Atheists opposed to Holocaust memorial design

[NJCubScouter]

Personally I think it is better if memorials like this are on private property and paid for by privately donated funds. That way it is up to those sponsoring and funding the project to decide what symbols to include or exclude, and exactly what and who are being memorialized. (I actually would make an exception for the one instance mentioned by jblake, I think it would be appropriate for the U.S. government to sponsor memorials for Native Americans, in light of the role of the U.S. government in there being something to memorialize in the first place.)

 

I did a little bit more research on the Ohio memorial, and found this article, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-approval.html, which states that the memorial itself is being paid for by private funds ($2 million worth) but that the site preparation costs (about $300,000) are being paid for by the state of Ohio. The site is on state property.

 

I believe that most memorials of this nature are completely private, though I have no actual sources to back that up. The article I linked to does say that this project will make Ohio the first state with a Holocaust memorial "at its Capitol", which is interesting, but there could still be such memorials supported by federal or local government funds, or by state funds in different locations. It is just my impression that the majority of these kinds of memorials are privately funded and on private property. And as I said above, if you have a private memorial (though open to the public), the private sponsoring organization gets to decide what the memorial is about, who gets mentioned on it, and what symbols (religious or otherwise) are appropriate. As soon as public property or public funding comes into it, the debate is thrown open to everybody, at least those within the jurisdiction that is sponsoring the memorial.

 

I suppose it may be relevant at this point to mention that I am Jewish and that my family was directly and severely impacted by the Holocaust.

[skeptic]

Once again I simply do not understand how this negatively affects anyone other than maybe their feelings. And if such a thing hurts your feelings, then that is your issue, not theirs. Certain people can be honored or remembered without others being dishonored by the memorial. If you are somehow dishonored, then you have greater emotional issues than will be fixed by disallowing the memorial. JMHO

[SSScout]

National Holocaust Museum in Washington DC was created by the US Congress, the National Park Service, President Jimmy Carter and more than $200million in PRIVATE donations... http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005782

It does deal with the "final solution" and mentions other genocidal episodes, but the Nazi death camps are its primary focus and a trip thru it's exhibits often brings visitors to tears, even if you don't read Hebrew or German. If Ohio wishes to aid in "Never Forgetting" , perhaps it is appropriate. But we should REMEMBER the others, too.

[Woapalanne]

First of all, the article makes no mention of atheists. However, the use of the Star of David was objected to by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. That is a foundation that works primarily with the isssue of separation of church and state (1st Amendment violations).

Uh, actually, the "Freedom from Religion" foundation works from a position of fiction. There is NO "freedom from religion" in the USA. It is freedom OF religion, a completely different and diametrically opposed concept.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

First of all, the article makes no mention of atheists. However, the use of the Star of David was objected to by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. That is a foundation that works primarily with the isssue of separation of church and state (1st Amendment violations).

Uh, actually, the "Freedom from Religion" foundation works from a position of fiction. There is NO "freedom from religion" in the USA. It is freedom OF religion, a completely different and diametrically opposed concept.

 

Neither phrase appears in the first amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

The FFRF uses "freedom from religion" in reference to the no establishment clause; the government cannot impose religious rituals on citizens, you can't be required to swear an oath, to believe in a god, etc.