What strikes me most about this "controversy" is the atheists' objections to two melded beams of steel pulled from the rubble of the collapsed Twin Towers.
This "cross" is not some Christian monument that was specifically constructed to memorialize the World Trade Center site. Instead, this specific piece of debris took on special meaning and significance for those who believe in the spiritual significance of the Christian cross symbol.
So when atheists sue to remove this "cross" from the 9/11 memorial, it leaves me puzzled. Unless you believe in the shape's spiritual significance and relation to Jesus Christ, this steel "cross" is nothing more than a hunk of metal debris. But instead, non-believing atheists seem to take offense not over the cross, but over the fact that people have associated it with their own religious beliefs. This is not what the First Amendment was intended for -- Americans enjoy a constitutionally protected freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The American Atheists' president makes my point for me:
“It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It’s a truly ridiculous assertion.”
When did filing a lawsuit on the basis of ridiculousness become a right? And if it is, in fact, then I'd like very much to counter-sue the atheist group over their ridiculous lawsuit.