I think a lot of people are misconstruing the facts here. Noone put the cross there. And noone objected to anyone else putting a Star of David (or any other religious symbol) there as well. As a matter of fact, I think other religious symbols should be placed there.
What could possibly be wrong with the fact that the families and loved ones of those who perished find some sort of strength or peace in this religious symbol?
I also think that it is a bit more significant that this 'property' is now a makeshift graveyard for those who lost their lives that day than the fact that it belongs to the Port Authority or whoever.
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
thanks cp...FWIW?
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
What could possibly be wrong with the fact that the families and loved ones of those who perished find some sort of strength or peace in this religious symbol?
Because it does not represent all religions and not all people will find the strength and peace in a cross.
FWIW = For what it's worth
Misty
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
This is my whole issue. Why in the heck have we become such a selfish society? Why can't we just let the people that find comfort in it...find that comfort and leave it for them? My reasoning....DON'T THE PEOPLE THAT LOST LOVED ONES WHO GET SOMETHING FROM THIS CROSS DESERVE AT LEAST THAT MUCH REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ON THE SITUATION? 1/2 of these people don't even have a body to claim!
LizD
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
I don't think that it is public land!!
Who owns the land- is it the Port Authority?
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
I said in the beginning that I was glad that people found solice in the piece...however...now that construction is underway...it cannot be left...
BUT the 'cross' CAN be moved to a religious site nearby...and continue to offer comfort
why do Christains get their way, b/c they are the majority? why should minorities suffer?
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
the land is owned by the Port Authoriy...the buildings are privately owned
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
I don't think it's being selfish to want ALL people represented by any memorial to honor the victims.
I am all for a memorial that will provide peace and solace to everyone that persished at the WTC. I just don't think this is it.
Misty
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
Erika...I know you agree with this reasoning.
But I am a minority...and I am not suffering because of this. And if anyone can honestly say that they are 'suffering' because there is a cross at Ground Zero should really re-think their 'suffering' compared to the 'suffering' of the parentless children that were left as a result of this.
JMO.
ETA: Christine, no one said that all people would not be represented...this is just the way it has worked out thusfar.....just like there is no building there yet, there is no permanent memorial either.
LizD
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
so than it is not public land
The Port Authority is a financially self-supporting public agency that receives no tax revenues from any state or local jurisdiction and has no power to tax. It relies almost entirely on revenues generated by facilities usersútolls, fees, and rents.
Since it is not public land can't the PA display this cross there?
spazybride04
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
Mistyeyed,
I couldn't agree more... if you had to see the faces of the 2 and 3 year old that i have to look at constantly and if you were there when the baby called a man she saw in a firemans uniform 'daddy' and clung to his leg, you'd find peace in that 'cross' too... it's hard to bury a loved one but it's even harder when all you have to bury is a hat!
jannshari
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
DON'T THE PEOPLE THAT LOST LOVED ONES WHO GET SOMETHING FROM THIS CROSS DESERVE AT LEAST THAT MUCH REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ON THE SITUATION?
In the same manner, don't the people who lost loved ones who feel uncomfortable having the cross there deserve the same mount of comfort as those who want it there? I've seen the argument that if even a few people get comfort from it, it should be left there, but what about the greater number of people who may be discomforted by it? Couldn't the argument also be used the other way - if even a few people are offended or discomforted by a symbol that I think we can all agree has a religious connotation to it, should they have to suffer anymore than they already have?
Rather than offending some or comforting some at this particular site, wouldn't it be easier to remove any religious symbolism at all and allow people to recognize their religious connection to this tragedy in their own way?
You can't please everyone when it comes to religion...period.
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
liz...interesting how you pasted only what went with your case...
here's the rest: The Governor of each state appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, subject to state senate approval. Board Members serve as public officials without pay for overlapping six-year terms. The Governors retain the right to veto the actions of Commissioners from his or her own state. Board meetings are public.
the post offic eis also self-sufficient and only gets money from its fees...but it is still a government agency
In the same manner, don't the people who lost loved ones who feel uncomfortable having the cross there deserve the same mount of comfort as those who want it there? I've seen the argument that if even a few people get comfort from it, it should be left there, but what about the greater number of people who may be discomforted by it? Couldn't the argument also be used the other way - if even a few people are offended or discomforted by a symbol that I think we can all agree has a religious connotation to it, should they have to suffer anymore than they already have?
Yes, but you don't see them suing over it. Common sense dictates that all people will be represented when the real memorial goes up.
I have to bow out of this topic now..I think I've said my peace so many times I can't be any clearer, and I really don't want this to deteriorate further.
Thanks for the very enaging conversation ladies...
ChristineC68
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
Unfortunately nothing is there. But this is what Xelindra was saying, if you allow a cross you have to allow symbols of every other religion and then where does it end?
Why cant their be ONE memorial that fairly represents the victims?
ETA - Because there is nothing else there representing other religions for anyone to sue over.
LizD
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
what I was saying is that they are not government. Even if they get appointed by the governers of the states, it does not get any funding from the local, state or federal level. It is sustained by it's own fees and therefore is not subjected to the rule of speration of church and state. Regarless of who is on the board or how they are appointed, if they are not getting any gov't funding they are not part of the gov't.
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
Christine...there is a plan for a non denominational memorial...thats why they have to take down the 'cross' b/c they have to build it...
also...the idea to sue...is not for money...its for the removal of a religious symbol...just like the courthouse in Alabama...the idea is if they let this go...then it sets a precedent...and precedents can be used in other cases...and the interpretation of the Constitution can cahnge b/c of that...
they are not trying to hurt the Christian survivors or family members...they are trying to protect their natural rights set up in the Constitution!!!
spazybride04
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
I'm with you Misty...
Thank you ladies for your opinions.
It was nice to see both sides of the discussion and I have to say, both sides make a point.
have a great day!
~deb
MichelleW
Posted:
Member since
Re: This infuriates me
JMO
If people find comfort in it, especially the victims families let it go, haven't they lost so much and suffered already.
I think some need to look at the bigger picture, it wasn not erected as a cross or as a testament to 'God' but simply metal from the wreckage that happened to take that position. So instead of arguing about it's religious merits can't people see it as a sign of strength, that in essence a piece of the towers is 'still standing' Life it too short for a ll this nonsense
