A Commentary On The World Trade Center Cross
By now, most people are aware that American Atheists, Inc., is suing a few entities in order that the Christian Cross monument be removed. In fact, American Atheists, Inc. is suing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the State of New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie (in his official capacity), the City of New York, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (in his official capacity), Silverstien Properties, Inc., the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the World Trade Center Foundation, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, the Church Of The Holy Name Of Jesus, Brian Jordan (an individual), ten John Doe’s and World Trade Center Properties, LLC
This has generated a lot of controversy, not only in the Christian Community, but within the ranks of Atheists, as well. While I reason that the majority are supportive of our efforts, there remain a vocal contingent of us who think the suit is a waste of time, unpopular, divisive and disrespectful to the beliefs held by other Americans. Some have stated that we are proselyting by the very act of filing this lawsuit. To that, I state that religious people proselytize. Atheists educate.
But I digress…
One of the favored arguments that is coming up with more frequency is that the Cross should be allowed because it was part of the rubble. While I can understand this reasoning on the surface, when you begin to reflect on what that actually means, you can see how illogical this argument is. Because something was found in the rubble that resembles or apes a symbol that is worshiped by a certain group, then we should allow others to participate in kind. There was a lot more material other than steel I-beams in that rubble.
- What if some of the rubble closely resembled a penis? Shouldn’t a penis worshiping religion be allowed to “erect” their monument?
- What if some of the rubble closely resembled a vagina? Shouldn’t a vagina worshiping cult (NSFW) be allowed to display their holy symbol?
- What about an I-beam rubble configuration that depicted the Swastika? Shouldn’t the Hindu’s (like the one used in this article) or Native Americans be allowed to proudly display one?
- What about rubble that resembles the Crescent Moon? Shouldn’t Muslims have THEIR symbol side by side with the Christian Cross?
In fact, there are hundreds of religious symbols in the world, and the World Trade Center was an international entity. Perhaps one example of each should be included, as long as some of the rubble resembled their symbols? By the way, the Christian Cross monument is not exactly as it was found. There was fabrication work done to it. Just so you know. Google it.
Yes, the suit is unpopular with a lot of people, but the point was not to make friends, give away kittens and sing Kumbaya. When American Atheists, Inc., sued to remove prayer from public schools, it was also a very unpopular idea, even amongst Atheists. In retrospect, though, it was a pretty damned good idea. This lawsuit does not represent a fight “against” religion, but fight “for” the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
You may say, “Who does the Cross monument hurt?” Everyone who is not a Christian, even those who state that they don’t care. Ignorance is no excuse for allowing the abrogation of anyone’s civil rights. Nearly everything surrounding the Cross is in violation of the First Amendment, and if nothing was done about it because people believe we should accommodate the Christians, then it will set a precedent and Crosses will be popping up all over the place. As it is, several states had to enact legislation prohibiting roadside memorials due to the clutter of crosses adorning our state highways.
The point is, popular or not, this needs to be done, and it needs the widespread support of everyone who is not a Christian, especially Atheists. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see the point of it, if you think it is making us look silly and abusive or if it just plain pisses you off. What does matter is that the Governments of the city of New York and New Jersey, and the Federal Government not promote any specific religion, and do not, in any way, size, shape or form expend any funds in said promotion.
The only reasonable, logical and reasonable alternatives are either a single monument that reflects all beliefs (that would be one helluva monument) a secular monument or no monument at all.
This is a sensitive issue, granted. But it is also a serious one that needs to be addressed in the courts of law, regardless of public opinion.