Atheists opposing display of cross at Ground Zero are insulting memory of victims

The Blaze has a report about the American Atheists suing to stop display of a steel cross at the Ground Zero memorial:

When the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, two beams perfectly formed the cross, which many view as both symbolic and iconic. It is this object — a steel cross — that is perfect fodder for atheists and non-believers who do not wish to see any religious items included in the memorial.

The cross is not so much a religious icon as it is something found during the search through the debris of the site. And this bothers the atheists? They are of course insulting the constitution's Religion Clause, which can provide protection for the display of the cross.

The dreadful leftist Andrew Belonsky's been blabbering about this case. Particularly disturbing in his posting is when he brings up the atheists' leader's words as follows:

The American Atheist’s lawsuit therefore suggests two options for the museum: remove the cross or include icons from all faiths.

“It’s an all or nothing deal. They can remove the cross, or they can let everybody else in. Either way is legal and we would drop the case,” said Silverman.

And the 9/11 museum’s executive director Joe Daniels says they’ll do just that; the AP reports that the museum will make and display Stars of David, more crosses and other religious symbols, as well.

But the 9/11 cross holds special significance, says Daniels, because it’s “a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero.”

This is extremely offensive and insulting to the thousands of workers who did their best to help rescue people and clean the mess left by the Islamofascists of al Qaeda. Mainly because, how do we know that they even consider the cross the most important part of their work? Talk about dragging something in unnecessarily! And Belonsky himself doesn't do much better. He says, very ambiguously:

This story has me conflicted. On the one hand, I think that religious emblems should be kept out of the museum entirely, because tying 9/11 to any organized worship perpetuates the idea that 9/11 was a religious event; it was not.

Ahem: 9-11 was a TRAGEDY, NOT an "event". It sounds like he's trying to subtly suggest the right is exploiting it; a classic leftist tactic.

While the hijackers and their leader were motivated in part by Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11 was not a religious happening; it was, however profane, a political and secular attack on all peoples, not just those who subscribe to a particular faith.

If you think the above is confusing, it is. 9-11 was a religiously motivated attack via the Koran's indoctrination, and he's trying to obfuscate that by saying in a jumble that it was a "secular" attack. What a poor commentator he is.

And while it wasn't just religious people who were the targets, it still DID include Christians and Judaists.

Thrusting religion into the museum presents the most ungodly attack in this nation’s history as a rapture rather than a punch.

Sounds more like he's trying to say selectively that religion is bad. Putting religious symbols in the museum does not make it a religious place of worship any more than the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem (it isn't, it's just a history archive without being a flat-out religious alter).

If a kippa or a priest's robe were found in the wreckage, does the public not have the right to know what was found and what people were inside the day of the horror? That's pretty much what the atheists and Belonsky aren't thinking about - that they're running the gauntlet of obscuring history.

But — a big but here — the admittance of symbols from all faiths, including atheist, demonstrates much-needed interfaith unity, something tested after the 9/11 attacks and continually strained by the ongoing “Ground Zero Mosque” debate.

If you'll look at the second of 2 links he provided, you'll see why he's not qualified to make this argument - he defended Feisal Abdul Rauf in 2010, and look what a laughable defense he came up with:

Gingrich and others who call the “Ground Zero” mosque an affront to the United States and maintain that it’s led by “radicals” should remember two things: First, Ground Zero isn’t just an American shrine, it was and remains a global epicenter for community building and commerce.

Second, the proposed community center has been spearheaded not by a “radical Islamist,” but by an Imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, who previously worked as part of President Bush’s Middle East peace team.

So that's his little game - claim that because Rauf once worked on Dubya's staff, that alone makes him innocent. As a matter of fact, that was just one of the problems with Dubya back in the day: he sadly did kowtow on some issues to Islamists, most notably Grover Norquist, and the tragedy of Fort Hood is an outgrowth of political correctness that took place during his administration. See also about Rauf's relations with Qaradawi. As it so happens, this is just why anyone with common sense can feel angry at Dubya.

Belonsky should be ashamed of himself for apologizing for Rauf, and making reprehensible claims that conservatives are hijacking the tragedy. And if there were to be an Islamic crescent displayed at Ground Zero's memorial, don't be surprised if he were to back it full force at the expense of the victims.

For better commentary on the current issue, see Meredith's Jessup's posting.