Should the "steel cross" be used in a WTC memorial

[Qwerty 42]

I believe we're all familiar with the object in question: the cross made out of metal beams found at Ground Zero. Now, the question is, should it it be used in the memorial?

[Surlethe]

My gut instinct is torn; on the one hand, the cross has been used for generic grave markers, so it is kind of a symbol for death; on the other hand, the Christian overtones are exceedingly strong. I'm leaning toward "no", though: it wouldn't represent and honor everyone who died.

[Lagmonster]

I would ask whether they're leaving any other scrap metal at the site, as modern art or preserved history or because it was percieved as a symbol of hope for the cultural majority, since that's effectively all it is on its own merits. If they want a specifically religious memorial symbol, it would be far more fitting and fair to erect a specific monument which honours the traditions of the myriad of religions represented among the dead.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It's too bad they coudn't save the mound of scrap that had the WTC Broken flagpoll they used for that famous photo everyone see.s

[Durandal]

I believe we're all familiar with the object in question: the cross made out of metal beams found at Ground Zero. Now, the question is, should it it be used in the memorial?

Considering that not everyone who died in the attacks was Christian, no. I know that Bush has made the WTC site out to be his own personal Golgotha, but really, this rampant Christian symbolism has to end somewhere.

[tharkûn]

I hereby demand that all intersections in the US be replaced by roundabouts; this Christian symbolism has to end somewhere

I would ask whether they're leaving any other scrap metal at the site, as modern art or preserved history or because it was percieved as a symbol of hope for the cultural majority, since that's effectively all it is on its own merits. If they want a specifically religious memorial symbol, it would be far more fitting and fair to erect a specific monument which honours the traditions of the myriad of religions represented among the dead.

The damaged Ideogram from the WTC plaza is being preserved as well.

Frankly I have no problem with the cross. It has been used as a death marker for so long that even non-religious individuals have willingly been buried under it. Nor is the symbol exclusively Christian (it was orginially associated with the god Tengri of the Altai). Now if the Christians are unwilling to let the religious sensibilities of other victims be represented, that is another thing, but it is idiotic to me to allow government funded grave markers to be crosses - but not a memorial for those same people.

[Durandal]

I hereby demand that all intersections in the US be replaced by roundabouts; this Christian symbolism has to end somewhere

Intersections are a matter of efficiency and design, you blathering twat. This memorial is a matter of respecting and remembering those who died, not just the Christians.

Frankly I have no problem with the cross. It has been used as a death marker for so long that even non-religious individuals have willingly been buried under it.

And therefore, no one who died on 9/11 would have a problem being buried under a cross. Your newfound powers of communication with the dead amaze me.

Nor is the symbol exclusively Christian (it was orginially associated with the god Tengri of the Altai).

I'm sure American society takes all of that into account when staring at the giant fucking cross sitting on the graves of those who died on 9/11. I'm sure they're all going "Oh that has nothing to do with Jesus. It's Tengri!"

Are you fucking retarded? When will you get it through your head that giant religious displays on government property send a clear message of religious favoritism?

Now if the Christians are unwilling to let the religious sensibilities of other victims be represented, that is another thing, but it is idiotic to me to allow government funded grave markers to be crosses - but not a memorial for those same people.

So what do the non-religious people get?

[AK_Jedi]

I think they should go ahead and display it.

They should definately display some sort of wreckage from the site, and quite frankly, this piece of scrapmetal is much more symbolic than any other piece you might find.

I'm not advocating that they should promote christian religion above all other either. They should display other religious symbols at the memorial as well. Besides, like tharkun said, the cross is prominent in other government funded memorial as well. Take a look at Arlington sometime.

[Coyote]

No to the cross. Like, only the Christian deaths mattered, regardless of who died? "Well, lotsa folks died, and it was tragic.. but the real tragedy is that only the you know whos got to go to Heaven!" (nudge-wink)...

Okay, maybe that is a bit cynical, but any memorial should be generic.

[Gaidin]

Yes to the cross. I've yet to read up on very much of what they plan to put at Ground Zero as a memorial, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any memorial(however religously inspired it might be) that didn't have a place there somehow.

[Dooey Jo]

For a moment there I thought you meant the Iron Cross

And no, I'm not familiar with the steel cross, but I think I can imagine what it might look like. Is it a more important piece of scrap metal than others? Why not just take a generic metal beam from the site, if you must have something? Or take a few and form letters to write something; be creative damnit.

[tharkûn]

Intersections are a matter of efficiency and design, you blathering twat. This memorial is a matter of respecting and remembering those who died, not just the Christians.

Hence why it cannot be exclusively Christian.

And therefore, no one who died on 9/11 would have a problem being buried under a cross.

Those individuals, as represented by their legal heirs, should be able to get some other symbol included as well as the cross to denote their sensibilities. If the memorial gets to include a few pentacles, crescents, and stars so what?

When will you get it through your head that giant religious displays on government property send a clear message of religious favoritism?

When they are exclusively so. This is allegedly a memorial to the dead. If the dead, as represented by their legal heirs, want to be memorialized in this fashion, I don't bloody care. My only problem is if allowances are not made for the symbology of all dead as well.

So what do the non-religious people get?

Whatever symbols their legal heirs think would be appropriate.

[FOG3]

And no, I'm not familiar with the steel cross, but I think I can imagine what it might look like. Is it a more important piece of scrap metal than others? Why not just take a generic metal beam from the site, if you must have something? Or take a few and form letters to write something; be creative damnit.

It's this, and they found it like that when they were clearing the rubble and it can apparently be seen from any location at Ground Zero. (ref)

[Durandal]

Whatever symbols their legal heirs think would be appropriate.

Individual memorials are called tombstones. Their legal heirs can put whatever they want on them. Putting up a bunch of religious symbols as a "catch all" and then peppering in some individual requests seems like a waste of time, not to mention the fact that it segregates those who died based on religion.

Instead of saying "A bunch of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc ..." died, the memorial should convey that many Americans died. There has to be a sense of unity in this memorial because that's part of what 9/11 represents: American strength in unity. A simple wall with the names of the decedents with an engraved skyline of New York City and the Twin Towers communicates that message very nicely.

EDIT: I just remembered that it wasn't just Americans in the World Trade Center who died. So maybe something that conveys the world-wide outpouring of support would be appropriate. Though the design I suggested doesn't really exclude non-Americans. It's just names and a place.

[wolveraptor]

If it's government funded, there's no reason it should be a cross. Making it religious politicizes the whole issue, when we want it to be a simple remembrance of the dead. I was thinking of an eagle with its head bent down and it's wings stretched in the way many raptors do when trying to cover their kills; it looks a surprisingly like mourning.

[weemadando]

What's wrong with just putting a plaque there with a brief memorial statement (not a prayer or any shit like that, just a nice, concise, simple statement) in the languages of everyone who died?

Why the need for a massive grandiose memorial? Its not like the kids are going to soon forget about it as they might have back in the day when we only had oral traditions.

[Nephtys]

Just make a miniature of the damn towers. I don't want another /yet another/ cross, because no matter what, those are always bent to be seen as 'more proof of a religious nation'.

I live in San Diego, and Mt. Solidad's cross memorial is always an issue. Since this is the Red part of California, you always get whackjobs that insist that's proof the 1st Amendment only applies to their kind.

[tharkûn]

Putting up a bunch of religious symbols as a "catch all" and then peppering in some individual requests seems like a waste of time, not to mention the fact that it segregates those who died based on religion.

No a waste of time would be pissing off a bunch of Christians, who may or may not litigate to hell and back when there are non-establishment ways to keep most of them quiet and get on with building the damn memorial.

Instead of saying "A bunch of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc ..." died, the memorial should convey that many Americans died. There has to be a sense of unity in this memorial because that's part of what 9/11 represents: American strength in unity. A simple wall with the names of the decedents with an engraved skyline of New York City and the Twin Towers communicates that message very nicely.

I'd have no problem with that memorial either. However the cross is already on display and if you try to take it down then there will be a massive public backlash and serious waste of time.

In reality it will be far simpler just to accomodate the cross by stopping it from being an establishment of religion.

Why the need for a massive grandiose memorial? Its not like the kids are going to soon forget about it as they might have back in the day when we only had oral traditions.

Because certain people will pitch a fit when the cross comes down, possibly sue over it, and generally create a massive headache.

If the cross can be disestablished without having the masses get up in arms, then that is the course that should be taken. Aside from donating it to a church in NYC or the Smithsonian, taking down the cross will cause many problems, far more than making a religiously inclusive memorial including the cross would.

[CarsonPalmer]

I don't see a problem with the cross. Crosses used in this manner have been secularized somewhat, but I am a Catholic, and my view is not the most unbiased on this matter. If it doesn't offend, and it expresses the emotions of people, I don't see a problem. I'm not the best judge of that either, though.

[weemadando]

Why the need for a massive grandiose memorial? Its not like the kids are going to soon forget about it as they might have back in the day when we only had oral traditions.

Because certain people will pitch a fit when the cross comes down, possibly sue over it, and generally create a massive headache.

If the cross can be disestablished without having the masses get up in arms, then that is the course that should be taken. Aside from donating it to a church in NYC or the Smithsonian, taking down the cross will cause many problems, far more than making a religiously inclusive memorial including the cross would.

That's got to be the most moderate thing I've ever heard you say.

[General Zod]

I don't see a problem with the cross. Crosses used in this manner have been secularized somewhat, but I am a Catholic, and my view is not the most unbiased on this matter. If it doesn't offend, and it expresses the emotions of people, I don't see a problem. I'm not the best judge of that either, though.

Crosses haven't been used as a secular symbol since the old Roman days when they were used as a means of executing criminals. Whether or not it offends isn't the point so much as it's showing the government feels a need to use religious symbolry on a government building instead of something secular and relatively impartial.

[General Zod]

Why the need for a massive grandiose memorial? Its not like the kids are going to soon forget about it as they might have back in the day when we only had oral traditions.

Because certain people will pitch a fit when the cross comes down, possibly sue over it, and generally create a massive headache.

If the cross can be disestablished without having the masses get up in arms, then that is the course that should be taken. Aside from donating it to a church in NYC or the Smithsonian, taking down the cross will cause many problems, far more than making a religiously inclusive memorial including the cross would.

That's got to be the most moderate thing I've ever heard you say.

That actually seems to be an oddly common response. . .whenever someone is told that something should be taken down because it violates the establishment clause, an apologist inevitably comes along and says that it shouldn't because it'll outrage a lot of Christians and isn't worth the effort of doing so.

[Plekhanov]

On the left is a picture of the wtc cross as it was origionally pulled from the wreckage on the right a later photo of it being " blessed by Father Jordan” in a totally inclusive and non-Christian way of course
[img=left]http://www.september11news.com/AAACrossOriginal.jpg[/img]
[img=right]http://www.september11news.com/AAACross1.jpg[/img]































To those who argue that the cross is in some way an inclusive symbol rather than a sectarian Christian some questions:

Why has another bit of girder been welded to “the miracle cross” it to make it into a complete crucifix rather than the shape it was originally found in? What possible reason can there have been to do so beyond making a Christian symbol?

Why focus on this particular bit of debris at all? Surely there were plenty of bits of debris which didn’t ‘just happen’ to be the symbol of the dominant religion in the US.

[Plekhanov]

I don't see a problem with the cross. Crosses used in this manner have been secularized somewhat, but I am a Catholic, and my view is not the most unbiased on this matter. If it doesn't offend, and it expresses the emotions of people, I don't see a problem. I'm not the best judge of that either, though.

How do you figure the cross has been secularised? Do muslims, hindus, Sikhs, Jews… get buried under crosses? Is there a global ‘Red Cross’ flag or a variety of flags to cater for different religious sensibilities?

In this situation the cross is much more than a symbol arrangement of girders and is clearly a religious symbol and has been interpreted and used as one from the moment the ‘miracle cross’ was discovered.

[tharkûn]

That's got to be the most moderate thing I've ever heard you say.

Then you must have an amazingly selective memory. Really I aught to charge 5 dollars everytime someone here says that is the most liberal/moderate/reasonable/whatever thing you've ever said.

Crosses haven't been used as a secular symbol since the old Roman days when they were used as a means of executing criminals. Whether or not it offends isn't the point so much as it's showing the government feels a need to use religious symbolry on a government building instead of something secular and relatively impartial.

Quite false. Cross designs are inherently functional; they've been used to denote compass points, locations, and all manner of fun things. Secularly I would remind you that the Red Cross is areligious yet uses the symbol. Need I go on to the various crosses on the heraldry of various secular states? Even if we hold merely to the dagger cross common in Christian symbology there still are uses of it in Egypt, Pagan Russia, China, etc.

I mean really there are only so many simple symbols that can be made. Two straight lines at right angles, why it must be Christian.

That actually seems to be an oddly common response. . .whenever someone is told that something should be taken down because it violates the establishment clause, an apologist inevitably comes along and says that it shouldn't because it'll outrage a lot of Christians and isn't worth the effort of doing so.

Ahh no well poisoning going on there. The point is there is no reason why a frigging memorial cannot use symbology found in virtually every damn cemetary in the country. Sure it shouldn't be exclusive; but not every picture depicting something connected with religion needs to be establishment. A pluralistic memorial would not only pass EVERY SCOTUS test of constitutionality, it would also be HIGHLY reflective of American society - which is religious, but also plural.

The truth is it IS much simpler to disestablish the cross by allowing all (a)religious symbols to be included. It WILL waste less time. And it WILL cause fewer headaches.