I am a card carrying, dues paying, additional contribution giving, regular
convention attending member of the American Atheists. As you may know,
that organization filed a lawsuit concerning the inclusion of the fabled
"ground zero cross" as a display in the 9-11 memorial museum.
The judge issued a ruling dismissing the lawsuit on (appropriately) "Good
Friday."
I am also a lawyer and have read the decision. Having done so, I have
to say that I agree with the judge, despite my membership in American Atheists
and my general sympathy for its position.
As usual, the media did not get and report the key legal issues or the
legally important facts. So I thought I would comment on the decision here from
a legal perspective. First, the first footnote in the opinion reveals
that the attorneys for AA did not contest the factual statements of the other
side. That is the same as admitting them to be true. Among those
facts were:
The cross had been erected during the rescue
efforts and was a place that rescuers congregated during the
stressful days of the rescue efforts for solace (the judge wrote “solstice”)
and religious services were held there during those dark days.
The display also includes other items made out of pieces
of the towers showing the
skyline of New York, the towers, a star of David, other
things, and the “last beam” removed from the area, which stands far taller than
the subject cross.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a
religion.
But one of the specific
factors that has been decided over the years of sorting out what does or does
not “establish” religion pertains to museums.
If the government wants to erect a replica of a particular town as it
stood in 1830, the inclusion of church is not an “establishment” of religion
because it is accurately telling the story of the town at that time.
Churches were often located in, and even the
cultural center of,
small towns on the “frontier.”
Recognizing that historical fact and
displaying artifacts that were important to the people of that time and place
is not “establishing” religion.
Nor is
the building of a replica of an ancient Greek temple including the statue of
the god or goddess an establishment of religion.
Whether we agree or like the fact, it is simply a fact that, during the dark
days following the attacks, some of our friends and neighbors and fellow countrymen,
did gather in the shadow of that crossbeam turned cross for solace.
Its inclusion in a museum telling the story
of those days is not a violation of the prohibition on “establishing” religion.
Our libertarian friends will point out that this whole discussion could be avoided
if the government stayed out of the business of building museums and allowed
private entities to build them.
And they
are right.
But if the government is
going to spend taxpayer dollars on such projects, it is not a violation of
anyone’s constitutional rights to tell the story as it happened, even if some
of us wish certain parts of it had not happened.
And, of course, you can point to the people who do
want the cross display included as a testament
to their religion.
They will likely
gather (if they haven’t already) to have prayer or religious services at that
display.
But humanists can also gather
there to publicly remember and remind others that religion is what gave us this
tragedy and that, rather than turn to another religion; we should seek to free
ourselves of religion and learn to look to each other for solace and support in
times of crises or to prevent the crises in the first place. That cross is an
important part of the story of those days.
Not only because it was of religious and emotional importance to people
engaged in those efforts, but it also shows the horrible hold that religion has
on the human species by showing how humans react to a horror brought about by religion,
by turning to religion.
It gives us the opportunity
to point this out.
