David Silverman's Cross

So, David Silverman is at it again.

I happened to catch a glimpse of a... "debate", on Fox News the other day, and after a long eye bath while blasting one of theoreticalbullshit's videos on Youtube to clear it out of my system (check him out if you haven't, smart guy), I analysed it a little further. David Silverman, for those who don't know, is the president of American Atheists, an organisation that campaigns for the rights of atheists in America and that challenges Christianity when it gets special treatment in public, as it almost always does.

Now, I'm not a big fan of David Silverman. Like Richard Dawkins, his heart is in the right place and he should be lauded for his intent, but his tactics often do more harm than good (his anti-religious "you know it's a myth" billboard springs immediately to mind) but, as he himself said on a recent interview in The Guardian, he fights the battles that are not popular to fight, but need to be fought regardless. There is nothing more difficult than doing something you know you're going to be publicly crucified for (pun not intended) and I respect him for that. Now, let's take a look at what he's picking a fight over this time

So there's this iron cross at what has become known as ground zero, the sight of 9/11 that has become a memorial for all who lost their lives on that tragic day. Silverman is arguing that not only is this a religious symbol on public land, which he argues violates the US constitution, but that it is discriminatory to all the victims of 9/11 who weren't Christians. Now, let me make something quite clear. The cross in this instance doesn't really bother me. It's not something I would be campaigning so heavily about BUT that doesn't mean I don't agree with Silverman's points. On the first point, there is no grey area, he is absolutely right when he says the US constitution expressly forbids religious iconography on public ground. The establishment cause of the first amendment of the US constitution  states "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Well, what the constitution wants, the constitution gets, it's the same deal with the so called "war on Christmas" that Bill O' Reilly likes to bang on about every December because he, like many other Americans, insist that their religion gets special treatment, constitution says no. So much for 'murica being a "Christian nation".

As for the second point about discrimination, I personally don't feel discriminated against, but then again I wasn't an atheist/muslim/hindu/buddhist etc. who lost someone on 9/11. If there is to be a memorial erected, why shouldn't it be all inclusive? Why can't it be religiously neutral, in fact why should religion be brought in to it at all considering we're talking about a terrorist attack perpetrated by religious fundamentalist extremists? Because it's alright, so long as Christianity gets special treatment. I'm aware that there will be many Christians who agree with David Silverman, I know not all of Christianity can be tarnished with the same Ken Ham/Ray Comfort brush and I wouldn't dream of doing so, but to progressive Christians who may read this, I implore you: talk to your people.