Atheist Group Sues to Stop World Trade Center Cross

Yeah, but what was her favorite pizza?

 

If the people running the memorial were smart they would have saved the cross for the indoor museum. People remember that and I've got to think they would be more likely to pay whatever they were planning to charge to see that cross if they couldn't see it from the street for free.

 

My views on religion have been well documented on this site--basically I think the Bible is completely made up and people shouldn't base their life around a strict interpretation of it--but even I've got to disagree with this one here.

It's a cross. It's not going to ruin your life if you happen to glance at it for seven seconds.

It amazes me the amount of free time some people have.

 

The vegan is looking a lot better.

 

I'm a practicising Catholic but what exactly is this cross supposed to symbolize? That every last one of the victims got whisked away to a Christian heaven? Or that the hijackers themselves were forgiven and embraced by an ever-loving God?

Or is to finally take care of that pesky vampire problem in lower Manhattan?

I don't know. It's too deep for me.

 

I think it's supposed to symbolize something that gave comfort to a lot of people in the days after the attacks. I may not believe that it means what they believe it to mean, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the symbolism and significance.

 

Yeah. That's what I believe too. That the cross means that the suffering and pain of the victims was redeemed by the suffering of Jesus Himself on his own cross.

That being said, I don't think government funds should be used to promote my religion's view of the universe (or any religion's.) And one can't argue that putting up a creche is a harmless, nearly-meaningless symbol and then get upset when other people want it taken down.

 

I'm not a Christian aren't there Christian sects that preach and believe that only Christians go to Heaven. And no matter what kind of life you've led, if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord who died for your sins, you'll go to Heaven.

Isn't this cross, at this location, merely a Christian taunt to non-Christians, that even if you were murdered by vile terrorists and completely innocent, you are going to hell.

 

This. I'm sorry, but it's not cool to have a cross at a government owned and operated landmark. It's an endorsement of one religion over another. Maybe I'm way too sensitive on the topic because I'm a former Christian who converted to Judaism (and was told by my southern Baptist parents that I'm going to hell for it).

Just because it's Ground Zero doesn't mean we can change the rules. No offense to my Christian friends here.

 

You must own a different copy of the Constitution than I do.

 

Sort of offensive to the dozens of Muslims killed in the attack, is it not?

 

Yep. It always baffles me - absolutely baffles me - that people think that the First Amendment is so pliable when the circumstances are sympathetic. Not that we don't ever balance interests, which I guess is kind of what people are doing. (Ex. False advertising laws don't violate free speech). But some of this as far as religion is absolutely settled constitutional law. And it's settled for a reason, with decades of case law, not to mention thousands of academic articles and texts, providing the reasoning if anyone wants to go check it out.

If we only enforced these principles when it was convenient or easy, they wouldn't really mean much now, would they? This reminds me a lot about the Indianapolis high school valedictorian who sued to stop a commencement ceremony prayer. The thinking seemed to be - and the thread is still locked here somewhere - that if the majority of students wanted the prayer, then he should have just kept his mouth shut about it. Which really missed the point.