NYC Mayor Criticized for Decision to Exclude Clergy From 9/11 Ceremony

[St_Francis]

Some of the victims of 9/11 were Moslem, so Bloomberg woulf have to invite a Moslem cleric if he invited those of other religions.

I can see why he wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. Can you see the headlines? Bloomberg invited Imam to speak at Ground zero…

But to exclude the first responders? First, some were victims, because they went into the buildings to rescue people! The other victims died, some valiantly and some herioically, but they were involved only because they happened to be there.

Fr Rutler described walking in NYC after the attacks. There were police and fire fights on their way to the site, and many of them stopped him and asked him to hear their confessions.

They went, they knew what they were getting into, that they were facing death and still they went. I am aghast that Bloomberg would exclude them.

 

[Hokomai]

A secular commemoration seems entirely appropriate, given the religious nature of the attack. Religious people (most of whom of course did not support or condone the attack) are free to organise their own events. Why should non-believers among the families of the victims be compelled to take part in religious observance? And if it is proposed that clergy simply be there - why clergy? Why not officials of sports clubs? Or aquarium societies? why is the event any more to do with religious officials than any other sort?

 

[ringil]

Some of the victims of 9/11 were Moslem, so Bloomberg woulf have to invite a Moslem cleric if he invited those of other religions.

I can see why he wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. Can you see the headlines? Bloomberg invited Imam to speak at Ground zero…

But to exclude the first responders? First, some were victims, because they went into the buildings to rescue people! The other victims died, some valiantly and some herioically, but they were involved only because they happened to be there.

Fr Rutler described walking in NYC after the attacks. There were police and fire fights on their way to the site, and many of them stopped him and asked him to hear their confessions.

They went, they knew what they were getting into, that they were facing death and still they went. I am aghast that Bloomberg would exclude them.

I don’t think people would mind an imam sharing and praying as muslims were killed in the world trade center. Some ignorant folks may fuss but that’s their problem.

If prayers were offered then representatives of many faiths should be involoved, even a philosopher for the atheists perhaps.

 

[Raskolnikov]

A secular commemoration seems entirely appropriate, given the religious nature of the attack. Religious people (most of whom of course did not support or condone the attack) are free to organise their own events. Why should non-believers among the families of the victims be compelled to take part in religious observance? And if it is proposed that clergy simply be there - why clergy? Why not officials of sports clubs? Or aquarium societies? why is the event any more to do with religious officials than any other sort?

Because memorial services and commemorations are. more or less, religious events in nature. This isn’t to say that atheists or agnostics can’t participate. But you must understand, as with funerals, this sort of event is a cultural or religious ritual. One might say it isn’t even particularly “rational.” So i think it does make sense for clergy to be present. Death, and dealing with it, is of course an integral part of religion. It is not so important to aquarium societies.

 

[Hokomai]

Because memorial services and commemorations are. more or less, religious events in nature. .

Are they? Who says? And even if this has been the case - why should it continue?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Are they? Who says? And even if this has been the case - why should it continue?

if memorial services are basically religious in nature, why shouldn’t they continue?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Because memorial services and commemorations are. more or less, religious events in nature. This isn’t to say that atheists or agnostics can’t participate. But you must understand, as with funerals, this sort of event is a cultural or religious ritual. One might say it isn’t even particularly “rational.” So i think it does make sense for clergy to be present. Death, and dealing with it, is of course an integral part of religion. It is not so important to aquarium societies.

good response!

 

[Darryl1958]

A secular commemoration seems entirely appropriate, given the religious nature of the attack. Religious people (most of whom of course did not support or condone the attack) are free to organise their own events. Why should non-believers among the families of the victims be compelled to take part in religious observance? And if it is proposed that clergy simply be there - why clergy? Why not officials of sports clubs? Or aquarium societies? why is the event any more to do with religious officials than any other sort?

I think this is a good time to note that we shouldn’t blame the religion of Islam for the attack.
And if not Islam, then surely not religion in general either.

Carrying evil in the name of good—in the name of God that is— goes directly against the one commandment that notes that God will not be so forgiving of anyone who does that. This makes what was done in the name of God here about as evil an act as there can be. There is no other commandments which uses such strong language against the possibility of forgiveness if they are broken.

But really, it is the same for the Christian as it is for the Jew or Muslim, and it is true for the non-believer too. This is not just a religious truth. It is a human truth. Slaughtering millions for the good of the State, or for the good of Woman, violates the same principle even for the secular minded people.

Looking up to God in the presence of great evil is what people do to restore their faith in life. For Moses it was getting the people to look up to the snake skewered to the stake in the desert. For Christians it is looking up to God himself skewered on the cross.
Religion gives us a language in which we can begin to believe in life again, in the face of great evil, in the face of hateful death.

If it is religious fanaticism that drove these young men to their nihilistic acts of great evil, it is also a fanaticism of a sorts that would deny the vast majority of Americans who believe in God a venue to heal and to begin to believe in life again.

I don’t much like this about the modern day atheists actually. Just because they do not have a clear language to help them cope with the incomprehensible, to transcend the overwhelming evil that is a hallmark of human existence, it is petty and narrow-minded to the extreme that they prohibit their fellow Americans from doing so at a cermony like this.

I can understand the disbelief in an age such as this. What I can never relate to is the low-minded pettiness.

 

[Hokomai]

I think this is a good time to note that we shouldn’t blame the religion of Islam for the attack. And if not Islam, then surely not religion in general either. … Carrying evil in the name of good—in the name of God that is— goes directly against the one commandment that notes that God will not be so forgiving of anyone who does that. This makes what was done in the name of God here about as evil an act as there can be. There is no other commandments which uses such strong language against the possibility of forgiveness if they are broken.

…

I don’t much like this about the modern day atheists actually. Just because they do not have a clear language to help them cope with the incomprehensible, to transcend the overwhelming evil that is a hallmark of human existence, it is petty and narrow-minded to the extreme that they prohibit their fellow Americans from doing so at a ceremony like this.

I can understand the disbelief in an age such as this. What I can never relate to is the low-minded pettiness.

Well, at the risk of offending you by being either low-minded, or petty, or both: the point is that these people did not think what they were doing was evil. Everything points to them thinking it was good. This should not surprise us - there are many examples of people thinking they were acting in line with God’s will, and doing things we consider evil, while remaining in good conscience. Some are described in the Bible.

How far does your inclusion of religion at the ceremony go - Satanists ok? Wahabi Muslims who supported the attack? Christians who think God allowed it because of lax sexual morality? Or do you assume that these will be religious leaders with whom you more-or-less agree? How about someone who thinks there is a God but that God is not interested in human affairs, and gets up and says so?

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, at the risk of offending you by being either low-minded, or petty, or both: the point is that these people did not think what they were doing was evil. Everything points to them thinking it was good. This should not surprise us - there are many examples of people thinking they were acting in line with God’s will, and doing things we consider evil, while remaining in good conscience. Some are described in the Bible.

How far does your inclusion of religion at the ceremony go - Satanists ok? Wahabi Muslims who supported the attack? Christians who think God allowed it because of lax sexual morality? Or do you assume that these will be religious leaders with whom you more-or-less agree? How about someone who thinks there is a God but that God is not interested in human affairs, and gets up and says so?

Your first comment about these young Muslims believing that what they did was endorsed by their religion and therefore something heroic is all the more reason why an imam should speak; that is, to show both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims that murder is not what Islam stands for, except for the fringe element, as in many other religions. Insofar as your second point regarding religious leaders who may have variant–or should I say deviant–views from the vast majority of clerics is concerned, I have a similar response: there will always be a minority in most any religion who have non-conventional ideas, some of them extremist. I would think that those who have views such as the ones you expressed might nonetheless have the decency themselves not to speak at this event, and would probably not get invited anyway. This ceremony is meant, after all, to bring a measure of peace and comfort to the families of the victims, and certainly not to cause them additional distress and anguish. That’s why it is called a memorial service and a commemoration.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think this is a good time to note that we shouldn’t blame the religion of Islam for the attack.
And if not Islam, then surely not religion in general either.

Carrying evil in the name of good—in the name of God that is— goes directly against the one commandment that notes that God will not be so forgiving of anyone who does that. This makes what was done in the name of God here about as evil an act as there can be. There is no other commandments which uses such strong language against the possibility of forgiveness if they are broken.

But really, it is the same for the Christian as it is for the Jew or Muslim, and it is true for the non-believer too. This is not just a religious truth. It is a human truth. Slaughtering millions for the good of the State, or for the good of Woman, violates the same principle even for the secular minded people.

Looking up to God in the presence of great evil is what people do to restore their faith in life. For Moses it was getting the people to look up to the snake skewered to the stake in the desert. For Christians it is looking up to God himself skewered on the cross.
Religion gives us a language in which we can begin to believe in life again, in the face of great evil, in the face of hateful death.

If it is religious fanaticism that drove these young men to their nihilistic acts of great evil, it is also a fanaticism of a sorts that would deny the vast majority of Americans who believe in God a venue to heal and to begin to believe in life again.

I don’t much like this about the modern day atheists actually. Just because they do not have a clear language to help them cope with the incomprehensible, to transcend the overwhelming evil that is a hallmark of human existence, it is petty and narrow-minded to the extreme that they prohibit their fellow Americans from doing so at a cermony like this.

I can understand the disbelief in an age such as this. What I can never relate to is the low-minded pettiness.

Honestly, a great post! And even a pro-life insert.

 

[Davina100]

I don’t understand why clergy should be banned.

By the end of the week after the attacks there was a service I think at the National Cathedral. Not only were politicians there but also leaders from many different faithes.

Of course it is proper that the emphasis being on the first responders, the people who lost their lives and their families.
But all of our lives changed that day.
Its a different world when NY has an earthquake and the first thing people think of is a terrorist attack. You wonder who you are sitting next to on a plane and white powder in an envelope can shut down a large business office. This has impacted us all.

What makes it so sad is that something that could be an event to bring us all together. Like everyone was on 9/12. Has to have some divisivness attached to it.

 

[Hokomai]

Your first comment about these young Muslims believing that what they did was endorsed by their religion and therefore something heroic is all the more reason why an imam should speak; that is, to show both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims that murder is not what Islam stands for, except for the fringe element, as in many other religions.

I can see that this would potentially have a good effect, but I would have thought the risks of being misunderstood were very high.

This ceremony is meant, after all, to bring a measure of peace and comfort to the families of the victims, and certainly not to cause them additional distress and anguish.

Would that not be what happened to the adherents of various religions and non-believers expressed thoughts and ideas with which they disagree? Or would the expectation be that the clergy of various faiths would so obscure their actual beliefs in a general niceness that this would not be noticed?

On the point about the fringe people being in a minority - are not all religions in the US in a minority? It is only by blocking disparate groups like Southern Baptists, Mormons, Salvation Army and Catholics together that you get anything approaching a majority. The groups I mentioned don’t even agree that the others are Christian.

I accept that they all agree that mass murder of innocents by terrorists is (at least in recent times) opposed to their beliefs, but just about everything thinks that, and religious people no more, and maybe rather less, than others.

 

[meltzerboy]

I can see that this would potentially have a good effect, but I would have thought the risks of being misunderstood were very high.

Would that not be what happened to the adherents of various religions and non-believers expressed thoughts and ideas with which they disagree? Or would the expectation be that the clergy of various faiths would so obscure their actual beliefs in a general niceness that this would not be noticed?

On the point about the fringe people being in a minority - are not all religions in the US in a minority? It is only by blocking disparate groups like Southern Baptists, Mormons, Salvation Army and Catholics together that you get anything approaching a majority. The groups I mentioned don’t even agree that the others are Christian.

I accept that they all agree that mass murder of innocents by terrorists is (at least in recent times) opposed to their beliefs, but just about everything thinks that, and religious people no more, and maybe rather less, than others.

You put me in a somewhat awkward position since I am for a certain degree of political correctness and sensitivity on religious issues. But I think you’re carrying PC a little too far. If we had a few clergy from different religions speak, why would that be so bad? I realize in a city like New York, we won’t be able to represent every religion and that there are atheists and agnostics as well. But I still believe everyone can appreciate the attempt at diversity of religious leaders, and furthermore their small speeches need not be in the spirit of evangelism, but rather one of healing. No, I don’t think all religions in the US are in the minority: on the contrary, Protestants taken as a whole as well as Catholics are in the majority. And even those in the minority, such as Mormons, Salvation Army, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews do not have religious positions that would produce discord at the service. But there are fringe groups who have viewpoints which promote hate rather than love. It is these groups I would not allow to speak.

 

[Hokomai]

You put me in a somewhat awkward position since I am for a certain degree of political correctness and sensitivity on religious issues. But I think you’re carrying PC a little too far. If we had a few clergy from different religions speak, why would that be so bad? I realize in a city like New York, we won’t be able to represent every religion and that there are atheists and agnostics as well. But I still believe everyone can appreciate the attempt at diversity of religious leaders, and furthermore their small speeches need not be in the spirit of evangelism, but rather one of healing. No, I don’t think all religions in the US are in the minority: on the contrary, Protestants taken as a whole as well as Catholics are in the majority. And even those in the minority, such as Mormons, Salvation Army, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews do not have religious positions that would produce discord at the service. But there are fringe groups who have viewpoints which promote hate rather than love. It is these groups I would not allow to speak.

I agree it would not be too bad, as you say. I just thought it was refreshing to think that people could get together around the thing that unites them - memory and sadness about 9/11 rather than things which divide them - especially religion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are they? Who says? And even if this has been the case - why should it continue?

Why shouldn’t it?

Besides, can you explain to me why it is ‘fair’ that those who don’t want to ‘hear’ a clergy person speak at a memorial have to have their (usually minority) view upheld. . .

while the majority of people who WANT to hear the person speak have to be denied?

it is not RELIGION which divides people. Really, it isn’t. It is people who ‘use’ religion, or mis-use it, or those who try to pretend it is something evil and divisive --who divide people.

If suddenly we were knocked back in time, or bombed into prehistoric stone age tribes, and somehow not a single Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or even spiritual person survived, not a trace was left of any Bible, Koran, Torah, church building, or any written or visual reference to any kind of god whatsoever, guess what? RELIGION would still survive and as those 'non spiritual people sought to make a living on the earth once more, they would FIND religion. . .because religion is our relationship to our Creator in how we live for others on earth. In striving to care for the few beings ‘left’ humanity would once again look into the eyes of their Creator looking back at them from their fellow men and women. God would not ‘let them alone and friendless’ but would, as always, be ‘there’ for them to find.

 

[jam070406]

I agree it would not be too bad, as you say. I just thought it was refreshing to think that people could get together around the thing that unites them - memory and sadness about 9/11 rather than things which divide them - especially religion.

They would be united around the thing that unites them, that we are creations of a creator.

 

[Hokomai]

They would be united around the thing that unites them, that we are creations of a creator.

Well, yes, they would be united around those word, but they would disagree about what the words mean. Some religious people, for example, believe we descend from Gods rather than are creations of them. They would also be united in this belief with every one of the 9/11 attackers and those who sent and supported them.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I agree it would not be too bad, as you say. I just thought it was refreshing to think that people could get together around the thing that unites them - memory and sadness about 9/11 rather than things which divide them - especially religion.

So all the victims were anti-theists then? Huh interesting…

Banning Clergy specifically from this ceremony is using his secular authority to promote this idea that you seem to share that it’s religions fault that 9/11 happened and so they shouldn’t be allowed near the memorial. The fact that you even tried to excuse it by saying religious people could make their own memorial elsewhere is segregation.

Also who says these Clergy need to speak? If they were just allowed to attend the memorial and provide their support to the faithful during this time then that would be more than enough.

Finally your comment on minority religions, why bar them either? If offensive groups like the Westboro Church tried to come in with their signs that say “9/11 was the will of god” then the police can kick them out (or hopefully arrest them) for disturbing the peace. The same could be said for other offensive cults like Satanism (the non-atheist kind) which is essentially a cult made to blaspheme and offend Christians.

 

[Hokomai]

So all the victims were anti-theists then? Huh interesting…

There are a great many things I have said with which you disagree (probably nearly all of them). There is no need to make things up that I did not say!

Banning Clergy specifically from this ceremony is using his secular authority to promote this idea that you seem to share that it’s religions fault that 9/11 happened and so they shouldn’t be allowed near the memorial.

I don’t know if it is ‘religion’s fault’, but I can say with absolute assurance that of there were no religion, all other things being equal, 9/11 would not have happened. It was an attack motivated by religion, and carried out in the name of the God of Jews, Muslims, and Christians. You can hear the attackers shouting His name on the tapes of the plane that crashed, as passengers herocially fought back. These are facts, and are not altered by saying that their religion is wrong, or not really Islamic, or that they were misguided. The facts remain.