American Atheists find the 911 Memorial cross repugnant
That’s their words, not mine:
Plaintiffs Dennis Horvitz and Kenneth Bronstein are members of American Atheists and are Atheists reared in the Jewish tradition. They find the cross, a symbol of Christianity, offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens.
They even think the US Constitution thinks it’s repugnant:
The challenged cross constitutes an unlawful attempt to promote a specific religion on governmental land, diminishing the civil rights, privileges or capacities of Atheist Americans, Agnostic Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, and all others who are not Christian Americans. Because the challenged cross promotes Christianity over all other religions, it also denies non-Christian American equal protection under the laws of the land. As such, the challenged cross is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
They even think it’s repugnant to the New York Constitution.
As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional existence of the cross, plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages for which they have no clear, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the inclusion of a cross at the September 11 Memorial and Museum, in the absence of equal acknowledgment of those nonChristians who also were victims of the 9/11 attack, is repugnant to the Constitution of the State of New York. American Atheists seek injunctive relieve against inclusion of the cross and/or an order that a memorial to the non-religious Americans who fell victim to the 9/11 attack be placed within the September 11 Memorial and Museum near the cross. Named plaintiffs also seek injunctive relieve against the inclusion of the cross, together with nominal damages, costs, and attorney fees.
Repugnant seems an awful harsh word. But, that’s nothing compared to their public statement about the suit:
“It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It’s a truly ridiculous assertion.”
This is what they find so repugnant:
I find it repugnant they’re asking for “nominal damages”.
If they’re not just doing it for the money, then they’re doing it because they are remarkably intolerant.
When confronted with things I deem repugnant, I look the other way. It’s really not that hard to do. I may bitch about it, but I certainly don’t resort to hiring a bunch of lawyers to deprive everyone else of viewing something they might enjoy.
The courts have become increasingly anti-religious, so I’m not going to bet on how this goes. Common sense tells me these guys will lose. Common sense, judges, and New York don’t always go together tho.