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

[General Zod]

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.

What other possible imagery could a cross on a memorial site serve as except a religious symbol, when it's for a memorial in a country where said religion is predominant among all others?

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.

Cemetaries are not government centers. The fact that crosses are used as memorials for individuals is because the family who purchased the plot of land requested it. Establishing a blatantly religious symbol as a memorial for a government site can't be interpreted as anything but showing favoritism for one religion by anyone with a functional brain. Especially when many who died on the site were not of Christian or even religious backgrounds.

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.

Or simply choose a completely secular, non religious symbol to use, since they're bound to miss one or two symbols and wind up offending people.

[tharkûn]

What other possible imagery could a cross on a memorial site serve as except a religious symbol, when it's for a memorial in a country where said religion is predominant among all others?

And the goalpost shifts.

You said it hadn't been used secularly since Roman days. I provided examples that span from then to the present. Rather than admit you were BSing and forgot obvious examples, like the Red Cross, you decide to change the terms.

Cemetaries are not government centers. The fact that crosses are used as memorials for individuals is because the family who purchased the plot of land requested it.

I suggest sometime you visit a government run cemetary, let alone the field cemetaries. The US government has placed crosses at government expense in national cemetaries and pays for their upkeep. For instance The Canadian Cross of Sacrifice both The Argonne Cross Memorial are both general memorials to war dead at Arlington National Cemetary.

Or simply choose a completely secular, non religious symbol to use, since they're bound to miss one or two symbols and wind up offending people.

And yet again your reality check has bounced. The cross is already on display at ground zero. If you replace it, you will have to take it down, and you will upset many people. Not to mention that many congressmen would see this as a freebie vote to pander to the religious. There is no way in bloody hell that taking the cross down, irregardless of what is done next, is going to cause less headaches than letting the heirs of the dead have whatever symbols like in the memorial.

[Plekhanov]

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

And whilst we’re placating fundies I suppose we should also stop all those newspapers from printing cartoons of Mohamed afterall doing so achieves nothing and just ‘creates a massive headache’

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.

The levels of self delusion you are operating under here are simply mind boggling. You seem to be claiming it’s just a coincidence that of multitude of pieces of debris to use as a monument, one which looked a bit like a crucifix was seized upon and then altered to
look exactly like a crucifix. Whilst of course studiously ignoring the fact that it was immediately proclaimed as the ‘miracle cross’ by Christians.

Your whole argument is worthless anyway as just because crosses, simple geometric shapes that they are, are commonly used in an entirely functional and non-christian matter doesn’t mean that this particular cross is a secular symbol which it obviously isn’t. For one thing this isn’t simply ‘a cross’ it is obviously ‘a crucifix’ and has been altered and mounted in such a way as to make that symbolism unmistakable.

What other possible imagery could a cross on a memorial site serve as except a religious symbol, when it's for a memorial in a country where said religion is predominant among all others?

And the goalpost shifts.

You said it hadn't been used secularly since Roman days. I provided examples that span from then to the present. Rather than admit you were BSing and forgot obvious examples, like the Red Cross, you decide to change the terms.

How about you address my post where I demonstrated that this ‘cross’ has infact been altered and mounted to exactly resemble a ‘crucifix’.

[Durandal]

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.

Yes, by putting up a bunch of different symbols and therefore fragmenting everyone who died. Again, we have gravestones for individual remembrance. If a bunch of whiny Christians get pissy, well boo-fucking-hoo. What else is new?

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.

It'll have to come down eventually to build the memorial. That whole area is going to be relaid and build upon.

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

And how would you do that? Tacking a disclaimer on top where the "INRI" should be? It's a blatantly religious symbol no matter how you slice it. Your prediction that a bunch of Christians will pitch a fit if it's taken down shows that You Know Who considers it to be an establishment of their faith.

[Simplicius]

Quite false. Cross designs are inherently functional; they've been used to denote compass points, locations, and all manner of fun things.

The inherent functionality of the cross design removes it from symbolic argument where it is used in that vein. Intersections are not symbolic, nor are compass points, footnote markers, or the location of pirate gold on a map (map symbology being another matter entirely).

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?

Don't forget that, in addition to the Red Cross, there are the Red Crescent, the Red Lion and Sun (prior to the Iranian Revolution, at least), and now the Red Crystal. Now tell me, if the Red Cross bears no symbolic association to Christianity, why did there need to be a Crescent for Muslim countries? Or a Crystal for neutral/none of the above?

It bears noting that those secular countries who have crosses on their flags were not always secular, and almost invariably have a Christian heritage. A cross would then find its way onto the flag if nothing else as an expression of national history: "We were Christian once." (My cursory survey was conducted at The World Flag Database.)

Heraldry originated in twelfth-century Europe (Source). At this point in time, Europe was of course largely Christian.

The cross is already on display at ground zero. If you replace it, you will have to take it down, and you will upset many people. Not to mention that many congressmen would see this as a freebie vote to pander to the religious. There is no way in bloody hell that taking the cross down, irregardless of what is done next, is going to cause less headaches than letting the heirs of the dead have whatever symbols like in the memorial.

I don't see why the steel cross can't be offered up for religious organizations to fight over, and be replaced at the memorial site by something else. Put it, for example, in the National Cathedral in D.C. - or, if there are chuches in NYC who would accept it, let them.

I can see the appeal of the symbology, so there's no need to scrap it. Just preserve it in a more appropriate place.

[tharkûn]

The inherent functionality of the cross design removes it from symbolic argument where it is used in that vein. Intersections are not symbolic, nor are compass points, footnote markers, or the location of pirate gold on a map (map symbology being another matter entirely).

Don't be a moron. I was replying to post which said, with no qualifiers, that the cross hadn't been used secularly since the Romans. That is demonstrably false. GZ can either buck and admit that he was wrong or not. I wholly grant that the WTC cross is not functional nor is its symbology derived from any of the sources listed.

Don't forget that, in addition to the Red Cross, there are the Red Crescent, the Red Lion and Sun (prior to the Iranian Revolution, at least), and now the Red Crystal. Now tell me, if the Red Cross bears no symbolic association to Christianity, why did there need to be a Crescent for Muslim countries? Or a Crystal for neutral/none of the above?

Turkish politics (which had used the crescent since before the adoption of Islam). The sun and bull is not religious at all, being derived from the flag of the Shah who himself was fairly anti-religious. Mainly the crescent was grandfathered in and the Shah pitched a fit about Persian nationalism.

It bears noting that those secular countries who have crosses on their flags were not always secular, and almost invariably have a Christian heritage. A cross would then find its way onto the flag if nothing else as an expression of national history: "We were Christian once." (My cursory survey was conducted at The World Flag Database.)

Concession accepted. Crosses are used as nonreligious symbology in order to denote historical association. One wonders why flags can be grandfathered in, but memorials cannot.

Yes, by putting up a bunch of different symbols and therefore fragmenting everyone who died.

So what? If that is what the dead wanted who gives a damn?

It'll have to come down eventually to build the memorial. That whole area is going to be relaid and build upon.

No it won't they can simply move it to the otherside of the fence; which is what I suspect will happen if it can't be built around.

And how would you do that? Tacking a disclaimer on top where the "INRI" should be? It's a blatantly religious symbol no matter how you slice it.

So what? It is part of a memorial about blatantly religious people. As long as blatantly religious people of other faiths and blatantly aregigious people are not excluded WHAT DOES IT MATTER? A pluralistic memorial meets every constitutional test put forth by the SCOTUS. Just because something contains religious symbolism doesn't make it establishment.

Your prediction that a bunch of Christians will pitch a fit if it's taken down shows that You Know Who considers it to be an establishment of their faith.

Here's a question for you, what isn't a religious symbol? Appeal ad populum doesn't cut it for establishment, there are legal tests which a pluralistic memorial would pass.

And whilst we’re placating fundies I suppose we should also stop all those newspapers from printing cartoons of Mohamed afterall doing so achieves nothing and just ‘creates a massive headache’

The point is to not have establishment while pissing off as few people as possible. There is no requirement to do more than that. A pluralistic memorial including the cross meets the legal requirements not be establishment.

The levels of self delusion you are operating under here are simply mind boggling.

I made a direct reply to another poster's falsity. That paragraph is self-contained and has no bearing upon any other of my arguements. To whit GZ was full of crap and I listed numerous where he was WRONG. NOWHERE do I state that the WTC cross is functional or secular symbol.

How about you address my post where I demonstrated that this ‘cross’ has infact been altered and mounted to exactly resemble a ‘crucifix’.

So what? The establishment tests allow for the use of crosses. So long as it passes the three rules (to pick the current one) it isn't establishment. It could have been custom made by monks in the Vatican, it has emotional and political significance now with respect to the WTC and bucking that shouldn't be done if a better course of action exists.

Seeing as establishment can be avoided without pissing off millions, having congress pass yet another feel good resolution, and possibly losing in court why not take the course of least resistance? If it can be disestablished, what else is the problem?

[Ender]

Lets mark something in a religious war with an overt religious symbol. Brilliant.

[weemadando]

Indeed. I object to the use of the cross at the WTC site. There were at least 8 muslims on those planes that crashed.

See how easy it is to turn any of these arguments to do with religion into something else entirely?

I once again say that it should just be a fucking plaque on the footpath or something...

[Durandal]

So what? If that is what the dead wanted who gives a damn?

The decedants' wishes can be honored on their tombstones, privately. There is no reason to run afoul of the First Amendment here except to appease people who might complain.

So what? It is part of a memorial about blatantly religious people.

Only if you count the lunatics who rammed the planes into the buildings in the first place.

As long as blatantly religious people of other faiths and blatantly aregigious people are not excluded WHAT DOES IT MATTER? A pluralistic memorial meets every constitutional test put forth by the SCOTUS. Just because something contains religious symbolism doesn't make it establishment.

A "pluralistic" memorial of religious symbols naturally excludes atheists and non-religious people, genius. Are you seriously suggesting that the government ask the families of everyone who died what their religion was so that they can tack on the grave stone? That seems like an awful lot of work compared to my idea for a completely secular memorial.

You'll have a giant cross for the Christians, uh ... something for Jews and, um, something else for Muslims and maybe a snake thing for Hindi ... yeah, this is working out really well. So much classier than a simple wall with their names on it.

If people want individual attention after their deaths, they can get a fancy tombstone. Existing memorials in the Capitol seem to be just fine without religious symbols for everyone.

Here's a question for you, what isn't a religious symbol? Appeal ad populum doesn't cut it for establishment, there are legal tests which a pluralistic memorial would pass.

Here's what isn't a religious symbol: a big wall with an engraving of the New York City horizon and the names of those who died.

[Simplicius]

So what? If that is what the dead wanted who gives a damn?

Is that indeed what the dead wanted? How nice of them to pass that along to you. Pity they couldn't inform anyone else and spare us still living the controversy.

So what? It is part of a memorial about blatantly religious people.

A gross generalization if there ever was one.

As long as blatantly religious people of other faiths and blatantly aregigious people are not excluded WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

It matters a great deal. It's tasteless to turn a memorial to a large and diverse group of victims on a secular site into a religious event. This isn't like the concentration camp memorials, where religion (among other things) determined who was victimized and who was not. What matters about the WTC victims is that they were in the buildings that were targeted for destruction, not that they were x% Christian, y% Jewish, z% Other.

A pluralistic memorial meets every constitutional test put forth by the SCOTUS. Just because something contains religious symbolism doesn't make it establishment.

It is possible that the Lemon test could prevent the creation of a religious (even pluralistically so) memorial, depending on how it was constructed. It would be much easier to design a secular memorial than to design a religious one that can pass Lemon.

[tharkûn]

The decedants' wishes can be honored on their tombstones, privately. There is no reason to run afoul of the First Amendment here except to appease people who might complain.

It is argueable that a cross as a traditional memorial, such as is already in use in the United States is going to run afoul of the 1st amendment in the courts. There is every possibility that an attempt to take down the cross would result in it getting passed without any problems.

Only if you count the lunatics who rammed the planes into the buildings in the first place.

The statistical odds of the plurality of the victims not being nominally Christian is rather low. The statistical odds that none of the victims were blatantly Christian is just about zero.

A "pluralistic" memorial of religious symbols naturally excludes atheists and non-religious people, genius.

No it doesn't. If Atheists wish to put up the atom from American Atheists, the rational lightning bolt, the humanist icon or any other atheist symbol in use (or hell make up their own) then fine - let them. Atheists would should be more than free to include their own symbology in this memorial.

you seriously suggesting that the government ask the families of everyone who died what their religion was so that they can tack on the grave stone?

The government should simply make it public that they wish to respect the preferences of the dead and anyone who beleives their relative is not being so respected should contact such and such. Then when people ask for a Wiccan circle, a Jewish star, or whatever it can be included - path of least resistance here.

That seems like an awful lot of work compared to my idea for a completely secular memorial.

Your idea will most likely result in massive public outcry, possible lawsuits, and congressional grandstanding. In terms of manhours I fail to see how the highly popular WTC cross is going to take fewer manhours to be rid of than the 10 commandments in Alabama.

You'll have a giant cross for the Christians, uh ... something for Jews and, um, something else for Muslims and maybe a snake thing for Hindi ... yeah, this is working out really well. So much classier than a simple wall with their names on it.

As I said I'm perfectly happy with a simple wall, if you can get it built without wasting lots of time and money upsetting people.

If people want individual attention after their deaths, they can get a fancy tombstone. Existing memorials in the Capitol seem to be just fine without religious symbols for everyone.

Existing memorials in the Capitol already use religious symbology, and ridiciously blatant symbology at that. If you want to follow that precedent then keeping the cross alone would be no problem (see that Argonne Cross for an example).

Here's what isn't a religious symbol: a big wall with an engraving of the New York City horizon and the names of those who died.

Nope. You just tresspassed on sacred Yanomani beliefs.

Is that indeed what the dead wanted?

I recall reading such.

How nice of them to pass that along to you. Pity they couldn't inform anyone else and spare us still living the controversy.

I'm following legal precedent which treats the statements of legal heirs as representative of the wishes of the dead.

A gross generalization if there ever was one.

The death toll was large enough that it is stasticly inconceivable that such people weren't victims. On balance it would be exceedingly likely that most of the victims were Christians of some degree.

It matters a great deal. It's tasteless to turn a memorial to a large and diverse group of victims on a secular site into a religious event. This isn't like the concentration camp memorials, where religion (among other things) determined who was victimized and who was not. What matters about the WTC victims is that they were in the buildings that were targeted for destruction, not that they were x% Christian, y% Jewish, z% Other.

Why? If the victims, as represented by their heirs, want this or don't mind, what is the problem? What matters to me is making the public and people happy without violating the constitution. If that can be done, then the plan works.

It is possible that the Lemon test could prevent the creation of a religious (even pluralistically so) memorial, depending on how it was constructed.

Exceedingly unlikely given the current composition of the SCOTUS. I'd lay odds that the cross would pass judicial muster without even making it plural.

It would be much easier to design a secular memorial than to design a religious one that can pass Lemon.

Don't kid yourself. Van Orden v. Perry shows quite well what pluralizing can do. Even if a more plural monument, one inclusive of atheists and humanists, has bigger problems do recall that the court has shifted rightward and Breyer's vote is not required.

The number of manhours it took to get rid of Moore's little monument easily dwarfs the number it takes to build a plural monument; and that was for a not particularly inspiring or popular monument.

[Lagmonster]

A giant secular monument certainly isn't going to change the minds of suicide bombers any more than a religious one is, nor will fucking around quantifying the offensiveness of the shape of a grave marker change the need for people who believe to see that symbol, since they likely already see religious symbolism represented in every daisy and dawn.

[Durandal]

It is argueable that a cross as a traditional memorial, such as is already in use in the United States is going to run afoul of the 1st amendment in the courts. There is every possibility that an attempt to take down the cross would result in it getting passed without any problems.

Yes, a "traditional memorial" which was blessed by a preacher in what I'm sure was a completely non-religious ceremony.

The statistical odds of the plurality of the victims not being nominally Christian is rather low. The statistical odds that none of the victims were blatantly Christian is just about zero.

The majority of people who profess to be Christians don't go to church regularly.

No it doesn't. If Atheists wish to put up the atom from American Atheists, the rational lightning bolt, the humanist icon or any other atheist symbol in use (or hell make up their own) then fine - let them. Atheists would should be more than free to include their own symbology in this memorial.

The word you're looking for is "symbolism". And Christianity is one of the only religions that has such a ubiquitous mark for its gravestones. I sure as hell would never have thought of putting an atom on my tombstone.

The government should simply make it public that they wish to respect the preferences of the dead and anyone who beleives their relative is not being so respected should contact such and such. Then when people ask for a Wiccan circle, a Jewish star, or whatever it can be included - path of least resistance here.

The United States doesn't officially recognize Wiccanism as a religion. So they'd be cut out. Do you seriously think that the assholes who would get mad at the removal of the cross from the site would be totally open to having it surrounded by symbols of pagan faiths?

Your idea will most likely result in massive public outcry, possible lawsuits, and congressional grandstanding. In terms of manhours I fail to see how the highly popular WTC cross is going to take fewer manhours to be rid of than the 10 commandments in Alabama.

Let them grandstand. I don't care. I don't base my opinions around what the religious egocentrists in Congress think or do.

As I said I'm perfectly happy with a simple wall, if you can get it built without wasting lots of time and money upsetting people.

Anything that doesn't give the distinct impression that the United States is a Christian Nation founded under the banner of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is going to piss off these people. Fuck them.

[starhunter]

Whatever you believe in, whether you think the discovery of the cross was miraculous or just chance, it belongs at the WTC memorial because it inspired hope at a very tragic time. Thousands of crosses mark the graves at Arlington National Cemetary, so its display is appropriate. This is not about promoting Christianity, it's about a sign of hope on that tragic day.

[Nephtys]

Whatever you believe in, whether you think the discovery of the cross was miraculous or just chance, it belongs at the WTC memorial because it inspired hope at a very tragic time. Thousands of crosses mark the graves at Arlington National Cemetary, so its display is appropriate. This is not about promoting Christianity, it's about a sign of hope on that tragic day.

A sign, which by your reasoning, any twisted girder could do.

The cross is only symbolic for the most part, to those that identify themselves as christians, for it is their religious icon. And for your information, there are plenty of standard 'tombstone' shaped markers IIRC and Stars of David in Arlington. Nice try, but nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty considers the cross a purely secular icon.

[tharkûn]

Yes, a "traditional memorial" which was blessed by a preacher in what I'm sure was a completely non-religious ceremony.

Irrelevent. The SCOTUS and lower courts have a history of recognizing "traditional" as grounds for something not to be establishment. It isn't a risk free bet to try to take down the cross, there is every possibility that the cross alone will pass judicial muster.

The majority of people who profess to be Christians don't go to church regularly.

Which is utterly irrelevent. If the Creastors families think the cross is appropriate or not an issue - who cares?

The word you're looking for is "symbolism".

The word I'm looking for is "symbology": the art of expression by symbols.

And Christianity is one of the only religions that has such a ubiquitous mark for its gravestones.

Do go on. Some Buddhists sects mark their graves with wooden sticks. Shinto use pillow stones.

The big thing actually is that so many religions either use wooden markers, don't bury their dead, or have austere burial markings.

The United States doesn't officially recognize Wiccanism as a religion.

Are you lying or just woefully ignorant?

Dettmer v. Landon explicitly and officially recognized Wicca back in the '80s and is treated like any other religion for first amendment purposes.

Do you seriously think that the assholes who would get mad at the removal of the cross from the site would be totally open to having it surrounded by symbols of pagan faiths?

No I'd think you'd let them make the arguement that the wishes of the decease wish to be respected; and they will gladly take it up. Then you let all the deceased wishes be brought into play and they get miffed, possibly to the point of supporter greater seperation, but don't litigate and declare themselves to be dupes and morons.

Let them grandstand. I don't care. I don't base my opinions around what the religious egocentrists in Congress think or do.

However it is an objective fact that such grandstanding wastes a massive amount of very pricey time; let alone if their grandstanding has an actual consequences.

Anything that doesn't give the distinct impression that the United States is a Christian Nation founded under the banner of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is going to piss off these people.

Hardly. The Vietnam memorial's only use of the cross is to mark POW/MIA. Or is that establishing Christianity as well Even more fun is the complete lack of anything remotely close to what you describe in the WWII memorial. Even the handful of hardcore Christians who don't like that merely asked that the following quotation be added, "Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always."

The truth is it comes down to perception. If you take out the WTC cross it will be perceived as being motivated by anti-religious sentiment which will piss people off. However adding more to the memorial might annoy some people, but they will hardly take the Judge Moore route and fight that to the Supreme Court.


Are there any other preconceived opions you'd like to attempt to justify post hoc?