Please ignore my earlier comments in the thread...the person that originally told me the story (hence I barely skimmed the OP) ignored the key detail: that the actual cross was not just part of some memorial, but was a historical piece surrounding the events. In which case, it clearly has a cultural and historical meaning and this is fine.

Cleaning it up is fine, writing "jesus" on it seems pretty silly but seems hard to imagine that this would take it from okay to not okay.

I haven't been slow to recognize that it was/is a prominent part of the WTC story, nor have I argued for its exclusion:

I have though, as you note, found myself troubled by the later addition of the word 'Jesus' for reasons I previously mentioned having to do with the historical integrity of the artifact.

Perhaps that is the case. I feel as though the updated articulation expresses why I found the article troubling in the first place, and reflects the stance I was trying to take. I do acknowledge that I may not have articulated it in the same way to begin with though. I don't think that the issue for me was ever the seperation issue, it was the altering of a historical artifact to tell a more specific religious story, about Jesus and Christianity, than I feel the actual events themselves told.

I think the artifact warrants inclusion but that the after-the-fact addition of 'Jesus' does not.

I don't know--this seems like a really minor issue to quibble over. I'm not sure at what point someone etched "Jesus" into the cross. But let's assume worst case scenario here--that it was done when it was at the Catholic Church. So what? There is obviously no legal problem with that (and I don't see a moral problem). Now the museum wants it for a display as an important part of the history of 9/11. Are they supposed to not use it because it was displayed and modified at a Catholic Church in the intervening years? I just don't get the issue here.

Eh. If you don't think this is a church/state issue then I don't see why we should bother with the issue. Let the museum make its own decisions about what to include in its displays.

I don't think it matters if they carved the word Jesus into the cross. It is a religious symbol and it should not be displayed in any place that is funded by the government. Doing so is clearly an endorsement of Christianity/religion.
Even worse is the proposal in the lawsuit that other religious groups should be allowed to display their religious symbols as well.
All this is especially baffling to me as 9/11 was a religiously motivated attack and people still don't grasp why the government should stay completely neutral in questions of religion.

Evidently it isn't so clear after all as even several non-Christians here (including myself) do not think that it is an endorsement of Christianity or religion.

Here's my view: I don't think that religious art in an art museum violates the establishment clause--it is an endorsement of its artistic qualities, not its religious qualities. Thus, I have no problem with the government funding art museums that display religious art. Yet I recognize that for religious people, this art might be considered sacred and thus religiously significant.

I also don't think that displaying religious artifacts that are historically significant in a history museum violates the establishment clause--rather it is an endorsement of the historical significance of that artifact, not of its inherent religious significance. Thus, I would have no problem with a museum (such as the 9/11 museum) displaying a religious artifact that was historically significant. I do think the WTC cross is historically significant and so have no problem with this display. That being said, I recognize that religious people will interact with the display differently than I will. I have no problem with that.

Really? The motivation for this suggestion should be obvious. If you display many different religious symbols then you are not plausibly establishing a single one of those religions as a state religion. Hence, no Constitutional problem.

Let's go with a hypothetical: Assume during the Iran hostage crisis all the people held hostage gathered around and read a King James Bible for each of the 444 days. Is the government funded museum promoting religion by displaying this? No, they're displaying a historical artifact that was significant during the crisis.

You say the museum wants it "for display". While this is literally true (ofc it is being "displayed"), the museum is not presenting it as a historical artifact, it has been installed front and center during a religious ceremony where it was blessed, as a place for visitors to come and pray / worship / whatever else. This is nothing like a historical artifact being "displayed" at a museum.

If it was being displayed along with any and all the other artifacts as a historical piece, there would be no problem. It is the manner that it is being used that is completely the problem, and at least imo, it is a fine example of what Christians do so well: combining bullying with playing the victim. Just listen to the nonsense of many of those defending it e.g. "it's a symbol for everyone, not just Christians" - no it ****ing isn't, it's just that Christians happen to be the overwhelming majority.

I'm still not exactly sure what the other argument ITT is about, but the symbolic nature of the cross has taken on such an important meaning to so many people because .... so many of those people are either Christian, or sympathetic to Christianity.

It is an important piece, and should certainly be made available to all those that wish to go and say prayers or whatever. At the nearby church where it has resided for all this time. How can that possibly be a bad place for it to be displayed?

What if it was installed during a religious ceremony, on consecrated ground or whatever it was they did, in a manner and location that was clearly meant to separate it from other historical items, and in fact appeared to encourage religious activities around it?

In contrast to say, having it displayed together with the other historically significant items (rather than elevated above them), behind glass or however the other items were being displayed.

ETA: It is the manner of installation, primarily the religious ceremony that is the smoking gun in this situation, and clearly distinguishes the item from being a historical artifact.

+1

If those details were government funded then I would have a problem with those other details...not with the display itself.

Not that i have a problem with it but how much solidarity would there be if it was a crescent? A lot... but for removing it.

Those details defined and framed the purpose of the display, and this purpose endures beyond the installation ceremony.

The emotional significance of the surrounding event is going to impact a lot of objectivity in this case, but this is plainly being installed as a religious symbol.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/citizen...rish-wtc.shtml

The religious significance people place on an historical artifact (in this case, the cross) does not affect the historicity of that artifact, which I'm sure you would agree. Additionally, I don't think you can say that a religious ceremony can retroactively remove an artifact's historical value.

I feel that this is a relevant response which I made earlier.

Almost any trip to a museum one will quickly find numerous examples where the artifacts on display are NOT in their original condition but have been in some way tampered with over the years. For example, there are no longer penises on many Vatican statues because of some pope who had them all taken off. The modifications from the original can sometimes become part of the story and history itself...ie a stronger thing than needing to explain why it is in the condition it is in.

I think the church that did this carving ought to be ashamed of themselves in the same way that knocking the penises off priceless Vatican statues should be shameful, becuse they are damaging what is a legitimate historical artifact that should undoubtably be preserved. But that does mean the government should not display it simply because of the Jesus thing, as stupid as it surely is.

Post 82 does get at at least something of an important issue. I don't think any here disagrees with the idea of displaying historical artifacts or that this is indeed a historical artifact. In a museum showcasing the events and artifacts of that day, it would be surely wrong to NOT include this. However, the context and presentation of this historical artifact is substantially different from that of mere presentation, and at best could be reasonably mistaken as a direct endorsement of this particular religion. So I would submit the general idea of displaying this cross is correct, even if the Jesus is lamentable, but that the presentation should have been different.

It's relevant, but I feel inaccurate. I simply don't buy into the idea that you can ruin the "historical integrity" of an artifact. It either has historical significance, or it doesn't.

Not sure how this differs from normal display except that it was "blessed" in some religious ceremony (also I'm suspicious of this presentation of the facts as being accurate). So? If a museum was displaying a religious artifact that was being donated(?) by a religion, I imagine that they would allow the religious people to donate it however they want--even if that includes saying some special words or whatever. Who cares?

Anyway, the fact that some Christians did a rain dance or something doesn't have any bearing on whether the cross should be in the museum. If you don't like how it was placed there, the solution isn't to remove it, it is to apologize or something.

Not seeing anything here that is relevant to the legal issues of this case.

This doesn't preclude it from being historically significant as well. Religion is in fact part of our history.

It isn't a bad place. However, I don't want the government to interfere in decisions like this unless they have good legal grounds for doing so, which as far as I can tell have not been provided here.

...which would also be the wrong decision.

I don't think there would be solidarity if it was a crescent.

It is an international cultural norm to place crosses where people are buried.
It is already an established cultural norm. Placing a cross is not just religious people placing random symbols at a grave site (at least I hope not).

To take issue with this cross is to take issue with years of history. You may as well go to all the grave-sites all over the US and try and get the crosses removed.

But I can understand why people don't want the word "Jesus" engraved. That takes it to a new level of being very Christian-esque.

But the cross itself just shows respect to the people that died. That is just normal practice everywhere in the US. This cross just happens to be really big, because the quantity of people that died was great.

So Father Jordan is a bit of a nut (although he seems like a good guy). So what? Before people were complaining about the word "Jesus" being scratched in, now they are complaining about the fact that a Christian priest said a prayer when they installed it. These are such minor issues. Do you really feel like they justify removing this evidently important piece of the history of 9/11 from a museum about 9/11?

I really don't see how the "emotional significance" matters here at all. If some Christians care deeply about this artifact as a religious icon, fine. As long as there isn't an establishment or a free exercise issue, then let them do their thing.

Maybe I'm pettier than I thought

Yeah i know.
I think there would be solidarity to take it down if it was an Islamic symbol. At least among most of those who support the cross.

Well we already have a proxy for what would happen if was Muslim....remember the outrageous and embarrassing weeks long national scandal that was the "ground zero mosque"? OF COURSE there would be outrage if this was a crescent not a cross. But that doesn't mean the cross is wrong, it mainly means the people who would be outraged by the crescent are wrong.

Can you show this to be true for non-christian grave sites? I'd be very surprised if I entered a non-christian cemetary and see crosses on the graves.

The government should not give preferential treatment to any type of faith and for me this includes the lack of faith. No matter how many different religious symbols they chose to display those religions very obviously received preferential treatment compared to the ones that are not represented. To really ensure equal treatment of all religious persuasions the government should have zero involvement whatsoever.

I agree that in this case a strong argument can be made for displaying this bible as a historical artifact but as BeaucoupFish has pointed out this is not what is happening with the WTC cross.
Also what strikes me as odd is how randomly they picked this particular artifact. A cross is a very basic geometric form, one that is certainly a staple of architecture. What are the odds of not finding anything resembling a cross in the debris of the twin towers? Much harder to find e.g. a star or crescent.