Ground Zero Cross

Finally some common sense.

A federal appeals court said Thursday an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the Septemer 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is "offensive" and violates members constitutional rights.

The 17-foot-tall, steel beam "cross" was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York that fell during the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The cross became a sort of shrine or place of comfort for first responders who often prayed there and left messsages or flowers. It was moved away from the debris a few weeks later and became a tourist attraction through several years of reconstruction.

American Atheists filed the suit in 2011, which was thrown out last year by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. The appeals court ruling this week cites an amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that apecializes in church-state law and protecting the free expression of ll religious traditions.

"We are thrilled that the court picked up on this issue," said group lawyer Eric Baxter, whose brief argued that American Atheists had no right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. "Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get 'dyspepsia' over a historical artifact displayed in a museum."

The museum officially opened on May 21.

The judge has now given the plaintiffs until Jully 14 to file supplemental legal briefs before deciding whether the case will proceed. Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol of all 9-11 victums, becomes a 'constitutional injury."

The other question is--if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross "marginializes them as American citizens"--then how is that a "particular and concrete injury" compared to just "the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally."

The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.

"Taking personal offense is not an injury that warreants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything that you disagree with," Baxter also said. "The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone's beliefs but your own."

This is probably the most encouraging and sadly, tho only, sign I have seen lately in this area.

I hope they don't get their way.

I think the judge set a pretty high bar if this was properly reported:

Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol of all 9-11 victums, becomes a 'constitutional injury."

The other question is--if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross "marginializes them as American citizens"--then how is that a "particular and concrete injury" compared to just "the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally."

The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.

"Taking personal offense is not an injury that warreants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything that you disagree with," Baxter also said. "The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone's beliefs but your own."

Click to expand...

I have a feeling this judge is not sympathetic to the atheist plaintiffs.

Did I miss something? Does the constitution give the right not to be offended?

I do not understand how one person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) trumps another's. I thought we were a country of tolerance not oppression.

Adillo303 said:

Did I miss something? Does the constitution give the right not to be offended?

I do not understand how one person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) trumps another's. I thought we were a country of tolerance not oppression.

Click to expand...

BINGO

This article was on AOL as part of the Huffington News so I think that it is fairly reliable.

Danang Sailor said:

This judge has apparently read the Constitution and also understands the language (ie, English) in which is was
written! The "establishment clause" of the First Amendment does not, repeat not, prohibit displays of religious items in
government spaces

Click to expand...

Lots of stuff to consider here.

Is this a 'government space' by definition? Yes, the property is owned by the Port Authority, but the property is leased as multi-use. So it might not really qualify as 'government space' under a common understanding.

Further, it is reasonable to question this as a "religious display" too. Its 2 iron girders that remained standing, in the shape of a cross. Religious people may impart their view that it is a miracle and a symbol of Christianity. Architects and Engineers may look at very differently.

Leni said:

Finally some common sense.

A federal appeals court said Thursday an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is "offensive" and violates members constitutional rights"..........

Click to expand...

Atheists are allowed to be 'offended' but what about normal people? Why can't WE be offended??? I'm Italian, so why can't I be offended by Burger King's "Wopper"? Every White person should be offended by "Cracker Barrel", right?

And another thing.....OKAY, OKAY, y'all get the idea.

All I know is this. I am a Christian but can't remember the last time that I was in church. It was for the funeral of a friends parent. I find my God in nature and have since I was in Camp Fire Girls sitting in a cathedral of redwoods. It made a lasting impression on me.

I ask why did the Cross come into being in the middle of a disaster? For some it may be a miracle but it could also be the way a building breaks apart. Still it came into being. It came to us as the symbol that we all believe in if Christian.

I absolutely do NOT want the athesists to win this one. It is our riight to believe as we chose and not to be constrained by anothers belief.

Melensdad said:

Lots of stuff to consider here.

Is this a 'government space' by definition? Yes, the property is owned by the Port Authority, but the property is leased as multi-use. So it might not really qualify as 'government space' under a common understanding.

Further, it is reasonable to question this as a "religious display" too. Its 2 iron girders that remained standing, in the shape of a cross. Religious people may impart their view that it is a miracle and a symbol of Christianity. Architects and Engineers may look at very differently.

Click to expand...

The American Association of Easily Offended, Childish, and Non-Scholarly Atheists brought their suit under Constitutional
grounds. Since the only part of that document that could by any stretch of the imagination be involved is the First
Amendment, that is how I responded. Whether or not the museum is a government space or not in reality has little or nothing
to do with their filing or my post; I am justly elated that at least one federal judge is a scholar and wise enough to understand
that there is no Constitutional issue in play here, but rather a group trying to force their sensibilities on the rest of us. In effect
they are trying to get their belief system established by the government as the defacto 'religion' of the country, making them
the ones standing in violation of the Constitution.

Whether or not there really is any Christian symbolism in that hunk of charred metal must be left to each individual who looks
upon it. It is the atheists themselves who, with their misguided suit, are establishing it as a religious symbol, which I find deliciously
ironic and overwhelmingly humorous.