Not sure where else to put this, so...
Since I tend to have knee-jerk reactions, I won't post my thoughts about this right now, except to say I'm mad... and disappointed. I think Jon utterly and completely missed the point... in fact, it's almost as if he misses the point intentionally.
But that's just me...
(If you can't see it, I don't know how to help you. I don't know how to download video clips from the Daily Show website. If I did, I'd put this on YouTube. If you know, please... tell me...)
May I ask why?
I think I'm siding with Stewart on this one. The beams found are a part of history of that eventful day and to me Silverman's statement was lacking tact. To exclude because a few people relvte it religiously is kinda weird to me. It's a part of history and it belongs in the museum.
Stewart I feel may have not been telling the whole story behind the lawsuit but he is a comedian. I think the main point he was trying to get across is that he thinks this lawsuit, or the way it is being handled, is just kinda silly. Just my 2cents.
Instead of a slap I'll poke you. I don't know why but poking always seemed more humorous to me than slapping.
anyway... I'm confused by your reply Wanderer :/
are you trying to be sarcastic in the sense that saying that if a religious symbol is found at 9/11, such as a buddhist statue, it shouldn't be preserved? Should we demolish half the works of the Renaissance because they are not equally representative to all religions and philosophies? Should we put a huge statue of an atom in the middle of a St. Peter's Basilica -just to make sure science is represented? Oy...
Now we have these beams found in the form of a cross and we shouldn't preserve or show it because a few people like it as a religious symbol? It's not a part of history because it is a "part of christianity" (to my mind, it is literally just intact steel from the wreckage) but rather it is a significant part of the building found intact. It's not being displayed as a religious symbol, but instead as a historical artifact.
Oy vey, I don't care what happens to the darn thing at this point. Just want the story to end. :/ I'm more or less disappointed in Silverman's lack of tact..
PS: I just noticed a "letter a" mishap in my previous comment. Fml. >:(
Oh and for the record: being raised Christian does not inform this opinion and I'm insulted that you might think that Wanderer, especially when that phase was up to the age of 11. But then again you did not know that.
I wouldn't say that it being related to a christian symbol has its rise to museum status considering there are some, and I apologize if I offend, less impressive findings of the site. I just find it kinda cool that those beams were so intact and together. If some people have a religious significance (no matter how ridiculous) to it then I ask-so what? I really do not care if some idiots are going to teach their children that it is from God? The rest of us with half a brain know better and again-in the museum, it is not being touted as such. It is in the gallery of debris, along with other pieces. The object is a reminder of what New Yorkers lived through. Because it has some religious significance to some people is hardly relevant. I'll say it again-I could care less either way as to the fate of this thing. I just thought it being intact and a part of the towers was pretty cool.
Concerning the "behind as a nation because of those damned righties" I'm not touching considering that is a whole other topic.
But molotovderp, you miss the point--I do not believe that the "cross" in question appeared in the form of an actual cross at the original site--rather it was fantasized into a cross by the fundies who see everything in terms of their precious savior/zeus--why turn everything into a religious symbol?
Renaissance paintings depicting the christ are expressions by the artists who created them-I don't think Da Vinci claimed any real spiritual significance to his Madonna of the Rocks-but whiny knee-jerk religion is just useless garbage bent on being devisive and shoving god-worship down everyone's throats. Those making the case for turning a national day of remembrance into a zany religious free-for-all ala the 9/11 "cross" claim it to be some kind of sign from "god"-how on Earth any kind of God would will such a thing as the series of events that occured on 9/11 is something I would like to hear them fully explain before calling us atheists whatever names they feel that they are in the right to call us.
I don't call for the destruction of renaissance paintings, but since when was Michelangelo's Creation of Adam forced upon the American public as a symbol of one's sense of American citizenship and good will?!
I would rather not see that "cross" on the site. It's a religious symbol, and it shouldn't be paid for with tax money. If we want to recognize religion at ground zero--and many people do--then it would be more appropriate to recognize the religions of all the dead. But whatever goes up on the site will be there a long time, and we're already surrounded by religious displays on public property, and most will never be removed. We don't need another. As for Silverman's lack of tact, any word or action that disagrees with religion is seen as an attack. There's no way he could have said anything against that "cross" without being called a jerk.
What baffles me, though, is why people aren't really pissed at their god. He does nothing while a bunch of fanatics kill nearly 3,000 people and destroy a couple of billion dollars worth of property, and he does nothing? He watches while thousands more people clean up the site, many of them getting seriously ill from inhaling particles in the air, and he does nothing? Then he leaves his calling card under the rubble? What a bastard!
I certainly don't think the random way two pieces of metal ended up at the site of the WTC represents divine intervention. Yet I have to say that there is something sacred about the site that people want to gather around. (Are atheists allowed to use the term sacred? As in the "sacred v profane' distinction?)
Like you, Craigart14, I think it would be appropriate to recognize the universal, human aspect of this tragedy rather than focusing on a 'christian symbol', unless we all can agree that it represents human suffering. I think of solemn historic places in this sort of way...Holocaust exhibits, Trail of Tears exhibits, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, etc. These sites represent the worst of what humans can do to their fellow humans.
If Christian groups want to gather funds to memorialize the site as some sort of 'act of god', it is their right to do so. It shouldn't be funded by the government. But these groups will have to prepare themselves for some backlash from citizens that disagree with them. They may define this as another form of persecution (which only makes them believe more firmly) but disagreement is what defines the American experience: religious pluralism and tolerance does not mean agreement! The WTC site doesn't belong to any one political interest group to define.