Atheists Protest Ground Zero Cross

WorldNetDaily ^ | Posted: June 18, 2002 | By Ron Strom

[Bad~Rodeo]

Decry plan to use symbol as part of 9-11 memorial

:

The organization American Atheists is protesting a proposal to use a large steel cross found in the rubble of the World Trade Center in a memorial to victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Describing itself as a "nationwide movement which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers," the group said in a statement yesterday that use of the cross in a government-funded monument "would violate the separation of church and state, be insensitive to those victims who had no religious beliefs and would incredibly pay homage to religion – the prime motivating factor in the faith-based attack of Sept. 11."

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is the local agency in charge of planning for the rebuilding of the site.

Ed Malloy, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council and a board member of the agency, has asked that the cross be made a permanent part of any future memorial.

According to the New York Daily News, construction workers, firefighters, police officers and family members have held weekly Sunday services at the site of the cross since Sept. 11.

"We're hoping it will stay right where it is and become part of any permanent memorial," Malloy was quoted as saying in the Daily News.

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists objects to the possibility that the cross might be used in a taxpayer-supported project.

"This is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money," she said in the statement, "You can't take government funds to promote religion, especially sectarian religion in the form of a cross or any other religious symbol."

Johnson added that any memorial to the victims of the attacks "should bring Americans together, not divide them on the basis or religion or anything else."

Ron Barrier, national spokesman for the group, stressed that Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians were killed in the attacks as well.

What about them? he asked. "Are we going to turn the site of the WTC into a religious shrine with competing religious slogans, symbols and displays? Any monument to the victims, and those who helped in the aftermath of Sept. 11 should be tasteful, as well as a unifying statement about America and humanity.

"Christian symbols are as inappropriate as a Muslim crescent or some other religious label," Barrier said.

Construction worker Frank Silecchia happened upon the perfectly symmetrical cross in the midst of the WTC wreckage just a few days after the attacks. It was standing straight, 20-feet high, surrounded by many smaller crosses.

"When I first saw it, it took my heart," Silecchia said. "It helped me heal the burden of my despair, and gave me closure on the whole catastrophe."

Said WorldNetDaily columnist Ann Coulter in an October column : "The cross at Ground Zero was not simply the cross beams remaining from an existing building. It was formed out of beams from Building One plunging, splitting and crashing into Building Six."

"There's no symmetry to anything down there," an FBI chaplain said at the time, "except those crosses."

Johnson said that her group would go to court if necessary to challenge the use of government money for the placement of any religious symbol at the WTC site.

[ELS]

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists

was on Hannity and Colmes tonight being just as intolerant as she was in this article.

[Dimensio]

I didn't think "greater" was one of those big words that grownups use to confuse the simple. Look it up in the dictionary. It won't be that hard to understand. Really.

I found sixteen different definitions of the word "greater" in the American Heritage Dictionary (that's just for use as an adjective). To which definition do you refer when using it in the context of "greater than ourselves"?

In the context of soft drinks, if I refer to a beverage that is "greater" than Mountain Dew, to what am I referring and why?

[Dimensio]

You make a claim about atheists and then back it up with a quote from a book that relies on a belief that atheists do not have to be considered a reliable source. That is circular reasoning.

[Dimensio]

I'm trying to figure out on what basis the claim that American Atheists has no problem with Islam or "designer religions" was made. I think that it was just an ignorant assertion that would fall apart upon any actual research, but perhaps the person making the claim could provide some real evidence?

[Dimensio]

I just think most atheists have a religious-like agenda.

"Most"? From where do you get that assumption?

[Dimensio]

Good point. Atheism is not a religion, but a religion does not necessarily imply diety worship. Some forms of Buddhism acknowledge the existence of no gods, making those forms of Buddhism non-theistic religions, meaning that a person could be a Buddhist atheist.

That would make Buddhism their religion, btw, not atheism.

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

You make a claim about atheists and then back it up with a quote from a book that relies on a belief that atheists do not have to be considered a reliable source. That is circular reasoning.

I am telling the Truth! If you look at the daily sky and draw the conclusion that there is NO Creator, you are without excuse, no matter what you call yourself. The fact is you are worshipping "yourself".

God's Words are put there for those who have ears to hear...AMEN!

[ladyinred]

The people in this country have just gone nuts I tell you.

[capt. norm]

"I'm Jewish, and I would also have a problem with a Christian cross being used in a public memorial."

The cross, in this case, is used much like the crosses used for battlefield burial grounds and not to promote the Christain religion. If this had happened in Israel, they would have put up a "Star of David" and nobody would have said a word about it, myself included. I don't find the symbols of other religions to be as "poisonous" or irritating as you do.

I am trying to understand what your 'problem' with a symbol is and why you let it 'get to you' the way it does.

I see all kinds of 'devil worship' symbolism and teenagers with their 'goth' symbols on a regular basis. It flies in the face of my beliefs, but I don't let it bother me. It's called tolerance.

[capt. norm]

Notice that these 'atheists' have no problem with Muslims or any of the 'designer religions' that have popped up, like Scientology. You don't talk to many atheists, do you?

I underlined the part where I wrote: THESE atheists.(As opposed to the 'many atheists' that you referenced) I was not talking about atheists in general. I realize that there are some atheists who put everything they've got into not believing in anything.

[modern_orthodox]

Answer for me, though, a simple question: What is harmed by the display? Who is harmed? That's something I'd truly like to understand.

Firstly, thanks a lot for not immediately taking a hostile tone, as opposed to many other people who responded to my post. I greatly appreciate it. As far as your question goes, I know that, as a religious Jew, if I would have had a (Jewish) friend or relative die at the WTC I would feel uncomfortable if what is going to pass for his unofficial tombstone is a giant cross. It would be the same feeling of discomfort I would feel if I found out that the same friend or relative died alone someplace and ended up buried in a churchyard.

I can tolerate seeing someone walk by with a satanist, goth symbol, even when it seems to play a role in his/her belief system. The difference is, they aren't trying to make me wear the images. Here, this could very easily be seen as an attempt to "Christify" the WTC site. You do feel a bit like an outsider trying to visit a Jewish gravesite under the shadow of a cross; believe me, I've tried.

I would therefore suggest the cross be placed in the yard of the local Church, as many other people on this thread have already suggested. Let each person who visits the memorial, however it's built, let his own faith define the site, as opposed to having to come as an outsider.

[Dimensio]

In other words, your argument for the existence of god is based on your personal reaction to seeing the sky? Are you saying that you cannot fathom how it could have come about except through the intervention of some kind of "Creator"? If that is the case then you are simply appealing to personal incredulity and ignorance. Even if the "sky" (which during the day is a result of light from the sun being filtered through various elements in the atmosphere and at night is simply the result of light from distant stars travelling to the planet) did "prove" that there existed some kind of "Creator" that alone would not give any useful information regarding this "Creator" apart from the fact that it can somehow create the sky. It doesn't even give reason for worshipping such a "Creator", much less drawing the conclusion that this "Creator" send "His" "Son" to Earth to die for humanity's sins and that eternal life is granted to all who believe.

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

May our precious Lord reveal to your heart what you don't understand.
Creation testifies to a general revelation of God...so man is without excuse. That is why I brought your attention to the sky, but an incredible sunset, clouds, rain, thunderstorms, animal life etc would be the same illustration of God's general revelation to ALL mankind.

By the power of God He has revealed His specific revelation through the life, testimony of Jesus Christ, also known as the Word of God, (see John 1) to those who He has changed their hearts, ears and eyes so they may humbly receive His Truth.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Romans1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[Dimensio]

Creation testifies to a general revelation of God...so man is without excuse. That is why I brought your attention to the sky, but an incredible sunset, clouds, rain, thunderstorms, animal life etc would be the same illustration of God's general revelation to ALL mankind

You assert this, yet the fact that I and others do not see it that way makes your point weak. Citing a book that I don't consider an absolute and inerrant source to "prove" your point does not make it any stronger. You are assuming that the information in your book is 100% accurate but unless I already agree with your point I'm not likely to see it that way; your argument is simply begging the question.

You can handwave to all the "pretty" things on this planet and in the universe you like; I don't see it as "evidence" that a god -- much less the God as described in the Old and New Testaments -- exists and deserves my worship.

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

You assert this, yet the fact that I and others do not see it that way makes your point weak.

Your denial of the existence of God doesn't make Him non exisistent. Therefore I rest with my initial statement that the diety you worship is yourself.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

[Dimensio]

Your denial of the existence of God doesn't make Him non exisistent.

Neither does your assertion of the existence of a God make it exist. Your statements are meaningless, you assert without evidence and then act as though I'm the arrogant one because I refuse to believe a proposition without being given any legitimate reason.

Therefore I rest with my initial statement that the diety you worship is yourself.

I don't see how this at all flows from your previous statement. In what way do I "worship" myself?

[VRWC_minion]

The cross still divides. It is a symbol that makes men choose like no other symbol.

[Jn316]

Go figure, something as insignificant as GOD causing division.

[VRWC_minion]

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

[Dimensio]

Are you attempting to make a point? I'm not sure that I understand what it is you are trying to say.