Scrubbing History Clean of Religion
On this eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks comes a story about a group that makes a mockery of the occasion. It is the American Atheists Association, which has sued to remove the so-called “9/11 cross” from the National September 11 Museum in New York. At National Review Online, Nathaniel Botwinick explains this ludicrous example of American litigiousness:
The American Atheists organization has sued the National September 11 Memorial and Museum over the installation of the “9/11 cross” in the museum. The organization’s president, David Silverman, insists that it will not “allow this travesty to occur in our country.”
The 20-foot cross — two steel beams that had held together as the building collapsed — was discovered in the rubble of Ground Zero on September 13, 2001, by construction worker Frank Silecchia. The 9/11 cross became a venerated object, and many of those who were searching for survivors and clearing debris from the “pit” took solace from its existence. On October 4, 2001, it was moved to a pedestal on Church Street, where it was treated as a shrine by visitors to Ground Zero for the next five years. In October 2006 it was removed to storage, and in July 2011 it was returned to the site for installation in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.
The cross will not be displayed in the memorial; it will be included in a section of the museum featuring ways workers sought to “[find] meaning at Ground Zero.” Its inclusion is for historical purposes, and not as a religious memorial. Yet the American Atheists decided that this was offensive and filed a lawsuit alleging that the display of the cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, equal-protection laws, and civil-rights statutes.
So consider what the descendants of Madalyn Murray O’Hair consider to be a “travesty”: the display of an artifact from the largest terrorist attack in American history in a private museum, one which has a significant historical role as a focal point for people’s responses to the attacks. As Botwinick explains, the logical extension of this complaint would entail the removal of all religious art and artifacts (anything from photographs of churches to tiny statues of pregnant women associated with fertility cults in ancient Canaan) from museums across the country. Rembrandt, Titian, Rubens, Da Vinci, Caravaggio, Botticelli, Tintoretto, El Greco, Raphael, Durer: put them all in a closet somewhere, lest the offend the delicate sensibilities of David Silverman and his fellow totalitarians.
Botwinick further explains that this suit has essentially no chance of success, based on the precedent of Lynch v. Donnelly, the 1984 Rhode Island creche case. The suit is worth mentioning only because it illustrates the ultimate goal of radical secularists, which is the complete elimination of religion from any setting save inside a religious building, a home, or one’s head. And truth be told, if they thought they could go farther than that, they would.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- IRS Asks For “Content of Prayers”
- They lived not only in ages past (South Sudan news)
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
- Religions Not Accepting of Everybody
- UPDATED: Act of Faith Costs Track Team Win and Trip to Championship
- Are Military Chaplains in Danger of Court Martial?
- Fundamentalist Christian Monsters
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
13 comments
Oh, for crying out loud. See my post below about dust catchers in hell.
Sure, these atheist types are not terrorists. But I’m sure Satan has his cases of porcelain figurines, too.
Apart from debates about faith, though, is the sheer cold heartedness of these clowns. It wasn’t just Christians moved by the “9/11 cross.” For many secular folks or other non-believers, it was a sign of the reverence and serenity of a cemetery. It was a focal point for all kinds of thoughts and feelings in the midst of the destruction. Only people missing a significant part of their humanity would protest its display in the event museum.
[1] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-11-2012 at 11:28 AM · [top]
Missing, or twisted.
[2] Posted by David Fischler on 9-11-2012 at 11:42 AM · [top]
As someone once said: “For the word of the cross is “folly” to those who are perishing…”.
If the word is nonsense, then the actuality should be more so, to the point of implicit condemnation, no wonder they want it banished.
I have to go with “twisted” - by the same force(s) that drove those planes into the buildings.
[3] Posted by carl+ on 9-11-2012 at 12:20 PM · [top]
They won’t stop until we are pushed into the catacombs (as long as they are not government owned catacombs).
[4] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-11-2012 at 02:46 PM · [top]
The new atheists do not want deities to be eradicated, after all they have erected enough altars of their own. Altars they demand we and our children worship at. What they despise is the radical notion that Truth must rests its claims in a Personal God who is unchanging. For Christians this would be Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But any faith that teaches man can know and have a relationship with his God raises their ire.
They would like to see Crowley’s law become the law that governs our moral actions;
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” This can not be accomplished unless people are freed from the inhibitions of church, scripture, and the strictures placed upon them by God’s revelations. Removing God from the public square makes this much easier to accomplish.
The gods they raise up are angry gods which gnash their teeth against the bones of the innocent. I for one am wary of them and will declare their lies at every turning.
[5] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 9-11-2012 at 03:05 PM · [top]
Monsters!
[6] Posted by All-Is-True on 9-11-2012 at 05:23 PM · [top]
RE: “The gods they raise up are angry gods which gnash their teeth against the bones of the innocent. I for one am wary of them and will declare their lies at every turning. “
They are a fairly raging lot, aren’t they. As a relatively new parent, I find that they have an obsession with my children. As if their “liberty” among their own, isn’t enough.
A couple of months ago e.g., I had an interesting conversation with a former classmate. Mid 40’s, in a FWB relationship, no kids (they don’t like kids). Content to let me mind my own business and she hers? Not by a longshot. She got in my face again and again over statistical “proof” that my children are going to grow up to worship their erogenous zones. The statistics were apparently screaming that I had a moral obligation to redefine success and failure.
Didn’t end well.
Oh well, life goes on.
[7] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-11-2012 at 06:58 PM · [top]
They hate God, pure and simple.
Moot - “FWB” ??
[8] Posted by AnglicanXn on 9-11-2012 at 07:50 PM · [top]
Friends with benefits.
[9] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-11-2012 at 08:16 PM · [top]
David, I am sure your analysis as to their prospects of success is correct. But its still good that you publicised this. The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance, and these types should be exposed wherever possible.
[10] Posted by MichaelA on 9-11-2012 at 08:38 PM · [top]
The ultimate goal is the removal of Biblical Christianity and Judaism. They are ok with Gia, Earth Day, Wicca, and most liberal versions of Christianity which already remove all vestiges of true Christianity.
[11] Posted by iamaworm on 9-12-2012 at 09:05 AM · [top]
They agree with the “apology” after the 9/11 attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt: there is a “right to not be offended” that replaces freedom of religion, speech, thought, assembly… you name it, it has to go.
In the name of what they perceive to be their superior intellects, they set the stage for anti-intellectual crazies to run things.
[12] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-12-2012 at 09:19 AM · [top]
Well, how about this? What if someone created a display featuring a crowd of people with a church in the background, and which included the likeness of Mr Silverman and put it on display in a public place? What do you think he’d say about that? Would he demand that it be removed, even if it were not intended to be a religious piece?
[13] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-12-2012 at 02:30 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.