Cross at WTC, yea or nay?

Amy Alkon (who I fucking adore) thinks that its a bit too petty to try and gank the cross from the WTC memorial. (here) I disagree, but whatever.

10 Responses to Cross at WTC, yea or nay?

  1. Why do atheists insist on sounding like pompous assholes at all times? If instead of, “Your ‘god’ didn’t prevent 9/11!” they engaged in a discussion of the importance of separation of church and state, they might get farther.

    • Ancel De Lambert says:

      Why do the religious insist on sounding like put-upon martyrs? We do discuss the separation of church and state, and then Fox News pulls out a bullhorn and screams that we were founded on Christian principles.

  2. Charles Platt says:

    Sell the site to a private management company (perhaps a nonprofit). Then they can put up any religious symbol they like. Or none, as the case may be.

    • sophocles says:

      yeah, and if the highest bidder was a Muslim company who wanted tp put a crescent….

      • CPlatt says:

        Many suggestions for privatization trigger a “What if?” response. This becomes just another justification for allowing government to manage something, because we all know that government is fair and decent.

        Except that in reality, it isn’t, and in reality, private individuals or companies are restrained by the threat of public backlash.

        But maybe I am taking your comment more seriously than it was intended.

  3. rendall says:

    Gank: 1) swindle, steal or 2) battle low-level characters.

    I think you mean ‘yank’.

  4. Luke O'Dwyer says:

    I’m an atheist and I don’t see any problem with it. It’s a future tourist focal- and talking-point. It came from the building so it’s definitely relevant. Church and State separation is one thing, but that doesn’t mean the whole country should be devoid of religious symbols. Some people love that shit – good luck to them.

  5. lazlo toth says:

    It is a historical fact that the cross-shaped beams were there, as was the photograph of the firefighters carrying the dead priest away, as were the religious motivations of the perpetrators. All have religious-related aspects. My preference here would be to have the cross, with a display that indicated that it was found in the rubble and that many people marveled at it because of its cross shape and the relationship of the cross to Christianity. I simply can’t see trying to take something interesting or significant away from a museum because religion happens to have an important relation to it – nobody is establishing religion here, or pushing it on anyone. I’m not religious and my response to it was “that’s interesting..I guess it’s not a total surprise because of how buildings are structured, and I’m sure some people will read too much into it and others like me will find it an interesting coincidence in a horrible event.” It’s interesting and worthwhile. If you lived near the Trade Centers like I did at one point in my life you would remember the tiny Greek Orthodox church next to the towers that was destroyed in the event Its destruction was an interesting fact to me as well – and would merit an exhibit or a reference.

  6. markkernes says:

    I think a lot will depend on *how* they display the thing. If it’s supposed to be some sort of “god memorial,” then I’d agree it should be ditched, but if it’s just an interestingly-shaped piece of rubble, who cares? Frankly, I think ALL religious symbols should be avoided in displays on government land.

  7. Charles Platt says:

    Now that I realize this stupid cross is seventeen feet high and was used as a self-promotional prop by the odious opportunist Rudy Giuliani, not to mention various self-promoting religious figures, I’d like to see the thing melted down, or at least banished to some “sacred ground” where it would be less likely to pollute the impressionable minds of young people who are as yet uncorrupted by organized religion. It is not even a meaningful monument to Christianity, bearing in mind that God in his wisdom somehow forgot to prevent the destruction of the World Trade Center with its loss of innocent lives. Moreover the entire building was composed of crosses, which is to say, intersections between vertical and horizontal I-beams; thus the existence of this piece of scrap can hardly be seen as miraculous. Moreover, who is to say whether it is the “right way up”? Quite possibly the structural members were originally embedded “upside down” in the building, in which case they symbolize the anti-Christ. I would be in favor of exhibiting them in that orientation, rebellion being a far more valuable trait than obesiance to archaic superstition.

    For pictures of the cross:

%d bloggers like this: