What? MORE on that 9/11 Cross?

October 27, 2012 By 41 Comments

Fellow Patheos blogger Rebecca Hamilton has recently posted about the World Trade Center Cross. This is a 17-foot-tall, cross-shaped piece of rubble found in the World Trade Center aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Out of all that wreckage from buildings built of steel I-beams welded together at right angles, it’s not too surprising that the intersection of two beams had broken to make a cross-shaped piece of steel.

The cross wasn’t even found at the Twin Towers site but rather at 6 World Center, but it has become a religious relic for some Christians.

Rebecca is puzzled by the fuss from atheists and proposes two explanations: (1) atheists are thin-skinned whiners “set on harassing, insulting and attacking Christians at every turn in an attempt to drive us underground and silence us.” Or (2), atheists are vampires and are repulsed by the sight of a cross.

I’d like to respond with a tweaked version of a post that I wrote for last year’s anniversary of the attack. Perhaps we can clarify atheists’ motivations.

The cross shape could just be a coincidence (the explanation favored by atheists), or it could be a sign from God (what some Christians propose). If the latter, I’m not sure what to make of the fact that the only evidence of God participating was his calling card. In the rubble. And this evidence of God-not-doing-anything is now highlighted as a holy relic.

Hmm—that it’s just a coincidence is starting to sound a lot better from the standpoint of the Christian.

This cross is now a controversial addition to New York City’s soon-to-be-completed National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

American Atheists and New York City Atheists are suing to have the cross removed. Their remedy is to return it to St. Peter’s Church, two blocks from Ground Zero, where it had been for five years until moved to the museum in July 2011. Since half of the museum’s financing has been provided by the government, returning it to the church sounds a lot easier than giving equal time to all the worldviews that don’t have a cross as their symbol.

There was another controversy associated with the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2011. New York Mayor Bloomberg declared that the commemorative ceremony would be religion-free.

Sounds good to me. There are plenty of secular reasons for the ceremony, and religious people can remember the event in their own way as best suits their religion. People of any faith (or even no faith) can feel pain. Why should only some get a publicly-funded platform?

And when you do try to include religions, there’s bickering over who was omitted.

Some evangelical Christian leaders said they were outraged that an interfaith prayer service planned by the Washington National Cathedral did not include a Southern Baptist or other evangelical minister.

The New York City ceremony, which has been held annually on the anniversary, is punctuated by moments of silence (six times in 2011), plenty of opportunity for prayer.

But for some folks it has to be more overt. Benjamin Wiker said:

Perhaps the mayor could have come up with an entirely innocuous prayer that all the clergy could offer without offending anyone, say something like this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, and our country. Amen.”

Who could possibly object to that?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe atheists, not that they apparently are worth worrying about. Buddhists. Those who check “Spiritual” instead of a specific religion. The almost 20% of Americans who are “Nones” (those who don’t identify with any religion). And since this “God” is pretty obviously the Christian God (one person of the Trinity), probably the Jews and Muslims as well. And anyone else who’s not a Christian. And anyone who respects the Constitution enough to realize that the First Amendment helps all of us, the Christian and non-Christian alike, and bristles when it is insulted.

Aside from that, I think you’re good.

Back to that article:

Since Engel v. Vitale [the 1962 Supreme Court case that rejected school prayer] a series of court cases have struck down, one after another, any religious expression in the public square, thereby setting one clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) in direct contradiction to the clause that directly follows it (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).

Not really. You want to express a religious sentiment in the public square? Knock yourself out. This is the essential distinction that is forgotten: the public can, within limits, say anything, religious or otherwise, in public. The constraint is on Congress (expanded beyond just the federal government with the Fourteenth Amendment).

And isn’t that the way you’d want it? Christians can send their children to public school and know that they won’t hear a Mormon or Satanist prayer. Christians can go to a City Council meeting and not see Allahu Akbar (“God is Great”) in Arabic script on the wall. Christians can go into a courtroom and not see a Shinto or Hindu god of jurisprudence glaring down at them. A win-win.

In disallowing any public appearance of religion in the 9/11 memorial “service,” [Mayor Bloomberg is] simply taking Engel v. Vitale yet another step. No prayer in public schools. No prayer in public period. The Establishment Clause (so secularists would have us believe) demands that religion be silenced.

Wow—what’s hard about this? Just keep Christianity out of the tax-supported part of society. Pray in private or in public, or encourage prayer all you want—just not in the official capacity as mayor. (Or president. But the National Day of Prayer is another story.)

The whole point, in historical context, was that the Federal Government should not positively sanction one Christian denomination over another (as England had established the Anglican Church as the state church), and also negatively should not interfere in the free exercise of any denomination (as England had persecuted both Puritans and Catholics).

Ah, so it’s all about Christian religion, you say? In your mind, perhaps, but that’s not what the Constitution says.

So it is that a particular New York mayor uses the Establishment Clause to root out Christianity, and the Free Exercise Clause to publicly affirm Islam.

Dr. Wiker is apparently still hot under the collar about that whole “Ground-Zero Mosque” thing (officially called Park51). Let me give my two cents on that.

(1) May a Muslim group build two blocks from the Twin Towers site? Yes. Assuming the city’s other requirements are met, the government can’t reject the project simply because Muslims are involved or that the building would have a prayer space.

(2) Should a Muslim group build there? No. In my opinion, the respectful course of action would have been to find another site far from Ground Zero. This is a missed opportunity for a prominent Muslim community to yield and show that it understands the issue and is sensitive to it.

This is the distinction that Wiker seems to be missing. If Mayor Bloomberg defended point 1 above, then he simply demanded that the law be followed. If he’s treading into religious favoritism, however, that would be a problem. Is he? I’ve seen no evidence supporting this.

But that’s the point. That’s where the Constitution helps everyone, including the beleaguered Christian. The government is forbidden to give preferential treatment to Islam (by favoring a Muslim group over others) or to Christianity (by including Christian prayers at the 9/11 anniversary commemoration or Christian symbolism in the Memorial Museum).

It cuts both ways. And that helps all of us.

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 9/10/11.)

Filed Under: Separation of Church and State Tagged With: , , , 41 Comments
  • Richard S. Russell

    “Should a Muslim group build there [within 2 blocks of the former Twin Towers]? No. In my opinion, the respectful course of action would have been to find another site far from Ground Zero.”
     
    Gotta part company with you on this one, Bob. If Muslims need to relocate far away simply because some destructive religious fanatics happened to be Muslim, then Christians and Jews (who also have their share of destructive religious fanatics) should also be required to move far away.

    In point of fact, I don’t think any of them should have to relinquish their rights as free citizens in a free country, voluntarily or otherwise, just because they happen to share some beliefs in common with terrorists. People should be held responsible for their own actions, as individuals, not stereotyped as members of groups. We as atheists should be more sensitive to the unfairness of this than almost anyone.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Richard:

      If Muslims need to relocate far away simply because some destructive religious fanatics happened to be Muslim, then Christians and Jews (who also have their share of destructive religious fanatics) should also be required to move far away.

      I’m not saying that they need to. They’re within their rights to have a cultural center 2 blocks from Ground Zero. I’m just saying that, IMO, this was a big missed opportunity for the Muslim community to say, “Y’know what? This is an enormously emotional issue. No one’s claiming that we are to blame, but we appreciate the sensitivity of this issue. We’ll find another location.” Digging in their heels isn’t going to make the extremists on the Christian side any more accommodating.

      • Richard S. Russell

        Flip side: The rest of us can show our sensitivity to the unfair stereotyping of Muslims by showing that we welcome their participation as full and free citizens in a democracy, and that we don’t harbor grudges against them for irrational reasons. What better way to show why the American way of life is superior to the hateful destructiveness of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? “Muslims welcome here; terrorists go away!” is a great message to be sending to the rest of the world!

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Sure. The opportunities go both ways.

      • kenneth

        When “sensitivity” crosses the line into apology for one’s own existence, that’s a losing strategy for any minority group. It is the short road to marginalization and genocide. It’s tempting when you’re an unpopular minority to just keep your head down, bow and smile, and try to stay out of the way, but it never works. It breeds contempt, not goodwill. Jews, gays, aboriginal peoples, all of them tried this strategy at one time or another and it failed horribly for all of them.

        The Muslims building this cultural center are not responsible for 9/11. The have no more obligation to apologize for it than any of us, or to forgo their property and free exercise rights in the name of “sensitivity.” If they did move their center to placate the haters, it would not be taken in the spirit of goodwill by ANY of them. It would be taken as an acknowledgement that Muslims are not quite right and that they owe society a permanent debt of deference and an obligation to recuse themselves from any place they’re not wanted. There is no safety or dignity in ghettos, or in two-block radius “no go” zones.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          The Muslims building this cultural center are not responsible for 9/11.

          Of course. But are non-Muslims idiots for seeing more connection between that group and 9/11 and, say, dairy farmers or knitters?

          The have no more obligation to apologize for it than any of us

          No one’s asking for an apology, just sensitivity. I’m perfectly within my rights to wear a Nazi uniform with a Hitler moustache as I attend a Holocaust memorial lecture, but that would be insensitive.

        • Kodie

          Were there some innocent Nazis so we shouldn’t really generalize them?

        • Richard S. Russell

          Still not buyin’ it, Bob. Would you say that homosexuals should feel especially bad about Jerry Sandusky and slink away whenever the subject comes up? You and I are both men. Should we feel particularly abashed when women’s talk turns to rape, because it’s our kind that does most of it? I know people who live in Chicago despite its being home to the Bears. Are they scum-sucking pigs who should live in eternal shame because of it? Well, yes, they are, but in general I think guilt by association is a bad idea, and self-loathing guilt is the very sort of thing religionists would love us atheists to develop the habit of. Look at how they managed to load the Jews up on it thru the centuries, to the point where it was practically genetic.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Richard:

          Would you say that homosexuals should feel especially bad about Jerry Sandusky and slink away whenever the subject comes up?

          I’m saying that if a local gay rights group wants to have a Pride Parade and they discover that the route goes past one of Jerry Sandusky’s victims, they might want to reconsider the route.

          Should we feel particularly abashed when women’s talk turns to rape, because it’s our kind that does most of it?

          I’m saying that building a Men’s Club for Manly Men Unashamedly Proud of Being Men right next to a rape crisis center would be uncool.

        • Richard S. Russell

          Yeah, I know you’re saying that, Bob, and I can see that you’re being entirely consistent about it, but WHY do you think that? It is not the fact of their homosexuality or their masculinity that should be faulted here, no more than it is the Islamicity of the Park51 people that should be faulted in NYC. Predators and terrorists deserve to be condemned, but you’re evidently willing to visit your detestation for them not only upon them and their families and their home towns but upon their entire religions and sexes. Why? Why do you feel that way? Why do you think it’s OK for anyone ELSE to feel that way? You skipped right past my point about guilt by association. I think it’s a bad idea, because it tars the innocent with the brush best reserved for the guilty. Why do you think it’s a GOOD idea? (Aside from the standard exception for the Bears, of course.)

          Isn’t that just making excuses for irrational stereotyping and bigotry? After all, it wasn’t because Jerry Sandusky was gay that he preyed on little kids; it was because he was a pedophile. I could understand his victims’ families getting upset if there was a Pedophile Pride Parade going by their house, but why, exactly, do you think they should be upset about a GAY Pride Parade? That’s like the old line we used in college to indicate joshing “contempt” for a buddy: “Fuck you. Fuck everyone who LOOKS like you. Fuck the horse you rode in on.” But WE meant it as a joke; you evidently mean it seriously and think other people should, too. I keep trying to find out why, but you just keep repeating yourself in different contexts. I get your conclusion; what I’m searching for at this point is the reasoning that led to it.

        • kenneth

          “.are non-Muslims idiots for seeing more connection between that group and 9/11 and, say, dairy farmers or knitters?”…..

          They are, to the extent they refuse to see any distinctions between the average American Muslim and Al Queda operatives. Third generation American Germans have more connection with the SS than dairy farmers and knitters. Should they refrain from ever opening a business or cultural center or gathering in numbers in Jewish neighborhoods?

          It’s also interesting that your concept of “sensitivity” equates being a Muslim in public view with the calculated provocation of a Nazi uniform at a Holocaust memorial.

        • Richard S. Russell

          PS: Death to Chicago!

        • Richard S. Russell

          PPS: Death to Bear enablers!
             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWXnbdlG_Ts

        • Richard S. Russell

          PPPS: Repeal the 2nd Amendment. No Bear arms!

        • Richard S. Russell

          PPPPS: Why do you think they call them the MONSTERS of the Midway?
           
          You have been warned!

        • Niemand

          But are non-Muslims idiots for seeing more connection between that group and 9/11 and, say, dairy farmers or knitters?

          Quite honestly, yes. Or at least ignorant, if not idiots. Outrage over the Sufi building a community center a few blocks (and a neighborhood border) away from the WTC is a bit like being upset at an Anglican group building a community center near to the site of an IRA bombing. Just missing a lot of the cultural context and point.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Richard:

          It is not the fact of their homosexuality or their masculinity that should be faulted here, no more than it is the Islamicity of the Park51 people that should be faulted in NYC.

          Right. There’s no fault here.

          Predators and terrorists deserve to be condemned, but you’re evidently willing to visit your detestation for them not only upon them and their families and their home towns but upon their entire religions and sexes. Why? Why do you feel that way?

          No, I detest only those who’ve committed crimes. All I’ve ever been talking about here are missed opportunities.

          The group behind the imaginary gay pride parade (1) didn’t do anything wrong and (2) are perfectly within their rights to have their parade according to the original permit, just like the NYC Muslim group (1) didn’t do anything wrong and (2) are perfectly within their rights to build Park51. We are on the same page here, right?

          You skipped right past my point about guilt by association. I think it’s a bad idea, because it tars the innocent with the brush best reserved for the guilty. Why do you think it’s a GOOD idea?

          I don’t, and I can’t begin to imagine why you’d think that I ever did.

          I could understand his victims’ families getting upset if there was a Pedophile Pride Parade going by their house, but why, exactly, do you think they should be upset about a GAY Pride Parade?

          Let’s imagine that a straight young man is sexually abused and 3 months later there’s a gay pride parade in front of his house. There’s never been one before. Are you saying that there’s zero chance that he would make any connection or be upset?

          I’m not certain that he would be, but I would’ve thought it possible. Maybe I haven’t thought this through and it’s a poor analogy. You tell me.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          kenneth:

          They are, to the extent they refuse to see any distinctions between the average American Muslim and Al Queda operatives.

          I’m certain they see the distinction, but this avoids my point. You’re saying that, given the set {Muslims, dairy farmers, knitters}, the average American would see each one equally associated with 9/11?

          Third generation American Germans have more connection with the SS than dairy farmers and knitters. Should they refrain from ever opening a business or cultural center or gathering in numbers in Jewish neighborhoods?

          A good example. You tell me then–what do you tell someone who would prefer that the NYC Muslims find another place not so close to the World Trade Center site?

        • Richard S. Russell

          I’m saying there’s zero chance that he’d be justified in making a connection or being upset. Of COURSE it’s possible, maybe even likely. But that doesn’t make it reasonable, and we shouldn’t cater to it.
           
          To extend the analogy, let’s say his abuser was a US Marine who started out in full dress uniform. Would the young man possibly make a connection or get upset if the parade passing in front of his house were a Memorial Day parade instead of a gay-pride parade? Possibly. Do YOU think he’d be justified in doing so? Should the parade organizers feel bad or guilty about it?

      • Niemand

        I used to live about 2 blocks from the WTC. Currently on the site everyone is making a fuss about is an empty, partly damaged building that is of no use to anyone. The community center, had it opened, would have been open to non-Muslims as well as Muslims and would have revitalized an area that still has many empty storefronts. In short, the Manhattanite businessperson in me is upset that it was blocked by prejudice.

        Also, the group which wanted to build it was Sufi. The Unitarians of the Islamic world. Al Qaeda likes them about as much as you do.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Niemand:

          “Had it opened”? “Blocked by prejudice”? I didn’t realize that the project was canceled. That’s not what Wikipedia says about it.

          I’m hearing a lot of loud proclaiming of what I’ve felt all along–that the NYC Muslims are no more guilty of 9/11 than any of us are, and that they’re perfectly within their rights to get permits and build their project just like anyone else. Yeah, I get it. What I’m stuck on is someone responding, “Yeah, but why here? Couldn’t they find another place just a little farther away? Wouldn’t that have been the sensitive thing to do?”

          There is not no connection between the (presumably) peaceful NYC Muslims and the clearly not peaceful 9/11 hijackers. This request doesn’t seem out of line. The Park51 group doesn’t have to move, but isn’t there some validity to the request? Or are you saying that it’s completely insane, completely without intellectual or emotional foundation of any sort?

        • Kodie

          They should consider moving but only because they should consider who they might be hurting – everyone should. This is not a black and white matter. I don’t think there is anything actually wrong with putting the Muslim center there to serve the needs of the community as there might be something wrong with choosing a location that serves nobody just to stick it to victims. Sticking something to victims is offensive. Rationalizing can be offensive. I would like to see a more sensitive outcome in people’s intentions and stand their ground when the opposed are claiming more than a fair share of victimization.

          As I understood it, most of the opposed didn’t live in New York, not in that area or even the city or the state itself. They, on the other hand, may or may not know a person who died in the attack on the WTC. They may or may not know a person who died in any of the attacks made on 9/11. I am going to guess most people do not know a person, but feel a perverse empathy to decide what other families want. I personally rate 9/11 a serious incident but not to the point where humans behave ridiculously. I have no doubt some Christians feel something distinct about the relic cross to the point where they rate that a serious non-trivial memento, but they are also behaving ridiculously.

          Perhaps I am coming from a different set of instructions because I do care, I care a lot. I have other, for example, family relationships that are difficult – I have to compromise too far so that others are not “upset” whether or not they have a right to be, I also have a right to be myself as long as I’m not harming any of them. I have to withhold my natural freedoms for the general comfort of people who are ridiculously offended by everything and the freedom to say so. To me, they get more freedom to make me less comfortable. The more I back off, the more ridiculous and arbitrary the rules get. There is a point where respecting someone else becomes unreasonable for someone else, but who gets to draw that line? I care how someone feels, I care if they get triggered by the mere presence of Muslims, I care that they want to memorialize a space rather than just forget about it, but some of their requests are unreasonable to the ordinary freedoms of other people. They shouldn’t be triggered by Muslims any more than a person should feel uneasy about having a black president, and if they are, the answer is not to remove Muslims from their view, but to help them not be so arbitrary.

          Is it right for a rape victim to then be triggered by the presence of men? What are men supposed to do – feel personally responsible? The right answer is not to erase the tragedy by forcing the victim to just “get over it,” but it’s not to support the individual’s preferences where their wishes count more than someone else’s – it’s to heal them to a place where they live in the world we have, which has men in it, most of whom are not rapists or harmful and some of whom may be offensive and intentionally hurtful to women, and if that’s not enough, we all can’t opt out and leave her the world she’d like to see; we can disagree whether the men have a right to lease a space next to a rape crisis center – was it strategic for them because they love to make life hard for people, or was it in a centrally located plaza that attracts business? What if this center helps men who are also victimized by something? What if a man is raped and there are no rape crisis centers for him? Does this center predicate on making women uncomfortable just for being women, or is it a place for men to get what they need that they can’t get from places that cater to women? What if a rape victim is triggered by males and has a father, husband, sons, brothers, and male friends who would like to help her? I wasn’t raped but I’m triggered, what about my feelings?

          To some extent, anything that happens to someone you love has some effect on you too – all of us have lost something in that attacks of 9/11, then how can some of us feel that it’s not wrong for Muslims to put a center in downtown Manhattan? Non-terrorist Muslims lost not only family members and friends in the attacks, just being an unrelated compassionate American (like me, for example), and additionally being treated like a terrorist and attendant loss of freedom in their own neighborhood.

          On another hand, all of us are triggered by something and people aren’t mind-readers. Requests can be made, situations can be assessed, generalizing victims to being triggered by anything possible and generalizing groups of people for guilt by association on these victims’ behalves, the request can be made, but it’s not taken for granted that appeasing someone will do them any good toward healing them to live in the world we have, or asking someone else to honor these requests is not then triggering them and demeaning them and categorizing them as bad. When I say “the world we have” is not necessarily the world we should have, but they don’t change by generalizing people and restricting their freedoms, or they can build there but “shouldn’t” according to you, they “should” know better and be more sensitive. Where does that line end? I agree though I wish people would be more thoughtful and conscientious, but I don’t agree how that should be effected by taking away people’s right to be.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Kodie:

          Is it right for a rape victim to then be triggered by the presence of men? What are men supposed to do – feel personally responsible?

          I agree with your point, but this isn’t a parallel. It’s unreasonable to ask men to not be men or vanish or similar to help a rape victim. But we’re talking about a choice here. The Muslim center could be near the WTC site, or it could be somewhere else in the city.

          I’m trying to think of a similar parallel to our imaginary rape victim. Tell me if this works: you want to send a female coworker a stripper-gram at work (I dunno–whatever would be acceptable in a work environment). Some buff policeman or fireman showing a lot of muscle and skin who would deliver flowers and sing some racy song. But then you realize that the rape victim works in the same department. Do you owe her anything that would make you reconsider?

          Does this center predicate on making women uncomfortable just for being women, or is it a place for men to get what they need that they can’t get from places that cater to women?

          I’m simply imagining some sort of men’s club that’s legal but has a reputation for promoting a “we men are tired of being pushed around” kind of attitude, say.

          how can some of us feel that it’s not wrong for Muslims to put a center in downtown Manhattan?

          Some of us do indeed have no problem with the center. My question: what about those that do? Do they have any grounds, even a little bit, for this attitude?

          Another possible example: Westboro Baptist Church (the “God Hates Fags” people). May they picket funerals within certain limits? Yes. Ought they be anywhere in public where the grieving family could see them? No.

        • Kodie

          I’m not the kind to send a strip-o-gram but if I was and then I realized someone in that department had been raped, what would I do? Rape incidence is a rather high percentage – it’s more likely I wouldn’t even consider this as a class of people who need sensitivity. I’m not saying that they don’t, but we have to live our lives like everyone is getting the care they need and not act like everything I might do is a trigger to someone. What if someone is triggered because her rapist was tall, wore black and had big dark sunglasses, should I change how I dress? That is more of the situation as I see it with Muslims building a center downtown where they live instead of inconveniencing themselves. They didn’t do anything wrong and as long as they don’t menace other people, they are allowed to be who they are wherever they want to be. They are not acting like the WBC! That is completely silly! Will my friend get a big kick out of a stripper cop than she would a bouquet of flowers and a card? I’m trying to think of a situation where I’d compromise and ruin innocent fun for one person.

          I’ve lived my life being way too careful about everyone else’s feelings and they don’t ask if they’re triggering me. Yes, I get triggered. Maybe I am using that word too broadly, but I live at home on disability because I cannot mentally prepare for work. People think I’m a piece of shit. They don’t rearrange their lives so I can heal and live in the world how I want it. I was in a dreadful tailspin for the last two days and could not do anything for the people I actually do like. Do you live your life like most people you meet may have some hidden emotional problems that you have to tiptoe around? I grew up in a family that acted like they had the rights to all the tiptoeing I had to do so they wouldn’t get set off. I worry people won’t like me if I make mistakes. Do people generally give a shit? No. Major devastating events and serious crimes are within some category where we have to assume they will fall to pieces and they are allowed to, but we have to be careful not to let that happen, protect their fragile emotions. Look around. Everyone has something they don’t like about what you do. Are you going to change so they like you or be who you are? These Muslims aren’t menacing anyone and neither was it their intent to be. I think you’re being too sensitive, and if you lost someone I’m sorry, but most people who think it’s “triggering” or “insensitive” don’t even live there and all their worry is on behalf of other people. I have had fires and burglaries and extremely nasty toxic angry people in my life who change who I am and who I’d like to be, and I hate it. But it’s not 9/11 so no one cares – people who think I am using this as a crutch to be sad and I should just “get over it.”

          Everyone has something. 9/11 was HUGE and BAD, but that just minimizes everyone else’s feelings who went through something else, who don’t get special treatment.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Kodie:

          I’ve lived my life being way too careful about everyone else’s feelings and they don’t ask if they’re triggering me.

          I’m simply asking to what extent we should modify our lives to avoid stepping on others’ feelings. I doubt anyone would say, “Not at all.” Further, we all see the difference between what we may do (“If I knowingly offend someone, so what? It’s a free country.”) and what we ought to do.

          When is someone’s sense of being offended too much for us to consider? I’d say that anti-blasphemy laws (or even sentiments) are too much. Fred Phelps and PZ Myers and the KKK and Danish cartoonists all have the right to offend. “Don’t offend my religious sensibilities” is sensible only in that we shouldn’t push someone’s buttons just for the fun of offending.

          Richard has said that non-Muslims’ sense of offense in this case is not worth respecting. OK, I see some sense in that, but I don’t think I agree. But I could be wrong.

          These Muslims aren’t menacing anyone and neither was it their intent to be.

          I agree, of course.

          And BTW, I’m sorry to hear of your difficulties. Best wishes.

        • Kodie

          I don’t try to minimize, by which I mean invalidate, other people’s pain, but I don’t like to live in a world where certain types of pain are sacred and others are bullshit. How much tippy-toeing does one kind of pain merit over another person’s freedom to be? There should be nothing to fear about Muslims who aren’t going to hurt anyone, so how should they feel about themselves just for being? I like to be reasonable, while still not caring for religion, wouldn’t they admit there is something “wrong” about them by moving? In the way that white people never have to change or be considered as associating with someone harmful. WBC harasses people who are burying a loved one and the harassed are not then traumatized every time they drive by a church – they probably even belong to one. When it’s white people, everyone can tell the difference between a bad one and a good one. When it’s brown people, they should just know they should displace themselves to avoid reminding anyone of that horrible day, marginalize themselves, be invisible. Similarly like how Christians want gay people to go back in the closet. They feel better about hating and generalizing a certain class of people when they choose to stay hidden, so they can imagine the worst instead of it being obvious they are not here to cause trouble for anyone, they are just being who they are because they’re tired of being marginalized for no good reason.

          It is getting harder to hate people who aren’t “the same” because you see in many ways, they are “the same”. Marginalize criminals. Don’t marginalize people because they remind you too much of criminals, and certainly don’t expect them to voluntarily marginalize themselves. It’s also upon us all to stop whining about my poor little life or their poor little life, compare your problems to RAPE, or WAR, or TERRORISM, and shut the hell up. I hate that attitude and it’s been an excuse for many people not to help me – my feelings aren’t serious, I should not be traumatized, I should feel lucky that it wasn’t RAPE, or WAR, or TERRORISM and stop being so selfish; it happened 6 months ago, you should have gotten over it by now – what is wrong with you?

          It’s like playing a shitty card in the game of life, a pair of Jacks isn’t a Flush or even 3 5s, but all the brain does the same thing – it’s something I’ve tried to work with most of my adult life that people who are not involved tend to rank how people should react instead of helping them with the reaction they have. That is rationalizing and I don’t think it’s the right way to look at this problem and decide who should have known better than to do something you perceive to be insensitive.

          If me and my boyfriend were walking and got mugged and he got shot and killed, should everyone with the manner and dress of the mugger be sensitive not to move in next door to me? Let’s suggest it depends on if the mugger was white or black and if he dresses like a banker or a rapper – can I be sensitive to black people who dress like rappers, but most people who are white and dress like bankers are not going to remind me of my trauma because being white, I can safely classify people by their race and how they dress? Would a black person who dresses like a rapper take the suggestion that because I am triggered by people who look like him, he can’t live next to my house? Would I even imagine that a white person who dresses like a banker is going to traumatize me just by living there?

          Timothy McVeigh-looking people don’t really get the side-eye, you know what I’m saying? Non-terrorist Muslims should be perceived as part of our culture – not a threat. By voluntarily accepting that white people can’t handle the difference, they are saying, “yup, you’re right about me because I don’t look like the ‘typical’ victim of one tragedy and all people taking up the cause on their behalf.” By standing their ground, we are forced to see them as people we have things in common with, and by hiding, we feel justified in thinking the worst about them.

        • Kodie

          Additionally, I might add, Obama is nominally a Christian, but people call him a Muslim like that’s even a bad thing to be in itself. How does that persist in our culture as an epithet instead of a religion protected under the 1st amendment like every flavor of Christianity?

        • Richard S. Russell

          I endorse everything Kodie said earlier today (Nov. 1).
           
          As I said myself, we should condemn Jerry Sandusky because he’s a pedophile, not because he’s gay. Similarly, we should condemn Mohammed Atta and his 18 co-conspirators because they’re asshole terrorists, not because they’re Muslims.

          And, like it or not, Bob, when you say it’s OK for anybody to blame other Muslims for 9/11, you’re condoning that kind of stereotyping. You say that you yourself don’t do it, but you understand why other people would. Well, hell, sure, we all understand the giant streak of irrationalism that runs thru all of us. But understanding it should be the first step to overcoming it, not a pseudo-empathetic excuse for approving it.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Richard:

          And, like it or not, Bob, when you say it’s OK for anybody to blame other Muslims for 9/11

          Agreed. I never said or encouraged that. I guess my point hasn’t come through very well.

        • Niemand

          Last I heard the backers of the project were considering pulling out. Maybe they decided against it. I admit I haven’t kept up.

          The Park51 group doesn’t have to move, but isn’t there some validity to the request? Or are you saying that it’s completely insane, completely without intellectual or emotional foundation of any sort?

          As a New Yorker (even one not currently living in the city), I’m going to have to go off on you for that one. They have a place in Manhattan that they can afford and that’s near to the people who would be served by it and you expect them to move? In MANHATTAN? In Manhattan, losing a lease is considered more traumatic than a divorce (seriously: I can give you quotes)! They might never find another appropriate site. And the building would likely sit empty, good for nothing but collecting rats and cockroaches (which could then contaminate the grocery store next door.) Lose-lose for everyone.

          And who is objecting? Not the neighbors. I used to live a block away-the only thing I heard about the project from people living nearby was “about time someone did something with that eyesore”. The protestors were all clearly trucked in out of towners–outer borough people at best. Not the people living nearby who might have benefited from the community center.

          Finally, this may be hard for someone not from NYC to understand, but Park 51 isn’t near the WTC. Yes, it’s two blocks away, but it’s a different neighborhood. Neighborhoods are physically small in NYC. When I first heard about the “WTC mosque”, I thought they wanted to put it in the Freedom Tower (to which I would have said, “As long as they pay the rent…whatever.”) Putting it in Tribeca, well, what does that even have to do with the WTC?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Niemand:

          They have a place in Manhattan that they can afford and that’s near to the people who would be served by it and you expect them to move? In MANHATTAN?

          I’d have thought that in this poor real estate economy, finding empty space would be easy, but finding the perfect fit might well be difficult. I’ll yield to your superior knowledge of the local situation.

          And as for manufactured fears not based on facts, I certainly understand that.

  • Kodie

    I find it difficult to really understand the mindset of most of the Christians who tend to oppose “religion” because they have something superior to it — a relationship. And how do they express having this apparently one-sided relationship? Idolatry. I have a relationship with my mother. She’s my mother and even though I don’t keep any pictures of her out in the open and I haven’t talked to her in 2 weeks, she’ll always be my mother. Occasionally, I even have imaginary one-sided conversations with her because she’s my mother, so she’s in my head.

    I don’t need to cling to mementos about my mother, although some people with a deceased mother might even put a place in their home just to honor them. You know why? I don’t know why. Does this keep them nearer to you? Does it prove your devotion to them? Can they see it from heaven? If I never talked to my mother again, I would never forget her. The relationship isn’t in material altars or graves or photographs. I can’t say I would never look at a picture of her again, or not keep one in my wallet just for emergency emotional support/berating. Lol. I love my mother and she loves me, and she’s kind of like god because she doesn’t tolerate criticism well, holds rigid opinions about arbitrary things, and doesn’t answer prayers, but she’s also a real person. We don’t go around glorifying the relationship in material ways. Well, she sort of does. In a roundabout way, she is more about the showing than the doing. She has pictures of her family in abundance so all her friends can see how important we are to her.

    If I sustained a disaster, let’s say in the apartment building where I live, and of salvageable items, one left was a picture of my mother, would that itself be a memento I’d preserve? Probably, if it’s one of the few items I still had, but she neither caused nor prevented it. Her value in the matter is personal – what she’d done to help me through – the relationship. I wouldn’t expect all the other tenants in the building to host a portrait of her at the center in a hypothetical museum to commemorate our shared catastrophic experience and not put up pictures of their mothers as well. Pictures of their mothers didn’t coincidentally appear amongst the rubble, so their mothers don’t count – to me! But my mother’s picture is a “sign”! I tell them. They are not impressed. My mother did not call each of them personally to comfort them, their mothers did. My mother did not come over to help all of them gather some belongings, offer essential supplies, or help them to relocate, their mothers did. Or not. Maybe they had to do it themselves. Maybe they don’t have mothers, or their mothers couldn’t do any of those things for them but still came, or their mothers decided that it wasn’t important enough to come and suggested instead that they could handle things pretty much on their own. If I managed to save that picture of my mother but it got discarded in the shuffle because someone else was cleaning up papers, I’d be ok, since other pictures of my mother exist and I can recover them, and even realize that depictions of my mother are aside from the relationship, not a vital necessity to it. It can be a sentimental reminder, a keepsake, an idol, that is no actual substitute for my mother, nor essential to remembering or acknowledging our relationship.

    What is a “relationship” to Christians? Why do they have to force it on everyone who doesn’t give a flying f*ck about their lord around symbolism? It’s a broken piece of a building. I don’t know how people get away with being so silly in public. They can’t say “it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” in any meaningful way and still treat it like the religion it actually is to the point of enforcing others tolerate them. They are entitled to believe it, they are entitled to speak about it in public. They obviously feel and express some sort of pain when they think their voice is being excluded. They then don’t process that pain to the empathy to understand why their cross doesn’t belong in the museum or their prayers shouldn’t be on the schedule at official memorial dedication ceremonies.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      It is odd when they say, “Yeah, I hate X as much as you do” (X being fundamentalism, Christianity as a “religion” and so on). Perhaps it’s strategic (in debate, that’s like a squirrel case), a deliberate attempt to make them more appealing.

      • Cafeeine

        I think its just another case of scapegoating. In this case the scapegoat is the term “religion”, on which they can load all the bad things done by the faithful that they can’t rationalize or justify, shoot it down and rise, confident that their ‘relationship’ is now pure. Then for good measure, you declare that everyone else (Muslims, atheists, evolutionists, scientists) are really just religions, and therefore guilty of the faults they’re not.

  • ZenDruid

    Is there a sacred significance to the number 19? I’m thinking there is. After all, god sent nineteen angels that day to tell America that he wasn’t happy about one thing or another. Or maybe he just had a craving for burnt offerings.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Or maybe that he just hates America.

  • Quintin

    As long as the only mentions of religion going with the exhibit the cross comes with are those everyone can agree on as factually correct (“this is where it’s been, they what its meant to people, this to others et cetera”) I don’t see what could be wrong about including the cross

    • Bob Seidensticker

      What if it’d been some sort of Scientology relic or Bahai or some other non-Christian religion? Would it still be OK to put just that religious artifact in a prominent place in a state-supported museum? Wouldn’t the Christians in that case complain that they deserve equal time?

  • kenneth

    If atrocities committed in the name of one’s religion create an obligation to never build a worship house in that general vicinity, then technically speaking, Christian churches should not be built anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.

  • Baal

    “Christians can go into a courtroom and not see a Shinto or Hindu god of jurisprudence glaring down at them. A win-win.”

    This is entirely a bad thing. Some of those gods have down right awesome avatars and iconography. I’d also love a Muslim fanatic judge to pull a Judge Roy Moore (Alabama) and say he’s trying all his cases in accordance with the koran (ie sharia). This desire of mine is mostly out of a base urge to see a subset of xtian heads implode.

  • Niemand

    On 9/11/01 and in the days following, pictures of the “missing” started appearing in downtown NYC. They were a diverse group. Women in headscarves, men in yalmaks, women with red dots on their foreheads, men with crosses tattooed on their arms…in short, people of multiple religions. If someone wants to find significance in the fact that there were two perpendicular beams in the rubble of a fallen building, far be it for me to stop them from doing so. But the victims of the attacks weren’t just Christian. They were atheists, Jews, Hindi, Shinto, and, yes, Muslim. Respect all of them or keep your sympathy to yourself.