Should there be a cross at the 9/11 Memorial?

by Roland Hulme

Atheists are demanding that a Christian icon is taken from the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks; claiming that such religious iconography is unconstitutional. Do they have a point?

Site of the inconic crucifix

American Atheists, a group of secularists trying to 'defend' America from religious overreach, filed a lawsuit on Monday to have an iconic crucifix removed from the 9/11 memorial at the site of the former World Trade Center.

The cross consisted of two intersecting steel beams taken from the wreckage of the twin towers; demolished in a terrorist attack in 2001.

"We will not allow the many Christians who died on 9/11 to get preferential representation over the many non-Christians who suffered the same fate," the organization wrote. "This was an attack against America, not Christianity, and Christianity does not deserve special placement at the memorial."

The lawsuit names the state of New Jersey, the city of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Chris Christie and the Franciscan monk who blessed the cross as defendants; and their aim is to have the cross removed.

While I can see the American Atheists making some pertinent points – like the fact that this is the only religious symbol at the memorial, and ignores the fact that many jews and muslims also died during the attack – the lawsuit seems to be more of a cynical publicity stunt than anything of merit.

Even with my attitude towards religion in America, I have no problem with a crucifix being present. In fact, especially since the cross was 'found' from the wreckage, rather than made, I think it's a rather touching and historically significant item to have there.

The atheist's lawsuit sadly distracts from what the 9/11 memorial is supposed to be all about, and badly discredits them as an organization. There are many areas of American civil society that religion needs to be purged from – schools, courtrooms and the legislature – but solemn places of worship are not one of them.

So as much as the fervent and conservative Christianity in America disquiets me, we need to remember that the Founding Fathers pledged freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and intellectually atheism is as much an unprovable concept (albeit a more sensible one) than any other form of religious superstition.

American Atheists need to pick their battles better in future.

Why kick up a fuss about this innocuous symbol when lawmakers in Texas are busy rewriting history books to better suit their interpretation of the Bible? Or when gays and lesbians are being denied rights because homosexuality is a Biblical sin?

This entire situation seems like another attention seeking stunt and that undermines everything the organization is supposed to stand for.

Mind you - while I support the cross remaining at the 9/11 memorial, I think Christians need to take a few lessons away from this legal drama themselves. For example, it's kind of an ironic situation that this legal challenge comes just a year after many conservative Christians were up-in-arms about whether a "9/11 mosque" could be erected a few blocks away from Ground Zero. Some of them are now left passionately defending their "right" to display religious iconography, even while they attempted to block another religious group from doing the same.

Hypocrisy is not a very Christian virtue. Just as atheists should better police themselves, this is a wake up call for conservative Christians to do the same.

Why Ronald Reagan was a crappy president

by Roland Hulme

According to many conservatives, Ronald Reagan was the finest president since Americans stopped wearing tricorn hats. The truth is very far from that.

Just for the record, I think The Gipper was a terrific guy - but it's worth being intellectually honest with ourselves about the effect his policies had on the American economy; and how they've led to the situation we're in today.

The most notable failure of Ronald Reagan's presidency was his outrageous spending. Reagan practically invented the current Republican economic policy of spending like a sailor on shore leave. During the Reagan years, public debt nearly doubled from 26.1% of GDP to 41%, while spending was higher throughout the Reagan years than at any time from 1971 onwards. Current conservatives call Obama an outrageous spender, but lets never forget that Reagan was the one who introduced the policy of government spending beyond its means.

Next, lets talk taxes:

Reagan is famous for "Reaganomics" and his policy of cutting taxes for the rich, theoretically allowing their wealth to "trickle down" to the middle and working classes. History has shown that this is an economically bankrupt philosophy; since it's the middle and working class who are actually more likely to spend tax cuts and stimulate the economy. The rich tend to save or invest their money in a way which keeps it out of the spending pool.

And while Reagan is rightly lauded for lowering the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% (personally, I feel any tax rate above 50% is unacceptable) he should perhaps be better recognized for not reducing the tax burden, but merely redistributing it.

Payroll taxes for the middle and working class actually increased during the Reagan years - and ultimately the federal share of GDP for tax revenue remained pretty much the same. The only thing that shifted was who paid it.

Reagan even introduced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982; the largest peacetime tax increase in United States history. Republicans are conspicuously silent about that one even as they harass Obama for tax increases he hasn't even implemented.

The fact is, President Reagan was the first president who understood that the U.S. economy was essentially a giant Ponzi scheme; and you could spend what you wanted and shift the balance onto the proceeding generation. Bush Jnr. tried to emulate that, flashing the federal credit card to pay for trillions of dollars of overseas military operations.

So you can say what you like about The Gipper - I particularly admire his open-mindedness about same-sex couples - but don't let's pretend that he was an economic genius, or his era was a golden one financially. The Savings and Loan crisis? The stock market crash of 1987? Lay the blame for those firmly on Reagan's doorstep.

Something needs to be done about the United States economy, that's for sure - but every time somebody tauts Reagan's name during the discussion, you know you're dealing with a nitwit.

Welcome to the Exchange Coffee House!

by Roland Hulme

The Boston Exchange Coffee House, inspiration for this website

Welcome to The Exchange Coffee House!

For several years now, I've been blogging on my own website, Militant Ginger, about news, politics and other topics. Just recently, I've begun to realize two important things:

• I never intended my blog to be strictly political, so it's never quite fit that niche satisfactorily
• I like the hubbub of other people's opinions, so would like to create a place for more of that to take place

That's why I created this site.

My intention is to publish not just my political ramblings here, but those of other like-minded thinkers. I want to create the 21st century, online equivalent of the bustling 18th century coffee houses that used to be the driving force behind the dissemination of news, political opinion and financial buzz in the days in which newspapers were still expensive.

Read my review of this terrific book here

I was inspired to take the name The Exchange Coffee House after reading Jane Kamensk's amazing history book The Exchange Artist, which recounted the building and burning of perhaps the most legendary example of this forum ever built - the Boston Exchange Coffee House.

Hopefully this one will fare better!

I would love to consider any and all publications to appear here. Currently, blog posts are not compensated (although that might change in the future) and must conform to some fairly loose editorial standards (which I'll explain later.)

If you want to join in, just email me at editor@exchangecoffeehouse.com.

Thanks so much for stopping by - and I hope to see you again soon!

Regards,

Roland Hulme