Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum
By SUSAN JACOBY - WASHINGTON POST - ON FAITH
Added: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:53:00 UTC
The World Trade Center Cross, made of intersecting steel beams found in the rubble of buildings destroyed in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, is raised by a crane before being transported and lowered into an opening in the World Trade Center site below ground level where it will become part of the permanent installation exhibit in the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, in New York, July 23, 2011. (CHIP EAST - REUTERS)
Amid the rubble of the World Trade Center after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, workers found a cross-shaped metal beam that some saw as a symbol of hope amid the ruins. While the cleanup continued, the beam was moved to a nearby Catholic church and is now slated to be housed in the permanent collection of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. But American Atheists, a New Jersey-based group with an unerring nose for for the scent of publicity, has now filed a lawsuit to bar the inclusion of the “cross,” because it is a symbol of Christianity, in the government-financed museum.
This suit not only misconstrues the First Amendment but detracts from the seriousness of the many genuine violations of the separation of church and state that have become embedded in our society. Yes, it would be a violation of the establishment clause if the battered cross-shaped object were displayed at the entrance as the museum’s official symbol. And I’d be the first to go to court to get it removed. But there is no evidence that the museum intends this piece, when the building opens, to be anything but one exhibit in a large collection that will include many other objects belonging to the history of that day and its aftermath. It is now being installed in an underground section of the future museum.
Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told me that “if the cross is being displayed in a museum as an artifact of the event with accompanying information about what it is and where it came from, it’s highly unlikely that a court would strike it down.”
The 9/11 museum is intended to reflect as much as possible about the varied ways in which New Yorkers responded not only on that terrible day but in the following weeks and months.
The museum will doubtless contain examples of the impromptu memorials that sprang up at ground zero and throughout Manhattan, with pictures of the dead and the missing that also contain many religious symbols. I saw many Stars of David and a few small statues of Buddha at those memorials in the weeks after the attacks. Should they be eliminated too, if there weren’t enough symbols of other faiths and secular thinking?
David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said the suit’s goal was either to have the object eliminated from the museum altogether or to provide equal representation for all religions. “They can allow every religious position to put in a symbol of equal size and stature, or they can take it all out, but they don’t get to pick and choose,” Silverman said. He speculated that atheists might want to install a symbol of an atom “because we’re all made of atoms.”
I have no idea whether Silverman is being deliberately obtuse or whether he really believes this nonsense. Why not make sure that the permanent collections of tax-supported museums contain a precisely equal number of paintings and pieces of sculpture so that all religious and nonreligious beliefs will have artistic parity? Let’s make sure there’s one painting of the solar system for every painting of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. No, that wouldn’t work, given that the Catholic Church enjoyed so many centuries of exclusive domain over what types of art and science were acceptable for discussion and public display.
We are talking about history, albeit quite recent history, and the fact that some firefighters and mourners seized on this piece of metal as on object of veneration does not remove it from history. The object (I keep calling it that because to me, it has no more spiritual significance than the face of Jesus that some people have discovered in a grilled cheese sandwich) is part of what New Yorkers lived through. It is not a statement of government endorsement of Christianity.
Chris Chambers and Petroc Sumner -... Comments
Science has an uneasy relationship with journalism, so what can be done by both sides to improve coverage
Will Self - BBC News Magazine 100 Comments
We chase "fast culture" at our peril - unusual words and difficult art are good for us, says Will Self.
Annie Murphy Paul - New York Times 26 Comments
New support for the value of fiction is arriving from an unexpected quarter: neuroscience.
Nick Cohen - The Spectator 40 Comments
If you turn on the news tonight and hear of a bomber slaughtering civilians anywhere from Nigeria to the London Underground, I can reassure you of one point: the bombers will not be readers of Richard Dawkins.
Amol Rajan - The Independent 39 Comments
Their assault illustrates the extent to which defenders of religion still dominate our press, the brutal retaliation exacted on clever opponents of faith and the incorrigible stupidity of Sayeeda Warsi's claim about "militant secularism" last week.
Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net 341 Comments
I can’t help wondering at the quality of journalism which sees a scoop in attacking a man for what his five-greats grandfather did.
MORE BY SUSAN JACOBY
Susan Jacoby - Washington Post 48 Comments
American Atheists must define themselves, not be defined by the religious
Susan Jacoby - The Washington Post 10 Comments
The great virtue of this volume, enchantingly illustrated by Dave McKean, is that it leads the young along the path of logical thinking instead of piling fact upon fact in an effort to tell children what they should think.