Judge: Atheist group takes separation of church and state too far on ‘Ground Zero Cross’

[rug]

By Charles C. Haynes,
The Washington Post Sunday, April 7, 2:57 PM

On March 28, a group of atheists in New York lost round one in their legal battle to keep the “Ground Zero Cross” out of the National September 11 Museum in lower Manhattan.

Federal Judge Deborah Batts ruled that the object – two steel beams in the shape of a cross that survived the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 – may be displayed in the memorial museum without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of NY and NJ).

The court acknowledged that many Americans see these steel beams as a symbol of religious hope and meaning.

After all, during the recovery at the site, worship services were held in front of the cross. And in 2011, when it was moved back to Ground Zero from the grounds of a nearby church where it had been temporarily housed, a priest led a ceremonial blessing of the cross.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/judge-atheist-group-takes-separation-of-church-and-state-too-far-on-ground-zero-cross/2013/04/07/9551c8be-9fb3-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

Federal Judge Deborah Batts was appointed by Clinton in 1994.

[JI7]

1. isn't a museum where many of these things should go ?

[rug]

3. That's where it will be.

http://www.911memorial.org/museum

[pangaia]

2. I am trying to think of the sci-fi movie or book of which this reminds me.

Especially that photo...

[hrmjustin]

4. I am for the separation of church and state but I think the judge was right on this one.

[MADem]

6. I agree.

The reaction to the debris doesn't make the debris anything more than what it is--a piece of a building that collapsed. The fact that individuals imbued the debris with meaning doesn't make it an artifact in and of itself, but it does make it a piece of history.

[goldent]

5. This is very 1984-ish what this atheist group was trying to do

They were trying to suppress history because they didn't like the history. Does separation of church and state now mean that history that relates to religion cannot appear be told in public museums? If they try to apply that to art museums there will be a lot of half-empty galleries.

Silly atheists, they need to think these things through before they file their next lawsuit. I don't know what US law is, but in UK they would be paying for the legal fees of the Port Authority.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. LOLWUT?

American Atheists' position on the Ground Zero "cross" is explained in great detail on their website.

At about that same time, various groups began lobbying the WTCMF to include the girder set in the final design of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. American Atheists spoke out against that suggestion, making numerous appeals and appearances to civic and governmental groups, as well as on national media denouncing the suggestion as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and exclusionary to non-Christian Americans. American Atheists also offered to provide its own memorial artifact to be displayed next to the girder set to honor all other people who died in the 9/11 attacks. American Atheists never received any response to its complaints or its offer of an additional memorial artifact.

David Silverman, American Atheists President, said, “What we seek is any remedy that honors everyone equally, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist. This can either be done with a totally neutral memorial that concentrates on the tragedy and not religion, or one that allows everyone to put up a display of equal size and prominence. In the latter case, we have offered to pay for a display ourselves. If everyone is provided equal treatment, we will drop our lawsuit because fair is fair.”

We aren't talking about a museum, but a memorial and museum; the cross is to be used as a symbol for those who lost their lives on September 11th, many of whom were not Christians.

Silly atheists, they need to think these things through before they file their next lawsuit. I don't know what US law is, but in UK they would be paying for the legal fees of the Port Authority.

You are unfamiliar with US law, yet you think it wise to comment on the legal basis for American Atheists' lawsuit?

You're killing me, Smalls.

[goldent]

21. I think you got your facts mixed up...

The memorial is the big plaza with the two big square water sculptures/fountains that represent the two towers. You can go to it now if you want. The museum is located in the plaza, is mostly glass, and you can peer inside it to see it under construction.

From the judgement...

The cross has never been displayed at the Memorial, and there are no plans to display it there.... Currently unopened, the Museum will be located primarily underground, beneath the Memorial.

In case it is not clear, there is a lot more in the museum than the cross (it seems common sense, but maybe the American Atheists didn't realize this).

Anyhow, after reading the judgement, it was clear the American Atheists had no case, and their arguments were shot down in short order. It seems the main effect of organized atheists groups like this is to give normal atheists a bad name.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. They not "my" facts

I was merely re-posting American Atheists' justifications for pursuing legal action. Whether they are right or wrong, legally speaking, isn't relevant. What's in question is your bullshit assignment of intent, and your shamelessly denigrating comparison to INGSOC.

[MellowDem]

7. Bad ruling...

As Judge Batts explained in her decision, a “reasonable observer” would understand that the cross is part of an historical exhibit in a memorial museum that includes hundreds of secular artifacts. In that context, viewers are highly unlikely to see the cross-shaped beams as government endorsement of Christianity.

Uhh, no, a reasonable observer would think the exhibit is ONLY there because of the religious significance it was given. Calling it a "historical exhibit" is the best doublespeak the judge could come up with?

[rug]

8. No, she has 39 pages of reasons.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/133184840/American-Atheists-v-Port-Authority-NY

[MellowDem]

9. Haha!

What a strange response! If you read rulings often, you know that most of it is not the reasoning...

Anyways, did you have anything to add to the discussion? Or are the number of pages of a document signs of it's strength to you?

[rug]

10. As a matter of fact, I read rulings daily.

Now, other than typing "Haha!" and putting in a smiley rolling on the floor, do you have a more precise and substantive critique of the decision, not to mention the reasoning, fact-finding and precedent contained in the opinion? This is of course assuming browsing smileys has not interfered with your ability to read it.

[MellowDem]

11. Then your post was meant as snark...

obviously, since you know better than it being "39 pages of reasons". I made a precise and substantive critique of something the judge said, and you responded with snark. Then, strangely enough after I call you out on your snark, you ask me to add to the discussion, without ever addressing my original substantive critique. Hmm.

Yes, snark will be replied to with smileys, that's about all it deserves.

[cleanhippie]

13. That's pretty much how it goes every time.

You nailed it.

[rug]

19. Maybe you can lend him some cartoons.

[cleanhippie]

20. .

[rug]

18. Yes, "haha!" is very precise and substantive.

[Phillip McCleod]

12. hopefully they appeal..

[struggle4progress]

15. This was entirely predictable IMO: de minimis non curat lex

[Leontius]

16. This is the type of bullshit that causes many people to stop paying attention when real

issues of First Amendment violations occur.

[cbayer]

17. I agree with this. If you don't pick your battles, then they get diluted.

That goes for whether you are arguing with your spouse or filing a 1st amendment case.

I think the organizations that most actively pursue 1st amendment issues are starting to see that. They are badly needed, but it's important that they maintain a level of legitimacy in order to be taken seriously.

[goldent]

22. I think they knew they had no case

Maybe they had to money to spend, and felt they needed to do this to keep the money coming in.

[Phillip McCleod]

23. or maybe they had a principle to stand up for..

..and stood up for it.

maybe they'll appeal and that monstrosity will get yanked after all. history has yet to be written on the matter.

[cbayer]

24. It may be a monstrosity to you, but it is an object where some people

gathered and took solace during some very bad times. It became invested with meaning for many people who sacrificed a great deal to clean up and dig through ashes to find remains.

The people who gathered there came from different places, different faiths.

It is an important part of the history and part of the museum's collection of meaningful artifacts.

Why yank it?

[goldent]

25. "history has yet to be written on the matter"

[okasha]

26. Maybe for their next stunt

They can sue to have Fr. Mychal Judge's name removed from the Memorial. After all, one church has already formally declared him a saint, and there's a strong movement within the RCC to do likewise.