The WTC Cross Case and other Wastes of Time

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.