World Trade Center Belongs to All Americans

"Because it is not peace. So are you stating that Christians should cower down in a corner so that we do not upset anyone? Or perhaps we should all (and this includes athiests) simply convert to islam in order to be peaceful? I am very confused about your statement because it simply does not make sense in the context of this thread."

Please reread my larger thread and then you will understand that I don't believe anyone should just lie down and take it from in any form. What I was trying to get accross, was to chose battles carefully. This battle affects all in a negitive way. To not allow a piece of American history to be show cased is just wrong. The reason I say this is that the piece of steel has many forms remberence for everyone in America.

Why have the Memorials not completed yet, after almost 10 years to the date.

Dear MyCountry,

Thank you for the clarification. 'Pick your battles carefully' fits much better - concise and to the point :)

While I'm in no position to donate right now. I 100% support AA's position on this cross issue. I'm up to my eyeballs in the way these religion people think they have to piss on everything. I am so grateful for groups like the American Atheists and FFRF. Keep up the good work guys and gals.

Sam Salerno

What is wrong with having a cross to mark something that affected the whole country and not just some of the country? Some of the people who died also are the same ones who went to work everyday to make the city a better place to live. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but leave this alone!! People were lost that day and for awhile after. They deserve to rest in peace and not have people to fight over something like this. If the city, government wants to put a cross as a memorial, than LET THEM!! Yes, I SO BELIEVE IN GOD!!! I know some people who say that they don't believe in GOD. Guess what?!?! When something goes wrong in their lives, they call me to PRAY.. You are being very disrespectful to all of the people who died on Sept. 11 by doing this. You don't know if they were still lost or if they called on GOD before they died. Why don't you people just grow up and get a life!

(sorry. long post. grab a sammich.) ;)

While being a very outspoken atheist, I must say that I am also in full support of the "Ground Zero Cross" being included in the 9/11 museum. However, I also think that there should be a non-religious area of reflection as well. I really don't think that that would be too much to ask for, right? Having said that, I would not be surprised if there was already something like that in the works. Does anyone know if the floor plans have been made public? I think that it would be very interesting to see them first hand before we all get too excited...

We have to remember that, first and foremost, this is to be a museum. Thus, they are bringing together and displaying actual artifacts from a location where a very significant event in U.S. history took place. Therefore, without question, this cross should be included. To argue differently belies the apparently innate inability of those pursuing this matter of securing an atheistic or, at the very least, a non-religious representation in the museum to come up with a better solution. With that in mind, should we atheistic individuals allow ourselves to be guilty of the very same thing that we all too often accuse certain others of doing? Has anyone even noticed that this lawsuit sounds like it is being approached from the standpoint that atheistic thinking is yet another religion? Do we REALLY want to try and start a "atheists were there too!" movement? Can we not see the very same traps within religion about to befall those engaged in this endeavor? Isn't it sufficient enough to know that by using simple math, people will be able to figure out that a significant number of the people who died in the 9/11 attacks had no religious affiliation whatsoever? If not, shouldn't we just focus on helping the curious to know where to look?

That aside, I think that the atheistic movement (please note that I REFUSE to use a capital "A" in front of "atheist"!) is progressing at a perfectly fine pace. Trying to rush things along or attempting to make a stand when there is in fact no real battle will only succeed in casting atheistic thinking individuals in a harsh light. Perhaps it is high time we embraced an atheistic counter to "Let go and let god"? In all seriousness, perhaps it should be something along the lines of "Relax and think well"?

My letter to David Silverman:

Mr. Silverman,

I've just read about your lawsuit based on the inclusion of the Ground Zero Cross at the 9/11 Museum. While I'm a committed atheist, I believe that this suit has little justification, and is also an unwise tactical move, which opens your group, and atheists in general, to criticism from believers.

The suit alleges that the inclusion of the cross in the museum is tantamount to state establishment of religion. If this were the case, we would have to remove all religious artifacts from the Smithsonian museums, which would be a ridiculous move, essentially equivalent to whitewashing the religious belief from our history. You were also quoted as saying that the museum could give equal space to symbols from all other religions and atheism. You're obviously aware of the impracticality of this, and your suggestions of symbols on behalf of atheism--an atom (which has nothing to do with the historical context of the museum) or a firefighter carrying a victim (an image that will certainly be well-represented in the museum, but in no way associated with atheism)--are fairly absurd.

If you purport to represent the atheist community at large, this episode has certainly undermined that. Your website motto is, "Welcome free thinkers," an appeal to rationality. This lawsuit belies that notion, and is really more of a reflection of a dogma that has not been well-considered. If we insist that all representations of religiosity, even historical, must be banished from our public sphere, we are inviting a justified backlash from not only believers, but also those who seek a full historical accounting of our society and remembrance of the events of 9/11.

I would ask that you reconsider this lawsuit, so that your organization can focus on the more noble goals which are at its core. If that happens, I will be proud to call myself a member of the American Atheists.

Sincerely,

Randy Lioz
Novi, MI

Dear Blair Scott,

'Stop lying for Jesus'.....that is quite funny. I have been a triage/surgical nurse for 25 years. I have worked for a majour German hospital that treates wounded/dying soldiers as well as having been in country on mercy missions to treat the natives. I might be a mere woman but I do know what I am speaking of. I have held far too many hands as people have died to allow a blowhard like you to say otherwise. You have had your personal experiences - I have had mine but to say that I am 'lying for Jesus' shows that you are incapable of doing anything other than attempting to bully and belittle people so that you get your way. If you are a prime example of Athiest then it is no wonder the world sees Athiests in a negative light. I have learned much from this sight and it has all been negative.

These sentences with atheists capitalized are from this very site

I wasn't carrying about the effin' capitalization - I just mentioned it in passing - so zero hits.

so instead of your petulent toddler-like rants about my having capitalized atheists

MY toddler-like rants? It's not about me - my feelings on the matter are irrelevant. It's more about how all you folks behave, peas in a pod, dive-bombing an atheist site (yeah, it's not 'sight', it's 'site') in an obnoxious collective tantrum about 'how DARE you say anything about THIS!' (frickin' hypocrites).

perhaps you should donate your time to spell-checking as well as grammar-checking this site.

Be nice if you gave me something to grammar- or spell-check besides the questionable 'A' or 'a' in 'atheist'.
Hopefully you & the rest of the toddlers learned @ least that, in the midst of your hold-your-breath-pound-your-heels-on-the-floor knee-jerk responses.

You have proven my point so Thank you.

You lumped in atheists w/muslim terrorists, so fuck you.

Your lack of manners and intelligence is overwhelming.

You've done little to earn any respect, & you're obviously not the final arbiter of what intelligence is.
& you're more the bully.

I WAS supportive of the atheists (notice the lowercase a just for you!) and WAS supportive of your kind being represented at the 9.11 Memorial.

Oh, oh my. How...magnanimous of you.

Now, thanks to what I have been shown on this site about what kind of horrible, nasty, and vindictive people you are I will be sending a rather large donation in support of the Christian fight against you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How rich. I'M the bully? Am I supposed to be chastened? All you folks come raining down on us telling us to STFU about the topic, now you're going to help fund...what? The 'Christian fight against us?' Why, because you were insulted? What are you, in middle school? You didn't even bother to do any back-research.

I believe in giving everyone a chance but your unwarranted attack only proves what atheism is all about.

If you think my thrashing your rather stupid opinions is representative of atheism as a whole, you're much dumber than I originally thought. I represent ME, not atheism as a whole.

Oh, and by the way, EVERYONE has typos.

Gee not me. How's that?

VERY mature of you to only point out mine and not any of the atheists’ typos.

Where would those be, exactly?

You have truly represented your people well haven’t you.

Again, I'm representative of me, not my 'people' - everyone's 'my people', so again, swing and a miss. You're 'my people', even the theists are 'my people' - religion is garbage, you all need to be educated.
However, it's difficult when the bunch of you behave so poorly, & so spectacularly rude, coming here to school us on what we already know.

Is there a petition for this? I will gladly sign. Just let me know.

krystalline apostate,

".........American Atheists Events
Have you ever wanted to learn more about the issues facing ****Atheists*****, meet with other *****Atheists*****, or just have a good afternoon or weekend? You're in luck -- American Atheists hosts several events across the country every year for just those reasons.

Whether it's our annual National Convention, Regional Atheist Meets, or local parties, you can be sure to have a great time, help out our common cause, and have a great time. Speakers, food, and LOTS of other *****Atheists***** abound!............."

These sentences with atheists capitalized are from this very site so instead of your petulent toddler-like rants about my having capitalized atheists perhaps you should donate your time to spell-checking as well as grammar-checking this site.

This is just for all the religionists who like to think that there aren't many atheists in this country? It took generations for the gays and lesbians to come out of the closet and people have been amazed at how many! It will be amazing as the three major western religions continue losing their grip! All the atheists whose job, standing, politics etc. will finally be safe from retribution will pour out of their closets. Being against the meaning religionists give to that cross-looking girder in a public space, and also making the papers as a group voice is twice 'blessed'.

We don't. We fight against those who believe in that which "does not exist."

How does one fight that which "does not exist"?

I’m Agnostic. Recently in my office we discussed the recent developments revolving around the lawsuit surrounding the inclusion of a cross beam found at Ground Zero in the 9/11 memorial. I have NEVER felt uncomfortable about my spiritual choices, but hearing that “Atheists” (which I’m usually lumped in with) were protesting against a cross beam, made me cringe. It is my understanding that you’re one of the individuals protesting the inclusion of this piece, of what basically amounts to rubble, in the monument. I honestly don’t see what you’re objection is. As an Agnostic, that piece of rubble is just an artifact from a tragic national, if not global, event. Yes, it has been adopted by Christians as a sign that God is with them, but the State isn’t advocating that, to the state it’s rubble. It’s just a cross beam found in ALL construction. Would you protest the inclusion of a piece of drywall that happened to resemble the Virgin Mary, or how about a carpet stain that kinda resembled Budda? It’s just something that gives the families and survivors of this tragedy comfort (and isn't that the POINT of this monument). What would you have them do with it? Throw it into a closet to collect dust? Perhaps place it in a landfill? Or how about placing it in a private collection, that the public will never be allowed to view?

We are ALL allowed our religious beliefs, but I don’t think this bit of support structure is worth causing a national discussion. Frankly, I find your objection to its inclusion offensive. The families and survivors of 9/11 have had to wait FAR too long for this monument and the closure associated with it. Would you have them wait even longer for something so trivial? What’s next, are you (and by extension ALL Atheists/Agnostics) going to try to ban all the flyers and posters left at the sight offering prayers to the fallen?

Listen the bottom line is the monument is going to be a bit of a museum displaying items related to this event. Museums house items which may be of a religious nature, but it’s not a statement that the creators of the museum adhere to or advocate those religious views, it’s just a display, what an individual observer chooses to view in that item is up to the individual. I’m sure my opinion doesn’t matter to you, but I felt that someone should inform you that in relation to this event, you’re making us all look like insensitive pricks.

So if equality is so important as you claim it is, where are you on the mosque that the muslims want to put up near ground zero?
And a lawsuit because you claim that a chunk of steel in a certain shape gives you headaches and makes you sick? Please....you can certainly do better than that!

I'm a hardcore atheist with not a shred of belief in any divinity, BUT I have to agree with the previous comments criticizing this campaign. While I fully support petitioning for equal representation, the HISTORICAL significance of this symbol is undeniable. This artifact tells an important part of the larger story. Additionally, it represents the psychological study of suffering and symbols and perceived "signs" used to alleviate that suffering. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Christian viewers may assign their own beliefs to its meaning, but as someone who was in downtown Manhattan on that day, I understand this symbol's significance as part of the narrative. In simpler terms, despite the fact that many different groups were targeted during the Holocaust, I doubt that most people would scoff at Star of David imagery in a Holocaust museum, even if there were not a counterbalancing amount of Atheist representation.

In a nutshell, this is petty, quasi-Westboro Baptist childishness. I was hoping most of us Atheists were above that.

FYI: I objected to the "cross" in a letter to the editor of our local paper a month after 9/11 -----

October 6, 2001
Dear Editor:
I have seen the news accounts about the cross, found in the WTC debris, being erected in the rubble by firefighters and clergy. I congratulate the Patriot News for printing an article about Muslim firemen on the page opposite the photo of the cross in the October 5 issue. I don’t know if this was an intentional attempt to balance the news. However, It was refreshing to see this article. It was needed.

Recently I saw a drawing posted on the Internet. It depicted the World Trade Center in the final moments. In the clouds above the towers was a human figure in the likeness of Jesus, accepting the victims into outstretched arms.

I have heard many services of remembrance for all the victims of the attacks. Ceremonies held in public and government buildings have used music and words that are almost entirely Christian, and a few public observances have been exclusively Christian.

Many Americans have forgotten one important fact -- not all the victims were Christian. We don’t yet know the religious beliefs of many of these people. We may never know. We do know that at least one Muslim firefighter is missing, as reported in the Patriot News October 5 article. Unfortunately many Americans ignore the religious beliefs of some, perhaps many, of the victims and their families.

I am concerned that many Americans have forgotten that we are not fighting a holy war in the name of Christ. President Bush has dropped the term “crusade” to name the struggle in which we now find our country. It was an unfortunate use of the word to begin with. It seems many Americans took the word “crusade” to heart and have not been able to let it go.

I am alarmed when I hear anyone of any religion using their beliefs to justify our nation’s actions against another people. I am equally concerned when religion is used to condemn any and all actions that might be taken by the United States. And I have been frightened by the accusations of religious leaders, of whatever belief system, who blame other Americans for the attacks. Now is not the time to promote a religious or political agenda in the name of whatever god.

I am amazed that many Americans ignore what is printed on the bumper stickers and posters that I am seeing everywhere I turn, “Let freedom ring.” To me, that means I have the right to worship in my own way and believe what I choose -- without another person condemning or blaming me, praying for me without my knowledge or permission, or assuming that I hold the same religious beliefs they do. If we can’t be tolerant of other religious beliefs in this country, we are not fighting for freedom. So then I have to wonder what we are fighting for.

We should, now more than ever, discuss our differences, learn about other beliefs, and honor and respect our differences. Let’s cease the assumptions, the accusations, and the condemnations in the name of religion. If we Americans can’t do this, who else will?

are the 2 crosses in the pictures the same cross? the beams meet differently in each. is the memorial cross one just "made up"? if so, doesn't that effect the "historical significance" argument? i thought it was the original cross "found" at the site? even with that though, of course i agree it should not be part of the memorial.

was no option given to leave it at st. peter's(?) as an additional, "religious" monument?

we care because its display impinged on the rights of others who don't believe in it (not only atheists) and it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

just as if it might offend you if only an atheist symbol (and not a cross) was displayed. or if only a star of david or koran was displayed.

religious symbols have their place in religious places. the "cross" would've been fine if left at the church a block away where it was all these years. the museum is a publicly funded location.

Really? What is your problem? Big deal, a cross made out of steal beams is going to be in the museums to represent hope in a time of crisis. I'm so sorry that you are feeling left out because you don't have anything to worship! But seriously, why do you have to sue over this? You are just making a very sensitive matter in an extremely sensitive situation worse!

And what happens if you do get your way? What is your symbol we can put in a museum? We could give you a blank wall... here you go, worship your blank wall of nothing, happy now?

I'm sick of this politically incorrect crap! No wonder our country is in trouble, it's because we have turned godless. Just because you have a religion doesn't mean its right and doesn't mean that everyone has to bend over backwards to make you happy. And by the way, Christian get beaten down every single day, especially in the media. Where is our lawsuit? hu? You don't see us suing over stupid stuff like this.

What would you perceive to be appropriate inclusion for those who are atheist and want that inclusion? Out of curiosity..has any other religion been denied inclusion into the mueseum? Today is the first I've heard of this debate. Thanks.

Blair Scott & nnjjoe50,
Sorry guys but there are basic flaws in your reasoning over this issue. The first has to do with confusing freedom, equality and rights. Freedom concerns human will (or love) and refers to our intellect's appetite for the good we find in being. As defined this means we are all drawn toward whatever is good in any being we encounter. Freedom as such cannot be for evil since evil is the absence of a necessary good. Freedom therefore is about embracing what is real (exists), what is good (has desirable perfections) and what is entitative (has being).

Equality on the other hand has to do with the nature of each being. Human persons are equal not in their material composition, nor by what they can or cannot do, nor in their appearance or even in their perfections which are many and varied, but in their nature as persons. Justice requires that equals be treated as equal and unequals be treated as unequal. Equality and justice as such require us to treat human beings accordingly, contrary to how popular culture perceives this subject. For instance men and women are equal in their nature as human persons but unequal in all else. A woman cannot impregnate herself while a man cannot carry a newly conceived child to term in his womb. This is precisely because each has faculties the other does not have and for this reason are not equal in their capacities and abilities. We can go on to show many other more typical examples of the inequality of men and women such as size, shape, color, strength, beauty, intelligence, etc., but suffice to say they are both deserving of the same protection to their life because they are persons. It's not because they can do things equally, or perform equally, or look the same, simply because they don't. I can follow this same principle to determine that persons are not equal on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, or gender either... but again because they are persons. I need not fall into the cultural trap that I must do everything someone beside me does or I "am not equal" and consequently deserving of the same protections as they are. It's because we are human beings who have personhood we are deserving of the same basic protections.

While I am equal in nature to all other persons (this includes those from the moment of conception to natural death), thus deserving the same protections, I am free only to the degree that I act within my nature, which is intrinsically good. If I act in a way contrary to my nature, for instance, attempt to generate a child without the complimentary power necessary to do this, that is without a woman, then I will fail. I will fail because I am not free to do what by nature I cannot do. It is not good for me to pretend to be a woman or that I have her powers of generation. On the other hand it is good for me to recognize my power of generation, and that it is a compliment to the woman's. Out of the union of those two complimentary goods in our mutual human natures comes another good called procreation or the power to generate another human person. So while I am not equal in all ways to a woman I am free to act according to demands of my nature, and she to her's. The two of us together can do what neither can do apart. When and to the degree we accept this and act accordingly then we are truly free. If we ignore our real differences it leads away from freedom.

As for "rights," I have two sources of rights. The first given to me by my nature, and implied in this is where my nature comes from, that is from God... so I can say my nature and rights are given to me by God. The second kind of rights are given to me by the government (as determined by the form I am under of course). The first kind of rights are immutable and cannot be violated or taken away by any human person. The second kind of rights are liscensed, that is given by the state, and can be restricted and terminated. At the same time both have corresponding responsibilities. While the former cannot be taken away by any man the latter can under certain conditions be denied. As our Declaration (which undergirds the U.S. Constitution) suggests: "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are the immutable kind that cannot be taken from us by anyone (except by God, who in principle does not destroy what He creates, so will not take them either) Furthermore, that same Declaration says in order "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed." These fundamenal rights, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (implied in the last is the possession of property) cannot be taken from us and our government is meant to protect them. Contrast these more fundamental rights to our lesser rights we are given like driving a car down a road. These latter rights are a privilege, given us by our government, with a liscense that can be restricted or revoked if we violate the terms of that liscense. Note also that we have a right to a body of persons called government, whose job is to protect us and our most fundamental and secondary rights, and this is also alluded to in the Declaration on the basis of "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." In all cases of rights, both primary and secondary, we have a corresponding responsibility. In relation to those that are primary we cannot deny them to others (like take another person's life unjustly), and toward the secondary rights to obey the laws enacted to properly order those rights (like driving a car safely down the road).

So equality in religious expression, as in all other forms of equality, is to be found not in the quantitative distribution of that expression, as you suggest, but in it's just distribution. Justice as I said above assumes equals are equal and unequals are unequal. Unfortunately our cultural notion of justice assumes that all persons must be the same in capability in order to be equal so we attempt to quantify with proportions of one group to another. This is wrong! In application to the issue at hand this simply means any group or person that wants to display their religious symbol in public should be able to as long as they allow that same freedom to others. What is not necessary is this egalitarian expression that requires all or nothing. So as long as Christians who saw their religious symbol in the wreckage of the WTC towers don't insist any other religious expression be forbidden then there is no constitutional problem. This also applies to atheists and agnostics who if they so desire should be able to display whatever symbol they have in public to show their sympathy toward the victims of 911. What is forbidden by the Constitution is for the government to endorse a particular religion in a way that favors it against all others. This can be seen in light of the fact that almost all of the founders of our Constitution had a religious belief and even felt free to express it in public. What they were against in framing the U.S. Constitution was the "King of England," or more generally the government, stepping in and dictating what kind of religion was allowable for each person. This is clear in both the historic circumstance and writings of the founders. So this is basically my second point: that the so-called separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Rather the phrase is found in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists where he was reassuring them of this very principle. The principle protected the expression of each person in whatever was their religion. It protected not just private expression in their own church or home but more importantly out in public. What happens in government is also a public arena so we should be free to express our faith in government too. Everyone should be free including atheists who can express their beliefs in public. What cannot be done is for any one group to forbid the other nor can the government forbid free expression. This does not mean expression can't be forbidden in a private setting of one's church or home.

With that said and while I am on this subject, I will say I have no problem in principle with the display of a Muslim symbol in public. I do have a problem with the mosque proposed at "ground zero." The problem here is not one of principle but of sensitivity to those who are the survivors and the family of the slain victims. As such I think this is a problem that should be worked out by the survivors and families and those who propose to erect the mosque. It's not an issue such as we have here in this dialogue concerning religious freedom and expression in public (and in government). By the way religious freedom implies both freedom to practice as well as to not practice any religion, that latter being the concern of atheists here.

[email protected]

I've been an atheist for over forty years (and married to a Buddhist). I personally believe that atheism is largely a result of freedom of thought and freedom from dogma. I also believe that others are free to exercise their religion. I feel embarassed when I see others, claiming to be representing "atheists" interfering with people exercising their beliefs - the militant activist anti-theist does not represent me.

This type of action is also very damaging politically as it paints a picture of atheists as nutty extremists that were frightened by something in the woodshed when they were young. If you want a secular state then stop antagonizing non-atheists. I'm a Republican and would like to get the "religious right" to be more accepting of atheism - every stupid lawsuit pushes this goal backwards by ten years.