The 9-11 Cross
A New York Thing?
By John D. Turner
I was listening to the radio on the way home
the other day. The guest on the talk show I was tuned to was an
atheist, speaking on the issue of the 9-11 cross.
The 9-11 cross was found on the site of the
World Trade Center atrocity. Two steel beams, welded together in the
shape of a cross by the heat and violence of the destruction, found
standing upright in the rubble of one of the towers. To many of the
Christian faith, this represents a miracle, a sign of hope rising
from the ashes of sorrow. It was set aside to be part of the future
memorial planned to remember those who perished as victims of that
attack, and remains on the site.
It was the inclusion of this cross in the
memorial that the atheist took exception to. As the head of a group
trying to have the cross removed from the site, he opined that
religious symbology has no place at the memorial site. "Why should a
Christian symbol be permitted", he asked? Others not of the
Christian faith died there too. What about them? In his view, the
presence of the cross is "divisive".
Of course, being a talk radio show, many
people called in to discuss the issue. One caller proposed that any
religious group that wanted to place a symbol should be allowed to
do so, in memory of those of their faith who died. This, of course,
would be in keeping with such symbology being placed on a tombstone
of the deceased, for example. It should be noted that many bodies of
those who died were never recovered from the rubble, making the
site, in essence, a mass grave. This idea, however, the guest
rejected out of hand. He was particularly vehement against placing
any Islamic symbols on the site, despite the fact that Muslims
(other than the hijackers) were numbered among the body count of the
victims.
He gave several reasons for his stand. He
tried to bring up a "separation of Church and State" issue. When it
was pointed out that the memorial was being privately funded, he
countered with a vague statement to the effect that "well, the
government has to be involved somewhere along the line". His
argument that religious symbols were "divisive" stemmed in part from
his idea that if any group were left out, then that wouldn't be
"fair". Since he was absolutely opposed to any Muslim symbols, he
pretty much guaranteed that a large, important religious group would
be left out. It soon became apparent that his real objection was to
religion in general.
It is interesting to note that in his opinion,
the only non-divisive way to handle the "problem" is to have no
religious symbols at all. As an atheist, he was, of course, opposed
to any religious symbols as a matter of principle, though he tried
to hide this by expressing his "concern" that some group might get
left out or feel slighted. His concern didn't extend to Christians
who might feel slighted that the cross was being removed. The
"divisiveness" that might entail was not an issue. He had no problem
with eliminating all symbols, of course, for the same reason that
Christians have no problem with having a cross; it fit his
"religious" context. He would see it as right and proper to have no
symbology, simply because his symbology is to have none.
Remember, this isn't a manufactured cross,
purchased for the purpose of placing it as a memorial. It was
created on the spot, in the heat and fire of the destruction that
claimed so many lives. It was formed from beams from Building One
crashing into Building Six. It is seen by millions of Americans as a
fitting memorial to those whose only "crime" was to show up for work
that day. Many see it as a sign from God. His argument was that with
all the heat and steel being flung about, the odds of that happening
by accident were high, and that is all it was; just an accident and
of no special significance.
Well, this is America. He is entitled to his
opinion. I don't happen to share it, but he is entitled.
It wasn't until one of his responses to a
later caller that I became so angry with him that I wanted to throw
something through the radio.
Apparently exasperated that the callers failed
to appreciate his stance on the issue, he made the statement that
9-11 was a "New York thing" and that Texans didn't have any business
telling New Yorkers what they should or shouldn't place on the
memorial site in the first place.
I must admit this was news to me. I hadn't
realized that the City of New York had seceded from the United
States.
If what happened on 9-11 in New York is a New
York matter, then why are billions of American taxpayer dollars
going to repair the damage and pay the families of those killed;
money that comes from you and I, and millions of other Americans
outside the City of New York? If it is a New York matter, perhaps
New Yorker's should shoulder the burden alone.
If only a New York matter, why have we spent
billions pursuing the war on Terrorists? Why have U.S. soldiers,
particularly those not from New York, died in Afghanistan? I realize
that New York's finest were hit hard by this act of terrorism, and
make no mistake; I hold them in high regard. But if this is a New
York matter, and Texan's need not be concerned, why aren't they out
fighting the terrorists instead? Why not call out the New York
National Guard, and let the rest of us go about our business as
usual?
If only a New York matter, why was I, as a
reservist, mobilized in response? Why are other reservists and
active force members serving overseas away from their families to
protect against this happening again?
The answer of course, is that it was not
simply a New York thing. It was an attack against the United States
of America, and our way of life. And just as the attack was against
America, the memorial belongs to America as well. It isn't just a
"New York thing" any more than the memorial at Pearl Harbor is just
a "Hawaiian thing".
The cross at ground zero is an artifact of
that holocaust. It is not inappropriate to display it. Had six
girders contrived to melt together in such a fashion as to create a
Star of David, I would have no problem with it being displayed
either. Should any religious group who lost members that day wish to
place a memorial marker, that's fine by me. Atheists can represent
their beliefs by whatever means they feel appropriate. As a Latter
Day Saint, I myself don't use the cross as a religious symbol. We
prefer to celebrate Christ's resurrection, rather than venerate the
instrument of his death. I understand the symbolism, however, and
have no animus towards those who choose to remember in this manner.
This is America. We have the freedom to worship as we please, or not
as we choose.
Just don't tell me that 9-11 is a "New York
thing" and that I as a Texan have no business making comments,
particularly when you are taking my money and attempting to belittle
my beliefs.
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
