Cross at world trade center memorial?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Thing I don't get about the atheists over in New York constantly complain about a cross. I really don't give a shit about it.

What on earth does either of those things have to with anything?

[Violet]

Quite honestly, I'd prefer that the cross be moved to St. Paul's Chapel that's right near the WTC site and is heavily connected to the aftermath of the attacks. It's close to the site and it's in a place where it would be fitting.

And if I'm being quite honest: save the money on the pointless monument. You want a nice cheap little marker? Use a small cinder block.

And even then: what the fuck is the point of a monument to an attack? I can understand someone maybe respecting a great man of science or the leader who pulled their nation through the war... but to respect a terrorist attack by firstly recognizing it and then having the fucking idiocy to dramatize it... only to put a monument there to mark what happened for as long as possible?

Sounds to me like the terrorists won.

What fits in that place is not a monument: it is a tall building.

[Cinjin]

Doesn't bug me any. I'd have to check, but don't crosses pre-date christianity anyway??

I kinda view a cross (as long as there's no jesus hanging on it) as simply a marker of someone who has passed. A memorial. Not in the least offensive to me.

Min, don't crosses pre-date christianity? or am I incorrect on that?

[leo-rcc]

In my opinion the AA is being a bit anal about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Quite honestly, I'd prefer that the cross be moved to St. Paul's Chapel that's right near the WTC site and is heavily connected to the aftermath of the attacks. It's close to the site and it's in a place where it would be fitting.

And if I'm being quite honest: save the money on the pointless monument. You want a nice cheap little marker? Use a small cinder block.

And even then: what the fuck is the point of a monument to an attack? I can understand someone maybe respecting a great man of science or the leader who pulled their nation through the war... but to respect a terrorist attack by firstly recognizing it and then having the fucking idiocy to dramatize it... only to put a monument there to mark what happened for as long as possible?

Sounds to me like the terrorists won.

What fits in that place is not a monument: it is a tall building.

emphasis added is mine

Fuck, I'm at a loss for words, Sae has put together a post that is coherent start to finish, and makes a valid point. hock:

---

don't go turning this into a habit......

[Judas BentHer]

Going along the grounds of that logic, monuments and cemeteries are illogical too. Because it looks like death won, that car accident with no survivors won, cancer won, Alzheimer's won, etc...
The Vietnam memorial. One gigantic outstretched tombstone. Looks like the north Vietnamese won.

Arlington cemetery, where dead soldiers rest beneath little white crosses and now pentagrams, if they were Wiccan. Lives lost across the generations. Looks like every enemy in the history of war that put them there, won.

Fireman's memorials. Looks like the flames won.

Grow up.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not criticizing cemeteries as memorials (would it amuse you if the earliest known types of ritual display of remains, the type of display that would become the cemetery, are thought to be much more like property markers?). In this case, just in this case, It would seem to me that we might want to throw a nice big building up as a giant "f u".

[Violet]

Going along the grounds of that logic, monuments and cemeteries are illogical too.

Using 'logical' to say something that is not tautological (ie: a cemetery is a cemetery) or to make valid a statement so it is become tautological (all dogs are mountains and all mountains are blue, therefore all dogs are blue) is a complete misuse of logic.

Because it looks like death won, that car accident with no survivors won, cancer won, Alzheimer's won, etc...

It does not matter if in the end you are defeated by gravity: for gravity cannot brag about beating you.

The Vietnam memorial. One gigantic outstretched tombstone. Looks like the north Vietnamese won.

They did.

Arlington cemetery, where dead soldiers rest beneath little white crosses and now pentagrams, if they were Wiccan. Lives lost across the generations. Looks like every enemy in the history of war that put them there, won.

Fascinatingly enough: if someone kills you and you are not some sort of amazing philosopher king who used your death to further your goals: they won.

Fireman's memorials. Looks like the flames won.

Grow up.

After you, O' small being from Earth

I happen to stand at a towering 62 of your meters, which is quite large for my people. Only those of my race who have lived to see quadruple digits in their age are larger than I. If I grow up much further I will have broken even the records of my people.

---

Doesn't bug me any. I'd have to check, but don't crosses pre-date christianity anyway??

The roman torture device in question existed long before Jesus was supposedly crucified upon it.

---

I'm not criticizing cemeteries as memorials (would it amuse you if the earliest known types of ritual display of remains, the type of display that would become the cemetery, are thought to be much more like property markers?). In this case, just in this case, It would seem to me that we might want to throw a nice big building up as a giant "f u".

And sturdier this time, if you'll please

[Minimalist]

The Romans picked up the practice from the Carthaginians...who brought it with them from their Phoenician homeland.

[MilesTailsPrower]

Thing I don't get about the atheists over in New York constantly complain about a cross. I really don't give a shit about it.

What on earth does either of those things have to with anything?

Remember the big bitch fest atheists had over a street sign close to the twin towers. I don't see the big problem :d

And yes shit and not caring for something are exactly the same