Atheists lose their stupid suit against I-beams

[Seth]

What a black eye for the anti-religionists:

Mar 29, 5:31 PM EDT

[urlhttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SEPT_11_MEMORIAL_CROSS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-29-17-31-57]NY judge tosses lawsuit over Sept. 11 steel cross
[/url]
By LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) -- A judge on Friday tossed out a lawsuit that sought to stop the display of a cross-shaped steel beam found among the World Trade Center's rubble, saying the artifact could help tell the story of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts rejected the arguments of American Atheists, which had sued the National September 11 Memorial & Museum's operators in 2011 on constitutional grounds, contending that the prominent display of the cross constitutes an endorsement of Christianity, diminishing the contributions of non-Christian rescuers.

Batts wrote that the cross and its accompanying panels of text "helps demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed during the rescue and recovery effort." She called its purpose "historical and secular" and noted that it will be housed at the museum in the "Finding Meaning at Ground Zero" section with placards explaining its meaning and the reason for its inclusion. It also will be surrounded by secular artifacts.

"No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity," the judge said. She added that the museum's creators "have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion." She said the plaintiffs also failed to allege any form of intentional discrimination or cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The 17-foot-tall steel beam was found by rescue workers two days after the terror attacks. It is scheduled to be displayed among 1,000 artifacts, photos, oral histories and videos in an underground museum that will also house the staircase workers used to escape the towers as well as portraits of the nearly 3,000 victims and oral histories of Sept. 11. The museum, still under construction and scheduled to open next year, is part of a memorial plaza that includes waterfalls that fill the fallen towers' footprints.

A lawyer for the atheists group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Joe Daniels, the museum's president, said he was grateful that the court "agrees that the display of the World Trade Center Cross is not a constitutional violation but is in fact a crucial part of the 9/11 Memorial Museum's mission of preserving the true history of 9/11."

Attorney Mark Alcott, who represented the museum, said the ruling will protect the museum's depiction of the aftermath of the attacks.

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion," he said.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

It just a sadistic torture device. C'mon! There's nothing religious about a crucifix cross. It's just a symbol of Jesus's the people who worked there's sacrifice. No rationality hypocrisy intended by the judge, none at all.

[JimC]

The cross is simply an interesting artefact of Roman history, employed in many locales, including, I gather, some minor parts of the Empire at the east end of Mare Nostrum...

[Robert_S]

Why must we be such spoilsports that we'd deny Christianity it's privileged position?

[Seth]

"It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion"...

So why choose a crucifix shaped piece of wreckage out of all of the myriad similar scraps available? Why not a "Crescent and star" shaped lump? Or a "Wheel of Karma" shaped tangle? Or maybe the infamous "Dreadlocks girder"?

I call shenanigans! The judge's a priori consideration was not upsetting nor criticising fellow christians - but doing so in a way that appeared to be "fair".

The question is not whether the object is one of religious reverence, it's whether or not including the object in a historical display sponsored by the government about the event constitutes an impermissible "advancement" of religion. If some workers had found a crescent and venerated it, then the government would be just as justified in placing that object in the museum alongside the I-beams. But the fact that nobody found such an object or venerated it in a religious manner is not relevant. Many interesting social or historical artifact related or unrelated to religion were found and are on display. The religious significance of any of those objects is NOT within the purview of the government to assess in deciding which artifacts to display and which not to.

In fact, the government is FORBIDDEN under the First Amendment from engaging in content-based discrimination. The Lemon test says, in part, that the objective of the regulation (in this case the decision to display certain objects of historical interest) can neither advance nor inhibit any religion. To remove the I-beams would be to engage in content-based discrimination because the wreckage became a venerated object by those who worked on the disaster, which would be discriminating AGAINST that religion.

The judge ruled that no reasonable person (which excludes idiot atheists) could view the inclusion of that object as but one object in a collection of objects related to the tragedy as government impermissibly advancing religion or favoring one religion over another. He's right. Only idiots who are offended by the display of ANY religious artifact could believe it, and since they are idiots, we, the People, are not obligated to give their vacuous arguments our attention or respect. Had there been a crescent and star created by the force of the destruction that became a venerated object of historical interest, then the government would have been obligated to display it as well, to avoid any charge of religious favoritism. No such object was found.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The question is not whether the object is one of religious reverence,..." Of course not, not if you're trying to dodge the laws. Weaseling, nothing more.

[hadespussercats]

I'm glad they lost. I think the lawsuit was ridiculous, and did nothing but foster a lot of bad PR for American Atheists.

[cronus]

Whilst the cross may originally have meant torture in the WTC context and a post Jungian world etc etc it could also signify mankind at the crossroads(between barbarism, revenge and forgiveness, awareness...surely atheists of all people should see the deeper symbolic mutability in this chance artifact?

[Seth]

"The question is not whether the object is one of religious reverence,..." Of course not, not if you're trying to dodge the laws. Weaseling, nothing more.

Go read the law. You might start with the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. Then read Lemon v. Kurtzman.

[Seth]

I'm glad they lost. I think the lawsuit was ridiculous, and did nothing but foster a lot of bad PR for American Atheists.

Well put, and perfectly correct.

[orpheus]

When this controversy first arose, many commented that to exclude the cross would be an insult to Christians and Christianity. Rather undermines the claim that it has no religious significance.

[Seth]

When this controversy first arose, many commented that to exclude the cross would be an insult to Christians and Christianity. Rather undermines the claim that it has no religious significance.

I didn't say it has "no religious significance," I said that it's religious significance is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the government may include the artifact in a museum display. If that were the metric, much of the great art of the Old Masters that currently hangs in the Smithsonian and other public art museums would be prohibited simply because it has some "religious significance" to someone.

This of course is nonsense. The First Amendment Establishment Clause is not a commandment to extirpate all reference to religion from the public square, that "interpretation" squarely conflicts with the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is intended to prevent government from EITHER advancing or inhibiting religion. The government can no more ban public displays of religion than it can mandate them. The requirement of the Lemon Test is that the government action must have a "secular purpose" (in this case a secular display of artifacts from the site) and that its practical effect neither "advance or inhibit" any religion. The display of religious artifacts in public museums is commonplace and in the historical context (as in the case of the 911 museum) such religious artifacts do not have the practical effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.