Atheists File Law Suit Against 9/11 Museum
Atheists angry that a cross is displayed at the 9/11 memorial
- Duration 6:19
- Date Jul 29, 2011
Atheists angry that a cross is displayed at the 9/11 memorial
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And let me get onto our panel -- because one of the things that we do it dot com watch foxnews.com mine is.
We have -- hole and one of the polls that didn't want foxnews.com.
And take is the question of ballots.
The World Trade Center cross should across be part of the World Trade Center memorial yes it's a symbol of strength Nellie should.
He should not have a religious affiliation or not sure and the reason we're bringing this up is because the American Atheists have filed a suit against the museum.
The -- musing and saying the cross the cross those fused at the time.
The actual attack.
Is now arrows at the memorial and the way to say it should not be I would bring in the panel to discuss this because of severe every hot topic here in New York because it -- it seem like a no brainer that everybody should just acknowledge that -- and now we've got this controversy however doctor Jeff Myers who is the chairman of the board of some ministries that Denver thank you very much.
-- Lauren and also about -- is a professor of theology King's College here in new York city music Christian college here in New York is very interesting that's key concept of people have kind of -- -- that that also ratified routers it was here at Fox News contributor and author of you don't have to be wrong for -- to be right.
Finding faith without fanaticism thank you so much good to be -- so we're talking about the World Trade Center crossed.
He is at the center of the controversy because of many remember the imagery after the 9/11 attacks.
The building was -- -- but somehow -- the scaffolding.
That steel beams.
Better cross section stood up and it was of course people -- -- looked at it as the symbol of the Christian cross of the memorial back.
Emblem is now part of the museum and the American Atheists have policies saying.
You have to take that down and let me read you what the idea it's a government of American atheist wrote He said members have -- across.
Either in person or on television are being subjected to an injured in consequence of having.
A religious tradition and other -- imposed upon them through the power of the state.
Now one person mark this is this argument is down delusional.
But I just want to comment on that I mean this is this is something about you Republican -- more and more.
Is this controversy over -- -- religious symbols being in public what do you think about the atheist.
Well you know I've met some of the people the American atheist group and some of these other groups and I gotta tell you they are some of the -- -- people I've ever met their like you -- on steroids great and they all have this you have to.
And the very idea I love that they have the half half.
They have they have to have their view.
Expressed at the expense of every other view that their idea they've they they're not trying to get more -- they're trying to shut down any country speech Dahlia.
I know this is Anderson because you know.
You we would expect this controversy from someone who -- -- strong faith tradition.
Jewish -- tradition -- Muslim official we don't hear to hear from the -- the.
It's right classically.
People who are attached deeply and -- -- to any particular faith.
Can find common ground with people who were attached to other faiths because they understand the role the faith can happen in healing in the face of a crisis.
So it's not -- -- be entirely surprising that you don't have traditionally observant Jews Muslims Hindus -- whatever objecting to -- it actually isn't.
I do think we have to proceed with caution -- when I say that as someone who believes the cross has an important place not just the place but an important place.
At ground zero and it's not a theological claim obviously I'm not a Christian right the importance of its place is it is a part of the history.
Of coping with the murderous attack.
In it played an important role.
For thousands of people in the months weeks even days following the attack and sort of cut that out of the story would be a mistake.
I do think we have to be cautious about what role it plays and how its position.
There's a difference between with the atheists are demanding which is -- thing.
Any religious symbolism from the site because that bothers them -- strikes me -- entirely misguided it is the kind of shutting down.
That doctor -- referred to.
But I also think in -- candor with great respect we have to be careful about not characterizing those who disagree with us.
In disparaging ways.
And there are genuine fears they have I don't think they're all from being your life anymore and then they believe that religious people are all coercive an aggressive.
And totalitarian idea -- both sides have to do here.
Is step back from this -- And not ask what is the theology of the cross -- ground zero.
But what is the role of that physical artifact in the history of the weeks and months following the.
This is an interesting thing because if you're Christian and somebody says oh this is just -- this is about history than -- I don't know if most Christians would even agree with that and that's almost like saying okay.
You're kind of insulting my religion but I'll do that in order to get it to make sure it stays and Bob what do you think.
Well this is the L lemon test that.
That's been it precedent in the United States for a generation or two.
The I haven't.
Religious symbols are not allowed in public spaces but cultural symbols are.
So we we have to make the case that this is a cultural symbol -- a symbol of strength.
-- put an end credits a cultural symbol within that they -- has become.
Sort of it symbol of many things we see them on the road signs and wouldn't admit it -- -- -- crosses were accidents have actually been challenged as well so.
But it's different from a crucifix.
Which would be the sign of Jesus on the cross.
Again different two different people and the problem with the question you raise more and is that if this comes down to.
On our terms whoever the -- -- religious Christians and people of other faith or atheists and other faith not by itself not -- have to admit it.
You cannot -- this is on our terms and only on our terms that's how nothing gets done in -- when both sides ought to be looking for is.
How can we get as much of who we are acknowledged in public.
In ways that others can live with and then we shift the debate from crossed no cross to why would you cut me out.
That's a part of what I experience.