crazyfingers

In a similar situation, I complained once to the Dir of the T.F. Green airport, RI that there are God Bless America signs up all over the gate area. He said that because the airlines LEASE the gate area from the Govt. Authority, it's as if it was private property. He says he knows because previously he tried to get a restaurant in the gate area to take down some signs that he thought was offensive (abortion I think) but the ACLU sued him saying that because it was LEASED by a private organization, the state had no right to control free speech by the lease holders in the gate area.

Whether this is true or not I don't know or whether the same rules apply when property leased from the Govt and religious messages are involved, I don't know (they could be n exception), but the situation seems similar.

The Other Michael

Jesus is going to end up with a good case of arc sunburn if he doesn't wear his protective gear. And wearing sandals when welding isn't a good idea (ooooh, hot slag between the toes!). And why isn't the Xtian weldor wearing long sleeves? Jesus doesn't seem to be very clued in on welding safety.

cheers,
Michael

(edited for tortured syntax)

skuwiph

Well, if he could die for our sins, then he may as well have got arc sunburn for them as well...

skuwiph

..But seriously, on the subject of the 'cross' -- and bearing in mind that I'm European, and not as 'directly' involved -- my personal feeling is that the whole site should have been 'preserved' as it was: a 'marvellous' monument to human creduluousness with regards to religion, and to the scale of wrong perpetrated in the name of anyone's supreme being.

Just my twopennorth... But I still feel mightily sick everytime I think about what happened.

Buffman

Read the comments on the right side...(not to be confused with the "correct/good" side).

<a href="http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa120699a.htm" target="_blank">http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa120699a.htm</a>

Mageth

I would like to have a look at that "cross" up close. Ann Coulter is claiming it's made from the steel of two different buildings, and implies that its existence is some sort of miracle.

Here's a picture of the cross:



Looks like a structural component of one of the buildings to me. It was found on top of the rubble of an adjacent building; perhaps that's a source of the rising urban legend that it was formed from beams of two different buildings.

Actually, this was one of several beam "crosses" found in the rubble. No surprise there, as the buildings comprised many crossed beams. It would be astonishing if none had been found.

Arrowman

So what if the story that the cross was made from two different buildings, is a lie? It's a lie for Jesus after all

Seriously - What is it with these people that they can't stop with the simple "sign from God" claim, ludicrous though it may be, but they then have to embellish the story? Don't they realise it makes them look even more ridiculous, if that were possible? It probably even alienates some Christians who are prepared to accept the cross as a "nicely symbolic artefact" but who won't buy in to this miracle crap.

I'm lukewarm on the subject - it is an artefact, it was there, and some people drew comfort from it. I wouldn't march in the street against it, but I agree with those who say it should only be included as an "artefact which some people drew comfort from" - historical record, if you like - and not the main focus of any memorial or with any particular symbolism attached to it other than its historical fact.

But that can't happen. The authorities just won't be able to "phrase it" that way without either (a) letting too much God in, or (b) using typically tortuous politically correct bureaucratic language that would damage the nature of the memorial.

Besides, the people pushing for this are not innocently pushing for a legitimate piece of history to be included - they want their religion in there. It's the same as school prayer.

So, on balance - if you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

Make a gift of the cross to some religious group and let them put it up on their property.

Edited to add: I've just found what I said on this subject in the earlier thread:

...On the other hand, I would be vehemently opposed to the idea that this "cross" should be preserved in some sort of memorial - partly as a church-state thing, but mainly because it would institutionalise the sort of sloppy thinking behind it. In other words, it's one thing to tolerate the vacant minds who think it's a miracle - it's quite another for the state to implicitly endorse or pander to that sort of thinking.

Hmmm. I seem to have moderated my thinking. Oh well, that's the beauty of thinking for yourself.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

pepperlandgirl

I'm against it because non-Christians died in that tragedy. When I die, if someone tries to memorialize me with a cross, I think it would be very offensive. (Well, I personally wouldn't care cuz I'd be dead, but you know what Imean...) Does the Christian symbol represent everybody who perished? No? Then how is it appropriate for a memorial? Or are they "un-saved" also unworthy of being represented?

Berenger Sauniere

Well, well, it certainly has Atta written all over it. He and the Christians certainly deserve one another. Let them put it up, the Constitution will tear it down.

john_v_h

Precisely. It reads like a one-up on Kilroy:

"God was here."