1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheist Group Sues to Stop World Trade Center Cross

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Deeper_Background, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. nmmetsfan

    nmmetsfan Active Member

    I meant without making it a Christian symbol. Obviously there is a Christian tie based on its history.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Depends who has the fifth vote now that Sandy O'Connor has retired.

    The rule, flabby as it is, is basically a question of whether the typical reasonable observer, aware of all of the facts, would find that the cross endorsed Christianity or not.

    Basically, that "typical reasonable observer" was Sandy O'Connor herself, which is why she formulated the rule. It drove Scalia, who hates that sort of case-by-case balancing, absolutely bonkers. But she held all the cards.

    It's an almost impossible standard to know whether or not you are in compliance.
     
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    People will demand that history be rewritten from time to time.

    There was a big stink raised about a statue that was going to go up at the OKC site that was to be based on a shot of first responders in action the day of the bombing.

    Unfortunately, all the people in the picture were white and this pissed off minority activists in the area who demanded that the statue be altered to be "more inclusive" even though the point was to memorialize a fairly famous picture from that day. Not sure if it ever went up or not.
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Well, the fact that it provided comfort is why it's part of the history of the site.

    Mounted in concrete or not, it stood on that site for a long time. People gathered around it. Mass was held their every day.

    People are aware of it. They've already seen it. It's part of the history. To not display it is to scrub history.

    It's not some random cross that was set up on the site. It has relevance to the story and to this particular site.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    As far as the comfort part, I meant the posts where people were using that as their only argument. "If it gives people comfort, then it should stay." Well, that doesn't cut it.

    I think this is probably a really, really close decision. A 5-4 one.
     
  6. nmmetsfan

    nmmetsfan Active Member

    If that's the case, I would imagine the presentation would have as much to do with it's Constitutionality as the piece itself.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    You know, people are mocked on threads regarding homosexuality all the time. "What, do you think someone's going to catch teh gay?"

    Sometimes I get the same feeling about stuff like this. Like you're afraid some committed atheist is going to see a Cross and get "tricked" into believing.

    It's like your so afraid that your own set of beliefs will be abandoned and you'll lose a member.

    It's a Cross. So what? It's not like they've attached a bloody statue of Jesus to it.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    And now you have lost your argument.

    You were doing so well.

    There are so many long articulated reasons for the separation of church and state. It's a valid concern, and motivation of individual objectors shouldn't even play into any argument the other way. It's completely irrelevant.
     
  9. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I guess I would like to know what the atheists in question are so afraid of. Placement of this cross isn't advocating a state religion. There isn't a separation of church and state issue here.
     
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yes, there is. At least arguably.

    Again, call Sandy O'Connor. She's the only one who has the answer.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Eh, it's more of a commentary than an argument.
     
  12. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Just to clarify the point, since (I think) I was the first to bring it up:

    The comfort issue, along with the obvious history of the object, is why I don't have a particular problem with the inclusion of the cross. It was not intended as a legal argument on any level.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page