Two days after the destruction of the World Trade Center a worker discovered two still-connected girders standing in the debris. As you can see in the powerful image above, the religious symbolism was obvious. It quickly became known as the 9/11 cross and served as a beacon of hope and faith to the rescue and construction workers at the site.

Exhausted and traumatized by his labors, the man dropped to his knees in tears. “It was a sign,’’ Frank Silecchia would recall, “a sign that God hadn’t deserted us.”

He had just helped pull three bodies from the rubble when he saw it there in dawn’s first light, standing in a sea of debris. A heavenly symbol in a hellish setting. A cross.

Later, it was announced that this cross, which had brought comfort to so many, would be placed at the 9/11 museum and memorial. So, of course, the atheists had a meltdown.

In 2011 an organization called “American Atheists” filed a lawsuit claiming that - since the museum was built with both private and public funds - the 17 foot cross was a deeply disturbing violation of the establishment clause. It was, they argued, “particularly” troublesome since it existed “without any accompanying plaque or similar item acknowledging that atheists were among those” who perished when the towers fell. They also tried to claim that their members had suffered “both physical and emotional damages from the presence of the beamed cross, resulting in headaches, indigestion and mental pain.”

The claim, which seemed to indicate that the members of American Atheists were indeed the weakest people on the face of the Earth, was immediately followed by demands that the oh-so-offensive cross be removed.

When their case failed in the lower courts, they took their cause to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. This time, they demanded that either the cross be removed, or that it be balanced out by a plaque commemorating atheists who had also died in the attacks. Their demands have now been rejected by the appellate court as well.

As CNN Reports:

A memorial cross at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York can remain at the newly-opened facility, an appeals court ruled Monday. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit found that the cross, located at ground zero, was “a symbol of hope” and historical in nature. It did not intentionally discriminate against a group of atheists who sued to have it removed, they ruled. The court also rejected arguments the traditional Christian cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state.

The decision makes it clear that the cross is as much a secular piece of history as it is a religious icon. As Circuit Judge Reena Raggi wrote in her decision:

“As a matter of law, the record compels the conclusion that appellees’ actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath.” In other words, the government shouldn’t deny the existence of religion when recounting the facts of an event. As the ruling states: “Thus, the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references. Nor is a permissible secular purpose transformed into an impermissible religious one because the government makes an historical point with an artifact whose historical significance derives, in whole or in part, from its religious symbolism.”

Just as a statue of Anubis in the Smithsonian would not qualify as the federal government establishing the pantheon of Egyptian Gods as a national religion, the inclusion of a cross in the 9/11 museum is not necessarily a government endorsement of Christianity.

You may or may not be thrilled with the court’s reasoning, but either way, the result is the same. The cross will be able to stay at the memorial, and the atheists have been sent home in defeat.

David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, claims that “There are no better examples of Christian privilege and prejudice in this country than this decision,” and his organization is currently deciding whether to appeal to a higher court.

.....Where they would most likely lose for exactly the same reasons.