Crossed over a cross

Last July, the American Atheists filed a lawsuit to prevent a steel beam, dubbed as the “Ground Zero Cross”, from being displayed at the National Sempter 11 Memorial and Museum. The 17-foot tall intersecting steel beam was found by rescue workers amidst the debris of the World Trade Center buildings; it was displayed at St. Peter’s Church, a nearby Catholic Church, prior to its relocation to the memorial this year. Much argument has been made about the relocation by both its supporters and critics. On one hand, supporters say that the steel beam has been perceived by many Americans, specifically those who suffered familial loss from the attacks, as "an icon of hope and comfort" that is "not only a symbol of faith…but also a symbol of…freedom", and to exclude it from the memorial would devalue "the historical significance it has acquired." On the other hand, the organization filing the lawsuit reasons that the display of the steel beam is tantamount to a display of religious symbol on a partially-government funded site, thereby violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment (which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.") Additionally, they cite a suffering from "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack" as well as "the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non-Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center."

As is the case with various issues pertaining to religion in the United States, the knowledge issues pertaining to the issue of the "Ground Zero Cross" is, primarily, a conflict between religion and the state, rising from a conflict between Emotion and History, however; what is important to note is that none of the aforementioned area and way of knowing is exclusive to one side i.e. History is not exclusive with the side arguing against the relocation of the steel beam and likewise, Emotion is not exclusive with the side supporting it. Having set this premise, the knowledge issues concerning the legality of the steel beam relocation cannot, in my opinion, be discussed without considering the knowledge issues within the legality of the claim supporting or criticizing the relocation itself. Consider the argument brought forth by the American Atheists: the steel beam resembles a cross and to relocate it to a national memorial would not only be unconstitutional as it violates the establishment clause and therefore suggests the government’s endorsement of Christianity, but would also be detrimental to the emotional wellbeing of atheists. Though the argument is essentially the upholding of the Constitution, it raises the question as to whether emotional harm is enough as evidence in court to warrant for an overturn in a procedure i.e. do the emotional distresses cited by the American Atheists fit with the legal juristic descriptions of injury? On the other hand, consider the argument made by those supporting the relocation: the cross should be included in the national memorial for its historical significance as it "has come to mean something to those who view it as a symbol of hope and comfort" in the aftermath of the terror attacks. That being said, does the historical significance of a religious symbol make it any more secular than it is in order for it to be displayed on a partially government funded property? Similar to the phrase, "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill, or the phrase, "So help me God" in the presidential oath, or the institution of Christmas as a federal holiday, how secular does a religious symbol, practice or holiday has to be before the government decides it is "good enough" (i.e. secular enough) to be included in the national tradition? Much more can be challenged about the historical significance of the steel beam or the emotional damage it supposedly causes, but what the arguments on both side demonstrate is the non-exclusivity of the conflict between Emotion and History: why does a historically-based argument on the unconstitutionality of the steel beam cite the emotional damage it induces, and likewise, why does the argument on the historical value of the steel beam seem to reveal to us that what is historic about the steel beam is merely what people feel about it?

Ultimately, there is a deeper, underlying point transcending both sides of the argument, one that concerns with the limits of our perception. It is interesting to note beforehand that both supporters and critics of the relocation of the steel beam acknowledge its historical significance and, more importantly, its resemblance to a cross, but why is it perceived as a cross? Equally important, why is it perceived as the cross (i.e the crucifix)? A rather obvious-sounding question, given the architectural (intersecting) nature of the steel beam itself, but at what point does a mere architectural debris cease to be a debris and be seen as a religious symbol instead? What follows is a moot question, but suppose 9/11 had never occurred and instead, a refurbishment of the internal structure of the World Trade Center revealed a similar intersecting steel beam; would it be perceived the same this steel beam is perceived today? Alternatively, suppose the majority of the rescue workers post-9/11 were not Christians (or religious, in general) but were instead, atheists; it is quite unlikely that they would perceive it as a "symbol of hope and comfort." Thus, if our perception of the steel beam is inseparable from the tragedy of 9/11 as well as the cultural (in this case, religious) predispositions we have, if our perception of the steel beam as the cross of Christianity can override its (initial) purpose/existence as an internal architectural structure, then we must ask ourselves: is context all? And if context is all, does that mean there is no [absolute] truth? If that is so, then it is contrary to what Sartre said, "Existence precedes essence." Instead, as demonstrated with this issue, it appears that essence can supersede existence.

A relevant example with the "Ground Zero Cross" issue would be the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue, where a proposed Islamic community center two blocks away from Ground Zero garnered much attention by the media in 2010 and, correspondingly, provoked widespread protest for and against its building. The same conflict between Emotion and History seen with the steel beam relocation can also be seen with the mosque issue. The difference is that the WoK/AoK conflict is reversed: Emotion is, primarily, on the side arguing against the building of the mosque, and History is on the side for it. Critics of the proposed building cite that it is too close to Ground Zero and would be an insult to family of victims of 9/11, while supporters cite the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...). Essentially, what both issues demonstrate is the disagreement among people whether or not these issues conflict with the establishment clause and/or the free exercise clause. Does the government violate the establishment clause if it is complacent with the display of the steel beam in the memorial and likewise, if the government revokes the right of the steel beam to be displayed, does that then violate the free exercise clause? The same questions can be asked about the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue, although there would be less of a need to ask them because the proposed site for the mosque is not at Ground Zero, nor is it even on a partially government funded property but instead, on a private property. Alternatively, there is a potential issue pertaining to Language; the "Ground Zero Mosque" relates to the steel beam issue in the sense of how the media frames these issues. In other words, would there have been the same amount of controversy if the steel beam wasn't called the "Ground Zero Cross" or the mosque "Ground Zero Mosque"? Furthermore, it is questionable whether there would be as much controversy generated if the media had described the mosque as "two blocks away from Ground Zero" instead of suggesting that the mosque was at Ground Zero, and likewise, if the word "cross" was not substituted in place of "steel beam."

In light of all the points I've made, I acknowledge the historical significance of the steel beam and disagree with the emotional damages the American Atheists cite it causes; those emotional damages seem to be hiding the possibility that they are merely offended by the presence of the steel beam (I think they should've just stuck with the unconstitutionality of the steel beam if they were going to file a lawsuit). However, I am still unsure whether or not the steel beam should be included in the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, due to the national memorial being a partially government-funded property. A distinction should be made whether the steel beam is included for its historical value or its religious value, but it is difficult when they are the same thing. In that sense, the steel beam's historical significance is inevitable; it is perceived as a cross, or the cross (i.e. crucifix), and it is perceived as a symbol of hope and comfort by some in the aftermath of 9/11. Therefore, to include the steel beam may in fact suggest the government's endorsement of a religion, thereby violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. But that too, is arguably a matter of perspective.

References:
Elisa Gootman, The New York Times. Atheists Sue to Block Display of Cross-Shaped Beam in 9/11 Museum. 28 July 2011.

Wendy Kaminer, The Atlantic. Sectarianism, Deism and the Ground Zero Cross. 1 August 2011.

Reshma Kirpalani, ABC News. American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross. 27 July 2011.

Jon Stewart, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Culture War Update - The Dividening of America - American Atheists vs. Ground Zero Cross. 4 August 2011.

To ban or not to ban: the French and the face-veil

“In our country, we cannot accept that women are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of an identity.”

– President Nicholas Sarkozy, June 22, 2009

Last April, a law banning the Islamic face-veil (known as the niqab) came into force in France, which bans French Muslim women from wearing the face-veil in public spaces, which includes streets, schools, courts, and so on. Historically, France has always had a sizable Muslim population – in fact, one of the largest in the EU – estimated at 4.5 million, however; out of that figure, it is estimated that only 2,000 women wear the face-veil. The issue of the face-veil has long been contested in Western countries, as well as several Arab states, but France is the first country to enforce a ban on the aforementioned article of clothing. Supporters of the ban cite a) French protectionism of secular values and separation of church and state, which has already been seen in other laws such as the banning of all religious symbols in schools b) security concerns and lack of identification and c) the ban is aimed at liberating women who are being forced into wearing it by fundamentalist Muslims. Critics on the other hand, argue that the government a) is interfering with a citizen's right to practice his/her belief b) cannot regulate what people should or should not wear, and c) by enforcing the ban, is further stigmatizing the already-isolated minority as well as “disguising hostility towards…religion behind the pretense of liberalism.”

The main area of knowledge concerned with this real-life issue is, of course, Ethics. Ethics is defined as the collective set of principles held by a group of people and/or a culture; as with the face-veil issue, there is a clash between two distinct set of moral principles, one held by the state (i.e. the government and the majority of the people), and the other held by the religious minority. Should the majority in a society set the limits on what people can or cannot wear, or should exemptions be made for certain groups? In accordance with classical (interpretations of) democracy, supporters of the ban adopt a utilitarian approach, arguing that the majority do have the right to dictate what people should or should not wear for the greater good. In a recent Doha Debates organized by the Qatar Foundation, member of the French National Assembly Jacques Myard argued that the face veil is a “breach of the common will” of the French people, and that face-veil wearers exclude themselves from the common will “to live together” in a “common society.” That being said, how does one define “common will”? How ubiquitous does a particular moral standard have to be in order for it to be officially incorporated into the law? What happens when these moral standards impinge on the individual rights every citizen has i.e. the right to wear whatever one wants? Opponents of the ban argue that not only is the ban a flawed and heavy-handed interpretation of secularism; they also state that it goes against the “common” French adage of “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” (lit. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) that is supposed to protect a citizen’s equal rights of wearing a particular article of clothing, despite whatever the “common society” perceives it to be.

Thus, the issue at hand is the conflict of individual liberty versus the common, greater good, of egalitarianism and utilitarianism – an issue that has been reiterated throughout history. In the United States, for example, the Constitution allows for the creation of a federal government that aims to establish the law in order to protect the common good within the union, after the failure of Articles of the Confederation that proved to be too weak due to its emphasis on individual state rights. However, while there was a general consensus among the Founding Fathers about the lack of a central power, some of them were concerned about the “tyranny of the masses" in democracy, where the federal government may override the state rights and establish a dictatorial system. Thus, the Bill of Rights were proposed as the First Ten Amendments, thereby preventing the federal government from encroaching on sacrosanct individual rights, ensuring a balance between the common good and the individual liberty (though, there have been instances in history where this is not the case). Another more relevant example of this conflict is the issue of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian government absolutely bans women from driving (among many things), citing religious grounds and security concerns — having lived in Saudi Arabia before, the security “concern" is not about what the women would do when given the right to drive, but what the men would do to the women when given the right to drive. In short, the security concern is none other than a prevalent cultural norm disguised under pretense of security. Though the French would never go to this level of misinterpretation of the law (hopefully), here again is another example where the limit on women's rights is dictated by the "common will"; that an article of clothing, or the fact that women driving could somehow be (perceived as) a breach of the common, greater good. It seems to me that Khalid Hosseini, author of A Thousand Splendid Suns, was onto something when he said, “A man's accusing finger always finds the woman."

As for my own opinion about the French ban, I perceive that, underneath all the arguments being made for and against, the women don't have any real say on the matter. Sure, there are some women who are being forced to wear the face-veil, but what about the women who wear it out of their own free will? If they are really being forced to wear it, why do they have to be forced to remove it?

References:
Peter Allen, The Telegraph. French burka ban: police arrest two veiled women. 11 April 2011.
Angelique Chrisafis, The Guardian. French begins ban on niqab and burqa. 11 April 2011.
Carla Power, TIME Magazine. The Politics of Women's Head Coverings. 13 July 2009.