The United States National Church - Think It Can’t Happen?
“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” – President James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)
If there ever was a statement that enshrined the spirit of the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State clause, this is it. President Madison was addressing a bill that was presented in the last Session of the General Assembly, titled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Madison believed that if any religion were given special provision under the law it would be a “dangerous abuse of power.”
That Old Rugged Cross
There are Atheists who are falling in with those who are against the American Atheists, Inc. lawsuit regarding the World Trade Center Cross. The suit has been called everything from frivolous to petty. They also believe we are fighting against religion, which is causing us to appear as fundamentalist as the most rabid believer.
However, the suit is not about fighting religion, it is about the setting one precedent to avoid a plethora of others. It is just as important as the 1963 case that made prayer in public schools illegal. This case is about equality in a diverse national community. It is about the protection of the rights and freedoms of not just Atheists, but of all citizens, even those who belong to the “wrong sect” of Christianity. It is about the preservation of the very principles that Madison wrote about and that many of our Founding Fathers had put forth in the drafting of our secular constitution.
The suit to remove prayer from public schools back in 1963 was also met with harsh criticism and much resistance from the Atheist camp, and some of the same questions were raised as are being raised now by Atheists who disagree with our decision to sue. But, in retrospect, we all can agree that the School Prayer case was one of the most important First Amendment cases to be won, and when we win this suit, the consensus will be the same, in time.
In 1963, there were many Atheists who didn’t understand what harm it would cause to let the Christians have their prayers. They said we should just ignore it and choose not to participate. We can see where that would have ended up. Likewise, when Atheists today ask what harm does it to do let them have their monument; just ignore it, that would set a far-reaching precedent in First Amendment law.
Precedents
Indeed, Representative Michael G. Grimm (R-NY) is planning on introducing legislation titled “The 9/11 Memorial Cross National Monument Establishment Act of 2011.” The purpose of this bill would establish the 9/11 Memorial Cross as a national monument. His argument is that, “This cross was a symbol of hope and freedom at a time when New Yorkers were coping with loss and destruction in the aftermath of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil… …By establishing the 9/11 Memorial Cross as a national monument, we ensure this symbol of freedom continues to stand for all those we lost and those whose faith remains to this day.”
That is fine and dandy if you are a Christian, but I was raised in New York City and lived there for decades and I can tell you with great certainty that not all New Yorkers are Christian. I have a feeling that goes for the entirety of the United States Citizenry. There are many who do not view the cross as a symbol of freedom. While many may be indifferent about it, there are those for whom the cross depicts credulous servility that represents bigotry, hatred and discrimination. It is a poor choice for a national monument because it not only takes the attention away from the victims and puts it on the church, but it also implies (according to Christian doctrine) that the victims in those terrorist attacks who were not Christian are currently burning in hell.
As if being burned alive by jet fuel wasn’t enough. That, alone, makes the Cross totally inappropriate. But it is more than inappropriate. It is illegal.
A Turn Of Events
As far as the lawsuit goes, while it was initially filed in the state courts of New York, it has since been removed to the Federal Court. American Atheists, Inc. National Legal Director Edwin Kagin states, “A case that has both federal and state issues can be ruled upon by a judge in a State court, but if the defendants want it moved to Federal court, they have that option”
This is exactly what they did, and according to law, it cannot be undone. Their reasoning behind this was that they felt the judges in liberal New York would not rule favorably to them. However, one does not get to pick which judge will be hearing the case in Federal Court, and this has worked to our advantage.
The judge who drew the case is none other than Justice Deborah A. Batts. Judge Batts has degrees from both Radcliffe College and Harvard University, was an Assistant US Attorney, an Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, the Special Associate Counsel to the Department of Investigation for New York City and was appointed on the recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was appointed by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the Southern District Federal Court.
Judge Batts is also an African American Lesbian. So much for Divine Providence…
It cannot be stated emphatically enough that American Atheists, Inc., is not “suing religion” and are we not fighting against any individuals right to pray to who or whatever they want. We are fighting for the preservation of the United States Constitution and for the equality of all American Citizens.
—
Al Stefanelli – Georgia State Director, American Atheists, Inc.
Tags: AMERICAN ATHEISTS, Cross Monument, First Amendment, Lawsuit, World Trade Center, WTC Lawsuit
I can easily see the reasons this lawsuit should continue. If I may suggest, those atheists that object simply do not want to rock the boat, or worse, are accommodationists.
Definitely move forward with this lawsuit! This is yet another sneaky Christian Nationalist attempt at weakening the wall of separation! If I had money I would donate to this… but since I don’t I’m here in “spirit” [or whatever you want to call it]. GO GET ‘EM GUYS!!
Oh come on.
“However, the suit is not about fighting religion, it is about the setting one precedent to avoid a plethora of others.”
Right. AND IT’S ABOUT FIGHTING RELIGION. Hey, I don’t condemn that (I might even support it), but don’t try to smooth talk me into believing that it’s not in any way about fighting religion. I get enough rhetoric and wordsmithery from elsewhere. I won’t tolerate it from you, too.
That said, you need to pick your battles more wisely. Fighting a highly unpopular battle solely on the basis of “principle” is a recipe for minority martyrdom, and I want nothing to do with that.
The cross was about providing condolence in a way that’s most personally profound and meaningful. A better tack (and how to make this best backfire on any Christian “fundies”) would’ve been to petition to have other symbols there, too. The muslim cresent and star, the star of david, the atheist atom… any symbol representing the faith or anti-faith beliefs of anyone lost that day. It’s easy for Christian fundamentalists to argue against Atheism to the court of world opinion. It’s much harder for them to argue against religious tolerance.
This isn’t about “fighting religion”, its about stopping dangerous precedents from being made. Having a cross as a national monument isn’t just unfair for athiests, it’s unfair for any non-Christians.
“A better tack (and how to make this best backfire on any Christian “fundies”) would’ve been to petition to have other symbols there, too.”
This will come out in the litigation, you can count on it. Nevertheless, it *is* about fighting religion, in this particular case, christianity. And why wouldn’t it be christianity, in a country where it is by far the most represented statistically? If it were Judaism, we would object on the same grounds; Islam has already been tried, convicted and executed (in NYC, re: the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”, so feverishly trumpeted against by FOX News…and by the way, where does FOX News stands on this one? I seem to recall a number of broadcasts in favour of the cross). Having said that, this just cracks me up!: http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-memorial-curators-decide-not-to-display-swasti,21290/
-b
The only problems I have with this whole thing is that the American Atheists, as usual are exaggerating two points. First they are putting all Christians into one basket here and implying that all Christians THINK that 9-11 Memorabilia is all about them. I saw a picture that stated something along the lines of “9-11, it isn’t just about Christians”. If you need a Christian to admit that it just isn’t about Christians, I will admit it, and there goes your claim which heavily hints the implication of “all”.
Now this is just absurd, first off, New York is not a religious state by any means, and I actually see it as one of the top most secular states in our Country. To add to that, I don’t think there are that many fundamentalists around here either, compared to that which is in the bible belt.
So I don’t know what justification the American Atheists have by putting that statement up. Where exactly are all these Christians? Is it really “all” of the Christians that are doing this? I wouldn’t even say it’s close to most.
My second point is why bring this up?
“The suit to remove prayer from public schools back in 1963 was also met with harsh criticism and much resistance from the Atheist camp, and some of the same questions were raised as are being raised now by Atheists who disagree with our decision to sue.”
First off this is a terrible comparison. Prayer in schools doesn’t necessarily have to be focused on Christians, it could be for any Theistic religion (Although I think Buddhists pray). The Number of Christians that lived in 1963 is irrelevant, (Though according to an Issue of Time Magazine in that decade, “God was dead” anyways) and I would call someone out on an ad populum fallacy if they wish to go further.
Secondly, If this is the worst thing that Christians are doing right now where the media is getting heavily involved between Atheists vs. Christians, and it involves suing then I’d say Christians aren’t such bad people.
So besides the exaggerations, I don’t care if the American Atheists win or lose. The point is be fair, and stop putting all Christians into one boat.
You even said yourself “but I was raised in New York City and lived there for decades and I can tell you with great certainty that not all New Yorkers are Christian.”
Yes, and from the percentages (Don’t know if I’m allowed to post links, some sites don’t like that) but only 33% of New York Citizens even GO TO CHURCH. So that right there proves my point. Anyways I’m not stating only 33% of New Yorkers are Christian, but it makes a good case towards the size of Fundamentalists.
The lawsuit needed to be filed for one reason- these rabid sectarian Christians have repeatedly shown their willingness to speak on behalf of all of Christianity, and everyone else as well. Unless you hold no value on your own civil rights, this should concern EVERYONE. No one is calling anyone else “bad people”, how ridiculous! It’s a simple matter of conducting religious business on state property, ergo establishing religion with state money. Why can’t it stay at St. Paul’s? The purpose of dragging it back to the ground zero site IS to establish religion, duh.
Keep your religious idolatry on your own property, I’m under no obligation to “respect” your religion- the one where you get to tell me I’m going to Hell!!
@mademezora’s emotional criticism
You said “Keep your religious idolatry on your own property, I’m under no obligation to “respect” your religion- the one where you get to tell me I’m going to Hell!!”
1: I never said you were going to hell, if you actuallY READ what I wrote, I told you I don’t care if the atheists win or lose this case. Seems as though you are jumping to conclusions and making alot of assumptions, but at the same time this is a dishonest approach by labeling me as something I’m not.
2: Even if I did said you are going to Hell, you don’t believe in Hell anyways, so why should YOU take it personally?
3: I’m under no obligation to “respect” your lack of religion, or better yet NON-THEISM, because I don’t know if you are a Buddhist, Shinto or Tao. (Religions that can have atheists)
4: How is this MY religious idolatry?
“The lawsuit needed to be filed for one reason- these rabid sectarian Christians have repeatedly shown their willingness to speak on behalf of all of Christianity, and everyone else as well. Unless you hold no value on your own civil rights, this should concern EVERYONE.”
5. Under Atheism there is no value, How do “rights” or “values” emerge from valueless matter? Matter has properties (Shape, mass, color, texture, and so on), but moral value isn’t one of them.
If God doesn’t exist, human dignity, worth, and moral duty must have emerged from valueless processes. In fact, and in contrast, from valuelessness, valuelessness comes.
A Solely materialistic universe might produce in us feelings and beliefs of obligation – like the protection of our children or the survival of our species – but that’s a different matter from actually having such obligations we OUGHT to carry out.
You said “No one is calling anyone else “bad people”, how ridiculous!” Then you say “It’s a simple matter of conducting religious business on state property, ergo establishing religion with state money.”
So implying that this “religion” are nothing but a bunch of theives makes them “good people”????? Are you actually reading what you are writing? Because you just contradicted yourself. You can’t just say “oooh I’m not calling anyone bad, but they are using state money to conduct business, when this against the law” Give me a break…
“The lawsuit needed to be filed for one reason- these rabid sectarian Christians have repeatedly shown their willingness to speak on behalf of all of Christianity, and everyone else as well.”
Yeah, where? I’m going to say you and your buddies are making this up, so now use your free-thinking skills and prove me wrong..I can do easily show you how, a few fundamentalists are doing that, but I want to help you with your arguing skills, so Show me something.
I want to see these “rabid sectarian Christians” right now, (some type of evidence) until then I will assume you are making this claim by faith.
“The purpose of dragging it back to the ground zero site IS to establish religion,”
Even if that is true, though this looks like an argument from ignorance as you have provided ZERO Evidence for that claim. I believe this is just an argument from emotion.
Why not just say “establish Christianity”? Why throw all religions under the Bus? By putting all religions into one basket you are only being unfair in your criticism. You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and showing alot of biased feeling towards Christianity, then in the next statement blaming all religions for something you CLAIM Christians did.
balls in your court….
I’ll give you a classic example of a “rabid sectarian Christian” in our very own Congress. Put your hands together for a very warm welcome,please, to Congressman Shimkus (R) of Illinois!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE&feature=related
-b
[...] city park in Virginia Beach. As far as I know atheists don’t try to get these removed. The American Atheist Organization is suing to remove a cross from the WTC memorial. The “cross” is actually a section [...]