Is the cross made from WTC beams appropriate at the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York City?

[OreNative78]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

And you come back with a "I know you are, but what am I?" type response! What does that say for YOUR "emotional development"?

First, you might direct me to where I actually said that.

And second, sure, why not believe in give what you get? Works for Christians.

Look...I know it bugs you that what happened on 9/11...since it was theologically motivated to begin with...has simulated a gazillion hours of prayer, supplication, and theological contemplation---But that IS a big part of the "story".

I worked as a copy editor at a major newspaper during 9/11 and its aftermath. No, it was not a "big" part of the story.

That "cross" (and any other "symbols" they will display) is part of that "story".
Leave that part of the story out...and you fail to tell the full and complete story.
They don't necessarily need that "cross"...but it's as good, if not better, than any other item to illustrate that aspect of the whole thing.

Indeed, I can think of no more despicable thing than using a tragedy like 9/11 to compel people to close their minds to reason and embrace delusion for delusion's sake.

[OreNative78]

Originally Posted by hooligan

This is getting tiresome, Ore, to be frank. As such, this will be my last response to you in this thread.

Sorry you're getting frustrated with being wrong.

Again, YOU ALONE asserted that "appropriate" had legal connotations and implied that we must respond accordingly. I disagreed.

No, I am not alone that the government sponsoring a public display of a religious symbol is a Constitutional -- and therefore LEGAL -- issue. It's been mentioned several times on this thread by plenty of people.

Perhaps poorly worded on my part. My point was that the only way it will be ruled/decided to be Constitutional or not is for the SCOTUS to rule on it. I think we're both agreed on that?

Not necessarily. If District Court says no to the cross, that decision is binding unless and until the Circuit Court of Appeals overrules them. SCOTUS could easily refuse to grant cert, and it will be binding precedent in NYC.

"May" being the operative word here. I disagree that it's a constitutional matter. Again, the Atheist group's lawyers are being PAID to agree and pursue the case. Do you know for a fact that they lawyers involved all agree on a personal level? I don't.

Again, attorneys have every right to refuse cases (and in some cases an obligation not to pursue a suit) if a case is frivolous. I've never known an attorney with the freedom to choose his own cases who pursued a case that they did not personally believe had merit. If they did, they'd make a terrible advocate.

Ah, but according to the marker, it is a *museum* and not a memorial. As such, they have the right to display, or not, whatever items they choose - so long as they are privately funded. IMHO, of course.

If it were only displayed in the museum, I might agree. If it's displayed as a memorial, I'd disagree. It's a grey area; the Lemon test requries no excessive "state" entanglement with religion, and a secular purpose. I honestly have no idea what the secular purpose is here to putting up a cross and claiming it is erected to provide "hope for all."

Frankly, we've got the most hotly religious nation in the first-world, and I welcome a group finally fighting for the rights of the most significant minority in the U.S.