http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ar-over-cross/

You know sometimes the law can be applied unfairly.

A law hasn't got any true authority if it isn't applied fairly.

For anyone to even make a stink over the cross stinks to high heaven because that Museum is like a graveyard.

It wasn't established for atheists to make political conflicts but to honor the victims.

If some people choose to honor them with a cross then the atheists should have the good taste to stop being so confrontational.

You pick your battles, y'know because some of them are socially inappropriate.

Let's suppose it is a graveyard, is it right to make it a Christian graveyard?

Does the cross really honor the Jewish/Muslim/Atheist dead or just the Christian?

"Some People" aren't honoring them, tax payers are honoring them.

It's always ok to let people honor the dead.

You don't destroy people's ability to make their peace by politicizing things.

It's shocking. It's just a publicity stunt.

The atheist organization bringing the suit doesn't give a damn about the dead people imo.

They're using the dead to advance their cause and it's unethical.

You didn't answer the questions.

Do you think that erecting a 20 foot cross makes the site predominantly Christian? I do. If not, what is your reasoning, and if so how is that acceptable given that this memorial is for ALL of the dead, not simply the Christians.

Do you think a 20 foot cross honors, say, a Jewish woman, or an Atheist man?

Oh btw:

"This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody."

This is true. Jesus Christ died for everyone so it does represent everyone.

Cf. John 3:16

"For God so loved the world"

God didn't label everyone: Christians, Jews, etc. Those are names they give themselves....

Everyone is God's child because they're made in the image of God....The question is whether or not they will realize it and do something about it....

Christ died for everyone...it's just a question of whether or not they will be allowed to realize that...

There are many things keeping people divided in this world but Christ's not one of them. He died to establish unity and they call him the Prince of Peace.

He's a peacemaker not a peacebreaker...

But a lot of unpeaceful people don't get him because His kind of love is so radical. He aims at changing the world one person at a time because God is very personal.

Every two months or so I attempt to engage you in dialogue, it always ends up being a fruitless experience.

You're asking from man's perspective.

I'm answering you from God's.

Because we see all the differences between groups doesn't mean we should.

Isn't it all the hyperfocusing on the wrong ideas and identifying with just one group that stirs up conflict.

What if everyone just recognized everyone else as made in the image of God and having worth for that reason instead of trying to overcome the other group all the time?

I'm probably going to have to modify this statement later though.

Splendour is right in a sense that it seems silly for people to get angry at people that are trying to honor the victims in the best way they possibly can.

Reminds me of a child doing something foolish because he/she wanted to show his parents how great they are and the parents realize that without telling their child what they did was foolish.

It's reasonable to me that people can be angry, there was no permission or approval requested to go and do something like this but would people thinking they're doing a great thing for all the victims believe they need approval when cherishing the dead?

Also it's very easy to see how the group will refuse to say what they did was wrong, even without seeking permission and such, when they believe all the above as Splendour said.

This whole story is very complex and will be neat to see how it ends.

I think the thing is that we have to be MOST conscious and vigilante about protecting things like the separation of church and state at the extremes. Sure, honouring victims of this tragedy with a cross doesn't seem all that bad. Which is exactly why it is precisely these kinds of places where the protections are going to get eroded, and so that is precisely where the defense of this liberty must be placed.

Not being American, I don't care at all about the seperation of the Church and the State for this kind of issue. However, I can be insoucient because I'm not pestered with the type of religious nutbags that cause so many problems in society and therefore am less worried about opening up the floodgates.

So I guess what I'm saying is I personally don't care if they have a cross there or not, but I can see why people feel the need to fight against it.

This is a stupid platform to stump, imo. Regardless of your religion (or lack thereof), this cross is an iconic symbol of 9/11, and it is perfectly justifiable to include it in any memorial.

It's rather silly for me. I saw the Flying Spaghetti monster also in the destruction so can we erect a giant statue of FSM?

This whole idea of God planting the cross is amazing. He could not intervene to stop the death of thousands but he could plan it out so that a giant cross would stand after the destruction. Great intervention Jesus... You are great...

This was my gut reaction as well, but then I read Splendour's narrow-minded defense of the WTC cross and quickly realized why the lawsuit against it should go forward.