One of the most remarkable aspects of American Atheists’ lawsuit to remove the World Trade Center Cross from the September 11 Memorial and Museum is their allegation that the Cross has actually made the plaintiffs physically ill:
The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non- Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.
These allegations are of course absurd. Will a court actually take action because the mere sight of a cross makes an especially sensitive atheist feel a rumble in his stomach? Interestingly enough, however, these allegations — as crazy as they seem — are actually the result of a modest amount of legal progress.
For decades plaintiffs launched lawsuits merely because they were “offended observers” of public religious displays. In other words, they could make a federal case out of their hurt feelings. Similarly, Establishment Clause plaintiffs enjoyed forms of “taxpayer standing” to challenge the use of their tax dollars for religious displays. Both doctrines are highly unusual. We as citizens don’t generally enjoy a right not to be offended nor do we enjoy a right to challenge the allocations of our tax dollars. Why did Establishment Clause plaintiffs enjoy special rights? Why were non-coercive religious displays uniquely vulnerable to legal attack?
Now all that is changing. Establishment Clause standing doctrine is gradually falling in line with traditional standing rules; so American Atheists has upped the ante. They’re claiming actual, legally-recognizable physical injury from the sight of the Cross (a position no doubt endorsed by the vampire lobby). I have a hard time believing a court will take such claims seriously.
At the ACLJ, we’ll be defending the World Trade Center Cross, representing a coalition of first responders and family members of victims. It is simply a fact that the Cross — formed by molten steel — provided comfort to large numbers of heroes who worked on “the pile” in the aftermath of 9/11, symbolizing hope in the face hopelessness and life in a place of death. Its inclusion in the September 11 Memorial and Museum appropriately reflects the Cross’s historical and profoundly meaningful role in helping us heal after one of America’s darkest moments.
Physical distress from the cross?
They're not atheists, they're VAMPIRES!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDagnabbit, you beat me to it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa! I beat you both to it. Re-read the post :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese "plaintiffs", and I use the quotes out of dismay that they claim to suffer, live in a nation whose population is roughly 90% Christian.
If Christian symbols make them physically wretch, then their remedy is to flee the country, not sue for it.
How does a cross placed at a memorial have any more lasting or real physical effect than one adorned to the outside wall of a Church? And there is no lawsuit (YET) that can effectively make a church rid itself of its Christian symbols, so it seems likely that these "sufferers" will get no relief from, say, walking down the sidewalk.
No, their best remedy -- if they really are as sick as they claim -- is to get the F! out of the United States.
People this incapable of coexistence have no business in a nation as heterogeneous as ours. Too bad their tolerance of other belief systems is so low that they are sicker from the image of a Cross than a teenager is after a dozen tequilas.
Given their admitted affliction -- cold, hard bigotry in the form of anti-Christian phobia -- I recommend they move to Arabia. They'll have plenty of choices within that region in which to find plenty of like-minded anti-Christian zealots.
And I guarantee that those who think like me will finance their flotilla. Actually, we'd pay for their super-sonic air fare. Whatever is the most expedient to hasten their exit.
The alternative is that they can continue to wretch all over the sidewalks and pollute the vaunted environment.
It's entirely out of the question that they'd ever be as tolerant of others as they demand we all be to their juvenility of mind.
Good riddance, yesterday!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"incapable of coexistence"
This made me laugh because of that stupid "COEXIST" bumper sticker. Apparently, they should take out the Christian symbol out of that one.
What a bunch of intolerant hypocrites.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess they will be suing all sorts of museums now and schools that teach history.....oh and art because, gosh darn it, there's a lot of cross imagery throughout western art. Don't forget cemeteries.
When does the boycott of Montevideo (didn't they have a massive cross overlooking the city) begin?
Of course Catholic and other Christian churches should be prevented from displaying their faith symbols lest innocent passer-bys collapse. It's not a freedom of religion issue, it's a public health issue!
You know, I always thought it was vampires, demons, assorted sons of Satan and others of that ilk that couldn't stand the sight of the Cross. Hmmmmmm....
Seriously, this fantacism of some atheists seems to be evolving into some sort mental illness. A self induced phobia with psychotic outburst. It certainly not rational. It is clearly emotional.
Honestly, I don't see why they care. If they don't believe, why does it matter if others do? The only prohibition re: church and state is that congress shall not abridge the free practice thereof.
As most of you know, the term "separation of church and state" never appears in the Constitution but only once in Jefferson's letters. While he had some influence in the development of our founding documents and principles, he didn't represent everyone. It was the clear intent that the States and The People can decide what the relationship between church and state would be within their states....So, get the issue on the ballots, vote on it.. and leave it out of the courts. Don't like the conclusion, try to repeal the law passed. Can't do that, move to another state where other like minded people live and take your tax dollars with you.
(CAPTCHA: forbidden fruit. heh, just like the proverbial apple. OMG! A Religious Reference! Quick! Call the lawyers! I feel sick. bleh.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel like a violent physical reaction to a religious symbol might make me wonder if I had been too hasty in dismissing said religion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemaybe if they could come to understand the level of physical distress suffered by the man who died nailed to the cross they would come to understand the level of their own pettiness and intolerance
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoor athiests. With all these recurrent symptoms of dyspepsia, depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish, perhaps athieism is an honest-to-goodness medical syndrome.
Of course, such illness might be expected after convincing oneself that all one can hope for on one's death is a great big nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have become a nation of people who do not tell the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe American Atheists explained:
"This cross is now a part of the official WTC memorial. No other religions or philosophies will be honored. It will just be a Christian icon, in the middle of our memorial. As a public accommodation, the memorial must allow us (and all other religious philosophies) to include our own display of equal size inside the museum, or not include the cross. Equality is an all-or-nothing deal."*
The plaintiffs don't seem to ask for special rights.
Personally, I think it is a little silly that, under the establishment clause jurisprudence, a religious symbol on government property may be acceptable, provided it is surrounded by other belief symbols (I believe it would be advantageous if the use of religious symbols remained solely with private parties).
But asking for the right to display an alternative belief symbol alongside the WTC cross seems entirely within an American's first amendment rights.
For supporters of the WTC cross, the presence of an atheist or a non-christian display on the same government property that houses the WTC cross wouldn't diminish the message of the cross.
*http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/07/advocacy-group-files-suit-to-block-world-trade-center-cross.php
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"For supporters of the WTC cross, the presence of an atheist or a non-christian display on the same government property that houses the WTC cross wouldn't diminish the message of the cross."
I disagree. The point of the "WTC Cross" is that it is an *artifact* of the actual event. It became an icon. Therefore, it is worth inclusion in the museum.
Besides, there are already numerous items of an athiest or agnostic characteristic displayed - practically everything else there has no particular religious affiliation. They already have what they are asking for.
Besides, what would they include to "reflect" their point-of-view? Was there a big piece of steel melted into a giant question mark? Is there an athiest symbol?
No, this is nothing more than an attempt to tear down what they reject.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The point of the 'WTC Cross' is that it is an *artifact* of the actual event. It became an icon. Therefore, it is worth inclusion in the museum."
Exactly. It's like including a religious painting in a museum. No one demands that whenever a pieta is displayed that alternative religious symbols are put alongside.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyes, thank you.
It really has no religious significance except to believers, however, it is an artifact of the historic event. It was found standing upright and became a rallying point and touchstone for those engaged in the rescue, recovery and cleanup efforts. It became a symbol of the tragedy and of the hope we all had that there would be more survivors and that together we will get through those dark days.
IT belongs in the museum as it is historically important symbol related to the event.
It is the atheists that insist that it is to be interpreted and used as a religious symbol unconnected to the actual event.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, come on. The "explanation" is nothing but pure sophistry. What precisely is the icon of the atheist, that deserves equal billing in the display? To my knowledge there is none (I could of course be ignorant of one), and as such since there is no item that could carry equal pride of place, then of course the Cross must be removed. As a fallback issue, we can argue that icons from "all other religious philosophies" must be included. Another reductio ad absurdium demand. If I claim to worship my dog, do I then get to erect a massive statue of him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat "physical and emotional illness" those atheists feel are the pangs of guilt for their sins. They know God exists. They fear the judgement bar. Being an atheist and proclaiming that there is no God is only a coping mechanism for them. In their hearts, they know they are denying the truth that is staring them in the face.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the psychoanalysis, but I have no fear of any god or judgement by it. I'm an atheist but do have morals and understand what's morally right and wrong, and I assure you I recognize when I do wrong and I make proper amends to the offended person.
No doubt you and other persons of "faith" have me and other atheists in your prayers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMattTrey:
I respectfully disagree. I think that most athiests, in exerting their free will, have made a conscious decision to reject God. I don't think guilt or fear enters into the equation at all.
What I don't understand is how they can claim to have morals and understand what's morally right and wrong without a standard or basis for their morals.
Without God, all is allowed. There is no foundation upon which athiesim might rest, only the shifting sands of nihilism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMattTrey: I reject the notion of "god" the same as I reject the notion of ghosts, leprechauns, etc.
You need to do a bit more reading if you believe that morals and ethics are inextricably tied to the belief in any god or gods. History is awash in blood spilled in religous wars, inquisitions, pogroms, etc. conducted by people of "faith." Were these wars moral or ethical?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould have addressed my last post to dog seizer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse