9/11 Cross and Misconceptions

The American Atheists pride themselves on fighting good fights that can be won, have been won, and have set good precedent.

I fear this may not be any of those.

I completely disagree. If it had been left as rubble and untouched, it’d be fine to be displayed as a relic. Since it was “blessed” by so-called holy men, it is a now religious and that is unacceptable. Since it is impossible to represent everyone’s religion, none should be represented. I fully support the American Atheists lawsuit.

I’ve been looking & can’t find any reference online to a separate museum that will house only the beams.

I did find that pieces of beam have been shipped to lots of cities for them to create their own 9/11 memorials, is that what you mean?

I do not support American Atheists in this. We have to pick our battles more wisely. All Silverman is doing is making us all look like jerks. There is nothing good that can come of this lawsuit.

The resources Silverman and AA are using to engage the suit could be being used to help out organizations like Charity: Water or to provide libraries with books or to help food drives or to do any number of other things that would accomplish something great and put the atheist label in a good light. But that’s not going to happen here.

Instead, Silverman is going to win the suit, of course, but will lose the trust and good will of the population at large, making it that much more unlikely that those who sit on the religious fence will hop on over. Making it that much harder for atheists in places like Tulsa, where I live, to be heard without having to address the actions of AA first. Setting the entire cause back just to make a silly, silly point.

We’re supposed to be the rational ones. Let’s be the grownups here. Drop the suit. Apologize. Shut up for six months or so and then come out swinging in a huge initiative to do a lot of measurable good in the lives of our neighbors.

Or are we too emotional to pull that off?

David Silverman is bringing back the ghost of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and that is fine by me. Atheists need more hate. We need this hatred to be seen in the open and not on a private basis.

I agree with Justin McKean. We need to pick our battles, and suing 911 over some beams blessed by a holy man is not going to win us any friends. Enough people think we’re assholes as is. This is not really one of those fights I’d like to support to become a bigger asshole.

Sure some idiot went and blessed the beams, but the reality is their blessing does not make the beams holy. They’re still just beams. 

@ Justin and Tracy: I support the suit.  There may be nothing good that can come of this lawsuit in the short term, but in the long term, it’s one more opportunity to get people to understand what separation of church and state actually means.  If our position against these beams is right, then that must count for something.

Putting atheists in a good light is a Good Thing to do.  So is this suit, for the long term.

We should not evaluate every action we contemplate as to whether it will make us friends.  Making friends is a Good Thing, but it’s not the Only Thing.

Can we support actions that have different goals, or must every action only serve one goal?

That it was “blessed” is completely irrelevant.  Being “blessed” in no way changes anything about the artifact.  What changes it is how they present it.  If they present it as a sacred relic, then the government is promoting one religious relic as “official.”  If they just present it as a historical artifact, then that’s fine.  

That it was “blessed” makes no difference because “blessing” is bullshit.

I disagree with protesting any artifacts being shown in a museum. If it’s historical in context, then it belongs whether or not there are religious overtones. By that logic, we should also get rid of all those Greek and Egyptian artifacts that relate to their mythologies, too.

In the light of history, psychology, anthropology, sales, marketing and PR the lawsuit is ultimately a destructive act. It solves nothing. Folks will still want to do things like this. The solution is to remove the desire, not to attempt to legislate ethicality.

Actions like this make conversations with those who disagree with us harder. We feel better but ultimately shot ourselves in the foot.

Slavery wasn’t abolished until social pressures had made it unpopular to support it. Civil rights weren’t protected until social pressures made it unpopular to oppose civil rights. Unions were legally easy to start (to use a reverse example) until social pressures made them unpopular.

Atheism will continue to grow more and more quickly in this nation when and only when social pressures grow that make it acceptable to be an atheist and unacceptable to be a believer. Lawsuits like this set back our efforts.

Yes. Pretty much everything is more important than that.

AA could donate the money used in the lawsuit to Doctors Without Borders on 9/11/11 in recognition of those who died and in hope for a more peaceful tomorrow. That would be way, way, way more important. Also, it’s far more effective at eroding the drive to revere religious symbols than deliberately making a martyr of one such symbol, which is exactly what Silverman is doing.

Why is this blog still called, the “Friendly” Atheist.

Mehta admitted to me some time ago that the name is not appropriate.

I agree with you Tom. That way the religious can have their relic and the museum can talk about it without it becoming a place of worship.

You’re right, Hemant. I’ve been kind of torn on my own views about it, but I think this is a very valid point. Thanks.

I posted about the street sign and not thinking that was too big a deal.  I compared it to museum exhibits.  Well, you can imagine my opinion on this then.

It depends entirely on context.  In the same way creationism is acceptable to be taught as a mythology in a class on religions of the world in a public school, this cross seems acceptable as a historical item in a museum.  If creationism were taught as science, or this was presented as a sacred item valuable because it is religious, THAT would be crossing the line.

This resonates with me far more than the street sign issue.  That was “mostly harmless” to me.  This however is a matter of historical information.  The FULL history should be  provided, at least as many important things as can fit in the space of the museum (there’s your window for a complaint I’ll consider by the way).  To put this up at the memorial itself would certainly be promoting a religion.  Even sticking a bunch of symbols from other religions would come across as half-hearted, since they would only be created in response to this cross.  No, the museum is not only an excellent compromise, it will inform future generations about how our generation chose to respond to this moment.  It should go no further, not describing the Jesus or proselytizing, but it SHOULD do that.  It’s an important part of history, a negative part if you ask me, but those are just as important, perhaps more so.  Future generations, assuming a purely factual description of what the cross was by the museum, will likely interpret it with a sense of irony.  This has been there a long time and was built rather quickly after the attack, thus earning it historical relevance (but not reverence).

Protest how it is displayed if it comes across as promoting religion.  Protest using space for this instead of some other relic from the site you believe is more important.  However, do not by fiat protest this being in a museum at all just because it is religious.  That borders on censoring history, even whitewashing if you, like me, view this cross as ironic.

Suing is completely dumb. The cross is part of the history of 9/11 and so it should go in. Putting in other religious symbols is irrelevant unless they too were part of the history. If there were such symbols, and they were excluded, then there would be a case.

Display it as a piece of debris. Maybe upside down, or on its side or an a less than perpendicular angle. Do not identify it as a cross, but rather a jagged remnant of the supporting girders, and add some other surrounding debris (perhaps a dead body, or multiple pieces thereof?). THEN it would be an accurate representation of what was found after the building came down.

Displaying it as a cross simply projects the wishful thinking of one, particular, coddled religion, and is offensive to those who are excluded. If it is a private museum built and maintained with private funds, display it with a huge halo over it, for all I care. But if my taxpayer funds are there, then it’s offensive to me to think that we should memorialize how the Christian god failed us on 9/11/2001.

Great article. I’m an atheist, and I honestly don’t care if someone wants to put a cross in a museum or even on a memorial. Yes, I understand why “new” atheists don’t like it: because they want to live in a completely non-religious society. But if you ask me, going around suing people because they choose to display a religious symbol on a memorial is a huge step backwards. It reflects badly on all atheists, because to ordinary people it looks exactly like religious intolerance. That’s something most people, regardless of their religion, strongly believe is immoral. And I would agree with them. 

In my opinion if atheists are ever going to gain widespread support, we’re going to have to stop acting like ass holes in the eyes of the public. This is exactly why I try not to associate myself with the new atheist movement anymore.  Atheism is a personal choice, and if we feel the need to sue the 9/11 memorial, I think we’re almost certainly barking up the wrong tree. 

Great clip, Larry.  I was under the impression that the cross beam was found in the rubble, but if Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s account is correct, it was actually built from two beams by rescue workers.  I’m not sure if this has any effect on my position on this issue… still chewing on that…

Well if Neil DeGrasse Tyson is okay with it… I guess I don’t care so much if there’s a cross in the museum, and a lawsuit does seem frivolous. Thanks for posting the video. I liked how he said it’s a footnote symbol (officially called a “dagger” in typography). That’s a nice interpretation.

I have quite a few issues with the 9/11 Cross. I wrote two articles on why I oppose it:
9/11 Cross: In opposition – http://exm.nr/pTMmGE
‘9/11 Cross’ turns museum into church – http://exm.nr/nOxe4Z

If you are torn on the views including The Friendly Atheist may I suggest a study in the 1st and 14th amendment? Once you understand the Establishment Clause and the Discrimination of the 14th Amendment this ceases to be a “I DON’T LIKE THE SUIT, IT HURTS US…” It becomes a violation of our Constitution without Argument!

“If you stand behind a lawsuit only because it is the popular view, I must question your devotion to The United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. We must uphold our Constitution whenever it is violated. If this makes us unpopular, so be it and come what may, be it a flood of anger, hate and dislike from my own. That the future generations are secure is of far more concern than ever-changing likes that are here today and gone tomorrow.”

– Ernest Perce V, Pennsylvania State Director, American Atheists, Inc.

Thank you so much for posting that clip. I get it now. It’s art made during the rescue. I’m with Dr. Tyson, then.  But it would help if it was publicized that way, rather than as a Jesus-on-the-toast miracle, which is how it initially sounded to me.

Great articles. A lot (just about all, really) of reporting about this has not been getting the full story out. Everyone should watch this video from the American Atheists TV show, posted a couple days ago, to get a better understanding of their motivations: http://vimeo.com/27347757

The problem is that this is more than a case of “this hurts us” (although it does). The suit is wrong in principle, seeing an attack on the separation between church and state when there is none. Further it has been framed in the most incendiary way imaginable. There is no honor in this suit!

I think I addressed that in the second article. The sheer size of this artifact and the exclusion of artifacts from other traditions cements the impression of a religious endorsement. This artifact cannot be displayed neutrally unless other similarly sized artifacts from other traditions are included. That was part of the stipulation in the American Atheists lawsuit. 

I think you are making a false equivalency here and I explained why that is the case.  The fact is that Christian fundamentalist have already turned the 9/11 Memorial Museum into the Creationist Museum and you don’t seem to have a problem with that. I do. The 9/11 Cross had nothing to do with the attack and was created to push religion. There is no way that it can be presented in a secular and neutral manner given the emotion and devotion surrounding it. That obviously is not the case with ancient Egyptian artifacts in any museum in the nation. The Cross does not belong in the museum and it’s inclusion would turn the museum into a church.

When you say “The 9/11 Cross had nothing to do with the attack and was created to push religion”, it’s hard for me not to see one falsehood and one prejudice. The falsehood is that the cross had nothing to do with the attack. In a broad sociological and historical sense it does – it was found days after and featured in the news at the time; it has been repeatedly used in public ceremonies related to the attacks; it has been inscribed with hundreds of messages; it has become a symbol to thousands of New Yorkers. This is enough to substantiate its position as an artifact that “has something to do with the attack”.

The prejudice is your (unevidenced) assumption that the cross was manufactured simply to “push religion”. As far as I can tell the individual who found it was already devout, and it has never, that I’ve been able to find, been used as a tool to proselytize. So you have to either back up your arguments or withdraw them.

If you read my article you will see there is an actual image of the cross in the proposed historical exhibit and a quote from the museum officials saying it is in the museum. There is also a link to a video where the museum director says the same. I also spoke recently to the lawyer who is handling the case for American Atheists, Inc. He confirms that the beams are in the museum. This aspect of the case, at least, is indisputable.

I’m afraid this video is filled with many unevidenced claims, appalling misinformation and what I consider to be an unfortunate diatribe about Jewish people and their willingness to be seen as a “token”.

Silverman consistently refers to the “Memorial” as the site of the cross, which at the very least is misleading, when it is in fact being housed in the “Memorial Museum” (which, as I’ve argued, makes a big difference).

Silverman claims ground at the Museum was sanctified to house the cross. I can find no evidence to support this (although a blessing ceremony was conducted on public ground BEFORE the cross entered the site). 

Silverman claims the option to donate stuff to the museum is a recent invention in response to the lawsuit. The Museum has in fact solicited donations through its website for some time. Link:http://www.911memorial.org/help-build-collection

Silverman claims the inclusion of a Star of David in the exhibit was a knee-jerk response to the lawsuit. I cannot substantiate this claim and he provides no evidence for it.

I am now very skeptical of claims made by AA regarding this issue.

I have extensively outlined the secular value of the cross in my piece. You cannot simply assert that I am wrong – you have to give an actual argument as to why the forms of value I argue inhere in the cross do not actually inhere in it.

You say:” This cross represents the Christian need to link patriotism with their religion. It is an attempt to use this tragedy to endorse their beliefs…I will not stand by while Christians try to hijack the emotion caused by this tragedy so that they can energize their flock.  ”

This is bald assertion. Substantiate your claim! It sounds a lot like anti-Christian prejudice to me: “They could only be doing this for nefarious and underhand purposes, not out of genuine spiritual commitment!”, you seem to say. I think that’s an ugly way of thinking about our fellow citizens.

Your articles are simply a series of assertions without evidence or reasons. They are no better than your comments here.

You didn’t “refute” my point. You only stated a counter opinion. You said the cross has “no secular value” but provide no reason as to why the secular values I outline in my article are not valid. That is not an argument.

Further, I am happy to call out forms of prejudice when I see them. The evidence I am using here is your own assignation of negative motive behind the actions of a large and diverse group of people when you present (and probably cannot have) any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your aspersions regarding motive. If you think my writing is prejudicial in some way I would expect you to call it out.

This is getting to be a very narrow thread! If you can point to where you have responded in full to the arguments in my article (or if you want to post them as a comment on the State of Formation site) I am happy to think about them But all you have done in this thread is state your opinion with no accompanying evidence while casting aspersions on the motives of Christian Americans.My accurate appraisal of your “argument” is neither ad hominem (I have presented a strong case in my two articles) nor a “straw man” (I am responding directly to your own words).

“Cultural significance” is a worthlessly trivial qualification.

It is not impressive that you found people to quote who agree there is a cultural significance to the cross.

Yes, museums frequently display religious artifacts. What they don’t
frequently display are “young” artifacts like this cross. The cross is supposed to be a contemporary idol, with real meaning to citizens of our country? They why does it seem to need a museum to validate its significance? If it is so important, why isn’t there a more natural environment demanding this “significance?”

I think  that is a really good point, but what if, as I think  Tr2v was getting at, the justification for an artifact’s significance is that “it was blessed.” (or, ok, “it was blessed and worshipped”) What if only 95% of the justification for entry is the blessing? 50%? I’m not trying to make a point, here, I’m curious.No matter about that: what about the inflation of significance itself?It seems to me the people inflating “blessed” significance are those using it to push their own shrine into history.

I think this is a much simpler situation. Assume there aren’t people who view this as a step in their ongoing plan towards establishing a theocracy. There are, but lets put them aside for now. Was this artifact a part of the experience of a significant amount of people related to WTC? Then there is no reason it shouldn’t be in a museum relating the history of 9-11. The only way this should be a problem is if the museum is “officially” considered a religious shrine (I stress ‘officially’ because what people do on their own time is irrelevant).

As long as religious worship is a part of our present, it will be a part of our history. From that angle, this suit could be seen as attempting to change history

As an atheist, then you wouldn’t believe in a “blessing by so called holy men”.  So, it is simple, you don’t believe in a “blessing”, then the cross is a found artifact in WTC based on your beliefs.  If other people have other opinions on what two cross-beams mean to them, it is not your business.  Freedom of religion does not mean Freedom FROM religion.  It means to believe in what you want to believe.  It allows you to believe there is no God.  It allows me to believe there is a God.  It allows Muslims to believe in Mohammed.  It allows Buddhist to believe in Buddha.  As you don’t want religion imposed on you, I as a christian don’t want your belief to be imposed on me.

Correct. The Christian belief is that God’s Son died for our sins, and the cross reminds us of this. What is your belief?