With religious symbols being installed at the new 9/11 Memorial and Museum, conflict was bound to arise. [For more on this story, you can Google it or check out this article]. The Mayor of NYC pointed out that religion comforted many during 9/11, and his opposition believes it's inappropriate mingling of church and state. I'm not looking to debate religion and politics, but this is a conflict with valid points and passionate people on each side. Either way, someone will not be happy with the result. And yet why should this be? Shouldn't remembering that day be bigger than a dispute about symbols?
In the article, I think it's interesting how the Mayor kind of hides behind history to justify including religious symbols. It's not like EVERYONE turned to religion on that day, so it' seems inaccurate to try to use this as justification. The symbols represent what a portion of society did. And memorials/museums do more han just re-count history. They are there to move people, provoke thoughts, reflection, etc. Further, I think he misses the point of why the atheists have sued. It's not about whether it was "right" to turn to religion. The overarching concern for them seems to be more about the co-mingling of church and state. Maybe the actual symbol doesn't bother them, but this co-mingling does bother them. And maybe it should bother more of us - is it a dangerous precedent?
And once again, the conflict ended up (1) in the courts and (2) in the media. How does this really help the conflict at this moment? Is this issue too big (i.e. too many parties) for an ADR approach?