a little factoid. the crosses in lv

[mopinko]

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

that is a dude from my hometown who decided that he would make those crosses for all these mass shootings. i dont know how many of these he has done, but i think he started w sandy hook.

he is staying w my niece out there.

eta- link to a news story w a little history.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/illinois-man-installs-58-crosses-to-honor-las-vegas-victims/ar-AAsY2NV?ocid=sf

i have asked my niece if she knows about the guys religious orientation.

[femmocrat]

1. I was wondering about them.

Actually I was wondering if all the victims were Christian and how someone would have found that out.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. It's the standard offensive assumption

that Christians tend to make.

[WinkyDink]

3. It's the giver's offering, not an assumption about the "recipient."

[Merlot]

4. There is an implication and an advertising opportunity in the givers "offering"

[Orrex]

5. Had I been a victim, such an offering would be a direct insult to me and to my family

There are countless ways to honor a death that don't include "Let me use your suffering to proselytize about my religion."

As is always the case, a certain species of Christian identifies someone else's tragedy as an opportunity to spread The Good News. Fuck that.

Fuck that.

I find nothing compassionate in it, because it always ignores the beliefs of the victim and instead allows the "giver" yet another chance to force their views on people

And when people object to such a grotesquely forcible insertion of one person's religion into another person's tragedy, the person who raises the objection is invariably scolded for rejecting compassion. For not graciously accepting this unwelcome witnessing "in its intended spirit."

Regardless of what the "giver" intends, this is the intended spirit: "I don't care about your beliefs or your loss while I use you to broadcast my faith."

Fuck that.

[WinkyDink]

10. And I thought I was cynical! Whew! I'm a lapsed Catholic, but if a Jewish person wants to pray for

me, he can have at it!

[Orrex]

13. Anyone can pray for whoever they want. But keep me out of it.

As soon as they tell me that they're praying for me, they have no choice but to accept my response. Otherwise, they're not praying for me; they're praying at me and for themselves.

My elderly neighbor tells me all the time that she's praying for me, when I've repeatedly told her that I'm atheist.

"Oh," she says, smiling. "You're really a Christian, inside."

Because I am a considerate and helpful neighbor, she simply can't comprehend how someone could live that way without being driven by fear of hellfire, or whatever.

But every time she says it, I hear very clearly that she has no respect for my views.

The same is true for "well-meaning" people who send "thoughts and prayers" or who are "praying for me" or who tell me that "God has a plan." Fuck all of that. It is meaningless to me, and if they respected me in the slightest, they would understand that it is meaningless to me.

Consider the reverse: how would the "well-meaning" believer react if I told them that "the universe is an uncaring void, and the soul is a fairytale meant to soothe the fear of death" immediately after they'd suffered a tragic loss? Only an asshole would do such a thing, because it would be obvious that I am ignoring their beliefs in favor of mine.

The same is true when they insist on telling me that they're praying for me.

[DLevine]

15. +1

[chowder66]

41. "..she simply can't comprehend how someone could live that way without being driven by fear.."

This is exactly what I hear from old friends that I've reconnected with and who have become more religious than when I knew them.
They asked how do I do it? Live without god and religion. I just tell them I live without a lot of things and religion doesn't own the market on morality.

[smirkymonkey]

18. One of the victims, a local woman from Tewksbury, MA, was a Jehovah's Witness.

They do not use the cross in their worship as they believe Jesus died on a simple stake, among other reasons. From their website:

"Many people view the cross as the universal symbol of Christianity. Although Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, we do not use the cross in our worship. Why not?

One reason is that the Bible indicates that Jesus did not die on a cross but rather on a simple stake. Moreover, the Bible strongly warns Christians to “flee from idolatry,” which would mean not using the cross in worship.—1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 John 5:21.

Significantly, Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:34, 35) Jesus thereby indicated that self-sacrificing love—not the cross or any other image—would identify his true followers."

[snooper2]

88. How did he get holy hands from a simple stake? Did they use it length wise?

[Orrex]

89. Maybe hands straight overhead?

Or maybe they pegged both hands and both feet with one long spike? It would be awkward, but their goal wasn't to maximize His Divine Comfort anyway, so...

[snooper2]

90. Or maybe it was like roast a pig style? One stick through both feet then through both hands

Guess that would work LOL

[mopinko]

19. i dont think he means that at all.

he is just trying to make the invisible victims of gun violence visible.
i can see how you could take it that way, but i dont think he has anything like that in mind.

[Orrex]

21. I expect that he does not, but he should be conscious of his choice of imagery

He could have chosen any of a zillion symbols, but he picked one that is unambiguously Christian in its meaning.

I applaud his effort to draw attention to the victims, but instead he is drawing attention to 58 crosses.


And, frankly, if I'd lost a child at Sandy Hook and he'd pulled this on me, I would have hounded him to the ends of the Earth for the rest of his days.

[mopinko]

22. aside from a tombstone, what other symbols are there?

[Orrex]

24. You've got to be kidding.

If his actual goal is to draw attention to the victims instead of to Christianity, then pretty much any other symbol would be more appropriate.

Pairs of shoes. Pairs of boots. Small mock-up guitars. Cowboy hats. Ticket stubs. Small figurines. Bricks. Stones. Just about anything.

Any symbol that doesn't point unambiguously to Our Eternal Lord and Savior, The Lamb of God Jesus Christ™, at the very least.

[mopinko]

26. the only one of your suggestions that is unambiguous, imho

is an empty pair of shoes. i dont see how the rest really represent a dead person.

[Orrex]

27. It would seem that any countable stand-in would suffice

Shoes? Fine. Better than an other religious token.

[mopinko]

29. it has been used effectively.

eyes wide shut, a traveling installation, was very impactful in protesting the iraq war. unfortunately, there got to be too many shoes and boots, and they couldnt keep it up.

[Orrex]

30. That was the one I was thinking of.

I seem to recall a similar tribute with fireman's boots, though I haven't Googled it to confirm.

116 shoes would seem a manageable number.

[Mariana]

44. How does a cross represent a dead person?

Especially a dead non-Christian person?

Orrex is correct. The crosses represent Christianity.

[Orrex]

67. No! No! No! Haven't you been reading?

I'm self-righteous!
I'm narrow-minded!
I'm intolerant!
I'm making assumptions!
I only want to fight!

This is apparently a purely good gesture, and to hell with anyone who objects. Hell, to hell with the victims and what they might want. The important thing is that we say "good job" to the guy who chose the most sacred of Christian symbols to represent the victims of a mass shooting.

[lunasun]

77. Here

http://www.graveaddiction.com/symbol.html

[rusty fender]

38. Agree

[Iggo]

64. Fuck that.

[lunasun]

76. If it is the same person I think he was asked to remove these some place in Chicago

[DavidDvorkin]

48. It's blind, narrow-minded, and deeply offensive.

[Hekate]

61. Like a lot of the posts in this thread. nt

[Orrex]

69. Especially those petty, passive-aggressive ones

[raven mad]

74. BINGO!

[Towlie]

7. I agree. The crosses don't actually carry any message other than to promote Christianity.

... or maybe to warn away vampires. Who knows what a model of a very cruel ancient Roman execution apparatus is supposed to represent? The "good news" that someone was tortured to death, I guess.

[WinkyDink]

11. It is "supposed to" (aka, does) represent sacrifice. Do you mock yarmulkes, also? You know, those

funny beanies? How about the burka? I could go on, but it's only Christianity that is allowed to be excoriated here.

Don't even.

[Orrex]

14. If it makes you feel any better, all religions are equally ridiculous to me.

Some are more directly harmful than others, but as soon as we get into supernatural belief, my response is a big, wet raspberry.

[Towlie]

17. Right, all "equally worthless", to quote Sgt. Hartman. But the subject here is Christian crosses.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/quotes/qt0475789

[WinkyDink]

42. Fine. IDC. I simply have my doubts as to whether you would also, here, in print, mock any other

major religion.

[Orrex]

70. Your doubt is irrelevant, and frankly my response is fitted to the situation

In my life, I have never had any religion forced upon me except Christianity (daily), Scientology (maybe a dozen times), and some flavor of feel-good New Ageism (fairly often, but with a more "whatevs" vibe). I have absolutely mocked all of them, at considerable length.

Not once in my many decades has a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian or any other person of faith simply assumed that I must share their faith or that I must be receptive to their proselytizing. If they had, then I would happily attack that faith as well.

You make the same mistake as other (more passive-aggressive) posters in the thread have made: you assume that I am picking a fight, rather than responding to an insult. You are free to misinterpret the situation that way, of course.

When Islam is shoved in my face multiple times each day, then maybe your doubt would have any significance. As it is, only one religion presumes to speak for the nation, so that's where my response is aimed.

[lunasun]

79. A Heart , small column for each , a flower (in this case forming a field ) , bird , butterfly

Crosses represent Christianity no argument on that I would think .

[Mariana]

45. The cross is supposed to represent sacrifice?

So how the hell is it's use appropriate here? These murder victims aren't "sacrifices". They didn't "sacrifice" themselves.

[NotASurfer]

6. I can appreciate the iconography

Sometimes it’s like watching a movie in a language you don’t understand, except so far as symbolism and interpreting the actors takes you. I think this is part of a dialogue among Christians trying to come to grips with the moral consequences of choices that got us here.

[Orrex]

8. That's fine, but the first priority must be to respect the victims and the survivors

A tragedy is never the time to make assumptions about the victims' religious beliefs, nor is it the time to coddle farwaway bystanders while they "come to grips" with anything. Let the bystanders comfort one another, and let us all comfort those directly affected. Our personal views--however deeply felt--are irrelevant to the needs of the victims and the survivors.

[NotASurfer]

9. Understood n/t

[WinkyDink]

12. And YOU would know "the needs of the victims and the survivors" how, exactly?

[Orrex]

16. I don't, and neither do you, and neither does the proselytizer in the OP. That's the point.

The proselytizer is assuming that the gift of a sacred Christian symbol will be welcome, regardless of the victims' beliefs.

That is the height of rude presumptuousness.

It may be that the victims were all devout Christians who welcome such forcible outreach. It seems more likely that some or all were/are not.

By presuming to force his gift upon the victims without knowing their beliefs, the proselytizer is demonstrating an explicit lack of respect for the victims.

[mopinko]

20. you are assuming. i dont think he is doing this out of christianity.

he is just trying to mark the idiocy of gun culture, nothing more.

[Orrex]

23. He's using unambiguously Christian iconography

If he's not doing this out of Christianity, then his choice of symbol is so catastrophically horrible that he should consider refraining from future gestures in the future, out of respect for victims past and future.

[mopinko]

34. it is ambiguous. as you can see from this thread.

not everybody agrees w your interpretation. ergo- it is ambiguous.

many people view it in a totally secular symbol.

[Orrex]

36. Right. Try this:

Take a dump on a crucifix in public, and see how many people seriously propose that it's not an attack on Christianity.

The symbol is unambiguous, the good people of this thread notwithstanding. The artist's intent is ambiguous, and that's what people are discussing.

[DLevine]

46. The cross guy is a right wing Christian.

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-cross-guy/Content?oid=914281

"Zanis cares about many things. He cares that the country is "losing God," that schools don't teach the Ten Commandments, that violence flourishes on America's streets because "chicken judges" won't "fry" the perpetrators."

[Orrex]

49. Oh, wait a minute!

I thought that I was being intolerant. Now I don't know what to think!

[WinkyDink]

43. You assume the victims and survivors share your opinion about the topic.

[Orrex]

50. That's twice you've tried to hang that lie on me

I assume nothing; therefore I don't assume that my overtly religious statement will be welcomed by people I don't know.

The proselytizer is assuming that his Christian display will be welcome. Why don't you tell him twice that he's making assumptions, instead of me?

[lunasun]

80. Not the first time . His 501c charity is aware and claims everyone accepts the crosses

He admits he's made "mistakes": "I've put crosses up for Jewish people. I've put crosses up for Muslims. But that doesn't slow me down." If someone points out the error, he goes back and nails a cardboard Star of David to the cross or replaces the cross with a wreath. But he assumes crosses bring comfort to mourners, no matter what their religion. "Crosses are accepted by everybody," he says. "That's the way I see it."

[Orrex]

82. Well, how about that!

I thought that I'm simply I'm intolerant and closed-minded. Now I learn that the proselytizer really is a presumptuous ass after all?

My senses reel!

[lunasun]

85. Reel this

In late 2002 Zanis planted a cross on the front lawn of a house in an Aurora subdivision called Stonebridge, where on Christmas day a woman allegedly shot and killed her husband and wounded her daughters. Zanis also printed 500 flyers and stuffed them in people's mailboxes. One side of the flyer invited them to a prayer vigil for their slain neighbor; the other was a pitch for his remodeling services.

The Stonebridge Homeowners Association was deluged with complaints, and the Aurora Beacon News published an article in which a pastor who'd helped organize the vigil said, "I find it very offensive that anyone would use such a painful and tragic experience to promote his own business."

Zanis didn't, and still doesn't, seem to understand what the fuss was about. He was quoted as saying, "I get attacked nationally. This is minor." Today he says his critics were "looking to gain publicity off my coattails."

That was 15 yrs ago though, and things have changed
He is a 501c charity now, so I don't think he can mix it with for profit business promotion anymore

[Orrex]

86. Golly! What a swell fella!

So... less an artist creating a heartfelt tribute to the fallen, and more a cynical opportunist who lives by scheming the system.

Goodness gracious! I'll need to reflect on what an intolerant, closed-minded jerk I am.

[Alea]

25. Traditionally, I don't think most people have a problem with it

[democratisphere]

31. To all that want to make this thread about YOUR religious beliefs or lack thereof.

The gentleman that made the crosses did it as a memorial to THOSE that lost their lives. This is NOT about you and your beliefs, so get over your self-centered selves. The memorials are about THEM.

[Orrex]

33. Of course it's not about me, but it's not about the victims, either.

In choosing his symbol, the proselytizer declared that it's all about him, deciding that the victims should be honored with Christian iconography.

If the victims' families have approved it, then it's fine. If they have not, then it was yet another in a very long-lived and very widespread wave of presumptuous Christian propaganda.

[democratisphere]

37. It appears to be all about your anti-Christian position; your intolerance of Christianity and it's

symbols. I'm a pagan have no problem with the memorial symbols. I don't see any family members of the victims taking down or removing the memorials. You might want to reflect on your intolerance for certain religions and their symbols; it is the cause of more wars than anything else throughout all of history.

[Orrex]

39. Well, think it through:

Imagine you're the family member taking down a sacred crucifix from the memorial to your fallen friend/loved one. You would be utterly destroyed in social media and scorned in traditional media. They would condemn you for exploiting your friend/love one's death for the chance to take a swipe at Christianity.

I'm a pagan have no problem with the memorial symbols.

Bully for you. I don't give a shit about anyone's religious symbols, either, until they're forcibly applied to someone without that person's consent.

You might want to reflect on your intolerance for certain religions and their symbols; it is the cause of more wars than anything else throughout all of history.

Yes, history abounds with examples of atheists starting wars over ubiquitous Christian symbolism.

[Hekate]

32. Apparently no good deed goes unpunished at DU. This is how Arlington West was begun, btw...

Amidst the protests against Dubya's invasion of Iraq, one carpenter in Santa Barbara nailed together a pile of crosses, painted them white, and made a "graveyard" on the beach by Stern's Wharf. It was a very effective sight.

You can google Arlington West, Santa Barbara and Veterans for Peace Chapter 54.

Stephen was not a vet, nor am I, but the local chapter of the VFP became involved and Steve continued to make crosses -- one for each dead American soldier in Dubya's stupid war. It was powerful, and we used it as a teaching tool, among other things. It led to a whole movement.

As the chapter secretary, I know the group eventually did discuss the issue of religion and religious symbols. I did not bring it up, but isymbols mean something to me, too: my personal religious journey includes Roman Catholic grandparents, practicing paganism/Goddess worshop, marrying into a Jewish family, and frankly is no one's business. By that point at Arlington West we were putting name cards on the crosses, and people had started to make pilgrimages to publicly mourn family and friends. Cindy Sheehan was one of those pilgrims.

But ultimately, here are my thoughts: what you are going for first is visual impact. Row after row of crosses signals: this is a graveyard. People died. A person who goes to all the trouble of creating it as a form of protest ought to be thanked and helped, not criticized for not being perfect. If helpers want to be totally correct, fine, but they better be prepared to do some research, because in America you can be anything.

Mopinko, thank the "dude from your hometown" on my behalf, will you? He's on to something.

[mopinko]

35. no kidding.

he puts little hearts of them, which i think makes them obviously secular.

i will send your thanks along.

[Orrex]

51. Show me the good deed

I am objection to an overtly religious statement made without the knowledge or consent of the people for whom the proselytizer presumes to speak.

What good deed do you imagine I am punishing?

[mopinko]

53. he has changed crosses when he found out people had other religions.

[Orrex]

56. I suppose that that's some passable damage control

It would have been nice if, you know, he didn't assume outright that people would appreciate Christian iconography.


Also, that point could have been mentioned earlier on, rather than 50+ posts in.

[mopinko]

59. hey, i had no idea it was gonna be a shit storm.

in fact, i thought it would sink immediately. i just love to see people's personal connections to big stories, and thought i would throw it in.
it wasnt even my intent to praise the guy, i just saw the way the stuff was piling up around the crosses and found it interesting.

didnt know that fact till someone else posted a longer story about him.

[Hekate]

62. Mopinko, there are days when this place makes me sick. This is one of them.

Bigotry and pointless narrow-minded self-righteousness are not solely the province of white Christian Americans, as has been made abundantly clear in many of the replies to your OP. I'm glad none of these folks came around when my friends and I were creating Arlington West.

[mopinko]

63. it's no wonder the trolls love it here.

the ability to make a shit storm out of a good deed.....

[Orrex]

68. You still haven't shown the good deed

You've shared the story about a Christian proselytizing his Christianity with the quintessential Christian symbol at the expense of innocent victims and with only a passing thought for non-Christians.

What's good about it?


Yes, it's easy to dismiss me as an intolerant and narrow-mindend troll, because that spares you the trouble of considering that maybe everyone doesn't care to sit quietly while the default Christianity--or religious belief in general--is foisted on us.

[mopinko]

81. from the pics i have seen of how the crosses grew into memorials,

i would say they gave people a focus for their grief, and a way to add their own sentiments.
they gave a clarity to the scope of what happened by enumerating and naming each one.

fine, you dont like it. if you had had a person who was killed and didnt want a cross, he would have taken that one down. fine. your point has been made.
i dont see the level of outrage as necessary here. but that's you.

ftr, i am a devout atheist myself. nothing will remain of me when i die, except the people that mourn me. i just hope to be remembered. so this doesnt really upset me all that much.

[Orrex]

83. Accusing someone of "outrage" is an attempt at deflection

The hope is that the accused will be distracted from the argument at hand and instead waste time explaining either that "I'm not outraged" or "I have a reason to be outraged."

fine, you dont like it. if you had had a person who was killed and didnt want a cross, he would have taken that one down. fine. your point has been made.

I trust that you've seen the multiple posts pointing out that the proselytizer is kind of an ass, right? That his "tribute" is in fact a deliberate statement of Christianity with only a grudging acknowledgement that others may not embrace The Good News?

I've posted nothing incorrect in this thread, and I stand by every word.

nothing will remain of me when i die, except the people that mourn me. i just hope to be remembered. so this doesnt really upset me all that much.

Well, that's up to you. You have a lifetime to make yourself memorable, and a post mortem proselytizer shouldn't exploit your death--or anyone else's--for the sake of his own religious proclamations.

[Orrex]

65. Boo fucking hoo.

I'm pleased that you found a way to make this about you. Go on with your bad self. If you stuck a cross on a non-Christian's grave, then you screwed up.

I also appreciate your simplistic condescension while you fail to understand what's actually being discussed.

By all means, play your righteousness for whatever crowd that will find it impressive.

[Orrex]

71. Well, if you only wanted feel-good responses, you should have mentioned that in the OP

You posted it in GD, so I figured that you were inviting comment.

Apparently not.

[Hekate]

60. All you want to do is fight. Nothing anyone has said in this thread has made a difference to that.

I have no intention of fighting with you.

[Orrex]

66. I'm sure that it's easier for you to imagine it that way

Instead, you snipe at me from the sidelines in true, courageous fashion.

Thanks, but it'll take something more meaningful than your smug indignation to persuade me.

[DLevine]

40. To answer your question, his religious orientation is Christian.

I found an old but comprehensive article about him at this link https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-cross-guy/Content?oid=914281

[mopinko]

47. my niece's comment

The entire process happens very fast when a tragic event happens. He is a Christian however his goal is for the attention to go to the victims and their families rather than the killer. While he would respect all religions it would take too long to get the victim information about their individual religions. It is important that ALL victims are included regardless of their religion. Everyone needs the love as we all know! Thanks for asking and feel free to pass this info on!

[Lars39]

54. Might I suggest a rose as something totally neutral for the next staging.

[mnhtnbb]

57. Probably more difficult to cut but certainly more appropriate.

[Orrex]

58. That's excellent

[Nevernose]

52. Weird hobby, but I appreciate the gesture

While on some cynical level I agree with the poster above, it’s not like the crosses say “Only Christ Can Protect You from Gunfire.”

I actually got dressed up for a memorial service yesterday and then chickened out. I knew the guy but wasn’t close and figured it would be a total circus. But I (sometimes) still go to funerals, even though I’m an atheist, because they’re not about my religious beliefs.

Although I secretly LOVE going to the funeral of an atheist with a super-religious family. Prayers and preaching and crosses, and the whole time I’m thinking “If this person WAS in heaven, she’d be sitting here with me making fun of this insanity.”

So please tell your niece to tell that dude that we appreciate the gesture.

[marybourg]

55. In a photo I saw, there was a large white Star of David

on the ground between two crosses, leaning on one of the crosses. Offensive, although I concede that the creator of the display meant well, but is blinded into insensitivity by his/her majority religious status.

[ismnotwasm]

72. Thats pretty cool.

It shows concern with handcrafting—and I always appreciate such things, whether it’s crocheted blankets, meaningful quilts, or meaningful symbols. We can’t erase pain, but we can show we care.

[raven mad]

73. Pretty awesome guy.

Has his mission; acts on it, and the news thing sealed it. I don't care what his religion is - he's a right guy.

[LanternWaste]

75. Those damnably benign and inconsequential acts

Those damnably benign and inconsequential acts will be the ruin of us yet.

[Orrex]

87. Of course, this deliberate act of proselytizing is neither benign nor inconsequential

Of course, this deliberate act of proselytizing is neither benign nor inconsequential

[greymattermom]

78. My thought

was that those cross displays used to be about abortion. Now pro life symbols are being used to protest gun violence.

[Mariana]

84. Cross displays are about Christianity.

There's a link upthread with an article about this guy. There can be little doubt that his goal is to promote Christianity.