I think the American Atheists need a new president

The following is a portion of a news report about a lawsuit just filed by the atheist organization mentioned in the title:

A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."

The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.

The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.

"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. 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," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.

The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'

The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.

It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.

Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.