as a religious symbol. And Atheists are really not a single group, but self declared individuals without a symbol to identify them. What would our symbol be?

ETA Did not know there was a symbol - thanks all for the education. Also mistakenly thought that the girders fell in a cross - not that hard if just 2 crossing beams). To me 9/11 was disconnected anecdotes while waiting to hear who we knew that was involved and being overwhelmed by so much of the town milling abut in front of the local red cross building that day and night exchanging stories or the smell that hung around for weeks. It only became a whole item after the days settled in.

They didn't just randomly "find" this cross.

It was modified by cutting away some parts to wind up with the current shape.

Here is an image of it as it was found:



It is precisely because it was recognizable when found that provided comfort to those for whom it is a comforting symbol.

Including those who were not Christians and not even theistic.

Right?

But it isn't. It is part of a larger project which memorializes the story of 9/11. It is a meaningful part of the story for some people, and should be included - as should other artifacts or images which are meaningful to others.

"Seeing" is subjective.
I mean, maybe I should say I see something that
needs to be flipped upside down to memorialize any
satanic individuals who died.

I'm sure it would make various people uncomfortable, but
I think that's the OP's point. Basically, what you describe
above is adding a comforting symbol for some (many, the
majority maybe, though many people around the world and
of many religions were disturbed by 9/11) at the expense
of alienating all others.

To top it off (and this is my biggest gripe about the cross
being everywhere, beyond this even) is that it reinforces a
religious narrative on everything.

The goal of a museum is to tell the whole story, which includes the story of those who found comfort from religious symbolism where you see a pile of rubble.

No one is asking you to see the same thing in it, or for it to have meaning for you. Not everything in every museum will speak to everyone - if it did, museums would be very boring, sparse places because anything controversial or not universally loved would be hidden away for fear of alienating someone.

I remember hearing about finding the cross at the time, and periodically since then. It would have held absolutely no meaning for me - but from the stories it was clear it was an important source of comfort for others. Because of the role it played for large numbers of people, it should be included. Not because of the religious narrative, but because of the human narrative that in those dark days we all sought comfort. Denying that some people found it in religion is to censor a part of the story.

If that is not true, and it's simply in the museum, I'm less inclined
to be annoyed by it.

But beyond that--

"controversial or not universally loved would be hidden away for fear of alienating someone."

--thank you for agreeing that an overt endorsement of religion in such a way
would be alienating to many other people.

The last I saw of the WTC area, it was 2002-03 and it was still
just an empty foundation. I've neither seen the memorial or museum
personally.

I don't use either of them. Some use the infinity symbol, and others use a clumsy, inaccurate representation of an atom. But, there are standard symbols. The atom one appears on grave markers at our national cemeteries, so I suppose that's the most official one.

A cross is not unusual in rectilinear frameworks of steel, such as were used in the buildings there. There were hundreds of those in that framework, so it's not surprising that one could be cut from the destroyed buildings. And it was cut from the debris. It did not appear as it appears at the memorial. It's not symbolic of anything unique about the buildings or anything else. Steel beams are assembled in a way that makes cross forms appear throughout the structure. Think about it.

There's no mogen david in that framework, nor are there crescent forms. They are not used in building frameworks. It's not some sort of "miracle" that a cross form was part of the debris. It would have been a miracle if one did not. In fact, there were many cruciform remnants in the debris, because that is how buildings like that are constructed. How many cross forms can you find in the building framework in the photo below?

Here is how it was found:



It was the appearance of the beams, as a cross rising out of the rubble, which gave comfort to the person who found it, and to the others who turned it into an impromptu memorial once it was removed from the rubble. No one found a chunk of structural beams and said "Hmm...I thnk I'll cut a cross out of these because the beams happen to cross."

Then I thought not that it is appropriate that it be included in the memorial...it did mean a lot to many people. And if there were other symbols that had the same importance to the event they should be displayed, too n

Including symbols just for the sake of including them is silly.

This is the one I'd choose:

Though, I think, they usually represent it as a mobius band as well.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism2.htm

Personally, I don't find the need for a symbol of nonbelief to be a pressing issue.

So that we could show some sort of solidarity or as a subtle way of letting each of us know that we are not alone without bring down the "wrath of god" from fundamentalist/religious family members and friends.

Living in West Texas as a non-believer can be a very isolating experience.

of non-belief. Truly. I don't believe that any supernatural phenomena or entities exist. That is probably the only thing I have in common with any given atheist. Beyond that, we share almost nothing with regard to our philosophy.

So, I'm not much concerned with solidarity among atheists. It seems to me to be a waste of time.

Check the rest of the thread for the image I've posted.

There is an attempt to rewrite history to make it seem like someone created a cross, rather than finding it.

The top 3 arms of the cross (even lengths) and a longer base stem are clearly visible sticking out of the rubble. It was the discovery of that cross which captured the attention of those to whom it provided comfort. It was cut at the base to remove it from the rubble - I haven't seen any pictures (then or now) to suggest what was buried below the top of the rubble pile.

The beams were prefabricated that way prior to construction.

The significance was how it appeared when it fell. What was visible was a well proportioned cross - which is what attracted the finder (and others) to it.

He didn't go find something which looked like the image you posted and say, "Hmm....if I cut a chunk off the top and another one off the arm closest to me and make the arms even, and chop off that bottom cross beam, because then it would look like a cross." He found what looked to him (and many others) like a cross rising out of the rubble. Had he done the former, I would agree it should not be part of the museum.

The inability to think beyond the symbol, the inability to ponder the deeper meaning of religion, the lack of even cursory self-reflection in the face of an obviously religiously motivated attack.

I am heartened by the fact that more and more people are turning away from religion, hopefully turning toward reason.

I simply am not concerned with what others can or do believe. It is their actions that interest me, frankly.

Again, I have no problem with people believing whatever they are able to believe. However, I do have a problem with the exclusionary philosophy of so many religions. It is that exclusionary philosophy and behavior that I dislike about most religions.

In the case of the 9/11 Memorial, exclusion is present by only including the symbol of one religion. For that reason, I do not like the use of that debris fragment alone.

...what you believe. Whether or not you believe. Or if you do believe, whether you believe exactly the same as they do.

It's maddening. If it were up to me, I'd either get rid of the cross, or put it in a part of the museum that examines religion's role in the attacks (does it? I've only read one or two articles about the museum).

as long as they leave me and others alone to believe or disbelieve as they choose. If they did that, there would be no problem for me.

As far as I'm concerned the beliefs of Christianity are as equally valid as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't share either.

It is there because it was a symbol of hope and comfort to the person who found it - and to countless others for whom it served as a makeshift monument after it was removed from the rubble. That connection makes it a part of the history of 9/11.

If it had been constructed for the memorial, that would be inappropriate. And, on the flip side, had a six pointed star or the star and crescent been found in the rubble and provided hope and comfort they would (or at least should) be given a similar place. But the reality is that those are not the symbols which were found.

Every cross erected in a public place is a religious symbol. The cross is the most prevalent symbol of Christianity. Pretending this one is not a religious symbol is simply specious.

What I said is that it was not being placed there BECAUSE it was a religious symbol.

It is being place there BECAUSE it is an important piece of the 9/11 story. It is a symbol which was discovered in the rubble which gave hope and comfort to many. Symbols which give hope and comfort have a variety of flavors - some of which are religious (as this one happens to be) - and they are an important part of the history of the event.

There is major a difference between creating a religious symbol out of random hunks of debris and installing it in a public location in order to use a tragedy to celebrate that religion - and what happened here: the shape of a piece of debris happens to correspond to a prominent religious symbol - and its discovery in the midst of great tragedy provided hope and comfort to many. It would be entirely inappropriate to include the former - and equally inappropriate to exclude the latter merely because the symbol happens to be a religious symbol (whatever that religion is).

I am not about to engage with you in a battle of semantics. I stated my opinion in the OP. That opinion has not changed. I disagree with your interpretation.

With some gap filling condescension for people who deny that a cross is a religious symbol.

I did no such thing - and the only way you can read what I said as denying it is a religious symbol is by ignoring basic rules of grammar.

And - it is not just grammar. That distinction is the difference between being constitutional and not being constitutional.

The first factor in the Lemon test for evaluating the constitutionality of using government funds for incidental support of religion: The government's action must have a secular purpose.

It is a secular purpose to memorialize a symbol BECAUSE it gave comfort and hope to many at ground zero, even if that symbol is religious
It is not a secular purpose to memorialize a cross BECAUSE it is a religious symbol

I am stating my opinion on this, and nothing more. I am not calling for the thing's removal. I'm making no statement regarding constitutional issues. I am saying that I, personally, do not care for the choice that was made. You have a different opinion.

It is pretty rude to do that, and dismiss my correction about what I actually said as "semantics."

Not to mention that the "semantics" about which you are complaining make the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional.

Or.. cymbal, if you're a drummer..like me.

But the meaning itself is not what makes it an important part of the story.

People were looking for hope and comfort - for a sign of something good. That cross provided it for some, the flag raising which called to mind the Iwo Jima flag raising provided it for others, pictures of the rescue dogs wearing booties for still others.

It doesn't matter why a particular image or symbol resonated with people. The reality is that it did. People looking for and finding hope amidst tragedy is part of the story of 9/11. It would be denying a significant part part of the story to exclude one of those symbols the things which gave people hope merely because the reason it provided hope and comfort was that it had religious meaning for them.

As should any image or artifact which acquires status as an important or poignant part of the story.

Since we build our buildings with perpendicular lines, the 9/11 cross is one of tens of thousands of steel beam crosses contained in the WTC.

So anyone impressed by it is operating on some kind of quantum-stupid that blows away regular stupid.

But that said, idiots are a big part of the history of 9/11. I don't think the cross is historically important, but I'm not the chosen arbiter of that.

So sure... by all means. Let the simps line up to weep over the miracle of nothing. The only harm it will do is make the indiscriminate murder of non-Christian foreigners by the US government that much more likely, going forward.

A small price to pay for a kitsch tourist attraction.

Thank you for your comment. It was well made.

They're called "crossbeams" or "cross pieces" for a reason. A piece fell in the exact shape it was put up in! It's a miracle!

That dog's butt looks like my toast!

I mention below in reply to someone else. that.. it is there because it IS a religious symbol. And specifically because it is a Christian symbol (which was stolen from something else, but that's another story)
Imagine if a piece of metal was sticking out of the ruble in the form of, oh I don't know.. a Menorah, or a crescent moon and a star, or the written Arabic for Allah (blessings be upon him), or..

Anyway, well thought out post.

You are correct. It is there because of the religious symbolism it represents. Many prayers have been made before that cross. Many more will be made. Prayers were made when it was dedicated, after being installed. It is a religious symbol.

meh, I am an atheist too, but I am willing to indulge the fantasies of so many in the name of remembering those who died that day. Live and let live, so to speak.