Atheists are the thin-skinned tattle tales of the legal system. The mere sight of a cross or the word “God” out in the open sends them into hyperventilation and spasms. A little while back the American Atheists sued to remove the twisted metal from the World Trade Center which happened to form the resemblance of a cross from a museum display. Well, a New York Judge tossed their lawsuit for lack of merit.
(AP) — A judge on Friday tossed out a lawsuit that sought to stop the display of a cross-shaped steel beam found among the World Trade Center’s rubble, saying the artifact could help tell the story of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts rejected the arguments of American Atheists, which had sued the National September 11 Memorial & Museum’s operators in 2011 on constitutional grounds, contending that the prominent display of the cross constitutes an endorsement of Christianity, diminishing the contributions of non-Christian rescuers.
Batts wrote that the cross and its accompanying panels of text “helps demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed during the rescue and recovery effort.” She called its purpose “historical and secular” and noted that it will be housed at the museum in the “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero” section with placards explaining its meaning and the reason for its inclusion. It also will be surrounded by secular artifacts.
“No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity,” the judge said. She added that the museum’s creators “have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.” She said the plaintiffs also failed to allege any form of intentional discrimination or cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
[…]
A lawyer for the atheists group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Joe Daniels, the museum’s president, said he was grateful that the court “agrees that the display of the World Trade Center Cross is not a constitutional violation but is in fact a crucial part of the 9/11 Memorial Museum’s mission of preserving the true history of 9/11.”
Attorney Mark Alcott, who represented the museum, said the ruling will protect the museum’s depiction of the aftermath of the attacks.
“It was not intended to and will not promote any religion or discriminate against any religion,” he said.
For people who claim to hold the intellectual high ground, Atheists sure do spend a lot of time publicly admitting they are emotionally fragile.
Sifting Reality 
Not only are they emotionally fragile, but they sure have a very intense hatred for something which doesn’t exist!
To be fair to the atheists I know, they have little patience for atheist activist groups (or people like Richard Dawkins, too). They don’t like seeing crosses, hearing prayers, etc., but they generally ignore them and don’t think big, splashy lawsuits are the way to go.
Kunoichi
You’re right, the majority of the Atheist population lie and let live. It’s the nasty few that tarnish the group’s civil reputation. Sounds familiar.
As an Atheist (or agnostic) I agree with your post. Atheist spend so much time hating religion it has almost become a religion of its own. I will debate a religious person or discuss the merits of their thought process versus mine, but I spend little time worrying about taking any of it too seriously.
I still Christianity is silly though. :)
I agree with Atticus…(very well said, btw), though I don’t think Christianity is the least bit silly. Atheists have become way too hyper-vigilant about religious trappings and the free expression thereof. They are over the top and must find reasonable balance.
So there are sane atheists after all. God be praised!
“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
Your opening line about “thin-skinned” just kept me reading, not.
Sabio
Isn’t it a tad hypocritical to criticize that when you made huge sweeping generalizations in a recent post about “religion”?
Your blog name seems so accurate. You take reality and sift out the parts that reinforce your beliefs and ignore the rest.
I sift the words of others — and think that is wise, but sifting reality is a bit odd. Don’t you think?
So you are saying for me to stay on task is to address your criticisms? Why not address the pettiness of focal atheists in the news who can’t seem to handle religion or God being shown to them without having a hissy fit?
Get your own house in order before tell I g me to clean mine.
@ John,
First, John, in debate, this move is the “You Too” fallacy. It does not address my criticism. Second, we can debate if I did what you think I did on my site if you wish. Meanwhile, stay on task.
(1) Yep — good, I’m glad you understood your fallacy. Though your next statement implies that you don’t really get it.
(2) I strongly believe in secularism — keeping religion and any vestiges of it out of the public domain. Now, like you, I prefer the public domain to be small — ie, small government. The problem is, as government gets large and small government religious conservatives despair, they end up giving in and saying the equivalent of “Well, OK the damn government is big, so since they are encroaching on things I value, I am going to try to get them to be Christian in both content and form.
(3) I argue with Atheists a lot, but your opening will stop me from reading. Just FYI
I had no idea you were so fragile. You realize in admitting that you are put off by my first line, you validate it?
Now you are resorting to ad homina attack fallacy.
Gee, you are full of techniques to avoid issues.
So you with your fallacies you think you avoided:
(1) The absurdity of your generalization rhetoric
(2) The secularism critique
But you haven’t — instead your diversion methods have been illustrated well. Care for a third?
I only visited since you popped on to my blog when you saw the word ‘Muslim’ in your RSS feed. Rhetoric fallacies are a huge part of your style and why I avoid your blog. They may be useful in getting your in-house buddies all excited though, so keep them happy!
Face, meet palm.
I don’t know. I kinda thought the topic of any given post is the issue at hand. Sabio has done nothing to counter the premise of the post. Who’s avoiding the issue here?
““No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity,” the judge said.”
Being the cross a symbol of christianity a reasonable observer would view it is.
“She added that the museum’s creators “have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.” ”
Not avanced “impremissibly”?
Not create “Excessive” entanglement?
What about advancing and creating entanglement?
“She said the plaintiffs also failed to allege any form of intentional discrimination or cite any adverse or unequal treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.”
If she “can’t” tell apart a cross from any other belief, no wonder she said this.
Isu
You’re telling me that a piece of metal that was twisted into the shape of a cross (not fashioned) and displayed at a museum, a reasonable person would look at that and conclude the government is endorsing the religion of Christianity?
It takes a real stupid person to think that by acknowledging Christianity exists as a major factor in culture, the government is thereby endorsing it.
However, even if the government IS endorsing Christianity, that does not violate the Constitution! The Constitution says that the government is not allowed to establish a religion as the state religion, and the context had to do with establishing a particular Christian denomination as the State religion as was done in Europe. But liberals never read what the Constitution actually says, or the many writings by the founders who explained it, or the Supreme Court decisions within the first 150 years prior to activist liberals re-interpreting things the way they wanted them to be. People like Isu just keep spouting liberal talking points without even thinking about first educating themselves on the topic.
Which is why foreigners should stay out of our political debates, since they continue to demonstrate their ignorance of our system.
John,
“You’re telling me that a piece of metal that was twisted into the shape of a cross (not fashioned) and displayed at a museum, a reasonable person would look at that and conclude the government is endorsing the religion of Christianity?”
Fashioned or not, it’s still a cross. The metal bended and tore into several shapes. Why choose this particular piece and not any other one?
It’s clearly a christian symbol and the accompanying text says:
“helps demonstrate how those at ground zero coped with the devastation they witnessed during the rescue and recovery effort.” leaving apart non-christians.
It is endorsing Christianity.
Its not endorsement, its an inclusion of an artifact which those at the site found encouraging. Do you think hanging a photo of the fire department chaplain who died is also endorsement of Catholicism?
It says “the people here found this helpful”. It does not say this cross is here because Christianity is a good/the best/the correct religion. Do you really not see the difference, or are you one of the people who are implied to be unreasonable?
John,
“Its not endorsement, its an inclusion of an artifact which those at the site found encouraging.”
Which happens to be a christian symbol. You are leaving apart non-christians and endorsing christianity.
“Do you think hanging a photo of the fire department chaplain who died is also endorsement of Catholicism?”
He is not a catholic symbol as the cross is.
“It says “the people here found this helpful”.”
Again, you are ignoring non-christians.
“It does not say this cross is here because Christianity is a good/the best/the correct religion.”
If it is the only “helpful” thing apparently it is implicit.
“Do you really not see the difference, or are you one of the people who are implied to be unreasonable?”
The unreasonable are the ones who want to use a christian symbol as a symbol for all.
Isu,
Did you even look at my comment above?
SO WHAT IF NON-CHRISTIANS FEEL LEFT OUT?!?! GROW UP!
I think we should make Islam the state-religion in North Carolina or put up a claimed “picture of Allah” on a piece of grilled cheese that somebody was eating in the WTC. Then lets see how quick the Christians complain that theists aren’t hypersensitive. The nice thing about being an atheist is that we try not to have our thinking done for us, so we can agree or disagree with other atheists, without some book telling us what we must do and think.
Islam did not have, and does not have the influence or foundation that Christianity has and had on this country. You have to overlook that in order to make the comment you did. Its not an arbitrary choosing.