American Atheists Appeal Their Loss On 9/11 Cross

Headline:

'World Trade Center cross' fight continues as atheist group appeals ruling

Is it a religious symbol or piece of history? A controversy over a cross-shaped steel beam found in the World Trade Center rubble continues to rage.

A group called American Atheists will argue before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday that the cross does not belong in the private 9/11 museum, which will open on property leased from the government.

American Atheists filed a lawsuit in July 2011 aiming to prevent the WTC cross from being displayed in the museum, but federal judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York ruled last year that the cross and the museum helped "demonstrate how those at Ground Zero coped with the devastation they witnessed." American Atheists is now appealing that decision.

"It's necessary to fight this because this is inequality on government property," American Atheists president David Silverman told TODAY.

This is a most egregious lie: most of the government is dedicated to Atheism/secularism; if there is inequality is certainly in favor of the Atheist. But it tweaks a Leftist meme, regardless of its outrageous falseness. So it will be pursued and watched. (And funded).

It will be a good thing if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, I think. If Atheists are to be allowed to install Atheism everywhere, then that needs to be resolved as a legal principle. It will go a long way toward resolving the issue of whether Atheism is a true enemy of Americans. With that resolved in the courts, then further action can be determined.

As it is, Atheists and the Leftist court-based toadies are merely playing with small time issues which they can bully with threats of expensive lawsuits. If this is successful for the Atheists, then they can demand that Los Angeles and San Franciso change their names along with hundreds if not thousands of smaller cities, schools, organizations, etc., and refer to the Supreme Couirt decision in their favor for their stare decisis. So in that sense, this case is a watershed case.