It doesn't matter what the influence MAY have been and I wont attempt to speculate to offer an answer, neither should you. I will however say that to add "Jesus" to the cross adds a subtext to the narrative of the event that the event itself and the cross itself don't necessarily attest to and that is inappropriate given that the museum is in honor of the ACTUAL events.

I'm really not sure if you are being serious here. We are going to debate whether The motivation for people to perform a religious ritual in front of a religious symbol is religion or not?

This strikes me as complete straw grasping and I don't quite get it. You really think one explanation is just as good as the other here?

Its not straw grasping, you asked me how the cross, with the addition of the name "Jesus" to it, could be more of a religious artifact than without the name "Jesus".

Do you disagree with what I said about that, if so, which part?

My answer has been apparent throughout the thread. The cross does attest to it because its a christian symbol and a religious action is being performed in front of it.

Please don't demand that I answer your questions when you consistently don't answer mine.

If you honestly believe that A religious ritual being performed in front of religious symbol doesn't speak to a religious motivation more so than anything else then I am forced to take you at your word, though I must say I am having a hard time not finding it disingenuous.

I didn't "demand" an answer from you. I asked you a question to focus the dialogue for the sake of clarity. I attempted to answer all of your questions, do you have one in mind that I've missed?

Do you honestly believe that athiests were going to this thing and praying under it?

When people prayed under this thing, whom, do you think, it is likely that they were praying to?

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that you are right. That this cross is about solidarity. Under what, then, are the people uniting?

To put it another way, if the beams came down in the shape of a pizza pie, do you imagine people would be uniting under that?

I readily admitted that for the Christians who gathered around it it was likely that their purpose was the predictable one, but that doesn't negate my point in the least. This site itself isn't a Christian site, and THIS CROSS itself is not a Christian artifact.

Do you disagree with either of the last two statements?

This does not make any sense for reasons I intimated above. If this cross was not a symbol of Christianity, of a religion, why is it invoking prayer, a religious ritual?

Again, would people be praying to it if it were a pizza pie?

I described earlier that I personally know of people who will attend religious ceremonies, wear religious garments if the circumstance requires, and additionally participate in "prayer" with religious people as an act of solidarity while in no way endorsing a specific religion or acknowledging even a possible interaction between themselves and a deity.

The very fact that some people do not look at what others would consider to be religious artifacts with any religious reverence at all for the artifact or with any respect for the idea that a relationship between man and deity actually exists indicates to me that the "religious" significance is imparted upon the artifact SUBJECTIVELY.

In the case of this 9/11 museum, which is not only made possible by the use of public funds but also is made in recognition of an event which affected a great conglomeration of races, religions, sexes, of which none can rightfully be said is affected more than another and thus none has more right to recognition than another, it seems to me that it is only appropriate to document the actual events in as OBJECTIVE of a fashion as humanly possible.

Since I don't presume to know the exact significance of this cross is to every person who was impacted by it, I think, in respect of the KNOWN EVENT and the actual history, it is inappropriate to assign to it any more specific of a narrative than the event itself necessarily suggests.

I do not argue that the cross did NOT invoke religious ritual or cries to Jesus, but simply that there is no reason to suggest that this is ALL the cross meant to EVERYONE that was there. To physically inscribe the word Jesus on it is to ascribe a significance to THIS CROSS, this relic, which we can't say holds for everyone to whom the museum should be in recognition of.

I doubt that I could answer your question or express my position much better than this.

We may have to end here then, because from my perspective you are missing the same point over and over again.

Whether or not the people praying were doing so as true believers or not is not the issue.

The fact is that people were united over a religious artifact. You can claim that it is not a religious artifact, but then I would again ask what is it that is uniting these people? If it were a pizza pie, would we pray to it?

I think we would agree that the answer is no, and I think we know why. Because whether or not we are all devout Christians, we understand what it represents in common understanding. Peace, love understanding, etc etc and all the other benevolent characteristics that are often attributed to jesus, not to mention the idea of putting our faith in something greater than ourselves.

Most people, even if they are not to the letter christians, are not devout athiests or anti-theists. I would think (in america) that would be obvious. Given this, why is it so difficult to accept they may find comfort in religion in times of extreme distress?

I would like it if you answered the above questions, because I'm not sure exactly for what reasons you disagree with them.

to restate:

1. We are clearly uniting- finding that solidarity- with the help of something. What is it?

2. If this came down in the shape of something else ( a pizza pie) would we pray to it?

I'm confused what sommerset and acemanhattan are arguing over.

Having said that, I'm surprised it took so long for this thread to appear, and I expect it to be quite an active thread. It's a really easy issue for Christians to point at and say "look at those atheists, they just hate anything religious and they'll sue anything".

I've thought about this issue quite a bit, and while it is an easy target, I fully support this lawsuit and it sickens me how secretively everything happened with the crossbeam altar. Now, it does depend on one very important point, and that is whether the museum is considered public property (as mentioned in the OP).

This would be the perfect thread to introduce the asdf substitution: what if the Christian symbol wasn't some common architectural shape, and a muslim or other religion's symbol was found in the rubble? How quickly would public opinion change when it is no longer the majority's "symbol of hope for all"!? And as I understand it, the cross has been physically altered subsequent to it's original discovery. One of those changes was etching the word Jesus into the cross, and I thought I had read that it had been physically altered to make it more "cross-like" in appearance.

If it had been put in the museum as a historically significant artifact, that would be very reasonable. But it is being used as an altar for the purposes of a single group. It doesn't matter how big this group is, it is exclusionary. This was not a Christian event being remembered.



Actually, I fully support turning this cross into a religious altar for anyone, not just Christians, to go and see, and pray at, whatever they want to do with it. But for this to happen, the cross should be transported back to the nearby church where it was originally moved to, stored at, and recently and quietly / deceptively moved back from. I mean, where would you most expect to see such an "important" religious symbol? At a place of religious worship? Or in a public museum?

PS The lawsuit said that it had no problem leaving the cross at the museum if other religions (and atheists) could install their own symbols at their own expense. The last I read, the museum had not even responded.

I can't tell you what the specific motivation was for each person to gather at this cross, can you? I can't see how you could do anything other than speculate, and I myself offer no speculation. I can tell you what unarguably was observed at this cross: displays of human solidarity. As such it is my opinion that it should only be displayed as a symbol of those instances of human solidarity which occurred at the site.

Actually I think WE DON'T understand what it represents in the common understanding, and to etch the name of Jesus into it suggests a specific understanding which I don't think it is fair to say the events themselves testify to. It's as simple as that.

So, in your opinion, then, One explanation is just as good as any other as to why people were uniting and praying under a religious symbol?

I fail to see how mine or any other opinion establishes fact in this matter.

It is a fact that in the rubble was a cross, it is a fact that people gathered at it in displays of human solidarity. It is NOT a fact that the significance of this cross to those whom engaged around it at Ground Zero assigned exclusively Christian significance to it, writing "Jesus" on it implies it did.

The museum should tell the narrative of the factual events as faithfully as possible, the name Jesus was etched after the events and distorts the factual narrative and gives a specifically religious one.

Because we were discussing common understanding.

What you are doing here is simply special pleading, IMO. In your opinion, we can't say this thing is a christian cross unless we individually ask every person there if they were praying to Jesus when they prayed to it/ I would like to ask what else in your life you demand 100% certainty about before you come to a decision. Seems to me we use inference, Occam's razor, etc, in order to decide what the most probable answer to a question is when we don't have every piece of information quite a bit. You don't want to do that here, and the only explanation I can see is because religion is involved.

Your refusal to answer certain questions and deeming them "irrelevant" when the answer would likely hurt your position seems to be further evidence of that.

This bothers me, because spending time on things like this reinforces the stereotype that all atheists are just God hating tyrants who will try to expunge anything religious from the public square at all costs, whether it has the right to be there or not.

No, what I am discussing is my assertion that inscribing Jesus on the cross turns this cross into an exclusively religious artifact, and is inappropriate. The reason I have not answered all of your other questions is because you aren't addressing this point, which I've aimed to support, and in not addressing this point you're not actually arguing against my actual stance. I have also expressed that I have no problem with the unaltered cross being there, in the public square, for each individual to assign to it whatever significance they want, religious or otherwise, so the crusade against intolerant atheists is also a crusade that shouldn't involve me.

You questioned me on how it was that this cross could be anything other than a religious artifact or how writing “Jesus” on it changes the significance of this cross and I explained, I think adequately and without real response from you, that there are certainly moments of human solidarity which are centered around religious rituals or relics which, for some participants, are not at all an experience of a religious nature, but again simply of human solidarity.

Your suggestion that adding the name of Jesus to this cross doesn't make it more religious seems to deny that the example I give is a reasonable one. If you want to explain to me why my example isn't sufficient to make my point, I'd feel I had something relevant to address.

What? we weren't discussing common understanding a few posts ago? You can say you didn't get a real response all you like or give whatever excuse you find suitable for not answering huge chunks of my posts. People can view the entire exchange and decide for themselves what I did and did not sufficiently answer, I guess.

Fact is you have consistently been evasive throughout this conversation, leading me to believe you never actually wanted to have one.

I will respectfully go back and look at your responses to me, if it is the case that you responded to my point about how it is possible that an artifact could be made more religious, then I'll apologize for evading your questions.

If however, as I think is the case, i supported how it was that writing Jesus on that cross could make it more religious and you didn't address any flaws in that argument, then I think a sufficient explanation for not answering your questions is the one I've suggested, that they aren't relevant to the point I am making.

For the record, the only real question of yours that I think I have evaded is the Pizza one, because I don't see how it is relevant.

It seems to me like people aren't really addressing the issue here. This is a legal case, so your arguments for supporting or opposing the lawsuit should be legal reasons. So, while I haven't read the case, the arguments made by Moreland seem really strong.

For instance, if the museum is a private entity, then he is absolutely correct that it cannot violate the Establishment clause (at least assuming we also accept the relevant precedents). So if you support this lawsuit, then you should say why you think that the museum is actually a public entity.

I would guess that the issue here is whether the museum's having received public funds makes it a de facto public entity, but I would have to look closer to be sure.

That being said, I'm not convinced by the arguments in this thread that there is an important issue of church and state separation here. First, the cross is clearly a Christian symbol (while AceManhattan is right that atheists and non-Christians can use it to pray or contemplate, they are still then using a Christian symbol to pray or contemplate). However, it also seems to me to be an appropriately significant enough historical artifact to warrant inclusion in a 9/11 museum on its own merits. Thus, the question would be whether including it in a public museum on plausibly historical grounds would constitute establishment. If it does, then it should not be included. I don't think it does. The fact that some Christians view it as religiously significant does not mean that the state is also endorsing it as religiously significant. However, this is not really a legal argument.

While this is a legal case, there is also, in my mind, a compelling ethical question involved which is by what degree can a historical artifact be altered, and still truly remain a historical artifact? Does a historical 20 foot tall section of cross-beam that resembles a...well cross, become something totally different when it is further trimmed to look even more like a cross, and when it has the word 'Jesus' carved onto it? Is the historical integrity of the artifact compromised?

No. Why would it? Why would writing/carving Jesus onto it make it less historically significant? Would that change history in such a way that it no longer has the history it does? Of course not.

In my opinion the historical integrity of the artifact hinges on the artifacts ability to speak for itself, to capture and testify to the actual historical events. Thus an alteration (quite obviously) doesn't need to change history itself in order to ruin the historical integrity of the artifact; it only need alter the perception of the actual event itself as seen through the artifact.

It is an international cultural norm to place crosses where people are buried.

The only real point of contention here is engraving the word “Jesus” which would add an evangelical message that will offend some people.

The point here is solidarity and remembering a great loss.

The WTC cross evidently has its own wiki page, which would indicate to me that it is probably prominent enough to warrant inclusion. You think it has been changed in such a way that it shouldn't be included. How so? Merely the carving of the word "Jesus" on the cross, or something else?

Also, notice now how you have changed your argument. It is no longer an issue of separation, but just a judgement call as to whether this artifact warrants inclusion--a decision that I think is probably best left up to the museum's curators.