Taking that symbol of cathartic hope and making it a symbol of the event itself has got a new cheerleader this week:
Rep. Michael Grimm (R-SI) said he’s pushing for protective status for the interlocking 20-foot steel beams in response to a lawsuit filed by the group American Atheists, which argues a “Christian icon” shouldn’t be in the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
“This cross was a symbol of hope and freedom at a time when New Yorkers were coping with . . . the aftermath of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil,” Grimm said. He described the atheists’ opposition as “reprehensible.” [NY Post]
However, I think one of our commenters, “Jason,” on this article said it best:
To me this feels like something that really requires you to respect the conditions under which this form was erected. I can’t comprehend the feeling of being surrounded by dead bodies—being literally in the center of such an intense event—and having no way to express what you’re feeling in a way that anyone might hear. To see this form, find meaning in it (whether religious or not) and then erect it as a means of self expression is a viable way to work through the circumstances. In some ways this is more a piece of art than anything. And as art, it has numerous interpretations and is highly controversial. The second erecting of this as a memorial, may have unknown/questionable intentions. This is where it gets messy. The original was extremely expressive in just its angle. For instance, was it rising or falling? As art it left much to the imagination. The new vertical positioning and overall clean presentation seems to try to betray the original and attempts to be an answer and thus put an end to the original dialogue. It is no longer a culturally valued piece of civilian art encouraging a heated/ healthy public dialogue, but an economically valuable piece of corporate art diminished by a political board room dialogue.
Now you go….