Atheist Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby

[The Straight Story]

Atheist Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby
Victims' Family Wants Memorial Items Back

POSTED: 10:04 am EDT May 23, 2006

BOSTON -- One month after a car crash claimed the lives of a young woman and her unborn child, the woman's family said they are facing a new hardship.

Television station WCVB reported that part of the small roadside memorial along Route 62 to mark the crash site has been removed.

James Rousseau visited the memorial on Monday, just like he has every day since April 22, when a van operated by an allegedly drunken driver hit the car he was driving, killing his fiance, Katelyn M. DiSessa, and their unborn son. But now, Rousseau's grief has turned to anger, he said.

snip

The controversy revolves around the two crosses. The property owner, Bill Brodmerkle, who would not talk to WCVB, was quoted in the Sentinel and Enterprise of Fitchburg newspaper as saying, "I removed them because I am an atheist and I do not want any Catholic symbols on my property."

http://www.local6.com/family/9259485/detail.html

Rousseau said he was led to believe by Brodmerkle that the memorial could remain at the site for two months (two crosses, baby's first shoes, and a couple of other things).

The guy wants his items back but apparently Brodmerkle took them and buried them.

One can argue about a legal right and wrong here, but then there is a moral right and wrong as well. Perhaps he could have called and asked for the items to be removed, etc.

Will try to dig up more info from the other sources cited.

A lot more info here:
http://sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3856023

[Mythsaje]

1. Sorry, but that's just messed up...

I guess you don't have to be a religious fanatic to be an asshole.

[jobycom]

31. Atheists can be religious fanatics

Some of us are unconcerned about religion, others are religiously atheist.

[lindisfarne]

59. Read the other article in the OP; it will give you a different view of the

situation.
http://sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3856023

"I removed them because I'm an atheist and I do not want any Catholic symbols on my property," Bill Brodmerkle told the Sentinel & Enterprise Friday. Brodmerkle said he buried the cross in the backyard of his house at 414 Sterling St. He said he did not knowingly bury any baby booties, but the weather has been bad and he might not have noticed them.

Brodmerkle left a couple of porcelain angels, a wreath, stuffed animals and some now-empty flower baskets untouched. "I'm also regretful because the person made a forthright and honest promise" to remove the memorial, he added. Brodmerkle said he is open to returning the cross.

Brodmerkle said he had been promised the memorial would only stay up for two weeks following the crash.

[jobycom]

138. I had already read it. Gives me the same opinion.

He left the angels, but removed the cross. Seems rather dogma driven, to me.

[formernaderite]

327. I'm a proud atheist who's never been offended by a cross

anywhere. I couldn't give a shit....uh, neither do my kids or wife. We've never felt out of place or put upon by people praying etc. Heck, we pray too...to ourselves. As in please let me be able to ....blank, blank, blank. I often feel that some of my fellow atheists are going out of their way to start confrontations where none should be. Of course I believe in the separation of church and state...but until I see the state requiring me to attend a place of worship for cultural training and immersion...nothings going to bother me, least of all a cross on the side of a road as a memorial.

[BoneDaddy]

350. So true

We have fundamentalists of almost every religion and to some atheism is their religion. They become as dogmatic as the ones they decry

[proud2BlibKansan]

223. It is his property

There are those who will say it is messed up to erect crosses on someone's property without their permission.

Not that I agree. I just see both sides of this.

[politicat]

280. What part of private property is so hard to deal with here?

It's private property. I would get annoyed with someone putting a couple of crosses on my lawn, too. If some stranger died on my property, I can guarantee you that the LAST thing I would want to deal with is people trespassing on my land to deal with their grief. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but you know, a couple of million strangers die every day. I can't feel bad for all of them. I'd go crazy. And some stranger dying on my land would be something I would want to move on from and put behind me. The landowner didn't cause her death and shouldn't be forced to live with a constant reminder of weepy boyfriend trespassing on his land. EVERY . DAMN. DAY. I live off a busy street. A couple of speeding cars have ploughed through the privacy fence that borders my neighborhood. I wouldn't allow a shrine on my land for such an accident. Sorry if that's cold, but it's not my fault that someone drove recklessly.

Besides, if the dead woman was Christian (and with crosses, it would be silly to assume Hindu or Jaina, wouldn't it?) it's not like her soul is hanging around. There's no Christian doctrine for that. She's in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, but not hanging out with the other cornflake girls on Route 62. If the boyfriend wants to grieve, he'd be better off doing it someplace where he's not breaking the law.

For that matter, I don't like the shrines on public thoroughfares, either, because they pose a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians who use the shoulder as a transportation route, and to motorcyclists who can be seriously injured if they end up hitting one (after being hit by a car or sliding on water, ice or oil, for example.) If I have to detour into the traffic lane to avoid someone's roadside shrine, I'm a) breaking the law by entering the traffic lane, and b) putting myself at HIGH risk of becoming hamburger. Not everyone is in a car, after all. And protecting the lives of the living is far more important than enshrining the dead. That's why we have cemeteries.

Personally, I think the boyfriend is being just as much of an asshole. If you read the article, he has not even ASKED the property owner for the stuff. He just went to TV with it to demonize the allegedly mean, evil atheist. (The TV station is quoting a paper that the property owner said it was atheism that motivated the removals, but since the property owner is not speaking to the media, who knows what's really going on.) And if boyfriend hasn't even had the intestinal fortitude to ask the property owner what's up, how did he know he had two months to keep crosses there? Trespassing. Period. Dude, grow a spine and deal. And you know, if this had been a black, single woman from Southie, this never would have made the papers. It's the white woman from Leominster that gets this kind of press.

If that stuff was so 'effin important to the guy that knocked up the white, blonde, preggers, unemployed chick (they weren't married and she didn't work, after all) he should have taken it home. Duh.

And no, I don't care about the fetus. If it isn't born, I refuse to give it rights as a person. I just draw that line, sorry. Yeah, mean old reproductive rights protecting Pcat. That's me.

[BoneDaddy]

300. Wow that is some higher thinking

Not your problem huh? You sound like you should be in the freeper room with your ME logic. You wouldn't let a grieving family commemorate their loved one because you disagree with their religious beliefs? Sounds about as intolerant as the Christian right. You may be legally correct as it is "private property" but that rant above was morally bankrupt.

[politicat]

307. No more morally bankrupt than society forcing religious displays

on others. And forcing a person to accept a trespasser and the trespasser's goods, and forcing the person to accept the care of the trespasser's goods.

Let's say there's no death involved. Am I morally obligated to allow someone I don't know to build a commemorative cairn and plaque on my land to mark the place where Joey and Jenny first bumped pink parts? I don't know Joey or Jenny; they accomplished the deed some years before, and the land has changed hands since then. I would really prefer that I didn't know that Joey and Jenny had played at submarines there under my lilac bush, but it happened, and I cannot rid myself of that knowledge. However, I do not have to allow Joe and Jen to put up a cairn and bring commemorative sacrifices to it. I am under no moral obligation to do so and under no legal obligation at all. But if the society - not the laws, but the peer pressure of the society - felt that Joe and Jen should have their little rock stack o' love, and I still said no, thanks, keep your memories and how about some pictures instead? there'd be the same level of "Ah, just do it. It will make him happy. Its not doing you any harm, is it? Why wouldn't you?"

And the reason I don't want it is because I like my rocks where they are. I don't want them moved. Having it there may disrupt the ecosystem we built. It may be a trip hazard. Or it just may cause me vague feelings of unease thinking about Joe and Jen going at it in early 80s hair and makeup. (eek). And I don't want people coming to see the rock pile under the lilac tree. I cannot be forced to accept a trespasser or to care for goods abandoned on my property. These are ancient principles of the common law. Your shrine may be litter to me, and if your shrine has plastics, office paper, or waxes in it, it is toxic litter that I have to take special care with.

I don't go into your bedroom and trash your closet, throw around your sheets and swish your toothbrush in the toilet. I don't go in there and put a couple of Hindu texts and a Jaina pamphlet next to a crucifix. I don't set up loud music to start playing at 3:42 am. I leave your private space alone. You leave mine alone. That's the basis of property rights. It is not a Republican value or a Democratic value, it's a value of western culture. We leave each other's stuff alone, and if that is morally bankrupt, then what do you believe to be morally sound? Meddling in each other's affairs? No way is that kosher.

That's all the homeowner is asking of the boyfriend. To be left alone. The moral obligation is on both: on the boyfriend to treat the property owner's rights with respect and civility, and for the property owner to treat the boyfriend with appropriate sympathy for a difficult situation over which the property owner had no control. The property owner has done so, allowing a display that was personally uncomfortable to him to remain visible for four weeks, two weeks longer than originally agreed upon. The boyfriend has not held up his end of the bargain.

[U4ikLefty]

313. Damn, and I was gonna ask if I could "erect" a symbol of my love

for my girlfriend in your lilacs.

...but I guess not, right?!? ;)

[politicat]

346. Is it tasteful?

Sorry, yesterday was a CRAPPY day.

(When the payroll person quits the day before payroll is supposed to be filed, you know the world is out to get you.)

I'll take a concrete Venus de Milo....

[BoneDaddy]

349. Okay let's try to think rationally AND compassionately

You are not MORALLY obligated to do anything. You are certainly within your legal rights to deny anyone anything you want on your property. I am not talking about legal rights. I am talking about what is the right thing to do. And if there is any respect for anything anymore it should be for the dead and the suffering grieving. I wouldn't care if they were of any faith, I would let them honor it with a religious symbol. I lose a small block of my space, and they lost a child, a sibling a parent a friend. If you have any ounce of compassion for others suffering then you would see that to deny them that does something to your soul, spirit, ego, whatever you choose to call the self.
Do you have that right, sure, you do.
But in any moral society, it would encourage that type of sacrifice for one's fellow person. That is what society is, interdependent. You do not exist in some vacuum of ego where you exist without anything else. Other people are necessary for us to survive. We are connected to one another in ways we have yet to understand. From our basic needs to our more complex individual/group selves.

Disrupt the ecosystem? wow that was a dud. Not much of a punch there. Even so match up a family's attempt to deal with intense suffering vs. The ecosystem of rocks. What if they brought their own effing rocks?

You mix topics with the hope that if one seems ok, it will carry the other point...For instance you jump from someone commemorating a loved one's death to:
"I don't go into your bedroom and trash your closet, throw around your sheets and swish your toothbrush in the toilet. I don't go in there and put a couple of Hindu texts and a Jaina pamphlet next to a crucifix. I don't set up loud music to start playing at 3:42 am. I leave your private space alone. You leave mine alone"

Whoever said that I would allow such a thing? Not me. But sacrificing a small space outside and doing the things you mentioned above are two different topics. Of course I would not allow a circus to continue if it got that way. I could care less if a few religious items were left behind as long as it doesn't become a dump. I mean there is a middle road here that you clearly don't see. If people overstep onto my property without my consent or if they are causing a disturbance, then I speak to them with respect and if it continues, I call the cops... Public disturbance. What you started off with and where you led the story are too different things.

The last paragraph I am not too sure how to respond to, only because it seems to be the personal experience of the OP who goes off on homeowner/boyfriend weird vibe that sounds like a little TMI.

[politicat]

352. Why thank you for the lecture on living with others.

I'll file that one with my other things to do when Bush smokes pot with John Stewart on NBC. Here's my proverb in return: I am not the center of the world and neither is anyone else. We all have to take the little space we live in and live in it with every one of the other six billion people on this rock, and when I do things that infringe on other people's little spaces, I'm asking to have mine infringed upon, too. So this is my space, and that one's yours, and I leave yours alone. Do me the courtesy of doing the same back to me. (Not you specifically, but in general. I really do live by do as to others as I would have done to me, and one of the things I would never do to another person is mess with their private property. I value my space too highly to mess with the space of others.)

As for the ecosystem: Not everywhere is Illinois or Ohio or Downstate New York. In my part of the world, water is critical and in short supply. We use light colored rocks as a mulch around certain plants, dark ones around others, bark with ones that can't be hurt by bark beetles. We also have very thin topsoil (we're 3 feet above bedrock), it's mostly clay, and every bit of garden space I've got has been carefully nurtured, composted and cared for. It's not for nothing that this area is famous for bricks and pottery. So yes, in fact, moving rocks around in my garden can in fact disrupt the micro-ecosystem we have. I have an 80+ year old Gallica rose bush; she's well established, but roses can be persnickety. Changing too much of her micro-ecosystem (by, for example, disrupting her roots with coated wood or putting something that absorbs or reflects too much heat near her base) would make her sick and could kill. That genetic legacy is as important to me as someone's feelings. That rose bush cannot be replaced, either. Her genes are in the botanical library at CU, but she can't be replicated.

Then there's the fact that putting a religious shrine on my property is in fact putting something offensive to me on my property and forcing me to take at least some care of it. If nothing else, I'd have to weed around it at least 6 times in 60 days to combat the area's invasive, noxious weeds that would invade my garden. I am non-theist, and find the torture device that people use as a symbol of a religion that's supposed to be about love but is more often about hate to be deeply offensive. Angels and teddy bears do not offend me, and so I'd be okay with that kind of memorial. But for me, forcing me to look at a shrine every day that has no meaning to me, uses a symbol that offends me and is emblematic of a traumatic experience would be an excessive burden. It might be different if I had 45 acres and some gates and fences between me and the road, but I don't. I have a small, narrow lot (45 x 90) and my house with porch is 30 feet wide. There is no place on my property where I could ignore it; any accidents that would happen involving my property would put that shrine right in my front yard, within 10 feet of my front door. Regarding the original article, lots of lots in Massachusetts are even smaller than mine, putting the property owner in even closer contact with something that's offensive.

For those of us who have been in situations where our non-Christianity has caused discrimination, a cross can be a highly traumatic reminder of that discrimination. I can pretty much bet that every non-christian on this board has, at one time or another, been told we are not welcome in this country, or told that we are going to hell, or given what can only be described as an extremely high pressure sales pitch for the Church of What's Happening Now. Many of us made the mistake of going to a social event with a "friend" that turned out to be a pick on the unsaved heretical Christ-killer/Idolator/Witch/Demon-worshipper/Satanist. If you've never been in a locked room without a ride home, 5 miles from the nearest refuge, with 10 ranting people praying and crying and doing everything in their power to "save" you... well, lucky you. It's like putting a feminist in a room full of Promise Keepers or an Asian man at a Klan rally. If nothing else, the event is emotionally scarring. Sometimes, it's physically so.

So what's decent? I feel sorry for the survivor, I really do. He's being a jerk and needs some therapy (the survivor's guilt has got to be messing with his head) and he obviously has a need to turn some of his inner pain on others, and he's far too young to have the emotional security to deal with being a father, much less being the effective widower and father of a dead child. He's obviously not coping well. But his inability to cope and get through today without hurting other people (and that's really what he's doing; he's lashing out at whatever target is handy) is not a reason to hurt other people. He wants vengeance and to appease god - that's what shrines are, after all. They're a physical representation of the stage of grief called bargaining. They are a manifestation of the idea that performing a ritualized action will get the attention of a deity in such a way as to cause a miracle or ensure an outcome. It's not a good place to be stuck, emotionally. But taking vengeance on the property owner is misplacing the anger and grief. The property owner had nothing to do with his girlfriend's death except own the wrong deed. If the crosses hadn't been taken down, the survivor would have found some other reason to be angry with the property owner, or his parents, or her parents, or the person who sold the drunk the booze, or the therapist that hasn't managed to get the drunk driver to kick, or someone.

Grief's funny that way. It's about as rational as a saddle on a duck. And that's my root issue, I think. Letting this kid sit in the country of O-pity-me and blame others for not making the world revolve around him and his grief is not doing the kid, the survivor, any favors. Yeah, it sucks losing someone that close to you. It's the second worst feeling in the world. (The first is having to make the decision to turn off the machines that are keeping that person sort of alive.) Losing a partner AND a potential child in one fell swoop has to be even tougher. And walking away from the accident that takes your partner and potential child has to be close to hell on earth. But what's worse is choosing to live in that hell and not moving on.

The dead don't care what we do about, around, for or in memory of them. If they're in heaven, they are content and can't feel bad about what we do. If they're in hell, they have bigger things to worry about. Purgatory, same thing. Nirvana, content. Reincarnated, they're busy. Dead-dead? Not worried. Shrines are all about the living, not the dead. My personal feeling is that continuing to revisit a site or event connected with a death is more of a mental picking of the wound rather than a healing. But the bigger issue is who gets to decide? Is it decent and humane to inflict pain on another person in the name of memoria? And is it decent and humane to be callous to another's grief? No on both counts. That's where I get the feeling that both people involved are being jerks.

[BoneDaddy]

353. So now your are a grief counselor too

As for most of your post, I agree with some points and not with others.
You keep coming back to this idea that someone is "messing with your property" and I keep saying OVER AND OVER again that legally you have that right ....NO DISPUTE there, and I think that within reason allowing someone the opportunity to mourn the spot of their loved one is not a difficult request. You do whatever you want to afterall it is all about you.

As for a shrine being a reminder of your traumatic burden, give me a break. If it is that bad for you, it sounds like you could use the therapy.

Okay you know a little bit about the stages of grief, shock/denial, anger,bargaining, depression acceptance etc. Bargaining is a normal, healthy reaction to loss and not the pathology you make it out to be. It is necessary for people to work through theses stages. I agree that they should eventually work through them, but they are often necessary to work through. But I guess you expect people to be as enlightened as you are and should face life just like you. That's the funny thing about atheists is that their belief systems are often just as rigid as the fundies.
The ecosystem: of course there are specific instances in specific places where perhaps the ecosystem may be affected by the moving of rocks, but for reasonable people in most places that is NOT the case. You are just trying to find ways to justify your thinking.

[LittleClarkie]

2. I've seen this sort of thing annoy other atheists

Caused quite a scene on alt.atheism.

What's next, going into cemeteries?

[Scout]

154. exagerate much? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

224. Only if the cemeteries are on their property

[politicat]

282. Cemeteries are the place for this. Private property isn't.

Boyfriend hasn't asked for his stuff back and is being a jerk about picking things up.

It's private property. Boyfriend can have his shrine in the cemetery where all the other shrines are, and there's no atheist on the planet who will complain. That's what cemeteries are for!

Thanks for making such a broad overgeneralization. It's very good of you to identify yourself as an anti-atheist bigot so easily. Thanks again!

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. His property; his rules

What idiocy that he is called "the atheist" rather than "the property owner." I wasn't aware that religious sentimentality overrode the rights of propety owners. What next, the eminent domain seizure of atheists' property to build new mega-churches?

[LittleClarkie]

7. Oops, didn't see that he's the property owner. Of course it was his right

But calling it "religious sentimentality" isn't fair either. It's a matter of grief and memorial. Would the owner have had a problem with a teddy bear?

It was his right to remove the stuff if he didn't like it. But I suspect if you put a piece of coal up his ass, you'd get a diamond.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. I don't dispute that he could have handled the matter better

But when folks start whining about "moral rights" to force their religious sentiments -- and yes, that is how I see it, there is absolutely no need for a memorial on the exact spot except for religious sentimentality -- on those who do not share such sentiments is arrogant, at best.

[LittleClarkie]

20. I still wonder if we erased the religious symbolism

If it were say a teddy bear with flowers on his property to mark where the girl had died, would he, or we, still be reacting the same?

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. The logical fallacy of the red herring

He did not remove a teddy bear; he removed two religious symbols.

[The Straight Story]

108. But not the angels??

To me they are a religious symbol as well.

[LittleClarkie]

123. Those have been appropriated by the New Age movement

maybe he doesn't have a problem with that ;)

[The Straight Story]

132. Says who?

The person accepting it? Why an angel and not a cross? Seems confusing to me...

[LittleClarkie]

135. Eh. I was being facetious.

I dunno what this guy was thinking. It does seem a tad arbitrary.

[The Straight Story]

136. ah ok, sorry , my bad :) (nt)

[Leopolds Ghost]

164. Note how he "accidentally" destroyed the father's baby booties

Because "it was a rainy day" and besides, Massachusetts is a blue state.

Note the specific reference to "Catholic symbols". This asshole is either an old-line anti-Catholic WASP or a "reformed" ex-Catholic. I suspect the former, since the latter would realize that angels constitute a more specific symbol of Catholicism than the cross.

His alleged atheism is secondary to the issue of his intolerance, which could originate from the same sort of mental instability suffered by many "property rights" hermits in rural areas.

[Cobalt Violet]

297. He has the right to deem what is crap or not on his own land.

[BoneDaddy]

354. Absolutely

Legally the man is 100% in the right... morally, he is an asshole.

[jobycom]

36. He left several items, including religious, and only removed the cross

One of the articles says he left a wreath, a pair of porcelin angels, and some other stuff.

[Leopolds Ghost]

162. Would he, or we? whaddayamean we

Don't assume all Democrats are atheists like some (most?) people on this particular bulletin board.

I love how people are resorting to Republican arguments ("property rights!") to defend their own intolerance. Former progressives voting their pocketbooks, as usual.

[LittleClarkie]

178. Why would I do that

considering I'm a Christian Dem and all.

No offense was meant. Sorry if I was too inclusive in my word choice.

An assclown is an assclown, be he atheist or Christian.

I was mostly trying to point out that those siding with the property owner might not do so if the religious symbols were not present.

[Leopolds Ghost]

187. That's OK, unlike Brodmerkle, I can be an equal-opportunity jerk. :-) n/t

[Bzzzz]

243. Who cares...

his property, his right.

[seriousstan]

21. He allowed it in the first place and then became an asshole.

It said he allowed the display for the agreed upon 2 weeks and then took the crosses and buried them. That is being an asshole. He didn't dismantle the entire display but instead decided to "edit" it. Again, an asshole. As for burying the items instead of holding them for the grieving parents that he made the original agreement with....THREE STRIKES ASSHOLE AND OUT!

[LittleClarkie]

33. Now see. I should read the whole thing before reacting

Yeah, he should have objected in the beginning. And I stand by my comment that we could create diamonds with that tight ass of his.

[politicat]

285. Read again...

The Property owner allowed a display for two weeks. Boyfriend didn't pick it up at the end of two weeks, so property owner gave him two more weeks. Boyfriend STILL didn't pick up the stuff. Property owner was MORE than fair. If boyfriend really has been there every day like he claims, he had to know that he'd overstayed his agreement.

As for the shoes, it HAS been flooding in New England. Baby shoes weigh about a half ounce. They probably did wash away.

Oh, shit. I'm using logic. I forgot. Logic and religion and people's right to point the asshole finger don't mix.

[Ms. Toad]

122. Read the article...

>>Brodmerkle left a couple of porcelain angels, a wreath, stuffed animals and some now-empty flower baskets untouched.<<

[The Straight Story]

8. I think they used it because that was his reasoning

It was he who said it was his atheism was the reason to remove it, so they just picked up on that.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. I agree. That was my first thought.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. If he said he was a Baptist and opposes "popish nonsense" like shrines

I doubt very much the headline would have read, "Baptist Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby." But then, bashing atheists is perfectly OK in this country.

[The Straight Story]

43. Bashing everyone in this country it seems, even on DU, is fine

And that is ok too I suppose. There are some real christian assholes in the world - is it because they are christian they are that way? I don't think so - but the label is used all the time.

I have known, and been, atheists who were wonderful people. This guy though interjected his label into the whole thing himself. Much like when someone says 'I don't celebrate halloween because I am a baptist'

[Leopolds Ghost]

195. I should pope so. Ideally people WOULD be offended. Or anti-"pagan" nt

[Lerkfish]

11. legally I agree, if its his property, he should not have to have that up,

BUT and this is a big BUT, he could have handled it more sensitively to the bereaved family.

I say that regardless of religion, if it were a generic memorial and I didn't know the faiths of either one, I'd still say the same.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. I agree with you there

My objection has to do with the assertion of "moral rights" for the family to appropriate land that didn't belong to them for a religious monument that the land's owner did not want put up.

[Leopolds Ghost]

165. When did it become "progressive" to defend absolute property rights

That did not exist before Ayn Rand?

What if the (baby) shoe was on the other foot? If it was a Wiccan symbol and the owner was a Baptist "property rights" advocate, I can already hear how this discussion would be turned on its head.

[Scout]

291. I don't think a Wiccan would do what the fiance did...

at least not one who lives by the rede. I can't think of any of the Wiccans I know who would be so rude, even in mourning, as to abuse the good will of another person. The Wiccans I know certainly do NOT have the sense of entitlement that some of the Christians I know have.

[Warpy]

23. Exactly, and a memorial doesn't have to include a symbol

that a lot of non Christians find offensive: an execution device.

Wreaths and candles should do nicely.

[Leopolds Ghost]

167. What about those of us who find symbols of witchcraft offensive?

(I don't include myself in their number, just wanted to highlight the hypocrisy in all this. i.e. what if the baby shoes were on the other foot? What if it was a Wiccan and I was a Baptist? What if some - presumably non-atheist? - Americans actually refused to believe in the absolute property rights of the individual above the community?)

[Warpy]

208. Exactly why I suggested nonsectarian symbols

although I'm sure there's soem wack job out there somewhere who objects to Xmas wreaths as symbols of witchcraft, so you can't please everybody.

Still, a wreath or stand of flowers, ribbons, balloons, candles would all be acceptable to an atheist property owner who'd given permission for a grieving family's memorial...just not an in your face religious symbol.

[11cents]

40. It's not always about rights.

Sometimes it's about not being a dick.

Yeah, he had a right to remove the cross. Yes, he deserves scorn for having done so.

[elehhhhna]

48. Thank you. No building memorials on private prop w/o permission. duh

[lindisfarne]

51. Edit: read the 2nd article in the OP. It will make the situation more

clear.

He buried the cross after 2 weeks had passed (at which time it had been promised the memorial would be removed. He left up the non-religious aspects of the memorial. I'm not sure why he agreed to the memorial on his property but maybe, at the time, he felt he couldn't say no without being judged negatively, and later decided to risk the negative judgement. (I'm an atheist - we're regarded as worse than some felons by most of society. Surveys shown people are more likely to vote for a convicted felon than they are for an atheist for public office.)

(In reply to the OP's signature: Jesus doesn't exist, thus doesn't love me. Someone who may have inspired the biblical stories might have lived but is long dead (and rotted away and gone) by now. If someone says this is offensive, I presume you find the OP's signature even more offensive.)

A little more info:
"I removed them because I'm an atheist and I do not want any Catholic symbols on my property," Bill Brodmerkle told the Sentinel & Enterprise Friday. Brodmerkle said he buried the cross in the backyard of his house at 414 Sterling St. He said he did not knowingly bury any baby booties, but the weather has been bad and he might not have noticed them.
<snip>
Brodmerkle said he had been promised the memorial would only stay up for two weeks following the crash. The cross went missing on May 14, according to John Rousseau, James' brother. Brodmerkle left a couple of porcelain angels, a wreath, stuffed animals and some now-empty flower baskets untouched. "I'm sorry for the tragic accident," Brodmerkle said. "I'm also regretful because the person made a forthright and honest promise" to remove the memorial, he added. Brodmerkle said he is open to returning the cross.
http://sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3856023

[Leopolds Ghost]

170. Nope, read again, grieving father says 2 MONTHS

Living in one of the top ten most liberal small towns in America (according to a recent post here on DU) I have dealt with any number of professed atheists and "Eastern religionists" who are every bit as much assholes as this scumbag. My parents grew up in one of the most conservative towns in America and I know they have just as many "Christian" assholes per capita as the secular town in which I live. They are all motivated by selfish interests and use religion (theirs or other peoples') as a cover for their behavior.

And I know that statistically their are just as many right-wing religious PROPERTY owners who feel the same way (note that Jesus said not to own property, so I wonder what it says about all the upper-class yuppies that have taken over most "liberal" towns in America. Between them and the Baptists it seems to me there ARE no "shared values" a progressive can appeal to in America anymore.)

I've seen people destroy other people's stuff, not for religious reasons but for real reasons behind it (kleptomania, jealosy, greed, xenophobia, fear of other ethnicities) that motivate most "property rights" disputes (in this case anti-Catholicism motivated by the same sort of "reverse intolerance" that seeped into the 60's Black Power movement.) How would you like to have your dead kid's baby booties deliberately destroyed?? (don't give me what that guy said about the rain, I've had to deal with people just like him who were NOT atheists, but they WERE inveterate assholes and liars. I call 'em like I see 'em and the only way atheism (as opposed to simple anti-Catholicism) figures into this is that some people would defend this guy as a partisan in the fraudulent culture wars that are designed to distract us from the fact that genuine progressives have little in common with affluent, intolerant, property rights advocates.

[proud2BlibKansan]

225. I agree the guy is an ass

but why would you leave your baby's booties out in the weather like that? It seems to me that if they are all that precious, you would want to safeguard them.

[politicat]

288. If it were my dead kid's baby booties, I wouldn't have put them on

someone else's property. Duh!!! I'd keep them at home, nice and safe, not out in the pouring rain where they can wash away. (Baby shoes are REALLY light and it has been flooding in that area. They're likely in Boston Harbor with the rest of the effluent.)

Boyfriend is really being self-righteous, here. Yeah, he's grieving but grief doesn't mean stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if he's told himself it was two months because he's obviously not handling much of anything well right now. (And yes, I have lost a partner. When I was 18. I know what he's feeling to a greater degree.) The fact that boyfriend can't even be bothered to TALK to the property owner says boyfriend isn't exactly behaving well.

They're both being jerks, but the property owner is the one being demonized because he's not bowing to the majority god. If I called the boyfriend a dumbass, media-happy, litigious jerk who knocked up his unemployed girlfriend and then got her killed, it would be equally unfair, right? Even though they weren't married, she was well past "shotgun" marriage stage, she didn't work and he was driving and there was a comment in one of the stories about suing. (And if they'd been black, you never would have heard of this story. But she was white and pregnant, so she's a good distraction.)

On one thing we agree: this is a partisan snippet of a fraudulent culture war designed to distract us from real issues. But being a property owner has NOTHING to do with it. Property owner does not mean affluent and intolerant.

Owning a house doesn't automatically disqualify one from the Democratic, or for that matter, the far left. If it did, 60% of the Democratic party would have to leave.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

205. Just because he has a legal right to do it

Doesn't mean that he's not a total asshole for exercising that right.

[Clark2008]

207. That's my opinion. It's his property.

The woman's family should put a memorial up for her somewhere else - like maybe her favorite place or her grave or her home.

[democrat_patriot]

4. Just another battle in the 'War on Cristians'

Just wait till Bill O'Loofah gets a hold of this.....

It's the guys property he can do what he wants, but he could have been a little more tactful about it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

175. "Its the guys property he can do what he wants"

Under English common law as applied in 1776 (still active in nine
states), he could have shot him for trespassing. Ah, Anglo-Saxon
intolerance, upheld regardless of religion (witness Jeremy Bentham,
or the English Civil War.)

Of course, common law cuts both ways. Under common law that would
have to be considered public highway unless it was an enclosure.

This man could have a case against the property owner for highway
robbery despite the fact that the property owner was within his rights
to shoot him for trespassing under the very same "rule of law" that secularists like to jaw about (as an alternative to values based progressivism.)

[Bzzzz]

245. First, it's against the law...

There should be no exceptions to the law based on religious affiliation or sympathy for the survivors. In many cases the deaths of a close person are used as an excuse to shove religious symbols in people's face. They use the death of someone to proselytize. While this in itself is not illegal, leaving it on the highway is.

Second, there is no safety standard for the placing of roadside memorials. People place them where ever they want to. In some of the older parts of Europe, there are roadside memorials that tend to accumulate. That is, there will be several crosses with different years on them. This means that someone died on that spot and a memorial was placed there. While relatives or others concerned were visiting that memorial, they were also killed by traffic and thus a memorial was left for them. Darwin tends to remove stupid people from the gene pool first.

Third, roadside memorials are a hazard to traffic. Again, there are no standards for roadside memorials so people tend to put them up in any haphazard manner. These memorials can be blown onto the roadway by high winds, fall onto the roadway because of poor placement, design, or any number of variables.

If a driver inadvertently strays onto the shoulder, they may hit a memorial causing a tire to puncture. Punctured tires have caused many fatalities. There's no telling what can happen.

In order to effectively make this practice safe, money will have to be spent to research the most appropriate method to do this. Standards will have to be drafted. The government will NEVER allow people to leave their vehicles on highways to place roadside memorials or they will be opening themselves up to severe liability suits from all sides.

Fourth, this is a selfish act of an individual or individuals demanding sympathy. Everyone dies. That's part of life. Everyone has lost someone close to them, or they will. Most of us don't shove it in other people's faces. There are appropriate places for memorials, and it's not on the roads.

Fifth, imagine what the roads would look like if every person who died on the highway had a memorial. We'd be driving through a continuous grave yard. I'd rather enjoy the scenery rather than be reminded about someone else's grief. And what about other places where people have died? If someone has a heart attack in restaurant, should they have a memorial there? How about a mall? A movie theater? Sports stadium? How about inside an airplane?

At what point does it become appropriate to have a memorial? A good rule of thumb is when it is legal to do so.

There are plenty of venues where memorials are not appropriate, not just roads. Another option also exists, to place the memorial on one's own property. But then again, they really wouldn't be getting the same amount of attention would they?

[Bill McBlueState]

5. That headline will go a long way toward setting the tone for debate

DUers, being fair and objective, won't fall for this, but "Atheist Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby" will stir up a lot more shit than "Property Owner Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby."

[KittyWampus]

55. Property Owner Removes Memorial Crosses After Telling Bereaved YES

They May Put Memorial Objects On His Property And Subsequently Removed ONLY The Religious Symbols And Left Everything Else Non-Religious.

[Bill McBlueState]

70. they should hire you

to write headlines.

[PassingFair]

93. Property owner said they could remain for 2 weeks.

He did as he agreed.

It appears that the bereaved thought he had
2 months.......

[Leopolds Ghost]

177. If he was innocently burying the items out of respect,

After assuming the "agreed upon" two-??? period was over,

Why did he take his case to the media on grounds that "I am an atheist and I don't want symbols of CATHOLICISM on my property?"

In another part of the country, this guy could be anti-immigrant Christian attacking Hindus for leaving a "pagan shrine" by the side of the road.

(Keep in mind that in Anglo-Saxon founded countries, almost EVERYTHING seems to revolve around 99% of the land in your community being private. Where was the sidewalk??? Where was the neutral ground? Are people forgetting why she was killed - no sidewalk, no public realm where the guy could leave his memorial without fear of retribution???)

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

152. "DUers, being fair and objective, won't fall for this"...

... oh, how I wish that were the case. I really do.

Reports of a vengeful atheist removing memorial crosses.
Jesse MacBeth's fake war crime claims.
Stories about Iran forcing Jews to wear armbands/badges.
Posting about outbreaks of Morgellon's Disease, as reported by one website who exists only to promote it.
Jason Leopold's evidence-free claims of Rove's impeachment.

Those are just the ones I have noticed in the last two weeks. I'm sure there have been prior incidents of people glomming onto something that fits their world-view without critical thought and sadly the forecast looks like more of the same to me.

I apologise for crapping on your post which was probably trying to gently coax people towards a little critical thought.

[SidDithers]

213. Yup, critical thinking skills seem to be in short supply here...

I couldn't agree with you more. Why pay attention to facts when rightous indignation is so much more interesting?

Sid

Sid

[Bill McBlueState]

214. pretty much...

"...trying to gently coax people towards a little critical thought"

Yeah, that's what I was doing. But you are forgiven! :)

Completely understandable.

[MindPilot]

6. Methinks there may be more to this story than being reported

A few too many unanswered questions in my mind.

Route 62, would that be a state or county highway? How is that private property? What happened to make the property owner be such an asshole about it? I doubt if the guy would be that tactless without provocation. But maybe so...who knows?

[The Straight Story]

10. See the second link I posted, a lot more info there (nt)

[Bluebear]

25. For instance, she was pregnant. "Cross for woman, baby" is misleading

Horrible tragedy, but the child was unborn. It changes nothing except how the headline was meant to enflame.

Also. "Brodmerkle left a couple of porcelain angels, a wreath, stuffed animals and some now-empty flower baskets untouched." He evidently wasn't in the mood for having a cross on his property but did leave other memorial items alone, so it's not like he ran over the whole thing with a steamroller.

[The Straight Story]

44. Um, not really - in some states the Driver could be charged with 2 counts

of vehicular homicide/etc/whatever because she was pregnant. So legally, it was a baby as long as she chose to carry it. And apparently, at the time, the woman's choice was to carry it.

[Bluebear]

45. Journalistically, I would think "pregnant woman killed" is more accurate

I don't know 'how pregnant' she was. It doesn't matter, it is a tragedy. But this headline reads that an infant was killed.

[Bridget Burke]

65. She was 8 months pregnant & they tried to save the baby.

DiSessa was taken to Clinton Hospital where medical personnel tried to save the baby, but were unsuccessful, the police report said.

Rousseau was at the hospital when an emergency Caesarean section was performed on DiSessa.

"I got to hold him (the baby)," Rousseau told the Boston Herald. "He had a heartbeat when he came out, but then he died."

www.seacoastonline.com/news/04242006/south_of/99392.htm

I think, in this case, a baby died.

[Bluebear]

78. Thank you, the stories above did not point out 'how pregnant' she was. nt

[RB TexLa]

174. That's pretty much the whole country

Any action from an outside source and the fetus has standing in the legal system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

179. That just makes Brodmerkle a hypocrite.

Any common-law (civil court) judge would note that

(a) there was a verbal contract which plaintiff claims was violated (2 months not 2 weeks)

(b) Brodmerkle tacitly upheld the longer period of the verbal contract by removing some, not all of the items.

(c) in a common law state, anything unenclosed MAY be considered neutral ground, especially if there is NO sidewalk. (That's probably why the mother was killed, remember? Walking While Pedestrian.)

If so, Brodmerkle may be cited for destruction of property and detinue unless the items were considered "abandoned".

If not, well, property rights are absolute in this country.

Don't come complaining to me if you're an atheist and get shot at for walking on some Baptist's lawn because you were trying NOT TO GET KILLED walking in the road.

It's technically permissible to kill people BOTH ways in many states
so long as you aren't drunk. :cry:

[girl gone mad]

186. You're way over the top here.

Equating shooting an innocent pedestrian on your property to removing a couple of crosses?

Please.

Why should someone be forced to advertise for any religion on his or her own land? What if the deceased had been Bush supporters and the property owner was asked to put up a few Bush signs instead of crosses? Would you attack their removal with such vigor?

Roadside memorials are a safety hazard, anyhow.

[Leopolds Ghost]

189. It's a slippery slope either way when you get into "property rights"...

Because the Anglo-American definition of property rights is extreme to begin with.

To compensate for that, at least common law is similarly extreme when it comes to the rights of the individual on public land -- or at least the King thought so. :-)

Oliver Cromwell, a lawyer, made his name for threatening to kill a bunch of "King's Men" who were attempting to enclose (i.e. privatize) public land, a crime which in those days was equivalent to trespassing.

In at least nine states, you can still be shot and killed for trespassing without warning (pure Anglo-Saxon common-law) in most others, and on restricted Federal land, you can be shot for trespassing *with* warning.

The unfettered rights of the individual to deface public memorials placed on semi-private land (as opposed to simply putting them in a box and leaving a notice that they have been removed) flow from such wellsprings of jurisprudence.

So do not be too eager to deal out cross-burial in judgement. ;-)

[Cobalt Violet]

299. Rt. 62 is not a highway at all. It's a backroad.

It's just a simple country road.

[ContraBass Black]

9. Not nice to bury them, but it's his property.

Give me a moment to strap on my armor for the coming word war.

[NJ_Lib]

13. The guy does sound like a prick but...

... that is the beauty of America, you are allowed to be one without explanation... Especially if someone or something is on your property...

Two months is nothing to me, if it makes this poor family feel better so I would have left it alone but that doesn't matter one bit... Only how the owner feels in this case should count...

[Leopolds Ghost]

180. Common law says Brodmerkle could've shot 'im fer trespassing n/t

[johnnie]

16. The guy seems to be an asshole

Sure, it's his property and he has every right to take down the tributes, but he could have been a little more sympathetic about it. It goes to show that not only did God create assholes, non-god created them to.

[Leopolds Ghost]

181. LOL!

"It goes to show that not only did God create assholes, non-god created them too." --johnnie

[Momgonepostal]

18. Something I have never understood about this...

I'm sorry for the grieving family. I really am.

HOWEVER, why do they think they have the right to place a memorial on someone else's private property? IMO the property owner should not have to put up with someone else's shrine, religious or otherwise, for any length of time. Save it for the grave site.

I guess I'm an uncompassionate grump.

I do agree the property owner should have returned the items.

[seriousstan]

24. In the article it states that they had a mutual agreement of a 2 week

display. Nobody has made anybody put up anything.

[seabeyond]

41. personally i am having issue with driving cross country with crosses

guiding the way. i am seeing more and more of these crosses, and each one says death..... i already think about dying too much when i drive long distance. with more and more of these memorials popping up, it is really becoming too much. i think. respectfully to those that want to put them up to honor their lost child. that is in iessence what graveyards are for. also i use to send out love each one i would pass, but there were a lot less. now it is becoming a bit morbid. in the southwest anyway.

[CAcyclist]

64. Our streets are drenched with the blood of people who have died

since motor vehicles were first invented. I say it is high time we start reminding ourselves of the losses we , as a society, suffer in our addiction to our cars.

[MindPilot]

69. Nobody ever got hurt getting from point a to point b until...

cars were invented. Riiiight.

[seabeyond]

86. sure. and lets just retard our children with this kind of thinking

on just about anything. what morose ways of looking and living life. actually sounds like we are getting beyond living and more into death.... all the time. what a world we make for ourselves

[Leopolds Ghost]

182. Hear, hear. Would people say they are "sick and tired" of PBS Honor Roll?

Servicemen killed in Iraq, also due to our addiction to auto use,

manifested by the 99% of American "no blood for oil" anti-war folks
whom I see driving 4 blocks to the market in my community,

not all of which even has sidewalks - and I'm in an urban area!

[Ladyhawk]

142. Yeah, I have the same reaction. I don't like being reminded of tragedies

on a journey. Nearly everyone has experienced some kind of tragedy in life. Keep the momentos/shrines at home or in the graveyard.

However, here's a devil's advocate question: Could these shrines remind people to drive safely?

[Caoimhe]

42. I agree, I see them everywhere

and many times they are a danger. Here there is one spot along a reservoir where a man drove off into the water with 4 kids in the car (he got out but couldn't save the kids) the family put up four crosses. Within a week there was another crash as someone had slowed down SUDDENLY to look at the crosses and someone rear ended them. Thank god they didn't end up in the drink too, but it was close. The state took the crosses down as a safety thing. I agree, save it for the cemetery. Our highway right of ways should not be for memorializing those who died on them. It just helps more people die on them.

[Xithras]

77. One of my neighbors had a serious problem with this.

I live in a rural area, and we have lots of issues with city-people deciding that rural=public.

A number of years ago a 17 year old girl lost control of her car just up the street from me. Her car struck a power pole and she was killed. The car had slid off the roadway and about 10 feet onto private property on a farm. When the family came out to the crash site, they saw the oil and fluids in the dry dirt and figured out pretty quickly where she died. Within hours, a memorial had been erected on the site, complete with teddy bears, candles, and a three foot cross.

Now, the owner of the land is a very nice guy, and he was extremely sympathetic to their loss. Even though the memorial was right on the edge of his planted land (the back of the car knocked over several small corn rows), he let it stand so the family could grieve.

Two months later it came time to harvest, so he threw the garbage away and piled the cross and other stuff alongside the power pole, hoping that the family might pick it up. When he came out to harvest the field the next morning, it was all right back in the same spot again. Once again he moved the items, and he harvested his field. The next morning, the memorial was right back in the same old spot at the edge of the stubble.

Now the problems started. During the first planting he'd left a buffer between his field and the road, but for the second planting he needed to take the field out further...which meant disking the memorial site itself. Once again he pulled the stuff out, discked the ground beneath it, and later that day ran over it a second time to plant.

The next morning, not only was the memorial back, but the pricks had levelled his furrows, packed the ground around the planting site, and OILED THE GROUND. He called the police, filed a report, and the entire memorial went straight into his fire pit. He had to take his bobcat out there, excavate off the first foot of soil, and replace it with soil he dug up from elsewhere on the property. He then re-furrowed BY HAND, and replanted the disturbed area. An entire days work.

This time, he stayed up. About 9pm that night the father of the dead girl showed up to "fix" the memorial again. The father was so furious that he probably would have attacked my neighbor if he hadn't been armed. The guy was nuts, insisting that the land could no longer be used for farming since his daughter had died there. The guy ended up storming off, and swore that the memorial would be back.

Three days later the cross showed up AGAIN, only this time it was built out of 4x4's and the moron had sunk it in concrete in the hope of making it unmoveable. The bobcat made short work of the cross, and the damage to the field was repaired in an hour, but that was the end of my neighbors patience. The restraining order was filed that afternoon, and the order not only prevented the father from entering his property, but completely banned him from driving down our road.

Flowers still show up at the telephone pole on occasion, but that was the last of it. Some people just think that their right to memorialize their dead trumps anyone elses right to property or privacy.

[seabeyond]

92. what a story.... n/t

[beam me up scottie]

168. "CRAZED CHRISTIAN DESTROYS ATHEIST FARMER'S LAND ! ! !"

A hate crime if I ever saw one.

[Leopolds Ghost]

184. Yeah, that cross builder sounds like just as much of a jerk as Brodmerkle.

That's what happens when someone tries to claim exclusive use of a
piece of Mother Earth. :-) Sometimes it is the owner and sometimes
it's the other guy's turn to be an asshole.

However, that's why civil court doesn't always come down on one side or
the other. Is the property owner (farmer? shopping mall?) entitled, by
civil custom, to complete freedom not to be disturbed by the beliefs and practices of others in the community?

Sometimes (often) it does, because the non-property owner, figuring
he can do whatever he wants to the land, is a jerk. In this case the
non-property owner went so far as to "mark his territory"... with oil
instead of urine...

[shrike]

231. Oh my

Having come from a farming family I sympathize with your neighbor.

Grief does strange things to people -- especially those who've lost a child. It sounds like the girl's father was taking out his rage and grief on your neighbor. That said, it's a shame that such a patient man had to be the brunt of someone else's pain.

[sandnsea]

97. If crosses mean nothing

why are they so offensive to atheists? Or any other religious symbol. I don't get that at all. If he just didn't want stuff on his property, fine, but to remove the stuff just because it was a cross seems petty and juvenile.

[Orsino]

209. The property owner, presumably, doesn't wish to appear...

...as though he reveres the symbol. I understand that motivation completely, and therefore have even more respect for his decision to allow its display temporarily.

It seems like a good compromise that considers both the property owner's convictions and the wishes of the family of the deceased.

[alphafemale]

188. It is getting rediculous.

What if there were shrines EVERYWHERE someone died.

Restaurant booths where someone choked to death.

Public beaches where people drowned.

Jogging trails where someone had a heart attack.

Convenience stores where someone was shot.

Bought a new house?

You mustn't touch the cross in the shower where Gramma fell down and hit her head.

[lvx35]

19. This is based on fundamental disrespect for culture.

Its an important aspect of this, disrespect for culture is the bigger issue here. If a hindu, buddhist, mulsim or christian or freaking whatever died on my property by the road, no symbol they put up from their culture would bother me in the least...Its just a matter of respect.

[Demeter]

105. Strangely enough, Hindus, Muslims, and Atheists Have NO Need

of ostentatious public grieving symbols on other peoples' property.

[lvx35]

119. Oh the GALL of those Christians! How DARE they leave flowers and crosses

at the place where a LOVED ONE DIED! The gall of a family greiving the death of a BABY to do such a thing, can you imagine????

[Demeter]

137. It's the Sense of Entitlement

That bane of narcissic personalities--overweaning sense of importance, crushing anyone else's expectations of rights--is a characteristic of the imbalanced.

[dysfunctional press]

148. no, i can't imagine...

what do they think...that the place where the death occured is somehow "hallowed ground"...? aren't the whole reason for cemetaries is to have a place for a memorial to a person? is there any good reason that these stupid displays have to be plastered over our roadways, left to slowly rot away?

[Leopolds Ghost]

197. As long as they don't leave an actual gall bladder at the memorial, I'm OK

Strange rituals.

People the world over put up temporary shrines on private property as memorials. I think it's intent (i.e. cross-burning vs. death of a loved one) that matters.

If Blodmerkle had been of a certain religious persuasion,

he could've argued that the grieving family had set the "EVIL EYE" on him with their religious symbols and he had to ward it off by burying the offending mojo. Best of all, the story would not have been that different!

[Cobalt Violet]

301. And the Gall of that atheist for not wanting that crap on HIS land!

[Scout]

155. "I don't care whose beliefs it is."

this quote from the Christian "victim" ... yet the property owner/atheist is the one with no respect for culture, yeah sure.

[trotsky]

216. Ha!

Great catch.

[Leopolds Ghost]

196. Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans etc. DO put up memorials, indeed.

And as I recall people deface them on a regular basis.

Where do people suppose all those candles in culture shops come from?
Diyala the festival of lights? I'm waiting for an atheist to shoot a
Baptist for defacing a Lit-Up Pentagram on his neighbor's property so
we can have a real popcorn-fest.

:popcorn:

And don't mess with those Hindus, they'll douse your cross
with fermented milk instead of gasoline... You will stay Far Away.

Does this indicate that the guy who poured gasoline around his wife's memorial cross (to mark his territory) actually worships oil?

[Ravenseye]

22. Legally and Morally fine

His property, he was full in his rights to do what he did legally.

Nothing saying that a little makeshift shrine is the morally correct thing to do, and if you're doing it by tresspassing on someone else's property I'd say it might actually be imoral to put up the memorial.

Still the guy is obviously a dick. I'm a nontheistic agnostic and I don't want religious symbols on my property, but if this had happened, I'd let the guy have it there for at least a few months, and then when it's done collect the stuff together and keep it for him, or let him know it's time to take it down.

It has nothing to do with laws or morals. It has everything to do with just being a nice compassionate human being and understanding and helping someone who is suffering.

What a prick this guy must be.

[The Straight Story]

26. He allowed it to be put there:

Brodmerkle said he had been promised the memorial would only stay up for two weeks following the crash.


and:

Brodmerkle left a couple of porcelain angels, a wreath, stuffed animals and some now-empty flower baskets untouched.

http://sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3856023

[Bluebear]

28. He allowed angels, a wreath, stuffed animals & flowers to be displayed

You may think he's a prick, but he just did not want a cross included.

[The Straight Story]

34. Odd though why he did allow them at first

If they were that offensive he should have said - no crosses, but angels and bears ok.

[Bluebear]

39. I dunno.

Personally I would have let the thing stay up for a few weeks as he agreed to. On the other hand, if I were the family I would like to think I would respect his property and not run to the media with this, but I know their nerves are raw.

[The Straight Story]

47. Moral of the story:

Don't piss off someone who just lost a loved one (or two in this case) by worry about a few sticks in the yard. When I lost my mom I know I was not in my right mind for a while. Still ain't at times :)

[NJ_Lib]

29. That is the beauty of America... You're allowed to be a...

... prick and not owe anybody an explanation why... Especially if they're on your property...

[Ravenseye]

32. Yup you sure are

He's got a right to be a prick and I've a right to call him one. Beautiful country.

[Cobalt Violet]

305. We have a strong tradition of that in Massachusetts.

Hence the "Masshole". I think some people are missing how that unique Massachusetts cultural tradition is very much in play here.

[Demeter]

30. I've Seen So Much Abuse of "Sensitivity" Lately

I think the arguments against the property owner are out of line.

If somebody wants to pick a dirty fight, "sensitivity" is the tool to triumph over all other considerations.

People who WANT to be victims are often too "sensitive" to live with.

[fishnfla]

99. "People who want to be victims"???

I dont think the lady chose that spot to die, all and all,nor would her partner want her dead .

How could they want to be victims ?

[Demeter]

104. The "Victim" Is The One Who Insists On Appropriating Another's Property

for a "memorial". We have graveyards for that, in-home shrines, if you must. Private property? I don't think so. Not unless you buy it from the owner who is paying tax on it for the dubious pleasure of owning it.

[fishnfla]

240. Yes, I see, property rights trump everything

including useless things like breathing, living and loving. If the gentleman is "too sensitive to live with" perhaps it would be better that he be dead too.

[papau]

35. Mass law says first 6 feet next to road is not your property - so there's

a question about rights. Even if not on his property it is "state" that has property rights - and I do not see how relative has any rights.

In Mass you have an absolute right to dispose of anything found on your property.

If actually on private property, a claimed oral contract to leave the memorial up for 2 weeks is not enforceable.

There is no obligation to look for owners or return anything.

That said, the property owner is an asshole.

[Xithras]

57. Are you talking ownership, or ROW?

Out here in California, for example, the state has a legal right of way to access any property within 25 feet of the centerline of any roadway. They don't OWN the property, but they can access it for the "public good" as necessary as long as they don't permanently deprive you of use. It's usually used for burying pipes, laying sidewalks, and that sort of thing. It's not "state" property, simply property the state reserves a usage right to.

[papau]

68. I am an actuary - one of my daughters is the lawyer in the family - but

I have both an easement for the first 20 feet back from the river to allow the Parks people access to remove dead trees that block the river, and I have no right to the last 6 feet of my property where there is tar put down by the city along with dirt where I have planted, knowing that the city can pull my plants at anytime. There is not now an easement on the front of the property, but the city could easily force an easement for a sidewalk at anytime.

[RebelOne]

37. I am an atheist, but I do not see any problem

with a person memorializing their loved ones.

[BurtWorm]

50. On his property. That's the issue.

I probably would have consented to the family having their memorial as they wished, as long as it wasn't permanent. I don't care about symbols. But it's not my property.

[PassingFair]

83. How long would you want that cross on your lawn, Burt?

The accident happened on April 22.
They had agreed to let it stand for 2 weeks.

He took it down on May 14. At least two weeks.
I wouldn't want a cross on my front yard, not
for 10 minutes.

Too KKK for my blood.

[BurtWorm]

85. It was the front lawn? He let it stay up for two weeks?

Then this is about as non a non story as you could hope for from the local news.

I don't know how far my tolerance would stretch. I would resist having my front lawn turned into a religious shrine, once its purpose as a memorial zone has run its course. Two weeks seems about the outermost limit.

[PassingFair]

91. Interestingly....

"Brodmerkle said he had been promised the memorial would only stay up for two weeks."

The victim's fiance thought they had agreed to two months..


The obviously correct thing to do is to let Rousseau
put up a memorial on the drunk driver's property!

[BurtWorm]

94. Where did the guy pull the two months figure from?

I'd venture a guess, but it wouldn't be polite. ;)

[PassingFair]

96. Sounds like a simple misunderstanding....

but REALLY, doesn't the bereaved have bigger
problems to focus on then his makeshift "memorial"?

GET THAT GUY A GRAVESTONE ALREADY!

[PassingFair]

79. Why do we only memorialize car crash victims?

If my dad dropped dead in a public park, should I go plant
a "memorial" on the spot? How about in front of the house
where my Uncle died?

Cemeteries are where you mourn your dead.
Or PLEASE do so on your own property.
I wouldn't DREAM of asking a neighbor to
allow me to put religious artifacts up on
his front yard....

[BurtWorm]

87. You make excellent points.

I have a high threshold for other people's idiosynracies. But if they're being idiosyncratic in my face, then fuck 'em.

[Vinca]

38. What a stupid thing for this property-owning atheist to get his

panties in a knot about. It gives the rest of us atheists a bad name. Mother Nature will eventually remove the memorial and by then maybe it won't be needed by the person trying to cope with a loss.

[Jara sang]

46. These road side memorials have gotten out of hand here in Hawaii

At one of them the family cleared away a section of rain forest and cut down a beautiful tree fern. They have moved in a picnic table a all sorts of little knick knacks. There is a place for memorials, it's called a fucking cemetery. This shit is ridiculous.

[The Straight Story]

49. In our case - the memorial is at home

In dad's basement, with mom's ashes and a wall of photos. We all make things when the mood hits us and take it over and dad places em there and leaves em.

I ain't one for roadside ones. But I still think the guy was just being a dick about it :)

[MindPilot]

61. I do the same thing--I have a little shrine for my dad over the fireplace

Had I put a memorial at the exact spot of his death, it would make it difficult to continue to use that room for surgery.

Makes much more sense to have it in my house--I don't have to drive any place to see it.

I do have a little bit of a problem with the ad-hoc roadside memorials. Sometimes they pop up in front of the liquor store where the drive-by took place. To me it looks like self-aggrandizement; "Hey look at me! I'm mourning! Everybody! Feel sorry for me! I suffered a loss! Me!

While I can certainly sympathize with your loss, don't shove it in my face like that.

[Gold Metal Flake]

56. There are more and more of them.

On the road sides. Most bizarrly on the backs of cars and trucks. Those "in loving memory" stickers on truck and SUV windows.

It just seems to be more than grief. It seems to be specifically for others to see. "Notice my grief. My grief is more important than anything going on in your life". It's seems more ego than grief.

[Jara sang]

60. Agreed, I'm waiting for the contest judging who has the best memorial.

[Gold Metal Flake]

67. Seen any with tip jars yet?

A contest sounds like a great idea. Imagine the industry that will spring up to support it. It'll be like monster trucks or child beauty pagents of southern fundy TV ministries. There will be special cross paints and sealers and waxes, special tall candle votives with UV-resistant caucasian Jesus faces, special long-lasting, fade resistant flower stes with flashing LEDs, solar-powered name plates with embeded MP3 players. The winners will recieve a week for two in Maui and will appear on the cover of Obvious Grief magazine.

[The Straight Story]

88. On the flip side of that

Such memorials can, and do, make people stop and think a little bit. There is one on a bridge near my house - we have a lot of folks walking across it daily. Is a reminder to me to slow down just a bit and pay more attention.

[BurtWorm]

52. The headline's a bit provocative, ain't it.

Sells papers, don't it.

[MissB]

53. He was an ass.

He had every right to remove the items, even if they didn't offend his atheism.

However, he was an absolute ass for keeping the items.

signed,
missb
an atheist

[IdaBriggs]

54. Premarital sex and a "bastard" child but its the ATHEIST with "no respect"

for this guy's religion?

:sarcasm:

[charlie]

62. Lol

Hunker down, I see a mother of a donnybrook in your future :D

Removing the stuff was a bit tacky, but burying them is just plain freakish. They weren't radioactive or crawling with Catholic cooties. The guy's just a mean old grouch.

[IdaBriggs]

103. I am evil, aren't I?

Sometimes one simply can't resist stating the obvious -- especially since we so rarely do it anymore! :evilgrin:

But I have to agree -- the property owner should have called if he didn't want the display up anymore, and baring that, he should have just put it aside for the grieving folks to come collect later. This was a tragic event, and a little empathy for whatever "comfort" others can find in symbolic things was not a high price for anyone to pay.

Then again, my sense of fair play does come in: disrespect for the faith of the "atheist" is fairly rampant, and the automatic assumption by the majority of people is that it is the ATHEIST who must "tolerate" what can be perceived as "disrespect" for his values. I am reminded of an old vegetarian friend who once complained that his meat eating social companions showed no respect for his values whenever they brought fast food or pepperoni pizza into his home; while I could see his point of view, as one of those meat eaters, it definitely made socializing there for any length of time a tad ... awkward! :)

[onenote]

71. isn't he the one who described himself as an atheist?

If he had described himself as a property owner who didn't want crosses on his property, it would be one thing. But he's the one that explained his actions in terms of his atheism, so the emphasis on that in the headline/story makes perfect sense to me.

[Scout]

153. best post in this thread!

:woohoo:
:applause:
:toast:

[CAcyclist]

58. I'm an atheist and the crosses don't annoy me in this context

I am much more interested in doing anything to remind people that motor vehicle collisions cause people to DIE. I think there should be a legal right to erect some sort of memorial on sites where people died in collisions.

[Jara sang]

63. More litter on the highways. Yeah, good idea.

[Gold Metal Flake]

72. You meanie. You obviously don't understand the importance...

...of forcing your personal life onto someone else. With all the distractions of this modern world, we must build these shrines and make them larger and larger to get you to notice just how more important we are to you. Our loss has made us special, and you must be forced to notice. Why, it ought to be a law, and when that fine President Bush finally takes control of this nation from the godless commie pinko fags he will make that law and you will be forced to notice our superior specialness.

Does this help? :sarcasm:

[MindPilot]

66. Why specific to car crashes?

Would you paint a cross of the floor of every room in every hospice where someone dies from cancer or AIDS? Maybe the window of the liquor store should have a little symbol for every one of their customers who died from liver disease?

I don't think anyone needs to be reminded you can get hurt in a car; the seat belts, padding, and air bags make that idea pretty darn clear.

[Gold Metal Flake]

75. Can these be back-dated?

I've decided that shrine supplies are a legitimate growth sector. I'll start a webpage and kill some more Canadian forests with catalogs of shrine crap from China.

Man, fun thread! :-)

[Bill McBlueState]

76. actually, to have the roadside littered with distractions

-- especially distractions involving a lot of three-inch-high, emotionally charged text about "in loving memory ..." -- is likely to result in more accidents.

[Cobalt Violet]

320. I'm an atheist and they bother me a lot.

I'm all for what the property owner/atheist did. He may have a very good reason to not want this Catholic symbols on his property. No one knows his background with the Catholic Church but for quite a few of us it is most unpleasant. It's too easy to judge other people's motives when we really don't know what they are.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

73. Some Athiest are very passionate about their religion

And some are pricks about their religion, be it Christians, Buddist, or even Athiest.

But what else is new? You take any group of people, and there will be some assholes in that group.

[lindisfarne]

74. People aren't reading the 2nd article in OP - it gives a very different

perspective of the situation.
http://sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_3856023

(DUers are forgetting that much of the media has a bias - in this case, the first article in the OP didn't get the whole story, perhaps due to an overabundance of anti-atheist bias.)

[Bluebear]

80. But, but, the first article is so much more sensational!

He's a prick, he's this, he's that.

He allowed them to put a shrine up, he just did not want crosses.

[Ian David]

81. What's next? A right to BURN a cross on someone's lawn?

Still, it sounds like they DID ask permission first.

[Marr]

82. I didn't realize you could just annex other peoples' property if

someone you know dies there.

I don't mean to be an asshole, but you don't go erecting shrines on other peoples' property. Put it in a cemetary.

[The Straight Story]

95. Did not annex it, asked permission and got it

Read the second link for more details.

[Marr]

100. I did- but apparently he also promised to remove the memorial after

a couple of weeks. He didn't.

I completely understand why he didn't- I'm not a *complete* asshole. I mean, the man was grieving. If the property owner had only contacted him and asked him to remove it, perhaps he could've avoided stirring up so many passions.

However, it *is* his property, and he can remove those items any time he likes.

[AllieB]

84. I drove by a memorial on Rt 16 in Everett (also in MA) where

a 16-year old was killed by a drunk driver a month ago. There were photos, flowers, wreaths, stuffed animals and a giant sign "A DRUNK DRIVER DID THIS". But no religious symbols, though the girl killed had an Italian last name, so they were probably Catholic.

[Nye Bevan]

89. He is fully within the law and has every right

to behave like an immature, insensitive asshole.

[tammywammy]

90. Just my $0.02

Between the two articles, the first says that Rousseau thought that the memorial could stay up 2 months and in the second article it says 2 weeks.

Regardless, when they asked if they could put up a little memorial, the property owner should have said "no crosses." Secondly, instead of burying the items, the owner should have just called Rousseau or if he just really didn't want the crosses anywhere in the vicinity of his home, given them to the local police to pass on.

But really, this whole situation could have easily been nipped in the bud at the beginning if the property owner just said "no crosses."

Also, I do agree that these markers have become a little too much recently. A simple cross or flowers is one thing, but I've seen some on the side of the road that are distracting to me while I'm driving.

[Spider Jerusalem]

98. As far as I'm concerned, he was perfectly within his rights.

If he told the family that they could put up a temporary memorial for two weeks, and they let that span of time elapse without returning for the items as they originally agreed to, he has the right to take the stuff and bury it, throw it away, or burn it. At that point, it's abandoned, and it was quite tolerant in my opinion to allow these people to put this up ON HIS PROPERTY in the first place, even temporarily.

And the dead woman's fiance, whether bereaved or not, sounds like a bit of a fuckwit. 'How dare he remove those from his own property! I don't care what his beliefs are, or that I agreed it was only temporary, I'm pissed off anyway!' And the bit about going with police to retrieve items...so, he'll leave them lying outside, in the weather, to rot into the ground, on someone else's property (after agreeing originally that they'd be removed WEEKS ago), but if the property owner gets rid of them (as he is, again, within his rights to do), this guy's going to go with the police to get back the things he essentially abandoned there? What a fucking moron. And that bit where he says that if the property owner had contacted him, he'd have come and gotten it? He said he'd get it two weeks ago. His obligation to do so, not that of the guy who's lawn it's on to remind him.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to memorialise your dead loved ones, there are these things called 'cemeteries' that are actually INTENDED for the purpose.

[BurtWorm]

101. And then he runs to the media to make a Jerry Springer circus out of it.

The guy needs grief counseling.

[Mojambo]

106. Agreed. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing this guy called a prick

For being accomodating and living up to his end of the bargain.

The guy went beyond what he legally was required to do. He's got NOTHING to apologize for, IMO.

[The Straight Story]

107. Perhaps he deserved it some

He did not have a problem intially with the crosses - and then suddenly he does not like them?

He had no problem with a memorial - even said he left some of the stuff there. Beyond the time frame he mentioned.

Seems a little odd....

[Mojambo]

114. I wonder if it was made clear that crosses would be a part of the memorial

It probably was, although I can envision a scenario where he agrees to let them put a memorial up (perhaps expecting a cross to be included, perhaps not.) After it gtets put up he sees the cross and is uncomfortable with it, but decides to live up to his end of the bargain for the agreed upon 2 weeks.

Then at that point he immediately takes down the portion of the memorial he finds offensive.

It's also possible that he didn't realize that he would find the inclusion of the cross as offensive as he did when it was finally put up. In any event he lived with the bargain and shouldn't be called names for doing so.

[BamaLefty]

102. What a douchebag.

Goes to show you that radicals exist on both sides of the aisle. Damn, why can't we just all get along?

[progressivebydesign]

111. Would you really want a memorial on your front lawn? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

171. The "douchebag" didn't want a shrine on his property-how is he a radical?

Goes to show you there's Bill O'Reilly types on both sides of the fence.

[NashVegas]

220. He's An Idiot

First, a simple cross is not a Catholic symbol - that would be a crucifix.

Secondly, the cross as a symbol of spirituality pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years.

If he doesn't want a shrine on his front yard, that's his right. But his reason for not wanting it is based on the same ignorance as the Judeo-Christians who claim ownership of the symbol.

[dysfunctional press]

109. Good for him!!

i get totally sick of seeing those stupid "memorials" popping up everywhere there's been an accident, like all of a sudden it's hallowed ground- it ISN'T.

if people have issues to work thru, let them do it in the privacy of their ownhome- but not on public, or other people's private property.

[The Straight Story]

113. see post 112

and others on this.

[dysfunctional press]

115. since you know so much- what were the exact terms of the agreement?

all i saw was one guy saying that he "...was led to believe..."

that's hardly "agreed to it".

get your facts straight, and then let us all know what they are... :hi:

in the meantime- i think that all those stupid roadside memorials are really tributes and rotting reminders of just how many superstitious & weak-minded people exist in the world.

[progressivebydesign]

110. Putting a memorial on someone's property is wrong...

the man who owns the property didn't kill the woman, why should he have to look at the crosses every day when he comes home? I'm give someone a month.. tops.. if they had a roadside memorial, but it's about personal property. I really am not a fan of roadside memorials, which are all the rage in the past few years. That's what they have funerals for.. a place to visit your dearly departed. Not on someone's front lawn.

[The Straight Story]

112. Cause he agreed to it?

:shrug:

Two weeks for a cross and such, and then all of the sudden it is an issue?

[Mojambo]

116. He agreed to it and lived up to the deal.

At the end of the two weeks he was quite right to take it down.

He was very accomodating.

[NYC Liberal]

117. Yes, because the agreement was that it would remain for that long.

The crash was April 22, he let the 2 weeks pass without making a fuss and finally removed things on May 14.

The guy lived up to his end of the agreement, so the only person making an issue here is the fiance.

[Beaverhausen]

121. He agreed to 2 weeks. We are now a month past the accident

this is stupid.

[trotsky]

217. Why do you keep wanting to blame this guy for doing something wrong?

Just curious.

[SPKrazy]

118. What A Prick!

I say he is a shitty asshole

Yeah it is his property

He buried the cross and left the other stuff?

He could have called the guy, who is probably devastated by grief!

What a prick!!!!!!

Thank God I have the right to call the asshole prickster what he is!

Peace

[Mojambo]

125. Yeah, it's a good thing your religious faith doesn't prevent you

from calling people asshole pricksters.

A lot of faiths kind of look down on that.

Lucky break for you!

[SPKrazy]

129. You're Right, My Faith Doesn't Preclude Me From Saying What

I want to!!!!!


God isn't offended by swearing

fuckin' a!

what are they? words?

only puritanical religions object

[Mojambo]

131. Not into the whole 'turning the other cheek' thing then?

That's cool.

It's your faith.

[SPKrazy]

139. Turning The Other Cheek

doesn't mean bowing down and denying anger. Do you think Christ was turning the other cheek when he threw the tables over in the temple?

It means that I can say what I feel (as my faith doesn't preclude anger since it is a natural human emotion) on message boards, and I can treat people in real time (non-virtual) like I want to be treated myself

since:

a. this person hasn't identified themselves as being a DU'er, then I can call him a prick, or whatever the hell I want to call him without being in violation of DU rules, therefore I am harming no one by venting my frustration at the sad state of affairs we have when shit like this happens.

b. if this person were a DU'er I would not be ranting and raving, but I would question why they didn't try a little harder to work it out since the gesture of burying the cross seems more an anger over the widower's beliefs, than anything else.

Anything else?

I will treat my fellow DU'ers and those in real life with respect.

And I will vent my frustration at assholes in the virtual world who do stupid things just like I have.

[Mojambo]

141. Do you think Christ was turning the other cheek when he threw the tables

No, but I bet there were a few people there who remarked,

"What a prick!"

Just kidding of course, but I thought it would be funny to close this out by bringing things full circle.

One other response

"but I would question why they didn't try a little harder to work it out since the gesture of burying the cross seems more an anger over the widower's beliefs, than anything else."

Or perhaps he was disposing of garbage that was left on his property longer than the agreed upon time? The guy did his best to accomodate these folks, they didn't take care of things so he did. He has some rights to assert as well.

I think the guy acted reasonably.

[SPKrazy]

143. Why Did He Leave Some Things, And Bury The Cross?

that's the stickler for me

He could have just put all the stuff together in a box, or something, but burying the crosses seems like it was just to make a point in anger.

I'm sure the guy who just lost the woman and the 8 month gestation baby is a little lost.

I could be all wrong

and I bet the tax collectors did say "what an asshole"

and it wasn't long before the powers that be killed that asshole either.

but that's another story

Peace

[Mojambo]

149. Perhaps the idea of a memorial didn't bother him

But he found the crosses a bit much to handle?

He'd be perfectly justified in wanting to be rid of them at the earliest possible time.

And when the family wasn't able to meet their end of the bargain he disposed of the offending items. Could he have set them aside in a box for the people? Probably, but it's not really his responsibility. If they valued those items so highly they should have made arrangements to remove them at the appropriate time. I understand that they are grieving, but they made time to put the shrine up they should have found time to take it down.

This fellow kept those crosses there for the pre-arranged amount of time, despite the fact that they offended his beliefs. I think he deserves some credit with (or instead) of the scorn.

[greyl]

203. He left the personal effects.

He buried the cross.
The accident victims were buried.
Some of their personal effects were left to the elements by the grieving.

Are you saying the accident victims should be propped up at the site like the offensive cross?

[SPKrazy]

275. That Is An Asinine Interpretation Of My Post

I won't even dignify it with an answer

[greyl]

276. It was designed to make you think.

I'm not shocked at the actual outcome.

[SPKrazy]

277. I'm Not Shocked That You Think You Made A Point

it's still an asinine interpretation of my post

and the chances of you actually having an interpretation worth discussing has been lost on your comments.

good bye

[greyl]

302. I think most would realize that you're misreading it and

that you aren't being responsive.
tongue in cheek
facetious
with a grain of salt
For further study when you can concentrate: literary devices

[Scout]

157. what are they? words?

What are they? crosses? only superstitious religious people need them...

[SPKrazy]

278. Hey, Glad You Could Make It!

Peace be with you

[Beaverhausen]

120. Why would you want to visit the place where your wife died?

that's creepy. I think the widower should visit the grave instead.

[Divernan]

133. Not his wife. 8 months pregnant and he wouldn't marry her.

The penultimate prick in this story is the drunk driver that hit another car headon at 6 pm on a Saturday night. There are many, many more alcoholics driving drunk on the weekends than there are atheists who say 2 weeks is 2 weeks - although I grant you, that burying a cross is bizarre.

That surviving "fiance" is also a "prick", to use the word of choice in this thread. A lot of people are having children nowadays without bothering to get married. That's their choice. But it amazes me if they refer to each other as fiancees under these circumstances. That word describes someone who has made a commitment to get married. IF you're going to get married, the time to do it is before the child is born. If giving your child the gift of being "legitimate" is not worth getting married for, than what else would be? I googled the local news stories on this death and the story was that the young man had just dropped his new motorcycle off at his parents' house and the couple were driving to where they lived. So he "lived with" her but kept his new toy at his parents' house. Her family had had a baby shower for her. She was Italian Catholic - I think it's reasonable to think that she wanted to get married, with a bridal shower and a wedding and a honeymoon.

Sounds like this guy wasn't ready to formally tie the knot and settle down. They were living together, but he kept his new bike at his parents? If he had the money for a new motorcycle, he could have afforded a honeymoon instead. How many female DUers would be happy to be expecting a child by a guy who was more interested in playing with a bike than growing up and getting married?
I think this young man is racked by guilt for how he treated his "fiance" in the 8 months since THEY became pregnant. And as often happens when we're in an accident, we think, if I had only driven a different route, or left 5 minutes earlier, or run that errand yesterday. I expect he thinks, if I hadn't insisted on buying that damn bike, we wouldn't have been on that road at that time. But this guy isn't mature enough to handle these unpleasant truths, so he makes a big deal about visiting the accident site everyday to prove to everyone and himself that he cared about her. Well guess what, she's dead and gone and it's too late for him to do anything for her, including to make her as happy as she would have been if he had said, "A baby? Great, let's get married."

[Scout]

158. excellent, thank you very much

information you presented was much needed...

[shrike]

229. Uh, I know a couple who married when their triplets were 2 years old

And in a Catholic wedding.

There are many reasons why people do not marry immediately once the pregnancy is announced. And it does not automatically make them assholes.

[Scout]

250. just hypocrites n/t

[shrike]

263. Wish I could say something that wouldn't get this post deleted.

But I can't, so I won't try. Nice that you enjoy yourself so much.

[SPKrazy]

279. Yes, I Hear You

All I can say is Peace be with you, and you, and you!

why is it some idiots thrive on attacking people who are religious?

Never mind, I know why,

it's because religious people are a threat to them?

[Scout]

292. what makes either of you ASSUME I am not religious?

Never mind, I know why.

[Scout]

293. wtf

Nice that you enjoy yourself so much.
:eyes:

self-important today, aren't we?

[Divernan]

257. Don't misquote me or twist what I wrote.

First of all, I never called anyone an asshole. Secondly, I specifically acknowledged that many people choose not to marry and that is their choice. What I find hypocritical is describing someone as your fiance (which literally means you have promised to marry them) and then refusing to marry them before a baby is born. And I didn't see any circumstances in the news about this couple as to why they couldn't get married. He was already living with her, they had a car for transportation, and he had money to blow on a new motorcycle. Sounds to me like an irresponsible father-to-be, announcing to the world that a new toy for him is more important than saving his money for the new baby. I personally have never met a young woman in this situation who wasn't desperate for the father of their child to marry her. Little girls, especially little Italian Catholic girls, do not grow up with the dream, Oh, I hope I get knocked up by some infantile man who wants to keep sleeping with me, but refuses to marry me. He can humiliate me in front of all my friends and family, and let our child be born a bastard, as long as he can ride around town on his shiny new motorbike! What a guy! Can you give me one good hypothetical reason why he wouldn't marry her? Other than his Peter Pan syndrome?

[shrike]

261. Don't see where I twisted your words

Touchy, touchy. But that's DU these days.

Since neither of us know the couple in question I'll tell you why the couple I know waited -- the chance to buy a house and the chance to finish school. Yes they had cars, yes they had jobs. But they decided, together, that she would live with his parents until they finished college and were ready to buy a house.
Maybe this couple has a wedding planned. Don't know, didn't see it in the story. Maybe she wanted the whole big enchilada the hall, the church, the limo. You gotta plan ahead for that stuff. Maybe she didn't want to go up before a J.P. just because she was pregnant; maybe she wanted the full wedding and was willing to set it up ahead of time. I know a couple who lived together for eight years and had two kids before marrying -- they had to reserve the hall months ahead of time, just like everybody else, and the church, and the cake. Could be as simple as that.

[trotsky]

269. Could be.

And it also could be that the property owner DID try and contact the guy to come remove the stuff. But you seem much more willing to bend over backward with excuses for the motorcycle-lovin' promise breaker than for the landowner who got tired of looking at a religious symbol he doesn't particularly care for.

[shrike]

341. Well, he's the grieving party

People do really extreme things at a time of grief. If you look further up the thread you'll see the story of a farmer with a memorial on his land -- the father of the dead girl appeared to be crazed by grief, his actions were so irrational. And the farmer in that instance seemed more than patient.

This guy did not, but the article did not specify whether he contacted the dead girl's family. If he did, then it was an eminently reasonable action and the reporter was remiss in not mentioning it in the story. For example, if the city does not like something on my property, if the something violates code in some way, the city will notify me once, twice, and then take action, and too bad for me for not acting sooner.

It's also entirely possible that he and the fiance were in contact, got mad as hell at each other over when the memorial would be moved and both did and said things that they ordinarily would regret. (Like alerting the media.) Hence the property owner's burying of the cross. (I can see certain neighbors of mine doing the same thing, frankly, the blood gets so bad between them.)

But the above-average minds of DU have spent enough time on this story. May the woman rest in peace, the fiance find closure and the property owner go back to a life out of the spotlight.

[SmokingJacket]

124. He's a nasty old crank.

I'm an atheist, but I'd put up a freaking Christ on the Cross surrounded by angels if it made the family feel even a tiny bit better.

[Mojambo]

127. If he was a nasty old crank he would have told them to go fuck themselves

Right from the start.

He accomodated them to a reasonable extent, IMO.

[Skittles]

126. I don't think it has anything to do with him being an atheist

it has everything to do with him being a fucking asshole

[Jeffersons Ghost]

128. isn't this OP and thread life the most freeped out thing you've ever seen?

Can we find some other black eye OP for Christian Democrats to keep kicked up at DU for a while? I'm sick of this one. It even makes our atheist brother look bad. Atheists I know aren't so anti-Christian. sick. sick. sick.

[LittleClarkie]

130. Ironically enough

you just kicked it up.

[The Straight Story]

134. Um, we keep such things kicked all the time around here

Pat robertson ring a bell? How about that idiot protesting funerals?

Why should atheists be treated any differently?

[SPKrazy]

140. Freeped?

now that isn't nice

if you are concerned about the OP or posts here, hit alert.

or ignore

[JNelson6563]

144. Man that's just cold

I'm an atheist and I would never consider doing such a cruel thing. Why does this guy have to be such an asshole?

Julie

[Beelzebud]

145. Christian attempts to erect religious altar on private property.

Funny how we can make things sound with skewed headlines, isn't it?

[LittleClarkie]

146. Logical fallacy-- red herring

It wasn't an altar. It was a memorial. You wouldn't say that cemeteries are full of altars, would you?

[Beelzebud]

147. Fair enough. Exchange words. It's the same thing.

The guy agreed to let it stay for 2 weeks. It was there for over a month.

I think atheism has little to do with this.

[The Straight Story]

159. Skewed? Is it not an honest headline?

maybe I am missing something....

he uses his atheism as the reason for his actions, and it is reported on. Is that inaccurate?

[Spider Jerusalem]

273. No, it's NOT an honest headline...

because the version of the story from the TV station website (unlike the version from the newspaper website) is slanted to present only one point of view and very obviously intended to be sensationalistic (which is a major problem with television news in general, at least in the US).

[beam me up scottie]

169. Yep.

That was my take on it too.:thumbsup:




BTW, DU, Mr. O'Reilly says thanks for keeping him in falafels.:hi:

[genie_weenie]

150. How do we know this guy is really an Atheist?

Propaganda is a wonderful thing. I'd like to find out if this guy is really an atheist or not. It's interesting to note he stated "CATHOLIC symbols on my property".

As an Atheist I don't EQUATE all Christianity with Catholicism...

I wonder, Fundamentalist ploy?

Too bad I'm so late on this issue...

[Trajan]

151. Those Atheists are SUCH assholes ....

It is quite obvious: Atheism is the direct cause of this man's sociopathic behaviour ....

IF it werent for atheism, and how the 'creed' of atheism is HATE HATE HATE, then this man would be another fine example of theistic purity: ALWAYS kindly and nice to everyone ....

Heck: I am an Atheist ... I just got back from my "Atheist Hate Meeting" (which is what we call our indoctrination service), and was filled to the brim of my 'soul' with ALL the hatred that a man can afford his own 'heart' ....

FIRST thing I did ? .... GRABBED an ice cream cone from an 8 year old girl, and ate it RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER ! ....

Why ? ... Cause ATHEISM made me do it ! ....

You see? ... The God of Atheism has certain tenets: 'Thou Shalt Be A Self Righteous Ass' looms large in the list of Atheistic creedal requirements ....

It's right there: Chapter VII, Verse 34 .... Book Of Atheistic Assholiness ....

So; WATCH OUT ..... and keep those ice cream cones hidden ... Cause Im a comin to GETCHA ! ....

EXTREME :sarcasm: ...

(PS. Could the actual cause of this man's problems be that he is simply an ass, and would be an ass whether he was an atheist, a hindu, a confucian or ... even .. pray to Marduk: a Christian ? .... To associate THIS man's behaviour with his atheism is some sort of obvious fallacy, Isnt it ????

Ah yes: Fallacy of Converse Accident ... Look it up ......)

[The Straight Story]

160. He brought up his idealism - not me or the reporter

why?

I don't care what he believes - but he does. Enough so that he spread that belief as the reason for his actions.

Who is to blame for that??

[beam me up scottie]

176. You posted it and got everyone yipping about it like it was a hate crime.

This asshole is not representative of atheists.

But I think you knew that already.


And atheists don't have atheist beliefs, Mr. Gosh-don't-blame-me-I-just-poured-the-gasoline.
We have a lack of them.

But I think you knew that already.



Your little dig at the atheists really goes nicely with the whole pitchforks and torches theme, though-Do complement your decorator, witch burnings are the new plaid.;)

[Trajan]

200. He brought up his milk drinking - not me or the reporter ...

why ?

I don't care what he drinks - but he does. Enough so that he spread his milk drinking as the reason for his actions.

Who is to blame for that ?

......

Nuff said ....

[genie_weenie]

228. Please see my post #150.

Just because someone claims to be an atheist doesn't make him so. and I again say his reference to Catholic symbols strikes me as at least odd.

[Mr_Spock]

156. This story is like a week old - but I live up here

It was a one day, maybe two day story on local news.

His property, but he could have been more sensitive IMHO.

I'm not fond of having symbols of a device used to execute people anywhere - I'd never have allowed them on my lawn and I'm not even an atheist. When Jesus railed against idolatry, I was with him - never mind idolizing murder.

[SidDithers]

161. I guess that particular Christian doesn't know the meaning of "2 weeks"...

and can't be trusted to come collect his things when the agreed upon time has passed.

Good for Brodmerkle. Too often it is easier for an atheist to remain silent, or compromise their values so as not to offend the believers. Brodmerkle showed his respect for the pregnant woman by agreeing to a memorial for 2 weeks.

Sid

[Odin2005]

163. MSM's witch hunt against Atheists continues...

The guy agreed to allow the memorial to stay up for two weeks, and two weeks passed, therefore he had every right to take down the memmorial. The story sounds like it is being intentionally twisted to make the guy look bad when the media heard he was an Atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Yep, and DU is sucking it up.

Now he's a "radical".

Give me a fucking break.

[KingFlorez]

166. I think it's rude

It is his property, but he could have been more compassionate since the family was grieving. I find his attitude no better than extremist Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Is EVERY asshole who's a CHRISTIAN going to generate this much attention?

If so, I'd start adding more memory to your puters, people.

This isn't a hate crime, stop acting like he burned a cross on someone's lawn.

[Leopolds Ghost]

191. I hope so, because this is typical American behavior.

Plenty of non-religious or merely progressive folks still manage to recapitulate the prejudices and preoccupations of their parents... "Stay off my land... I have the right not to look at a PAGAN/CATHOLIC/CHRISTAN symbol..." etc.

For an example of a non-property owner going so far as to practically burn a cross in someone's yard, see the case of the farmer. In that case I think the memorial builder was the true asshole (he might as well have burned it, he planted it in concrete and poured gasoline around it to keep the farmer from using the land...)

[beam me up scottie]

192. What a ridiculous comparison.

Hyperbole, anyone?

Give me a fucking break.

This guy let them keep their shrine well past the agreed upon date, and then he rightfully disposed of it.

Only paranoid victim wanna-be's with no respect for the real victims of persecution would compare this non-incident to cross burnings by the KKK - which was a christian group, by the way.


How revolting.

[NMMNG]

198. What are you talking about?

This guy let someone keep a memorial on his property for an agreed upon term. Once that term was up and the individual did not come to collect the items the man removed the item that he found offensive to his beleifs and disposed of it. How does that compare to cross burnings by the (Christian) KKK, which were designed to terrorize people?

[SPKrazy]

281. Just One Caveat Scottie

I do feel for the guy who lost his, well, partner? and baby.

He could have been a little devastated and didn't remember such a thing.

And I think the property owner took the action that got the ball rolling here.

I think it's a no win situation for either party to go on about it.

Crying about it isn't going to bring his partner and child back

The property owner making any more of a big deal just makes him look petty.

Why do we get drawn to these threads? They just reek of flame and gasoline!

Peace Scottie!

[bling bling]

183. I guess I'm more of an asshole than this guy.

I don't blame him for burying the cross. He had no obligation to call the man to come get it. He was probably sick of looking at it. I wouldn't want a cross sticking out of my grass on my yard either. It would bother me more than looking at flowers, teddy bears, etc. Throwing it away probably didn't seem right in case the man asked for it back. But he probably didn't want to have to store it in his house or garage, either. I wouldn't want an item people have been mourning over (with all that sad and negative energy attached to it, and from strangers no less) in my house or anywhere near my house.

Edited to add: But this guy is nicer than me, because I wouldn't let anybody put a memorial on my property at all.

[Strong Atheist]

215. Agreed, would not let anyone put anything on my property... nt.

[Leopolds Ghost]

185. Before you say "property rights!", Under Common Law, You Can Be Shot.

Under English common law as applied in 1776 (still active in nine
states), he could have shot him for trespassing. Ah, Anglo-Saxon
intolerance, upheld regardless of religion (witness Jeremy Bentham,
or the English Civil War.)

Of course, common law cuts both ways. Under common law that would
have to be considered public highway unless it was an enclosure.

This man could have a case against the property owner for highway
robbery despite the fact that the property owner was within his rights
to shoot him for trespassing under the very same "rule of law" that secularists like to jaw about (as an alternative to values based progressivism.)

Second, under common law dating back to pre-Christian, Anglo-Saxon days
when the People's Court was the only court, this is a (verbal)
contractual issue. The way I read precedent on this, Brodmerkle
destroyed his standing by removing some (not all) of the memorial,
thereby implicitly upholding the grieving widower's 2-month claim.

Third, there is the issue of right-of-way. As I mentioned in another post, automobile use has subverted the rights of the pedestrian to travel unmolested on what used to be called the "king's highway" (public roads). NOW, to avoid getting you your stuff run over, you have to trespass on private land where you legally risk getting SHOT instead of run over. Threre is no "neutral ground" (sidewalk median) in many communities. Other places, public right-of-way goes into peoples' yards and homeowners STILL dismiss the rights of the commonweal to erect memorials to other faiths, etc. MUCH LESS in the sidewalk median (which is ironically poorly maintained by the typical redneck or yuppie homeowner who insists "that's the city's job.)

Usually this sort of selective vandalism of memorials placed on the edge of the public right-of-way is done against "PAGANS" (Hindus, Wiccans, etc.) If the baby shoe fits...

[beam me up scottie]

190. "secularists" ?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Who uses words like that, anyway?

Is that as bad as calling me an evolutionist?

If it is, I'm gonna cry :cry:

[Leopolds Ghost]

193. Don't feel bad, some people say "values-based" like it's a bad thing

That makes me :cry:

I used to chastise my neighbors here in Top Ten Liberal Small-Town-ville for not embracing radical progressive Values,

until they upbraided me, saying "your values are not the same as other people's values" and:

"Don't assume that just because some people follow the radical progressive teachings that are taught by so many philosophers and religious teachers, does not mean that is the *only* path to progressivism, does not mean that *I*, an affluent, self-righteous (fundamentalist, atheist, freeper, Buddhist) have to SHARE those values (that once made our society livable)."

I say "secularist" because I'm a smaller minority than you are -- a radical religious leftie. So :P

(Of course, my mostly secular community has a substrata of fundamentalists who would remove "Catholic" crosses from their lawns for the same reasons cited elsewhere, but I think the real reason is because they are anal retentive about "strangers" walking around their neighborhood, getting run over, putting up memorials to barbaric religions they don't believe in, etc.)

[beam me up scottie]

194. I don't think you're in a smaller minority.

I do know that if you take geographical location into consideration, I'm on the endangered species list.:scared:

[varkam]

202. You and me both, BMUS n/t

[U4ikLefty]

314. Wow, your definition of right-of-way fascinates me...tell me more.

I would like to know the standards that those 9 states use for right-of-way. I would also like to know the manual they use to design modern roads, sidewalks & other pathways in these "9 states".

[NMMNG]

199. Ok now

Maybe Rosseau should have called Brodmerkle to remind him to take his items back as the two-week term had expired, but at the same time Brodmerkle should have remembered to take his things back. He'd made an agreement after all, and Rosseau was good natured enough to allow him to put the memorial on his property in the first place even though the religious items went against his personal belief/lack of belief.


And before anybody denounces atheists' "intolerance" ask yourself how many Christians (Fundies in particular) would allow a someone to put a Satanist, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist memorial on their lawn?

[SPKrazy]

284. The Only Difference I Have With Your Idea Buffy

is the fact that the guy was likely a little overwhelmed with grief

I would be

I probably wouldn't put up one of those crosses on the side of the road because I think they look cheap.

I don't want to memorialize where a loved one was killed myself in anyway.

I'd probably rather take a different road from then on if I could.

My wife and I pass a place on the interstate where her stepbrother was killed in a wreck many years ago. There is no and was not ever a memorial there, it is vivid enough in her mind to know where it happened. Why someone would want to make it more remembered is beyond me.

But, all that aside, I do think that the guy who lost his partner and baby was whammied with grief.

I have no proof of this, but that is my best guess.

[NMMNG]

294. He probably was/is quite grief stricken

But he has been able to visit that memorial every day since the accident (per the story) so he's not so overwhelmed that he was housebound. He could have taken the items down at the agreed upon time when he visited that day.


And I'm with you--I wouldn't put a memorial up at any accident site. Memorials, if they're going to be erected, are appropriate for the place a person is buried IMO, not the place they got injured/died. (You don't see memorials at hospitals after all, do you?)

[varkam]

201. My .02.

Looks like I'm jumping into the fray a bit late on this one, but what the hey.

Brodmerkle was agreeable enough to let Rousseau put a religiously tilted memorial up on his private property that was contrary to Brodmerkle's belief system. I'd say that's a nice thing to do. Rousseau should have held up his end of the deal and come and collected the things when the time was up. On the other hand, Brodmerkle shouldn't of been such a chach in taking the cross and burying it (why bury it?). IMHO, the right thing to do would have been to call Rousseau and say something like "Hey fella, would you mind come collecting your shrine from my property?".

Something about this just doesn't make sense...namely, why bury the crosses? They both generally seem fairly agreeable, so why didn't Brodmerkle just call Rousseau? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[shrike]

233. That's my take, too

Couldn't you just call the guy and say, "Hey, come get these things?" You can't put them in a shed somewhere? (Two weeks after a death is still pretty fresh and people may still be in shock.)
If time had passed and the family still hadn't responded, then dispose of them.
I have to wonder if something else went on here. Being an old newspaper reporter, I can tell you that there's usually more to the story. Maybe the fiance and the property owner got into it at some point -- who knows? But burying the cross sounds like a hostile act to me.
AND something that one of our cranky old neighbors might pull, just to be mean.

[InaneAnanity]

204. One month is long enough

The atheist swallowed his feelings for a month, now let the atheist do what he wants with his property.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

206. This thread makes me ashamed to be a DUer and and atheist

That there are people willing to defend this asshole for insisting on his right to refuse to allow a memorial on his property for even two months (why, then there's hope a great man's memory may outlive him for half a year, but by'r lady he must build churches!) is bad

That there are people actually criticising the woman's family for *wanting* to erect a memorial on the site an incredibly tragic death is sickening.

That there are actually nearly as many people doing so as there are sane people is disgusting.

Once again: being a Christian does not mean your feelings don't count. Being an atheist does not mean that you can act like a jerk without being one. Aggravating a berievment in this way is despicable.

The property holder has a legal right to do what he wants with his property. However, no-one with a single ounce of compassion or empathy would exercise that right.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

210. spoken like a true atheist Donald, thanks

most atheists I've known are level headed rational people who, as a Christian, I pray, will ALWAYS have a place under the big DU tent. While we may not agree on religion; how do you like these pictures Donald?

[LisaL]

211. Oh please. It's his property. He allowed the crosses in for a time,

and then he wanted them gone. Personally, I am an atheist, but the crosses wouldn't bother me. But if they do bother him, why should he be stuck with them on his own property for a long period of time? He allowed them for a time, and that should be enough.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

212. before any debate, check the sources in the OP. this is all fiction

no reliable news sources are sited in the OP... the OP might as well be giving Pat Robertson news as a source.

also this thread violates copy-rights, according to one of the sites offered, which states, "Distributed by Internet Broadcasting. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

[fun n serious]

218. Ha?

It's a local news source. This is all fiction?

Anyhoo... In my opinion 2 months is too long and the property owner has every right to do as he wishes with his property. It may seem insensitive but 2 months? It's a more than fair amount of time for allowing this memorial.

[trotsky]

219. I'm sure that the atheist-bashers...

are very grateful to have you around to confirm their biases, Donald.

No one, including the horrible mean nasty atheist property owner, is saying the man's feelings "don't count." Well, I guess you are, in order to heap on more bashing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

244. No , and the fact that no-one is admitting they think it is sickening.

The only possible explanation for the degree of support for such sickening and obviously indefensible behaviour is the not-sufficiently-rarely-held-on-DU (note: not "widely held") belief that because Christianity is the dominant religion in America, offending or angering Christians is standing up to oppression.

No-one is saying that they don't think the family's feelings matter. A lot of people are advocating acting as though they don't. In some ways, that's even more contemptible than coming out and admitting it.

The wishes of a family who have just tragically lost a loved one to mourn for her matter far more to me than the legal right of a property owner not to have a cross on his front lawn. I fully support his right not to do so if he doesn't wish to (in the same way that I support the right to promote racial hatred or protest outside abortion clinics with disgusting signs) but I think that exercising that right is unbelievably selfish and petty, and anyone who does so is despicable.

There are a non-trivial number of atheists on DU who are more hostile to Christianity and Christians than can be justified by the behaviour of the same (some degree of such is perfectly acceptable; I certainly feel some, although I do my best not to show it), and that's a "bias" I actively try to confirm, yes. To stop me doing so, you would have to convince me that it's not the case, and as long as there are non-trivial numbers of people defending behaviour like this that is not going to happen, I'm afraid.

If you're referring to any other particular biases, please detail them and I'll hapily give you my views on them.

Incidentally, I suspect that the atheists trying to defend this sort of behaviour are fostering a whole lot more anti-atheist feeling than I am.

Please note that it's "some, not all, atheists who post as such on DU", not "atheists" that I'm "bashing" (is that worse than "criticising"?).

[trotsky]

252. Well, let's debate the grieving process then.

How long is it before grieving becomes dwelling and the person with the problem becomes the fiance and not the property owner?

And who is telling the fiance he can't set up a shrine somewhere else, like, say, the woman's gravesite, which is specifically intended for the purpose?

Or how about just the idea that respect seems to be a one-way street? We must respect the rights of this Christian to do whatever he wants - but what about what the atheist wants?

And what exactly is "hostility" to Christianity, anyway? This "non-trivial number" you mention sounds like it's large enough to be a threat - at least something that you consider a threat. Is speaking one's opinion being "hostile"? Does one have to threaten someone to be "hostile"? How do you define the term?

Since you re-used the phrase "non-trivial number" when referring to people (like me) who have said that maybe we should lay off the atheist property owner, I'm afraid it's difficult not to take that as an accusation that I'm hostile to Christianity. Do you intend to say that? Because if so, come right out and do so. No need to beat around the bush.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

255. Respect is indeed a one-way street.

The person who has not been recently been bereived should respect the rights of the one who has, the same need not be true. Which if either of them is a Christian or an atheist is entirely irrelevant. Or are you saying that you would defend this sort of behaviour if the atheist and the Christian were reversed (if so, I'm afraid I won't believe you).

With regards to the grieving process, I have thankfully never lost anyone close to me, let alone in such tragic circumstances, but I would say that six months is certainly not an unreasonable amount of time to go one mourning for, but if it's still a defining facet of your life after a year or two you need help.
I have no authority whatsoever for that belief, though.

"Hostility to Christianity" is a sligtly nebulous usage. To clarify it, I mean (roughly) either "the belief that Christianity is a bad thing" or "emotional (as opposed to, but in no way precluding rational) dislike of Christianity"; in this case I think either is appropriate.

Yes, I most certainly do intend to say that you are not merely hostile to Christianity in both senses (which is not in any way a fault; it's true of me as well) but more hostile to Christianity than can be justified (which is, by definition).

Incidentally, I use "a non trivial number" to mean "I can't be bothered to count how many of them there are, but I don't expect anyone to claim that if I did then the result would be low enough to invalidate whatever it is I'm talking about".

[trotsky]

256. I'm having a tough time reversing this situation

because I just don't see how it could be the same. As I noted in your attempt to reverse it, it wasn't really very close. But since you won't believe me anyway, there's not much point.

if it's still a defining facet of your life after a year or two you need help.
I have no authority whatsoever for that belief, though.

So does the property owner have an obligation to keep it up that long? What if the family didn't maintain it, and it started looking crappy? Can he remove it? I just want to get an idea of how long YOU think he should have left it up. What's appropriate from your perspective, considering the fiance made a promise that it would be gone in two weeks?

I will take your "hostile to Christianity" label and wear it as a badge, then. Even though I think only that Christianity CAN be a bad thing, and certainly HAS BEEN in many, many cases. This one included. Thank you for being upfront - at least now I know what your prejudices are against me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

259. It's a declining scale.

That someone else doesn't want you to do something is always an argument against doing it; however, very often there are other reasons to do it anyhow, and if they're stronger then fine.

The longer he leaves it, the less I'd object to his removing it; in fifty years the amount I'd object to him doing so would be so miniscule you couldn't make it out with an electron field microscope.

As time passes, my criticism would fade from "indefensible" to "wrong" to "regrettable" to "fair enough"; to apply completely arbitrary timescalse to those they'd be something very vaguely like up to two weeks, up to to two but not including two months, ditto and two months or over, but it's not a question that really bares a terribly rigorous answer, I think.



P.S. for reference, my criticism was "more hostile to Christianity than is justifiable", not "hostile to Christianity"; I specifically pointed out that the latter is not something I regard as a fault. I fully agree with what you say about it in your last paragraph.

[trotsky]

260. Well now I'm even more confused.

You readily admit that what YOU think is an acceptable timeframe for removal of the memorial is just that - up to YOU.

Perhaps 3-4 weeks was enough for the property owner, especially when the fiance failed to remove it as promised in two weeks. I mean, if the guy failed to remove it, and (apparently) failed to contact him to extend the time period, what else could the atheist have assumed? Seems fair to assume it was abandoned, and it was his to do with as he saw fit.

The more you explain, the less ground it seems you have to justify your outrage at the property-owning atheist.

[BurtWorm]

272. It seems that atheists, being more enlightened about all things

including grieving, and being emotionally stronger, ought to condescend to let devout Christians, for example, grieve their hearts out for as long as the poor, pitiful Christians need. Because there must be something about Christianity, for example, or any religion, that doesn't enable them to overcome grief sufficiently to continue living in the world like a normal person, even though their religion is all about what a shithole this world is and how great the next one will be.

:crazy:

[LittleClarkie]

287. I don't care if he was a property owning purple rabbit

with big green eyes.

I don't care if he was an atheist, Buddist, Christian or worshiped his right hand. He's a property owning human being who needs a heart transplant.

[trotsky]

326. Because he allowed a memorial on his property?

One that he didn't particularly care for?

Yet he left it up longer than the agreed-upon timeframe?

Yeah, a real heartless bastard, that one. I guess to please some of the people he should have helped set up a permanent shrine and then maintained it for free, for the rest of his life. :eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

274. Utter nonsense...

The person who has not been recently been bereived should respect the rights of the one who has, the same need not be true.

The person who's been bereaved HAS NO RIGHTS here. Not when it comes to erecting a memorial on someone else's property, and most certainly not when the owner of said property told them they could leave a memorial up for a temporary period of two weeks. Those two weeks being elapsed, and the family not collecting the items they left on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, those items are ABANDONED (it's their responsibility to retrieve them, not the property owner's to remind them to keep up their end of the bargain).

You seem to have a rather strange conception of what constitutes a 'right'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

317. Poor choice of words, I admit.

The point I was trying to make is that everyone has a moral duty to bend over backwards to avoid hurting the feelings of the recently bereived, and that it's perfectly forgiveable if they don't reciprocate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

318. No, they don't.

There's no such 'moral duty'. People have a right to grieve, but when their grief leads them to behave in a manner that causes them to disrespect the rights and feelings of others, as if THEY are the ONLY people in the world whose feelings matter, then something is seriously out of line and they should seek counselling.

And in this case, the right of the owner of private property NOT to have a religiously-themed memorial shrine on his property (one he was extremely tolerant in allowing even temporarily) trumps their right to grieve. Your rights end where those of another begin, as John Locke said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

319. Well,

I hope you're treated with more compassion than you advocate if you ever lose someone close to you.I certainly hope that I am, if I do.

I think our definitions of "extremely tolerant" are probably also somewhat different, to say the least - permitting such a shrine in his living room for six months would be "extremely tolerant", giving the magnitude of the justification. Two weeks on a lawn, and then burying it, is barely even "slightly", let alone "extremely".

[Spider Jerusalem]

321. I'm capable of keeping my grief to myself.

And I most certainly don't expect total strangers to go out of their way just because someone I was close to died. It's not their problem, and they have no obligation to do anything at all.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's extremely tolerant to allow a grief-crazed stranger to put something up on your property for two weeks (note that he LEFT it up nearly a month, or two weeks LONGER than he agreed to). There IS no justification (they want a memorial? That's why we have cemeteries).

Your argument is based on emotion; mine is based on logic. (And the recognition that the grieving family aren't the only ones with rights, which seems to be giving you a bit of trouble.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

335. No.

Your argument is *based on the assumption that people are* logical, mine is based on the assumption that they're emotional. This is, in essence, where you are going wrong - if Rousseau were fully logical and unemotional, then he wouldn't waste energy grieving at all, and there would be no harm at all in removing the cross. However, as we're dealing with humans and not Vulcans, that's entirely irrelevant.

I freely acknowledge that Brodmerkle had a right to remove the sign and Rousseau had no right to put it there. You will note, incidentally, that this has been borne out by the fact that the cross is no longer there. That doesn't mean that exercising that right doesn't make him an asshole.

[BurtWorm]

270. Do we have to have universal standards for what is "sickening?"

Maybe it should be universally "sickening" that everyone is focused on what this guy did after he got tired of having a cross on his property rather than on what he did before.

[BurtWorm]

238. Just think about having someone else turn your property into a religious

shrine for two months. Imagine it. It's easy to say you'd tolerate it, but imagine what it would really be like.

Why should atheists be doormats? This guy needs grief counseling. He doesn't need to be making trouble over how someone else uses his property.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

241. Atheists, and everyone else,

Should endeavour to "be doormats" to as great an extent as they can stand for those who have recently suffered a berievement.

Having a cross on your front lawn for two months is *not* a najor sacrifice, no matter which way you look at it.

If the reason he gave for objecting was that it was an eyesore or that it was in the way, I would be unsympathetic but I could at least understand. But "I don't want Catholic symbols on my property" is just contemptibly petty, given the reason the family want it there.

[BurtWorm]

247. In the Jewish religion, a mother, a husband, a child...no matter who

loses a relative, sits shiva for one week. One week. That's the mourning period. Then you go on with life until you unveil the memorial where the loved one is buried one year later.

That's a sane, life-based program for mourning. Two weeks is generous. Two months on someone else's property borders on sick. Making a Jerry Springer circus out of it is pathological. No one, atheist or otherwise, should have to put up with that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

251. I strongly disagree.

Saying "some people express their grief in only a week, so any longer expression of grief is wrong" doesn't make sense to me.

Two months is not long at all to mourn for a lost wife or child. A permanent marker would be excessive, but two months seems if anything rather a short period.

[BurtWorm]

258. Of course some people mourn privately for much longer.

The point is, in public we have to move on, or we'd all be in mourning nonstop. At a certain point, you simply have to move on for the sake of society. What you do in private is your own business. And "private" is the operative word in this story.

[Scout]

290. the fiance lost neither a wife nor a child....

Two months is not long at all to mourn for a lost wife or child.

a fiance is not a husband, a fetus is not a child.

A pregnant woman was killed. Not a wife, he couldn't be bothered to marry her.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

315. This is what I mean about this thread making me ashamed to be a DUer

"Couldn't be bothered"?

Don't you feel even slightly ashamed of launching a totally baseless attack on a man who's just lost his pregnant lover? Do you really think that technicallities like that make it less painful?

[Scout]

337. if you don't like the company here...

you can always leave, no?

:shrug:

[Scout]

289. so which is it, who chooses?

is it this
as great an extent as they can stand

or this
two months is *not* a najor sacrifice

apparently the property owner had already reached the extent that he could stand, but you don't think that's good enough.

I call bullshit on your post.

[Random_Australian]

358. What the hell is this? I see someone who has interpreted the words of

others in the way they want, which was to take offense, and blow everything he could find out of all proportion.

Have a look at this: "That there are people actually criticising the woman's family for *wanting* to erect a memorial on the site an incredibly tragic death is sickening." uh yeah, them nasty atheists sure think that people should keep their grief to themselves!

Ok, the guy was a bit of a prick. OH NO! WHAT DO I SEE? "being a Christian does not mean your feelings don't count" OH NO! My illusions are shattered! Ok, they aren't. Everyone knew that, sorry there Don m'laddo, but you seem to be a bit out of touch with what others are saying.

Ugh. Look, if you think that someone is saying anything like "actually criticising the woman's family for *wanting* to erect a memorial " then you have not understood what they have said, unless there is some post I haven't seen yet.

[shrike]

221. He buried the damn cross?

C'mon. Wanting it off your property is one thing, but taking it in the backyard and burying it?

That's called being an asshole.

[trotsky]

222. Would it have been more respectful...

to throw it in the trash?

Burn it?

Let it sit & rot?

Burying is quite possibly the most respectful way to dispose of something.

[shrike]

230. How about give it back?

What a concept.

[trotsky]

232. We don't know the details.

Though plenty of people seem readily willing to assume the worst. Perhaps the mean old nasty horrible grumpy atheist didn't have the guy's phone number. Or maybe since it was 2 weeks past the time he had agreed to allow it, he was just fed up and didn't want to have to look at it any longer.

Bah. Just heap more anger and hatred on the atheist. Seems to be the formula these days.

[shrike]

234. It's not about being the atheist

It's about being a jerk. And doing what he did is being a jerk. Although, if you see my other posts, he may have had reasons for being a jerk. Burying a cross is a pretty hostile act if you ask me.
Or maybe he'd be a jerk if he were a baptist, catholic, whatever. I knew an old lady who'd come out and yell at the neighborhood kids if they put one toe in her yard. We all know people like that. It's like they're wired that way.

[trotsky]

236. He allowed the memorial for a full two weeks past the agreement.

A jerk would have said "fuck you" at the mere mention of a memorial on his property.

I don't think it's justified, the amount of vitriol being heaped on this guy. And excuse me if I get the distinct impression that most of it is due not to his being insensitive, but to his being an atheist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

248. That impression is simply wrong.

If you want vitriol, imagine a thread about a Christian who had refused to allow an atheist to have a memorial on their property unless it was Christian in nature.

The fact that he's an atheist is the real motive for virtually all the support for him, I suspect, but very little of the condemnation.

[trotsky]

254. But this isn't about refusing to allow a memorial.

So that's not a particularly good counter-example.

He allowed the memorial. And let it stay up well past the agreed-upon timeframe.

Yet he's the mean old bastard. Okey doke.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

316. "Agreed upon timeframe"?

What are your grounds for believing the property owner rather than the fiance about whow long they agreed it could stay for?

The fact that the former claims he "couldn't contact" the latter disinclines me to regard him as the more credible of the two.

[trotsky]

325. And what are your grounds for believing the fiance?

You discard the claims of one, and reject those of the other - just like you accuse me of doing. Interesting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

330. As I've said,

The claim that he was "unable to contact" the fiance disinclines me to believe him. It is, I admit perfectly possible that either the fiance was lying when he says he was lead to believe it could stay two months, or that it was simply a misunderstanding, but that fact makes me think it less likely than that the houseowner changed his mind.

[trotsky]

331. Why?

The guy came and set up a memorial on his property. How do you know whether the owner had the guy's phone number? What would possibly lead you to believe the simple claim that he was "unable to contact" the fiance meant he was lying?

You would have done it differently. Great. That's all you really needed to say. Why people felt the need to call the property owner just about every name in the book, I don't understand. Well, I do understand, but I'll just get criticized for suggesting it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

334. No, you don't understand.

You *want* it to be the case that it's yet another case of atheist-bashing on DU, but the real reason I and a lot of people are so outraged is that respect and compassion for the berieved is one of the most basic forms of good behaviour, and this guy is flagrantly acting without it.

As I've said repeatedly, there would be far, far more outrage on DU if a Christian behaved this way to an atheist - howls and screams about "imposing his religion" and "theocracy" and "inhumanity". All you've said is "I don't possibly see how it could be the same", which suggests terminal lack of imagination on your part, and which is a shame, because it completely blows the claim that the reaction is a manifestation of anti-atheist prejudice out of the water.

[trotsky]

336. No, the issue is how MUCH respect and compassion is warranted.

The property owner allowed the memorial. According to him, it was agreed that the memorial would be up for 2 weeks. 2 weeks came & went, nobody collected it, but he allowed it up even longer.

That right there is quite a bit of respect and compassion. He could have just refused the memorial in the first place. Or the INSTANT the 2 weeks was up, go out, collect everything, and throw it in the trash. But he didn't.

No, what he did was clearly not enough for you and other moralists. Was he supposed to just leave everything there until it IS collected, or just rots? You even admitted yourself you have no idea how long was long enough, but you're willing to judge this man anyway.

And then to top it off, you are imagining another situation on DU and then judging me based on what you THINK my and others' reactions would be to it.

You've got a lot of nerve, Mr. Rankin.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

338. I have a lot of evidence, too.

I wouldn't make such an assumption about a poster I had seen fewer or less consistent posts by. I don't think predicting that you are likely to weigh in vociferously on the side of the atheist in any issue between an atheist and a Christian requires very much nerve, to be honest.

You still haven't claimed that you *wouldn't* be do so if the religious motivations were reversed.

While I agree that the amount of tolerance it would be reasonable to show is very debateable, it's certainly a lot more than this. I don't have a clue how far away Neptune is, but I know that 10^6 metres and 10^10 metres are both wrong. The uncertainty is very large, but not that large.

[trotsky]

340. Oh, but wait, this isn't about him being an atheist! You told me so!

Make up your mind.

Like I pointed out to you earlier, it's not a situation that can be perfectly reversed. Christian landowner, atheist mourner. The atheist erects a.... well, um, I really don't know. Flowers? A sign? There is no "symbol" of atheism, certainly none that would be universally recognized by a Christian. What simple symbol could an atheist put at a memorial that means something to him, but would be offensive to the Christian?

Not that it will matter, since you've already let prejudice make up your mind what I think, but I can tell you honestly and truthfully that if the atheist put up some kind of memorial, and the Christian agreed to let it be displayed for 2 weeks, then went and disposed of it well after, that I wouldn't be defending the atheist. The time was up, he didn't collect his shit, end of story. What angered me most about this thread was the underlying "blame the mean old atheist" crap that's been floating around recently, on DU and in various articles.

But please, join in the chorus with the morality police decrying the horrible behavior of the landowner. The fact of the matter is (a fact that you blithely ignore), the landowner ALLOWED the memorial in the first place, and allowed it to remain for longer what HE understood the time period to be. Yet you join in heaping scorn, because you just know that the "window" of acceptable grieving is something other than what was allowed.

Silly me, I thought such self-righteousness and moral judgment was reserved for the fundamentalist Christians of the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

343. No, I said that

*To the people criticising the landowner* it's not about him being an atheist.

[trotsky]

347. A simple reading of several posts in this thread

would indicate you are wrong.

#31 - "Atheists can be religious fanatics"
#73 - "Some Athiest (sic) are very passionate about their religion"
#102 - "Goes to show you that radicals exist on both sides of the aisle."
#128 - "Atheists I know aren't so anti-Christian."
#134 - "Why should atheists be treated any differently?" (the OP - a glimpse into the motivation behind posting)
#138 - "Seems rather dogma driven"

To name a few.

But regardless, that doesn't address any of what else I wrote. Unless you have no response?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

357. I think you're rather proving my point

All of those are criticising him *despite*, rather than *because of*, being an atheist - the implicit assumption in all cases is that atheists generally behave better, if anything. They're noting that he's an asshole *in spite of* being an atheist. We should be flattered.

I'll try and get back to you on your other points, but possibly not before Tuesday - I have an important exam coming up.

[trotsky]

359. "in spite of"?

We see things in a completely different way. To me, it's pretty clear the comments were meant as a "Yep, just as I suspected" kind of thing. The very headline of the article bolsters my point.

[shrike]

262. So you bury the cross, eh? Whatever n/t

[trotsky]

264. As opposed to other options?

The guy promised the memorial would be gone in two weeks.

Three weeks go by, and it's still there. As I asked, would it have been "better" if he had just thrown the cross in the trash or burned it?

What do YOU think would have been the perfect thing to do?

[shrike]

265. Call him up and say, "Two weeks are up. Come get your memorial?"

[trotsky]

267. Why is it now his burden?

The other guy broke his promise. Are you mad at him, too?

[greyl]

304. The victims were buried.

Double standard! ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

249. Trying to make criticism of this guy into an attack on atheism

Is like trying to make criticism of Hitler into an attack on vegetarianism.

People object to the fact that he removed a memorial to a tragically killed woman on the site of her death without consulting her family, and allegedly having told them it could stay for two months, and refused to let them replace it, and buried it rather than returning it.

It may be that some people find that sort of behaviour acceptable in non-atheists,
but I find it hard to believe.

[trotsky]

253. Perhaps a dose of the facts would be helpful.

From the second article:

Brodmerkle said he had been promised the memorial would only stay up for two weeks following the crash.

Two weeks, not two months. And yet he left it up longer than that. Does he get credit for that in your book?

And then there's:

"I'm also regretful because the person made a forthright and honest promise" to remove the memorial, (Brodmerkle) added.

Brodmerkle said he is open to returning the cross.

Where's the outrage at the fiance for breaking his promise? Why only attack the atheist in the scenario?

[BurtWorm]

266. The media in Boston certainly played up the guy's atheism.

In 1939, no one wrote "Vegetarian launches attack on Poland."

:eyes:

PS: The title of this thread plays up that angle, as well.

[trotsky]

271. Great point, BurtWorm. n/t

[porphyrian]

226. Roadside religious icons don't belong on public property, either.

People are buried in cemetaries to allow the living to have a place to memorialize the dead. No one has any special right to memorialize the dead or promote their religion with iconography on a public road, despite the leniency and tolerance that has been shown towards the practice. The story above is about a memorial on someone-unrelated-to-the-dead's private property. It doesn't matter what religion he practices or doesn't practice, if he doesn't want that shit on his property, it's his right to remove it, and to charge with trespassing anyone who tries to put it back.

Here's some good reading on roadside memorials:
http://www.christianitymeme.org/roadside-memorials.shtml

[frogmarch]

227. The Christian cross

symbolizes torture and death in the minds of many atheists, whereas angels don't. Maybe that's why the property owner removed the cross and left the angels.

I'm an atheist, but if I'd been the property owner, I'd have left the cross. Religious symbols don't affect me at all.

[TheFriedPiper]

235. His Property, why should he be forced to promote the religion

..of the mourner?


I would have told the guy a memorial is fine, but no religious garbage.

I damn sure wouldn't want my property used to promote religion of ANY kind.

It would be embarrassing. I don't want people to think I believe in fairy tales.



Not to mention, the subject line is misleading, it was not a BABY, it was a FETUS.

Only ONE person died in that wreck. One person and a clump of cells.



Why do religious people want to force their archaic beliefs on everyone else?

[dogday]

237. If it is his land, he has the right to do

whatever he wants...

On a personal level, he could of talked with the family members and tried to arrange some type of agreement. But some people don't want to do that, they want it their way or the highway... No pun intended...

[noonwitch]

239. I have a problem with the whole roadside shrine thing, anyways

We have them all over the Detroit area, marking the site of car accidents or housefires where children were killed. People leave stuffed animals and all kinds of junk at these sites-items that they could donate to Children's Hospital, and that get spoiled the first time it rains. It gets nasty and gross after a few weeks.

The ones on the side of the freeway are usually different-they are usually a cross or a similar item, made out of plastic or wood, so they don't make a bigger mess or anything.

It's the atheist's property, however, and he can do what he likes with it. If he doesn't want the memorial there, that's his right, even if he is being a bit insensitive.

I admit to having a pet peeve about those roadside shrines, though. The dead aren't buried there! Their spirits are either busy comforting their loved ones, or have moved on!

[NoodleyAppendage]

242. I would do the same if it were my property and I would charge trespassing.

Enough is enough. It's high time that there be a pushback on the christofascists and their assumption that everyone shares their "beliefs."

There's something called a cemetary. I suggest the fundie family move their memorial to that appropriate place and stop trespassing on private property in an attempt to make the memorial more public.

Anyway, what's up with putting a memorial on a roadside??? Those displays are distracting to current drivers and are likely to cause another accident in a similar spot.

j

[Strong Atheist]

246. Almost happened to me when someone stopped their car in the

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD at one of those... pissed me off...

Edited to add: the person tailgating me almost hit me when I had to slow down to go around this idiot...

[TheFriedPiper]

268. No chance to bash atheists gets missed, does it?

Geez. If a Buddhist had put up a memorial to a loved one on a Christian's land, and the Christian had taken offense to it, then the media would have supported the Christian removing it.

But, that wouldn't keep up the backwards meme that atheists have no morals, because morals can only come from an ancient fairy tale, not from personal empathy. (eye roll)

PLEASE.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

283. I expect to find a burning "null set" symbol on my lawn...

... picture this aflame:



/Also picture me with zero Photoshop skills.

[SPKrazy]

286. I Don't Understand Why People Put Anything To Memorialize Where Someone Is

killed precisely.

Maybe there is something there I don't get. If so, I hope I never get it, or are in a position to "get it".

I see a lot of roadside crosses with flowers around and always wonder if they are really a memorial, or a reminder for other drivers to drive with care. They usually bring me back to reality for a moment.

But I wouldn't want to go to the spot if I'd lost a loved one there I don't believe.

There was a murder a few blocks from my house, where a man had been stalking his wife and kids, and she was stopped at a stoplight riding as a passenger. The man got out of his car and yanked her out of her car and killed her in front of some of his kids in the car. Some other drivers got out and got him off of her, but apparently not soon enough. They marked the spot on the side of the road there with a memorial for about a year. It was always kind of wierd I thought to mark where she was brutally murdered. But again, maybe it was to remind people of what happened, since it was in the news quite a bit (small city) for a while. It is gone, but the memory of it sticks in my mind.

If it had been someone I knew and cared about, I don't know if I would have liked to have seen the marker.

Peace

[Nevernose]

295. Intolerance, pure and simple

What would it have hurt him to let some one out up a couple of small crosses, for a couple of months? Nothing. He doesn't have to agree with the religious sentiment behind them, but a tolerant person should have at least seen the honest grief and need to express it. If he were a fundamentalist Christian, and the mourning symbols had been pagan/Muslim/Buddhist/political/whatever, I bet that DU would be singing a very different tune.

No one was asking him to convert to Catholicism, just to put up a couple of crosses on the side of the road for a few months.

Full disclosure: I am an atheist/agnostic (depending on the weather;)), and also an active Unitarian Universalist.

In short: even if he couldn't respect their religion, he should have respected their grief.

[Bluebear]

296. Did you read that he allowed angels, stuffed animals, etc?

And that he only did not want crosses on his property? Just so you know the whole story. :hi:

[Nevernose]

298. penny=pound; ALSO the anti-Catholic antipathy is VERY suspicious

"In for a penny, in for a pound." It was only for a couple of months; it's not like they were going to put up a permanent drive-thru JESUS-SAVES! franchise on the property.

The antipathy towards the cross itself is a little odd, especially considering the fact that he let other memorial items remain. In my experience, that sort of anti-crucifex hatred comes from fundamentalist Protestants (still intolerance, just a more suspect one).

[Cobalt Violet]

306. If he doesn't want that crap on his lawn he shouldn't have to tolerate it.

Maybe it does hurt him. It would hurt me. I hate looking at that shit. Some of us DO feel that strongly about it.

Maybe he was molested by a Catholic priest and anything that bring up that memory hurts him. We just don't know. Maybe their religion never respected him, and he feels that strongly about it to. He has every right to live on his property without that crap on his lawn if it bothers him.

[NMMNG]

308. If he had been a fundamentalist Christian

Do you really think Pagan/Muslim/Buddhist or any non-Christian memorial symbols would have been allowed on that lawn at all? Honestly?

[Cobalt Violet]

322. I'd like to see a fundie allow satanic memorial symbols.

Like that would ever happen too.

[lynne]

303. Not a religious issue or a property issue or a rights issue -

- but a humanitarian issue. Regardless of faith, removing the crosses and destroying them and the other items was nothing short of cold-hearted and mean-spirited. No matter what type of symbol or who owned what, anyone who would do such to a grieving family has little love or respect for his fellow man and is a poor excuse for a human being.

[depakid]

309. You tell me that a wiccan and her unborn child

would have been allowed to have had their memorial on Christian or Catholic properties?

Not bloody likely.

[LittleClarkie]

310. If they were indeed Christians, then I'd expect the same from them

that I'm expecting from this person.

People keep talking about the "atheist home owner"

I don't care if he worships his right hand, I expect human beings to treat each other with compassion.

[depakid]

311. Expect is one thing

and reality is another.

What you and I (or other decent people who would turn their cheeks) would do is not a hallmark of what goes on in the minds of many- if not most- of the people who call themselves Christians these days.

I've seen what happens when the shoe is on the other foot one too many times.

[Cobalt Violet]

323. How do you know that the atheist has alway be treated ...

with compassion by the Catholic church. You don't know why the site of crosses may set him off. But if it does he has the right to get rid of them on his own land.
You talk as if the Catholic church can do no wrong. They have quite a different history here in Massachusetts.

[LittleClarkie]

339. No I don't.

I'm just expecting compassion amongst human beings.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

312. What a Jackass

Sorry, being an atheist does not immunize you from social ostracism for doing really abominable things, any more than being a member of any religion does.

DTH

[Cobalt Violet]

324. "abominable things"?Like what?

He got rid of the Catholic symbols that he didn't wish to see everyday on his own property. You don't know why he reacts the way he does to these symbols. He may have a very good reason.

If he is socially ostracized it by people he is better off not having in his life anyway. People who think he should their beliefs above his own. Who needs them. I hope I meet him. And I'm sure there are more people up here who a glad he did what he did than those who aren't.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

328. The Guy's Fiancee and Unborn Child DIED

And this guy BURIED the stuff.

That is abominable. Show some respect for the dead, and the bereaved.

DTH

[Cobalt Violet]

329. Wow, the only people to ever DIE!

And a guy had the nerve to bury litter left on his property! Yeah that's abominable. :popcorn:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

332. The Guy Is Utterly Callous

It IS a big deal when people die, especially tragically like that. I'm shocked that anyone would support the guy. Obviously, the stuff was not "trash" and regardless of what you think of religion, it meant a lot to the bereaved.

Where is the humanity? People sure act tough when they're hiding behind a keyboard and an anonymous screen name. Most people would be ashamed to act like this, and wouldn't have the guts to say stuff like this in person.

DTH

[SemiCharmedQuark]

345. Can't wait until Billy the Klansman comes onto these peoples' properties

and tells how his baby brother was killed there, and oh wouldn't a flaming cross and confederate flag be a great memorial to him? You have a moral duty to let him put it there!

[lectrobyte]

333. It's his property. I never quite understood this whole roadside

memorial craze anyway. Kind of like when the teenagers got killed close to my home, by not taking a curve while going 80 in a 45, and drinking. I wanted to go and add a beer can or two to the collection of teddy bears and plastic flowers, since that would seem to be a better use of the space, i.e., someone might get an object lesson from it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

342. If someone put up swastika on my property, I'd take it down

And I'd be very sorry that the family lost their loved one. But it wouldn't change my beliefs that that particular symbol stood for something I could not condone, even if it stood as a memorial to someone. Of course, I am not comparing Christians to Nazis, but I'm trying to make people see that there is more than just the
"Cranky Old Heartless Atheist" here. Perhaps it is hard to believe when one identifies a symbol, such as the cross, only with love or tolerance but for many, religious symbols symbolize as much death and destruction as any swastika ever could. How many have died in religious wars? How many will die? Why should the owner's beliefs be trampled on?

I speak as a Christian. But I feel that this man is being railroaded. How many of those screaming bloody murder would like it if I put a pagan symbol on their land? We know how some would react, look at cemetaries that have refused to honor pagan's wishes.

Sometimes when you're so indoctrinated in the norm, you HAVE to take it to extremes to see from the other viewpoint. I cannot imagine being an atheist in this country. I never realized how ingrained in our lives Christianity is until I came to DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

344. Let's Face It: Some People Are Just Total Assholes.

But total assholes have rights to their property and what is allowed on it as partial assholes and non assholes do.

[LanternWaste]

348. So I'm going to reverse the situation and try it that way.

So I'm going to reverse the situation and try it that way.

I own the property that a makeshift memorial to a Satanist was built on. The memorial is obvious both in intent and content. Being opposed to Satanism in every way, I ponder...

I'm pretty sure this is how my scenario would play out: I'd turn a blind eye to it for a time. Probably a month, maybe more, maybe less... that depends more on the individuals rather than on the memorial itself.

I'd then contact the individuals who had built the memorial and tell them that although I grieve their loss, I cannot in good conscience allow the memorial to stand as it is much longer.

I'd allow them the opportunity to remove it OR make it generic in regards to faith. I'd give them assistance with either choice.

Throughout the proceedings, I'd maintain both civility and respect. I wouldn't contact the media nor advertise the scenario in any way and try to keep this a private affair.

Bear in mind a fundamental issue that colors my opinion-- I believe that we as individuals are (at best) merely stewards of "property", not owners.


That's what I'd probably do. No puerile posturing about "property rights", nor a fist raised in faux-indignation about non-believers. It's a memorial for pete's sake, not someone bulldozing down a house and rendering me homeless.

I have to ask myself, what's more important-- basic decency and civility for someone who has lost a beloved, or my own sense of self-import.

[NMMNG]

351. Reality check

If the situation had been reversed, and a Christian property owner had disposed of memorial items belonging to an atheist we wouldn't be debating the whole matter. Why? Because it never would have made it to the media. It's only because a mean old atheist trashed the memorial of a Christian that this event was considered newsworthy.

[BurtWorm]

355. Make it easier for people. Imagine it was an orthodox Jew

rather than an atheist who didn't want a cross on his property. We definitely would not be having this conversation!

[NMMNG]

356. Of course not

Because it is considered perfectly appropriate for a "person of faith" to ask for his/her beliefs respected--as long as their faith is one of the "accepted" religions. But have an atheist (or someone of an "unacceptable" religion do it and it becomes an issue.

[The Straight Story]

360. MSM picks on atheists? DU'ers pick on christians?

That's about what I am hearing here.

The MSM tosses out a story about one atheist and folks are in an uproar. How many have they tossed out about christians? Pat robertson, oral roberts, ptl club, Intelligent design, catholic priests, etc and so on ad nauseum are portrayed negative in the press on a regular basis.

The guy in this story made note of his beliefs as being his reason for what he did, so that made it fair game.

Fast Forward to DU and what do we see? Bash christians, call any belief a fairy tale, and so on. Say something negative about an atheist and the thread reels past 300 posts. It was not even negative about atheism in general - just one self identified atheist.

Sheesh, some folks on this thread are a little touchy (not necessarily you btw, just ranting).