religious symbol. It will always be a religious symbol. But it also has a unique place in the history of the site and, thus, in the remembrance of that event. And you cannot deny that unique history even in wanting to deny the religious BS the cross represents. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity

Any artifact of any significance from the site is subject to inclusion in the museum. That is what museums do. That is their reason for existence. Personal religious revulsion not withstanding. You had your answer, if you had cared to actually read and comprehend.From my Message 177:

quote:

---

It was a religious symbol on site. It was a worship station on site. It was a shrine to the fallen on site.

​

...

​

It is a religious symbol. It will always be a religious symbol.

---

This is the religious significance that seems to bother you so.

quote:

---

No other such artifact existed on site. It had a unique purpose on site that no other landmark had on site.

​

...

​

But it also has a unique place in the history of the site and, thus, in the remembrance of that event.

---

This is the "other" significance of the object that gives it the curatorial value for the museum.It was quite plain in my message. I should not have had to spoon feed this to someone of your intellect. You're no dummy, Rrhain. I think you did not want to see this "other" significance the Cross holds. You may be blinded by the "religious patina" you so abhor.It is a religious symbol. It has significance as a religious symbol. Its other significance is that it was on the site. It was used as a religious symbol on the recovery site. It was the only such symbol on the site. That is its unique history that ties it irrevocably to the event the museum is charged with remembering.That is the purpose of the museum. That is the job of the curator. To acquire, preserve and display those unique artifacts with a direct history to the preserved event. The WTC Cross more than fits that requirement for the WTC Museum.Now that the Museum has the artifact, if the curators are not incompetents like the ones you have been talking to, it will remain.

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse?

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 or did you not like the answer so now are being deliberately obtuse? Historical. Just like I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182. Stop playing dumb. History. Just like I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182. Stop playing dumb. Why not?Do you think the Cross was at some site other than ground zero? Do you deny that the object's significance and history was unique to ground zero?Do you deny that preserving history has a secular purpose? Do you deny that preserving the history of ground zero has a secular purpose?Do you deny that the museum's purpose is to acquire, protect and display the unique historical artifacts from ground zero?Do you think just because the Cross had a "religious significance" at ground zero that its unique place in the history of the event, and thus the artifact's curatorial value, is somehow lost? Do you think that "religion" taints and poisons all artifacts into historical insignificance?Edited by AZPaul3, : clarityEdited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to.

Did you not comprehend my answer to this question in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193? This has gone way beyond being deliberately obtuse and is now in reading comprehension territory. For the umpteenth time, Rrhain, it is the history, the curatorial value for a museum. That is its "other" significance, just as I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193. The Cross was there, in that form, at that time.Let me repeat that for you in case you did not catch the meaning this time either.The Cross's significance is that it was there. It is history. Secular or not, sectarian or not, it is a significant part of the site's history. This direct historical tie to the event is all that matters just as I said in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.Straggler's Heart, for all its emotional significance no matter what it was made of, was not there in that form on that site. It had no part in the history of the event. It has no other value than artistic. It carries no curatorial value like the Cross does. For the same reason as the Cross, if these pieces could be located and certified then these would be of curatorial value and would be valuable additions to the museum. Not because of any secular or non-secular symbolism but because they were there: unique significant artifacts of the history being preserved.Your only objection to the collection of the Cross as an historical artifact is that during the event it had a religious meaning. You are so blinded by your abhorrence of the religion that history itself is cast aside. Bullshit. Is that your idea of this museum's charge? To display rubble? Not a big history fan, are you. Ah, well what other could we expect from a history blind irrational "rubble boy"? Not in your history blind eyes. Thankfully this world does not revolve around your personal likes and dislikes. I know of no legislative or administrative act that requires or denies to the curators of this museum any artifact that they deem in their professional opinion to be curatorial and thus should or should not be part of the museum's holdings.The museum serves a secular purpose. There is, nor can there be, any "religious" test of the curatorial value for any piece.The fact that some of the artifacts have some religious meaning does not constitute "an excessive government entanglement with religion," nor can the museum's inclusion of these artifacts be seen as having "the primary purpose of either advancing or inhibiting religion."Your objection is borne of your own personal irrational abhorrence and is rejected. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Well, thank you. BTW, the "where it is" is now in the WTC Museum. The Cross was moved into its final home, as a display in the museum, July 23. That will be decided in the court. What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that the First Amendment carries not only the "establishment" clause (thou shalt not establish any religion) but also the "Free Speech" clause (thou shalt not prohibit free expression).That a group, of any persuasion, would seek to dictate to a secular museum what can and cannot be displayed based solely on that they find an artifact "offensive" is a violation of the museum's free speech, free expression rights. If the City of Skokie (a predominantly jewish town) could not stop the Nazi's from marching through their park because they found it "offensive" then I don't think some group of fellow atheists has any standing to dictate the content of a museum no matter that they find some display "offensive."Given the secular purpose of the museum to preserving the WTC history any attempt to censor a display on purely religious or anti-religious grounds is a First Amendment violation itself. It cuts both ways.And make no mistake here. This is an attempt at censorship.Rrhain and others object and would censor the display because they find it "offensive" to their religious (non-religious) views. Too damn bad.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : corrections

Your supposition is contrary to the evidence presented. Ahh, thus the disconnect is revealed. I say "history" you hear "Yahtzee." No wonder you cannot comprehend this simple concept. Miswiring in the brain. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. You are too incompetent to make such a judgement. Yes, it is. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. See Message 227Wow, what a twisted little mind you have. What word are you hearing when I say "secular"? Do you hear "anti-religious"? Or maybe "wind turbine"? Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. Answered in Message 177 and again in Message 182 and then yet again in Message 193.I know, "Yahtzee significance" doesn't make any sense to you. Have a friend or family member explain it to you. [aside]

​

Good god, for all I know he's reading

​

"Applesauce easy in stop signs having petrogale petrified poodles."

​

[/aside]Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Trae, I agree. Trying to make a secular justification for this religious object is a non-starter.The bigger point is that it does not need one.Apparently, the curators of the museum see enough unique historical significance in the Cross to curate it into the museum where it sits today. The "history" angle has been settled.What remains to be determined is whether government funding of the museum as a whole constitutes "excessive entanglement with religion or has the purpose of promoting one religion over another" just because of a few religious objects within its collection.I think students of the court can see where this is going to fall and I doubt if SCOTUS will even take the case after the Second Circuit rules the Cross is fine right where it is.

Now that is ridiculous. The art had merit in the eyes of the Smithsonian's experts. They should have kept the display and let Donohue go pound sand.And this is quite relevant to this WTC situation.Do the experts in the field see artistic value in the Smithsonian piece? Yes. Should it be displayed? Yes.Do the experts in the field see historical value in the WTC Cross? Yes. Should it be displayed? Yes.Everyone gets so wrapped up in the religion, pro and con. It does not matter. The only thing that matters is the artistic or historical merit the experts see in the piece.