In the case of American
Atheists v. Port Authority, the Second
District court determined that display of the so-called "Ground Zero
Cross" at the September 11 Memorial Museum did not constitute an
impermissible promotion of "Christianity in violation of the Establishment
Clause and deny atheists equal protection of the laws by displaying the Cross
at Ground Zero in the Museum unaccompanied by some item acknowledging that
atheists were among the victims and rescuers on September 11." Having previously rejected arguments that
display of the Cross was government promotion of Christianity, the court in
this case rejected that there was any religious purpose in displaying the Cross
at all.
As an atheist, an historian, and an American, I can only say
"Thank God."
So to speak.
The story of the cross is well-known. In the days after the September 11 attacks it
was found amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center, two steel beams at right
angles, suggesting to some viewers the shape of a Latin cross. It was pulled from the rubble and remained
on-site on a platform for almost six years, a site of prayer services where
people from all faiths or no faith were welcome. According to the draft for the display,
Franciscan priest Brian Jordan offered communion there to anyone who sought
it. When reconstruction began, the Cross
was moved to a church and it was returned to the Port Authority for use in the
Memorial Museum.
In suing, American Atheists sought to have the Cross
removed, suggesting that government agencies were promoting Christianity by its
prominent display in the museum. Once
again, the organization shows itself to be tone-deaf in dealing with other
segments of society. Designed to promote
separation of church and state, a laudable goal in my opinion, it also seeks to
raise the profile of atheists in general, usually through actions like this, or
billboards encouraging believers to dump their religion in favor of atheism. Such an approach, one characterized by this
case, diverts much-needed resources from the actual secularism fight in favor
of theatrics.
Cases like these do atheists no favors, nor do those who
decry the ruling as "[reinforcing) the notion
that the courts are biased, and that Christianity enjoys a privileged
status." They simply give
credence to claims like those made by the right-wing American Center for Law
and Justice, who see this case as a "profound
defeat for those who wish to drive faith not just out of the public square, but
out of public memory." There is
already a general perception among the religious that atheists are untrustworthy
for the simple reason of their atheism. Those
who wonder why politicians stay away from atheists as a group might think
about actions like this as one possible reason. They certainly don't help
us overcome deep-seated
trust issues. For many, religiosity is a proxy marker for trustworthiness;
we are already at a disability.
Going after the most innocuous of religious symbols is
another tactic that seems purposely designed to alienate us from our religious
fellow citizens. Following its
discovery, the Cross became a well-known symbol of hope, at least for religious
believers, at the World Trade Center site.
Its inclusion in a display called "Finding Meaning at Ground
Zero," where it is to be placed with other works wrought from the steel of
the site, is entirely appropriate. It is
part of the story of the tragedy of September 11 and its aftermath. As an historian, I would be appalled if it
were not included, as it was a part
of the story for so many who worked and visited the site. To exclude it because some artifact
symbolizing atheists, an artifact that no one seems to have made, is not on
display seems churlish at the very least.
Stepping back, and looking at the situation objectively, it
is easy to say that the whole idea of the Cross is silly. Given the way skyscrapers are constructed,
how could workers not have found two steel beams at right angles to one
another? The skeletal structure of any
building could be conceived of as a skein of crosses. Obviously, the Cross is in the eye of the
beholder.
But this is what humans do.
We imbue objects with meaning, whether a piece of a saint's bone, the
hem of a holy man's garment, a piece of rubble suggestive of a religious
symbol, or an autographed baseball. We
tell stories and make magic, investing things with our hopes and dreams,
making them, in anthropological terms, fetishes.
In the face of enormous tragedy, it is not at all strange
that Christians would do this to an object bearing a resemblance to the symbol
of their faith. It is not surprising
that they made a fetish of the Cross at Ground Zero. What is surprising is how many atheists have
done the same thing.
