Many battles have been fought as of late regarding government in the US at one level or another being involved in public displays or symbols that could be construed to have religious meaning. Outright religious expression funded by government is rightly banned under First Amendment jurisprudence, but fuzzier areas of expression still remain to be adjudicated. Recently, for example, the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) was sued by the American Atheists for the memorial markers they use on the roadside, since they are in the shape of a cross.
I don’t actually have much problem with borderline cases. For example, in the Utah Memorial Cross case, the lawyer for the UHP pointed out that most of the troopers memorialized were Mormons, which as a rule do not use the cross as a symbol of faith, so it would be extremely odd to interpret the act as having explicit religious intent. In my experience, people are capable of projecting religious meaning and symbolism onto pretty much anything if it catches their pareidolic fancy. After all, if a piece of toast or a hard water stain can carry the image of a revered religious leader or even a deity itself, then worrying about what expressions may or may not have ambiguous religious meaning is a fool’s errand.
A slightly dicier case started this week with the American Atheists suing to have the so-called WTC Cross removed from any memorial display on site, citing fairly similar reasoning as in the UHP case. The only real difference is that religious leaders have actively encouraged a religious interpretation of the cross, and so the connection to intentional religious expression is a bit less tenuous. Still, if that’s all it was, I wouldn’t much care.
Then, two things happened to pull me in different directions on the issue.
First, I read the American Atheists’ press release regarding the lawsuit. Whoever wrote that release, the dangerous power of snark must have eaten their non-existent soul; if you put cross in sarcasm quotes when you are actually talking about a literal cross, something has gone wrong somewhere. Still, peeling back the snark a bit, there is a good point here and there, including this spectacular dig by the president of American Atheists, Dave Silverman:
“The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed
by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god,
who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent
3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to
bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It’s a truly
ridiculous assertion.”
It really is ridiculous. But that speaks more to the mindset or thoughtfulness of those who choose to place their hopes in such a deity that takes lives and gives symbols in return, and less about whether it should be allowed to occur in the first place. I would hope that such absurdity would be showcased, so that it is open to ridicule and contempt, rather than stuffed in a closet someplace. Invoking a deity favorably in a time of tragedy is close to the most tasteless thing a person can do, and the quality of character of those that do should be readily accessible and apparent.
The second thing that happened was that I remembered what incredibly loathsome pricks many of the very same members of Christian community who cry for this monument to stand were when the Cordoba Community Center and Mosque was being proposed, and all my admittedly tepid sympathy for the ability to maintain the WTC Cross instantly evaporated. What that event taught me, viscerally, was something that for a long time I really didn’t want to believe (but in retrospect should have been obvious); that many segments of the American Christian community view their role as one of unique privilege and stature, present company grudgingly accepted until the going gets rough. I have little concern of the cross being a religious icon to many, but I cannot stomach the cross being a symbol of Christian exceptionalism and privilege. As a perpetuation of a myth of Judeo-Christian supremacy (the 9/11 Memorial Committee’s response to the lawsuit was the typical “hey, we’ll throw a Star of David on the exhibit too!”), it is unfortunately quite a potent symbol.
Your thoughts?
take it off site. There’s got to be a non-denominational church nearby who’d love to become a tourist attraction.
Well, there is the nearby St. Peter’s, where they carried the body of the Firman’s chaplain, Mychal Judge, who died in the lobby of the North tower. It was all over the news. They could put the cross there.
I agree that it doesn’t need to stay on site. It needs to move to a more appropriate place.
I lived in NYC when 9/11 happened. If I ever to to visit the memorial (and that’s a big if because it is still very painful for me), I don’t want to see that cross.
Regarding just the Christardian rhetoric, it would have been better if Americans United or the ACLU had filed the lawsuit. Only in that a more socially pluralistic organization could not be pigeonholed nearly as easily in the media as a specific ideologically related group of people.
All kinds of people died that day. They all need to be represented and remembered equally. To refuse to do so is unacceptable. To privilege Christians in NYC seems weird, since there are so many other people of other religions or no religion there.
It’s silly for Christians to think that piece of metal means anything, but I actually think it’s pretty harmless. I don’t think it’s worth the hassle for AA to try to get it taken down.
dear god people (know irony meant), it’s going in a museum. It’s an artifact and relic that is being placed in a museum. It is indeed a part of the history of the site, come on, this is pretty bad, and I’m called strident 3 times a day.
It’s not as if they’re installing a random cross, its a cross section from the building that stood and became part of the folklore of the neighborhood (full disclosure: I work next door at the WFC). They might as well not keep the retaining wall that held back the waters of the Hudson river because it honors those privileged engineers over those slighted architects whose buildings were felled.
That is a terrible counter-argument. The fact that it’s going in a museum, a publicly funded museum, is exactly why it is an issue – because that publicly funded museum is interpreting it as a religious icon to demonstrate the validity of a particular religion. A retaining wall is completely different from an overt religious symbol, and there is no wall of separation between engineering and state. The state can, if it wishes, advocate a particular form of engineering as better than another.
I’m all for it being included, though, provided it is done so with appropriate context. Pretending this is Jesus showing he cares is pretty sick. A neutral statement about how others have interpreted it and the media reaction to its discovery seems a reasonable note to add to the artifact, though.
if there was a wall of separation between engineering and state, you can bet it’d hold up a lot better.
A lot of Jews died there that day too. By and large, the cross is a symbol that Jewish people react negatively to, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the way they’re been treated by their Christian “younger brothers” over the centuries. I am not Jewish, but my wife is, and she has said that the cross is something she’d really rather not see at that site.
Honoring a specific Christian god with a specific Christian symbol seems at best to be very poor taste. At worst, it can be a very strong insult.
Question: Is the property it’s located on publicly owned? I just don’t know, but without public ownership I’m not seeing the controversy here.
I lived in NY and was working in NYC on 9/11. I remember the cross becoming a symbol of hope for believers pretty quickly after the horror. While it always struck me as silly to give meaning to what is really just a random assembly of building materials (honestly I’m pretty sure you could find “crosses” all over any building demolition site), I was also somewhat sympathetic to anything that eased the pain in those days for anyone. It’s part of the history of what happened that day, and for that reason alone should be preserved. Somewhere.
I have to agree with Bill, conditionally: If the site is privately owned, and if the display is part of a privately owned property, and if public time and money isn’t being expended on it, then the private owners of the private site and the private display are free to be as obnoxious and entitled as they like. And they are obnoxious and entitled, there’s no doubt of that – But is it illegal?
The legal issue is that the state (namely, the city of New York, and the states of New York and New Jersey) have spent and will spend oodles of tax money (and man-hours) on the memorial, including the cross. The Chairman of the 9/11 Memorial Foundation is none other than the mayor of New York City. Entanglements abound. Honestly I think they are nonetheless probably on pretty decent legal ground, seeing as none of the entanglements seem to rise to the “excessive entanglements” standard.
[EDIT: Also, according to the original complaint (PDF warning), the eventual site will be public land, which makes it dicier. Would have been smarter to just deed the land to the Memorial Foundation.]
While my personal pique was raised primarily by the contrast between this display and the reaction to the Cordoba Center, I don’t think at the end of the day it should be prevented, despite the fact that it will almost certainly serve to perpetuate precisely the feelings of singular specialness than makes the Christian intersection with this event and memorial so distasteful. For what it’s worth, Bloomberg (who is the aformentioned mayor on the board) was quite good on the Cordoba Center issue.
Ah, fair enough then, ‘Nope. I agree, the public ownership element certainly makes it illegal (as well as obnoxious and entitled).
I can understand the point the Atheist side has, but I think that their criticism of religious icons is getting a little much. I do agree that other religions need to be expressed if representatives from those religions would come forward and ask for it.
The Atheist side is demanding respect for their beliefs but at the cost of respecting the beliefs of other people who have a spiritual attachment to the WTC site. From this perspective the Atheist side is being insensitive and asserting an ultimatum rather than offer a compromise.
Since this is a recurring problem what all parties need to know is under what circumstances was the cross put there, why, and by whom. As a nation of nations we need to respect all faiths and lack thereof, but there is a professional and compassionate way of going about it, and I do not see that here. Thank you for posting!
Well, no. Atheists are demanding that Christians comply with the same law that everybody else has to.
Well not quite. Most American atheists, including nearly all the ones on this site and probably all the ones in the AA, do not feel that any beliefs demand respect (though some beliefs deserve it on their own merit). However, they feel that the government’s secular placement is extremely important not just in how it treats its citizens but also in how it represents them. Note that “secularism” is in no sense the same as “atheism,” and in fact is a foundational political ideal of this country.
Thanks for this. As a European casual observer of the WTC cross debate, it seemed that it was one more example of the, in my opinion, tedious American quibble between atheists and Christians about who can win the culture war. The snark you mention left a bad taste in my mouth. But your perspective, especially relating the case to the Cordoba Mosque and the disrespectful patronising of token Jews, helps me see that the atheists do have a point. It’s really unfortunate, I think, because the cross is such a powerful symbol of God suffering along with us that would have been profoundly appropriate for Ground Zero. But not a politicised cross. Not an excluding cross. I wish you Americans would find a way of making the 9/11 memorial grounds a place where all people, of all faiths and none, could mourn together in fellow humanity and in respect. Some people seem intent on making sure that doesn’t happen. Before I read this post, I thought it was the atheists who wanted that. Now I see it’s the Christians. So, again, thank you.
You’re welcome. :)
There’s no such thing as an “inclusive cross” — it’s an explicitly Christian symbol, and therefore inherently exclusive.
Only if it’s held apart or in special regard. Otherwise it is just one symbol among many.
I disagree, obviously.
The cross has been used as a symbol of Christianity for so long that, face it, it is now an inherently exclusive (and quite offensive) symbol.
Well overall, and especially recently (with several notable exceptions), the cross is simply a neutral Christian symbol. It represents part of their traditional history, in fact a part in which the Christian god was persecuted by others. So it isn’t an inherently ethnocentric or exclusive symbol.
I think the problem with the way it is frequently used is that the cross is often given some special consideration or placement. There’s the cross, then a bunch of other religions tacked on for the purpose of “equal representation.”
If Jesus had come to Earth in the 20th century instead of the 1st, the symbol of his religion would have been the electric chair, or perhaps a needle.
Igor as said by Lenny Bruce:-If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing litle electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses; That is why I get so angry whe I see a cross around peoples necks. What would it be if I wore a hangmans noose round my neck because of Christains and Klu Klux Clan that hung black people in the name of god and christ. In my mind this is the same thing.
meh. i’m definitely a committed atheist, but someone else’s use of faith to deal with their grief doesn’t bother me in and of itself, although that’s obviously not what i turn to. if that’s what it takes people to cope, so be it, as long as they’re not forbidding symbols or memorials related to other traditions (us skeptics included). let people erect crosses, and stars of david, and tibetan prayer flags – whatever is necessary for us as humans to personally deal with such a tragedy. my issue would be not with the cross’s installment, but with the funding of such an endeavor.
Does this cross mean that god is responsible for tragically killing those on 911? Why didn’t god stop the attack, so he could put up a cross? Did he want to teach the Christians a lesson? Or whatever.
Kind of always been surprised that the Christians use a symbol of torture…and get it wrong to boot,most “crucifixtions” were on X’s not crosses.
Actually, T’s were most common…the uprights were usually left in place (wood was somewhat scarce), and the condemned carried a reusable heavy crossbar which was hoisted and inserted into a notch, about a foot or two off the ground. The Romans were very efficient at many things, crucifixion being one of them.
So perhaps a T should be the symbol…could change the whole dynamic.
I have been following this on the NY times. One of my comments is posted
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/nyregion/atheists-sue-to-ban-display-of-cross-shaped-beam-in-911-museum.html?permid=305#comment305
and today I posted:-I just wonder why I as an atheist and others make valid points that we believe give differing views on this subject but all I find is that Christians seem to be quite hateful in their views to our opposing views that I thought democracy was built on. Of course we all have different views but let us not take this discussion down to being rude to others. Lets try and be civil and respect others views even if they are not our own.
One thought I had was would they have put a cross by the museums of the holocaust I think not.
Any number of rune-like configurations of debris could be found, blessed by some Asatru dingbats, and given equal time next to the cross. Obviously, the towers went down because they were clobbered with Thor’s hammer.
Curb your damned godma!
Xians. . . kindly carry a plastic bag to clean up after your disgusting dogmas.
the anti_supernaturalist
The roadside crosses don’t bother me. They say something sad and tragic happened here, drive carefully. A symbol’s meaning changes with use and time.
I don’t see why it has to be different with a cross-shaped piece of rubble from a sad and tragic day in NYC.
I do like LRA’s idea of keeping it at St. Peter’s too. Would be nice for them to have something.
The atheists that brought this suit have actually asked that either the cross be removed or all other religions be recognized. To me that seemed fair. To me the site is essentially a graveyard and in too many cases is the only place the living have to go to mourn their dead. I do not see a problem with that. However the Christians do. I’ve gotten into many disagreements with them on another site over the fact that this cross has been blessed by the Catholic church and is a religious icon. That Protestants and Lutherans and other Christianities should not be buried under a Catholic cross. That Jews REALLY should not be buried under a Christian symbol. I’m trying almost desperately to hold onto the idea that I will respect people’s religious views even though I strongly disagree with them.
Pingback: Angry christians Show True Colors | Philosopher's Haze
As an atheist, I think that the atheist movement is fighting too many little battles at once to be effective. I live on the west coast. I didn’t have to look at the gaping holes left where the towers once stood for the last 9 years. I’ll never probably even see the memorial. To me, the attacks were local events. If anyone wants to argue that it happened to us because it’s was on American soil, ok. But as a tax payer, I’m more upset with churches being tax exempt while helping themselves to tax payer funded infrastructure. And the fact that religion is taking over politics than I’m worried about the WTC cross.
I heard they might be placing a star of David on the memorial aswell to counter the claim that no other religion symbols are aloud. Does anyone know more about this? I have only found obsecure websites claiming this but can’t verify it. The question is will they let an atheistic symbol.
if the churches members raised some money to privately own the cross, i’d be perfectly fine with it. but the christians were not the only people in the country hurt by 9/11. nether were the pastafarians, and i bet we could find a twisted piece of metal resembling the fsm too.