Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Aug

2011

Now Is Not The Time For Atheists To Back Down

Author: admin / admin's blog

Log in or register to post comments

Why We Need To Kick It Up A Notch

The American Atheists, Inc. lawsuit regarding the 17-foot-tall Christian Cross Memorial has generated a lot of buzz about the method that some of us use to advance our cause. There are those who are adamant that we should be non-aggressive, respectful and tolerant of those who hold religious beliefs and that we should not be outspoken. However, there are those of us who just cannot adopt the “live and let live” philosophy, because the favor is not returned. While there is a place in our cause for diplomacy in certain situations, it is painfully obvious that in most areas diplomacy has miserably failed. Diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to compromise. While some may choose to remain silent or non-confrontational, there are a growing number of us who have decided that the time has come to no longer sit back and let the theocrats run the show.

The growing problem of the steady inclusion of church and state in the United States needs to be addressed with more urgency than many Atheists are affording it because the problem is increasing at very disturbing levels. As Atheists, we already face an uphill battle for acceptance in the court of public opinion because nearly every singe time we protest one of these violations, we end up, for lack of a better word, crucified. Unfortunately, there is no real way to avoid that.

Not only do individual Atheists have to deal with unavoidable negative publicity, but those groups that serve as our advocates, such as American Atheists, Inc., Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Freedom from Religion Foundation and several others are also offered up for the same treatment.

Willful ignorance abounds about the religious beliefs of many of our founding fathers, and the erroneous conception that the US was founded as a Christian nation. This is more than just an inconvenience. It is causing blatant violations to the First Amendment rights of not only Atheists, but to anyone else who is not Christian. This country is systematically being converted into the exact opposite of what the authors of our Constitution intended it to be.

Our freedoms are being steadily stripped away and our precious constitution is being beaten, strangled and left bleeding to death. In order to stem the tide that is destroying the United States as a secular nation, along with our precious First Amendment rights and protections, we must continue our concerted and organized efforts.

We cannot afford to go quietly into that good night. We cannot afford to be silent and watch our rights to freedom continually eroded. We cannot afford to do little or nothing about the fact that we remain the least trusted group of people in America. We need to stand, be counted and continue to raise our voices in unified reason and not go away until every American citizen realizes that we are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, aunts and uncles. We are politicians, doctors, lawyers, managers, employees, politicians, friends and neighbors. We need to stay in the public eye and keep in the forefront of the minds of America that we are no longer willing to put up with the abrogation of our Constitutional rights.

Al Stefanelli is the Georgia State Director for American Atheists, Inc., and is also the author of “A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet earth.” He also writes for the National Atheism Examiner

Posted by Kathleen Johnson

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 08/05/2011 - 07:51

The problem as I see it lies in the the fact that this is both a museum and a memorial. If it were purely a memorial, I would be 100% behind this, as it would be a huge disservice to those who died and did not identify as Christian. However, NO ONE can deny that this cross was part of the history. It gave a lot of people hope, as if god was saying "I've not left you"... although personally, I think it was more like "I'm still here, but not willing to prevent this sort of thing" but that's just my take on it. I think it's silly, but not unreasonable, for people to want the cross in a museum as it cannot be reasonably denied that it is an item of historical significance (it tells part of the story). However, it is downright offensive to have this cross in a memorial.

If this project were simply that the museum had a memorial in it, then you could separate the two out. The cross could be in the museum portion of the exhibit, but not in the memorial portion. The plaque under the cross could read something like "these crossbeams, resembling the Christian cross, were a symbol of hope to many during the trying times after the 9/11 attacks" or something like that. At that point, it's just a data point in history, not a religious symbol. Saying it doesn't belong in a museum is like saying we should toss out all religious artwork... which is just plain silly, and borders on historical revisionism.

So that's my solution anyhow; just make it clear that this is a museum with a memorial in it or else just toss the "memorial" bit altogether into a separate project (put it next door if you have to). The issue we're running into is simply that items of religious significance reasonably belong in museums, but do not reasonably belong in memorials.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:26

The most important nuance that should make all the difference to people interested in the lawsuit is that the WTC deified icon isn't even a piece of history, it is not some recovered victim's cross, someone's rosary beads, or a Star of David, or a teddy bear, or a policeman’s badge, or a firefighter’s helmet, or an atheist’s family photograph, or a teacher’s schoolbook, or a tattered prayer shawl, or a hijab, or a Buddha statue, etc., found in the wreckage to be justifiably included in the museum under glass as a matter of heartfelt and *actual* historical value.

Instead, it is a huge metal T-beam that is a post hoc invention and the equivalent of a pareidolia or simulacrum that claims the entire unique monopoly of *physically representing* the World Trade Center towers in the aftermath of one of history’s most abhorrent and nihilistic attacks on our entire human family that, ironically enough, was motivated by religious terrorists seeking to impose their doctrine and symbols upon all others.

That’s why I care that the huge T-beam isn't worthy of government support and why I think it is reasonable for others to reject it as well, no matter the world view or religious tradition.

In this way, we can be fully accepting of all items that reflect our entire human family through these cherished representative items that show the world our mosaic as a free people of diverse views and to provide an authentic history within the museum and the memorial for everyone.

To support this one item that, subjectively deified after the attacks, has being subsequently imagined by one religious sect via their representative holy men into something it plainly is not, should not be endorsed or supported by our secular government.

E Pluribus Unum

Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 08/06/2011 - 06:36

If this crossbeam made people think, feel or act differently, then it is historically relevant. This is especially so if the effect was rather large. If I thought this was a sign from god, I would see it as a slap in the face... or perhaps as a big creepy grave marker... but supposedly it gave a lot of people hope. Their reaction is part of history, but we can't put reactions, thoughts or feelings in museums. The fact that it was blessed and gathered around for prayer services means that it tells a part of the history. It might tell a part of history that we don't like (I would rather people be digging rather than praying) but I'm not about to suggest that the government only tell the parts of history that we agree with. Was it, or was it not part of the history?

What is the difference between this crossbeam and a necklace with a religious icon on it? Both objects were seen as religious icons and held significance for those that used it. The main difference I see between the two is that one was owned by a victim and the other was a symbol used by the living.

However, as I said previously, if the museum is also a memorial (as in the two definitions are concurrent and inseparable) then it has no place there and that's all there is to it. Is this a memorial, a museum or is it both? Like I said, that seems to be the most important thing to consider when we ask "is it reasonable to include this crossbeam in this?"

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 08/07/2011 - 15:57

The fact that it gives some people hope means that they can put it up where folks who appreciate it can derive hope from it. A church would be a nice place for this symbol used by some of the living.

The problem is that it is an invention, a simulacrum that has since been deified by one religious sect **from debris of the WTC building**...where many folks of a diverse faiths and perspectives perished.

Your perspective also leaves out the many who do not find hope in having debris in the form of a cross representing the WTC building being made into an icon that holds a monopoly on representing hope and resilience.

Again, the most important nuance that should make all the difference to people interested in the lawsuit is that the WTC deified icon isn’t even a piece of history, **it is not some recovered victim’s cross, someone’s rosary beads, or a Star of David, or a teddy bear, or a policeman’s badge, or a firefighter’s helmet, or an atheist’s family photograph, or a teacher’s schoolbook, or a tattered prayer shawl, or a hijab, or a Buddha statue, etc., found in the wreckage to be justifiably included in the museum under glass as a matter of heartfelt and actual historical value...and not something folks from one religious sect invented and would like our government to endorse and establish as the one true sign of God.**

If someone's cross found in the debris is rejected from the museum, that would be an affront to fairness.

But, this invention is no such item.

It is a special invention by one religious sect to dominate the representation we all should share collectively.

And that is the wrong thing to do.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 08/07/2011 - 19:26

Is this a memorial, a museum or is it both?

It is both. This is issue is rather confusing to a lot of people. The memorial is contained within the museum. However, they are separate entities and were funded by separate congressional acts and monies were controlled and allocated by two separate agencies.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 08/16/2011 - 17:19

I was on the side of American Atheists exactly until the moment I realized the cross was /not/ a feature of the memorial, it was a feature of the museum and not on display for worship. It is, in fact, an important part of history for the many Christian believers who found significance in it.

Trying to erase points of Christian significance from events is a sort of revisionism no less nasty because atheists are currently the minority. It's identical behavior to Christians trying to co-opt American history for an evangelical agenda, but without the same influence. A lack of effect does not, however, render the behavior any less reprehensible.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 08/11/2011 - 03:40

One reason why this issue is confusing to people is the constant misinformation that representatives and supporters of American Atheists, Inc. are putting out.

The memorial is NOT "contained within the museum". The Memorial surrounds and sits atop the Museum, which is underneath it. The Memorial is free to the public, while the Museum requires an entrance fee. The cross is in the Museum, not the Memorial, in the third section of the Historical Exhibition: precisely where it should be.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:31

The most important nuance that should make all the difference to people interested in the lawsuit is that the WTC deified icon isn’t even a piece of history, it is not some recovered victim’s cross, someone’s rosary beads, or a Star of David, or a teddy bear, or a policeman’s badge, or a firefighter’s helmet, or an atheist’s family photograph, or a teacher’s schoolbook, or a tattered prayer shawl, or a hijab, or a Buddha statue, etc., found in the wreckage to be justifiably included in the museum under glass as a matter of heartfelt and *actual* historical value.

That’s why I care that the huge T-beam isn’t worthy of government support and why I think it is reasonable for others to reject it as well, no matter the world view or religious tradition.

To support this one item that has been subsequently imagined and deified by one religious sect via their representative holy men into something it plainly is not, should not be endorsed or supported by our secular government.

E Pluribus Unum

Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:51

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can probably find the symbol of anything in the rubble. This is much more like a grocery store bombing, but since Pepsi found a rock burnt like their logo, THEY should have their logo/brand all over the memorial?

What of the people/families of those who where not religious or of different religions who actually died there, don't they get respect or a voice? Or is it because the Catholics where the first to spot something? Maybe its because we all know it really does not matter who died or why they died, its simply the biggest business buying prime advertising space - that's truly what this is.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 08/06/2011 - 03:42

I don't mind a good self-deprecating joke either, cops and donuts and all that...

My focused objection to Stewart's (even satirical) assertion is because the underlying argument is severely flawed.

The slow drip, drip, drip eroding the wall of separation of church and state is actually emanating from this passive "whatever brings the majority religious sect comfort at the expense of others is okay to be endorsed, promoted as history/art and established by our government" theory that some folks keep positing.

I just don't think that's funny.