American Atheists and David Silverman may claim that “[t]his case is… not about the elimination of religion…,” but it is, and more. To demand that the Cross be removed rejects, even attempts to re-write, history. It also takes away a symbol of comfort for many who have been touched by the power of the Cross.

In the wreckage of Ground Zero, rescue workers discovered that beams had collapsed to form the shape of a cross. Such a shape was formed as a result of the collapse and debris of t-beams and other such types of beams that resembled a cross to build the World Trade Center.

In an early article reporting on the cross, from September 2002, Father Brian Jordan, who has spoken extensively in support of the cross, was quoted explaining:

“We didn’t find any artifacts of the Star of David for Jewish people or the Crescent for Muslims as yet,” he said. “Of course, this was not built as a cross,” he continued. “It is a T-beam, found in every one of the buildings destroyed at the World Trade Center site.”

The artifact from the rubble became known as the Ground Zero Cross and represented a symbol of hope for the rescue workers and many who had lost loved ones, or who had been affected in any way by the attacks on September 11.

The beam was not built to be a cross or a religious symbol. That it formed to resemble one is an awe-inspiring act, one could say from God, or even just a coincidence. It provided peace and healing for so many people, and a nation, during this tragedy.

But when the move was made to include the Ground Zero Cross with other historical artifacts at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, which will open in Spring 2014,  American Atheists sued in July 2011. FromThe New York Times:

But the move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law.

And from CNN:

“It is important that it not be displayed to the exclusion of everyone else,” said David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, which first filed suit in July 2011. “This case is about inclusion, it is not about the elimination of religion, it is about the inclusion of everyone.”

American Atheists and David Silverman may claim that “[t]his case is… not about the elimination of religion…,” but it is, and more. To demand that the Cross be removed rejects, even attempts to re-write, history. It also takes away a symbol of comfort for many who have been touched by the power of the Cross.

The National September 11 Memorial and Museum had this to say, showing that to include the Cross is clearly not an act to endorse religion. And keep in mind, this is a secular source. From The New York Times:

Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, said that the cross was clearly of historical significance and that the lawsuit was “without merit.”

“We have a responsibility at the museum to use the authentic artifacts that really came from the site itself to tell the story of not only what happened on 9/11, but the nine-month recovery period,” he said, adding that the cross was an artifact with “very true meaning.”

“It provided comfort to hundreds and hundreds of people who were working in some of the most hellish conditions imaginable,” he said.

Fortunately, a New York judge threw out the lawsuit in March. Federal Judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York ruled that the beams are permissible to be displayed because of historical importance.

Unfortunately David Silverman and his group do not seem to understand that this case is not about religion, but about a historical artifact. American Atheists announced they would appeal the case.

Both before and after this ruling, experts weighed in to demonstrate how the lawsuit is not going to go where American Atheists hopes it will. From CNN:

In light of all the attention, one legal expert says the atheists’ legal case is “absurd.”

“I think the odds of a court ordering the cross removed are literally zero,” said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s legal analyst. “The museum is not building a place for religious worship, they are preserving a historical relic that was meaningful to a great many people and part of the story of 9/11.”

Toobin compared the cross’s inclusion in the museum with the many other instances in which government-funded museums feature religious artwork.

“When the government is surveying a historic development, the government does not have to exclude religions images and artifacts from its displays,” Toobin said.

These atheists have not only attempted to re-write history and disregard common sense for their own beliefs, but are also behaving rather ridiculously with their case.

The ACLJ, a conservative law group, has followed this case closely on their website. As far as how the atheists are behaving:

The fact is their lawsuit alleges that the mere “existence of the cross” has given them “depression,” “anxiety,” “mental pain and anguish,” and even “headaches.”  For those who claim to have no faith, they are assigning near supernatural qualities to the Cross.

The law group makes an interesting and worthwhile point. Why do the atheists want the Cross torn down so badly? Perhaps because they “attempted to make a federal case of their hurt feelings…” And in light of American Atheists’ decision to appeal their lawsuit to a federal appeals court, ACLJ just recently announced it will file an amicus brief to defend the Cross in the Second Court of Appeals.

American Atheists may cry out about inclusion and equal treatment, but not allowing the Cross only accomplishes the re-writing of history and unfairly denies not only history, but comfort and hope, to many affected by this tragedy. It is about a fear, possibly even hatred, of Christianity. Why else should looking upon a cross-shaped icon elicit such strong reactions?

Further, while not all atheists who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center may have felt this way, it is fair to say that there would be those not so appreciative that a fight was being carried on in their name.

From Jordan Sekulow and Matthew Clark of ACLJ for The Washington Post in April:

American Atheists may have embraced their “we are the bad guys” mentality, but they certainly don’t speak for all of Americans. They don’t even speak for all atheists. We have heard from numerous atheists who are outraged themselves at the hurtful tactics displayed by some of these groups.

Experts have expressed how they do not believe the Cross will be removed. The Supreme Court already ruled that  the Constitution’s “goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.” American Atheists is a group simply trying to change, or at the very least, ignore, the facts of the case in order to re-write history and attack Christianity and its symbols.

If the group truly wanted to remain consistent with their lawsuit and militant beliefs, they should perhaps then advocate for the ban of all t-shaped and cross beams for buildings, lest they collapse into shapes of crosses and symbols of hope. With such absurdity shown so far, this would not be far from the realm of possibility.

This article first appeared on the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s blog and is used with permission.