UPDATE—The World Trade Center Cross: A Fight for Equal Rights

I'd think it would probably be best to focus on the modifications to the support beam to make it look more like a cross (religious symbol).  It would probably be best to have pictures to show how it was intentionally changed to make it into something that it wasn't (anyone else should be allowed to modify some scrap and have it presented also).  Otherwise, you're going to be fighting an uphill court battle with a judge that is probably going to side with the massive emotional religious backlash of this.  I'd also recommend bringing up the fact that a lot of supports were that particular shape and the odds that this isn't some freak 'miracle' that people are thinking it is.  Don't call it a cross that an on-site worker created, call it a girder that was modified for religious reasons (this was done during spare time, because real workers were clearing debris not making objects for their beliefs).  Keep repeating that you want equal access, not removal.  For some reason that just isn't reaching anyone (at least no the Fox interview that was done).  Lastly, ditch any association with people having medical conditions over this.  Hypochondriacs are going to pop up on both sides of the issue and you don't want this being part of your argument as it's going to tarnish your image while helping no one.  I personally don't care that religious people get physcially sick when something happens to their icons (religious people think that they're wackos also).  Besides, it looks bad and has a position of weakness of the other merits.  Take it for what it's worth.

I have followed the dispute over the inclusion of a partially intact structural beam as part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

I understand that there are several points that may render the question of the religious status of the object moot.  However, I wish to address the religious status of the object and the propriety of its inclusion as part of the memorial and museum.

There appears to be a question concerning the object being perceived as a government endorsement of religion.  I understand that there is a legitimate question concerning the establishment clause but I leave it to the attorneys and justices.

I believe that a critical point is being missed by all sides.  There are those who seek inclusion of all religions and philosophies as a compromise to avoid removal of the object.  This position fails to address the feelings of many American citizens.  There are those of us who would oppose the accommodation of "inclusion" for any religion.

First, let us define what we are talking about.  The object is simply a part of the supporting structure of the fallen towers.  That it resembles the Christian symbol for a crucifix is not surprising considering the nature of steel reinforced buildings.

Had this quite ordinary beam not been recognizable as a Christian symbol it would have been discarded with the remainder of the rubble.  It is, to the non-Christian, an unremarkable part of the fallen buildings.

It is undeniable that the beam was left intact because of the attachment to the Christian icon it was seen to represent.  The crucifix is the central icon and primary symbol of modern Christianity.  I believe it is safe to say that any Christian would immediately recognize the shape and would perceive it in a positive and faith affirming manner.

To imagine that there are only two ways of seeing this object, as a positive icon (the Christian perspective) or as an ordinary object (everyone else's perspective) ignores people like me.  I did not lose anyone to the tragedy and cannot pretend to know the suffering of those who did lose a loved one or even a casual acquaintance.  I suffered, like millions of others around the world, simply because I am human.

As a human being I feel that the inclusion of any symbol representing a religion is morally wrong.  There are those of us who feel strongly and passionately that the inclusion of a crucifix, a symbol of torture and execution, is reprehensible.  The only reason anyone could have for seeing such a grotesque symbol as something positive is the delusional state we refer to as religion.

The only reason that the crucifix is seen any differently than the rack, the Spanish chair, or the breaking wheel is its entanglement with the Christian myth and barbaric notion of the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Are we so inured to the influence of religion that we are seriously arguing about whether it is right to place a symbol of torture and murder at the memorial because some of the population (majority or not) see it through the rose colored glasses of Christianity?

It is as probable that a piece of wreckage could have been found in the shape of a swastika, should that have been lovingly preserved to honor any fallen whose religion it symbolizes?  The fact that it was adopted by the Nazi party shouldn't tarnish its otherwise positive connotations as a religious symbol revered by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains.

Arguing whether or not the display of this object constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government misses the point entirely.  Let us grant that it is not an endorsement - it is still extraordinarily offensive to anyone not enthralled to the Christian myth of sacrificial slaughter, resurrection, and redemption.

It is offensive and repulsive as a representation of an ancient torture and execution device.  It is more offensive as a symbol of the otherworldly fantasy that the victims are safe and happy in the arms of Jesus somewhere in Neverland. 

The victims of the tragedy of 9/11 were obliterated.  Their lives were stolen and they were consigned to non-existence.  To even hint at the idea that there is anything positive about this or to cultivate the absurd and maladaptive idea that the survivors left by the tragedy might see their loved ones again is the most cruel form of hoax.

Injecting the fantasies of the faithful into this tragedy is a slap in the face to every victim and survivor thereof.  It cheapens their loss and is as offensive as the odious idea that it was all part of "God's Plan" to lay waste to countless lives but leave us a crucifix as a parting gift - like some horrific signature of a psychopathic mass murder. 

Let us not forget that religious faith did play a significant part in the events of 9/11 and it was certainly not positive. 

I cannot express strongly enough how offensive and sickening I find the crucifix and what it represents.  This feeling of revulsion becomes a sense of outrage at the insult it would be for this object to be part of the memorial to the people that died at the hand of religious faith.

There is a way to resolve this conflict.  A way that should appease all sides of the argument.  Many have said that this object has secular value because it was part of the buildings and prominent in the aftermath.  It is undeniable that many wrote heartfelt messages on the beam.  Certainly many were motivated by the perception of it as a symbol of their faith but there were probably some who stopped to read what was written and felt compelled to add their own message.

It is right that these things should be preserved for posterity to honor the responders who wrote upon the beam.

I believe that the most reasonable option is to remove the crossing beam from the vertical beam and display both in a manner that evokes no religion whatsoever.  Nothing of substance would be lost and the secular and historical value of the object would remain intact.  It could be mentioned in the text that will no doubt accompany the object that it was revered and preserved because of its similarity to a religious symbol, end of subject.

Those who will no doubt object to changing the appearance of the object must acknowledge that what they are truly seeking to preserve is not historic  or secular value of the object but its status as a representation of the predominant symbol of Christianity.  If it does indeed have value  to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, then maintaining the shape of the crucifix is unnecessary and divisive.

I have considered carefully and cannot arrive at any reason, beyond preserving the religious nature of the object, that it should not be displayed in a neutral manner.

There are many who will argue that, but for its appearance as an accidental representation of a religious symbol, it would be with the rest of the debris from the towers.  I agree, the only reason it is here in the first place is because people looked at it and saw more than a beam.  We can recognize that this object took on meaning to the people at ground zero and pay homage to them without having to pay homage to their religion as well.

I invite serious comments and discussion concerning my opinion.  This is my personal opinion and I presume to speak for no one else.

Thomas Bennett

[email protected]

I have followed the dispute over the inclusion of a partially intact structural beam as part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

I understand that there are several points that may render the question of the religious status of the object moot. However, I wish to address the religious status of the object and the propriety of its inclusion as part of the memorial and museum.

There appears to be a question concerning the object being perceived as a government endorsement of religion. I understand that there is a legitimate question concerning the establishment clause but I leave it to the attorneys and justices.

I believe that a critical point is being missed by all sides. There are those who seek inclusion of all religions and philosophies as a compromise to avoid removal of the object. This position fails to address the feelings of many American citizens. There are those of us who would oppose the accommodation of "inclusion" for any religion.

First, let us define what we are talking about. The object is simply a part of the supporting structure of the fallen towers. That it resembles the Christian symbol for a crucifix is not surprising considering the nature of steel reinforced buildings.

Had this quite ordinary beam not been recognizable as a Christian symbol it would have been discarded with the remainder of the rubble. It is, to the non-Christian, an unremarkable part of the fallen buildings.

It is undeniable that the beam was left intact because of the attachment to the Christian icon it was seen to represent. The crucifix is the central icon and primary symbol of modern Christianity. I believe it is safe to say that any Christian would immediately recognize the shape and would perceive it in a positive and faith affirming manner.

To imagine that there are only two ways of seeing this object, as a positive icon (the Christian perspective) or as an ordinary object (everyone else's perspective) ignores people like me. I did not lose anyone to the tragedy and cannot pretend to know the suffering of those who did lose a loved one or even a casual acquaintance. I suffered, like millions of others around the world, simply because I am human.

As a human being I feel that the inclusion of any symbol representing a religion is morally wrong. There are those of us who feel strongly and passionately that the inclusion of a crucifix, a symbol of torture and execution, is reprehensible. The only reason anyone could have for seeing such a grotesque symbol as something positive is the delusional state we refer to as religion.

The only reason that the crucifix is seen any differently than the rack, the Spanish chair, or the breaking wheel is its entanglement with the Christian myth and barbaric notion of the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth.

Are we so inured to the influence of religion that we are seriously arguing about whether it is right to place a symbol of torture and murder at the memorial because some of the population (majority or not) see it through the rose colored glasses of Christianity?

It is as probable that a piece of wreckage could have been found in the shape of a swastika, should that have been lovingly preserved to honor any fallen whose religion it symbolizes? The fact that it was adopted by the Nazi party shouldn't tarnish its otherwise positive connotations as a religious symbol revered by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains.

Arguing whether or not the display of this object constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government misses the point entirely. Let us grant that it is not an endorsement - it is still extraordinarily offensive to anyone not enthralled to the Christian myth of sacrificial slaughter, resurrection, and redemption.

It is offensive and repulsive as a representation of an ancient torture and execution device. It is more offensive as a symbol of the otherworldly fantasy that the victims are safe and happy in the arms of Jesus somewhere in Neverland.

[reply by Casemill.. The cross is not regarded as an ancient torture device. It's an Icon that represents the hope and belief of Jesus's death and resurrection. I don't know anyone that thinks of the cross in modern times as a torture device. That is what the device was meant for, but the display of a cross in our time, is a display of religious rememberance. ]

The victims of the tragedy of 9/11 were obliterated. Their lives were stolen and they were consigned to non-existence. To even hint at the idea that there is anything positive about this or to cultivate the absurd and maladaptive idea that the survivors left by the tragedy might see their loved ones again is the most cruel form of hoax. [Casemill- this is the opinion of the author]

Injecting the fantasies of the faithful into this tragedy is a slap in the face to every victim and survivor thereof. It cheapens their loss and is as offensive as the odious idea that it was all part of "God's Plan" to lay waste to countless lives but leave us a crucifix as a parting gift - like some horrific signature of a psychopathic mass murder.
[casemill-- another opinion by the author]

Let us not forget that religious faith did play a significant part in the events of 9/11 and it was certainly not positive. [casemill...opinion, again. I saw our country come together, our country and other nations come together, A worldwide decision to stop these murderous people became a global goal, and the eradication of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Mommar Quadaffi. I know atheists do have a concept of good and evil and this horrific act brought the world together against evil. ]

I cannot express strongly enough how offensive and sickening I find the crucifix and what it represents. This feeling of revulsion becomes a sense of outrage at the insult it would be for this object to be part of the memorial to the people that died at the hand of religious faith. [what about the people that died that were of faith? What if they were spared and it was THIER loved ones that died? Would you deny them a memorial that embraces thier faith? Why is atheism the only faith that atheists accept as genuine?]

There is a way to resolve this conflict. A way that should appease all sides of the argument. Many have said that this object has secular value because it was part of the buildings and prominent in the aftermath. It is undeniable that many wrote heartfelt messages on the beam. Certainly many were motivated by the perception of it as a symbol of their faith but there were probably some who stopped to read what was written and felt compelled to add their own message. [poses an answer but there is no answer]

It is right that these things should be preserved for posterity to honor the responders who wrote upon the beam. [true]

I believe that the most reasonable option is to remove the crossing beam from the vertical beam and display both in a manner that evokes no religion whatsoever. Nothing of substance would be lost and the secular and historical value of the object would remain intact. It could be mentioned in the text that will no doubt accompany the object that it was revered and preserved because of its similarity to a religious symbol, end of subject. [It wouldn't be a cross then, would it? What point would that be? It would make atheists, inc happy, but who cares? ]

Those who will no doubt object to changing the appearance of the object must acknowledge that what they are truly seeking to preserve is not historic or secular value of the object but its status as a representation of the predominant symbol of Christianity. If it does indeed have value to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, then maintaining the shape of the crucifix is unnecessary and divisive. [Uh, yeah...]

I have considered carefully and cannot arrive at any reason, beyond preserving the religious nature of the object, that it should not be displayed in a neutral manner. [It should not be displayed in a neutral manner because the people that want to display it have beliefs and values that are not neutral, but are defined by thier upbringing, morals, character, and what they have learned during their life. ]

There are many who will argue that, but for its appearance as an accidental representation of a religious symbol, it would be with the rest of the debris from the towers. I agree, the only reason it is here in the first place is because people looked at it and saw more than a beam. We can recognize that this object took on meaning to the people at ground zero and pay homage to them without having to pay homage to their religion as well. [so by repressing this structure, we can cowtow to the atheist ideal of what? atheists don't believe anything. How to make a monument to atheism? A big pane of glass? A big empty cup? A sign with a cross that has the red line and cirlce through it? ]

I invite serious comments and discussion concerning my opinion. This is my personal opinion and I presume to speak for no one else.

Thomas Bennett

I have followed the dispute over the inclusion of a partially intact structural beam as part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

I understand that there are several points that may render the question of the religious status of the object moot.  However, I wish to address the religious status of the object and the propriety of its inclusion as part of the memorial and museum.

There appears to be a question concerning the object being perceived as a government endorsement of religion.  I understand that there is a legitimate question concerning the establishment clause but I leave it to the attorneys and justices.

I believe that a critical point is being missed by all sides.  There are those who seek inclusion of all religions and philosophies as a compromise to avoid removal of the object.  This position fails to address the feelings of many American citizens.  There are those of us who would oppose the accommodation of "inclusion" for any religion.

First, let us define what we are talking about.  The object is simply a part of the supporting structure of the fallen towers.  That it resembles the Christian symbol for a crucifix is not surprising considering the nature of steel reinforced buildings.

Had this quite ordinary beam not been recognizable as a Christian symbol it would have been discarded with the remainder of the rubble.  It is, to the non-Christian, an unremarkable part of the fallen buildings.

It is undeniable that the beam was left intact because of the attachment to the Christian icon it was seen to represent.  The crucifix is the central icon and primary symbol of modern Christianity.  I believe it is safe to say that any Christian would immediately recognize the shape and would perceive it in a positive and faith affirming manner.

To imagine that there are only two ways of seeing this object, as a positive icon (the Christian perspective) or as an ordinary object (everyone else's perspective) ignores people like me.  I did not lose anyone to the tragedy and cannot pretend to know the suffering of those who did lose a loved one or even a casual acquaintance.  I suffered, like millions of others around the world, simply because I am human.

As a human being I feel that the inclusion of any symbol representing a religion is morally wrong.  There are those of us who feel strongly and passionately that the inclusion of a crucifix, a symbol of torture and execution, is reprehensible.  The only reason anyone could have for seeing such a grotesque symbol as something positive is the delusional state we refer to as religion.

The only reason that the crucifix is seen any differently than the rack, the Spanish chair, or the breaking wheel is its entanglement with the Christian myth and barbaric notion of the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth. 

Are we so inured to the influence of religion that we are seriously arguing about whether it is right to place a symbol of torture and murder at the memorial because some of the population (majority or not) see it through the rose colored glasses of Christianity?

It is as probable that a piece of wreckage could have been found in the shape of a swastika, should that have been lovingly preserved to honor any fallen whose religion it symbolizes?  The fact that it was adopted by the Nazi party shouldn't tarnish its otherwise positive connotations as a religious symbol revered by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains.

Arguing whether or not the display of this object constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government misses the point entirely.  Let us grant that it is not an endorsement - it is still extraordinarily offensive to anyone not enthralled to the Christian myth of sacrificial slaughter, resurrection, and redemption.

It is offensive and repulsive as a representation of an ancient torture and execution device.  It is more offensive as a symbol of the otherworldly fantasy that the victims are safe and happy in the arms of Jesus somewhere in Neverland.

[reply by Casemill.. The cross is not regarded as an ancient torture device. It's an Icon that represents the hope and belief of Jesus's death and resurrection. I don't know anyone that thinks of the cross in modern times as a torture device. That is what the device was meant for, but the display of a cross in our time, is a display of religious rememberance. ] 

The victims of the tragedy of 9/11 were obliterated.  Their lives were stolen and they were consigned to non-existence.  To even hint at the idea that there is anything positive about this or to cultivate the absurd and maladaptive idea that the survivors left by the tragedy might see their loved ones again is the most cruel form of hoax. [Casemill- this is the opinion of the author]

Injecting the fantasies of the faithful into this tragedy is a slap in the face to every victim and survivor thereof.  It cheapens their loss and is as offensive as the odious idea that it was all part of "God's Plan" to lay waste to countless lives but leave us a crucifix as a parting gift - like some horrific signature of a psychopathic mass murder.

[casemill-- another opinion by the author] 

Let us not forget that religious faith did play a significant part in the events of 9/11 and it was certainly not positive. [casemill...opinion, again. I saw our country come together, our country and other nations come together, A worldwide decision to stop these murderous people became a global goal, and the eradication of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Mommar Quadaffi. I know atheists do have a concept of good and evil and this horrific act brought the world together against evil. ] 

I cannot express strongly enough how offensive and sickening I find the crucifix and what it represents.  This feeling of revulsion becomes a sense of outrage at the insult it would be for this object to be part of the memorial to the people that died at the hand of religious faith. [what about the people that died that were of faith? What if they were spared and it was THIER loved ones that died? Would you deny them a memorial that embraces thier faith? Why is atheism the only faith that atheists accept as genuine?]

There is a way to resolve this conflict.  A way that should appease all sides of the argument.  Many have said that this object has secular value because it was part of the buildings and prominent in the aftermath.  It is undeniable that many wrote heartfelt messages on the beam.  Certainly many were motivated by the perception of it as a symbol of their faith but there were probably some who stopped to read what was written and felt compelled to add their own message. [poses an answer but there is no answer]

It is right that these things should be preserved for posterity to honor the responders who wrote upon the beam. [true]

I believe that the most reasonable option is to remove the crossing beam from the vertical beam and display both in a manner that evokes no religion whatsoever.  Nothing of substance would be lost and the secular and historical value of the object would remain intact.  It could be mentioned in the text that will no doubt accompany the object that it was revered and preserved because of its similarity to a religious symbol, end of subject. [It wouldn't be a cross then, would it? What point would that be? It would make atheists, inc happy, but who cares? ]

Those who will no doubt object to changing the appearance of the object must acknowledge that what they are truly seeking to preserve is not historic  or secular value of the object but its status as a representation of the predominant symbol of Christianity.  If it does indeed have value  to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, then maintaining the shape of the crucifix is unnecessary and divisive. [Uh, yeah...]

I have considered carefully and cannot arrive at any reason, beyond preserving the religious nature of the object, that it should not be displayed in a neutral manner. [It should not be displayed in a neutral manner because the people that want to display it have beliefs and values that are not neutral, but are defined by thier upbringing, morals, character, and what they have learned during their life. ]

There are many who will argue that, but for its appearance as an accidental representation of a religious symbol, it would be with the rest of the debris from the towers.  I agree, the only reason it is here in the first place is because people looked at it and saw more than a beam.  We can recognize that this object took on meaning to the people at ground zero and pay homage to them without having to pay homage to their religion as well. [so by repressing this structure, we can cowtow to the atheist ideal of what? atheists don't believe anything. How to make a monument to atheism? A big pane of glass? A big empty cup?  A sign with a cross that has the red line and cirlce through it? ]

I invite serious comments and discussion concerning my opinion.  This is my personal opinion and I presume to speak for no one else.

Thomas Bennett