VERY OT !!! RCTN member seeking religious knowledge

We live down the highway from Jamestown and are following the discovery of
the old fort with great interest. Our local (Richmond) news has a reporter
in England following the DNA testing so we hear reports, but it is nice to
see the British version of the story. Thanks Pat

Of course my husband has less than happy memories about Jamestown since he
was a chaperone for the 4th grade trip last fall. All the kids wanted to do
was shop, but he wanted to see the real dig since the man in charge, Bill
Kelso, was there. He got his way most of the time, but then one little girl
in his group lost her gift shop purchase and he had to replace the charm she
bought since she was in tears. I had to go to the Civil War battlefield but
nobody in my group lost anything. I only get so excited about earthworks
though.

Margaret in Midlothian, VA

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses, it
is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through to
stop it.

On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law. What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dr. Brat wrote:
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses,
it is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through
to stop it.


On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law. What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth

From what I have garnered/gleaned from news reports over the past
couple of years: They become eyesores, it is difficult/impossible for
mowing the shoulders, they are a traffic hazard (some memorials are
quite large).

I don't believe it's petty or an unsympathetic law at all. There are
graveyards to honor the dead. While initially the crosses and flowers
(and balloons and teddy bears, etc.) draw attention to perhaps a
dangerous portion of highway in a given community, later they are just
distractions or hold no meaning for the general public.

The placing of crosses plus decorations on highways is a recent
phenomena. I see no point to it, and indeed they eventually become
scenic eyesores in my opinion. There are places to honor the dead.
There are other avenues with which to point out the foolishness of drunk
driving.

I lost a dear family member to a drunk driver. That was long before
crosses were being put on highways. Everytime I've traveled that
dangerous stretch of road I remember my aunt. But I don't expect the
rest of the world to care. To me, familial grief is a private matter.

Dianne
--
"The Journal of Needlework" - The E-zine for All Needleworkers
http://journal.heritageshoppe.com

I'm curious too. I think something should be done since people place
these things out and then leave them indefinitely (I frequently drive by
one that has been in place for four years) without maintaining them and
without obtaining permission from the landowner. However if the
landowner wants to get rid of it or clean it up, he is "mean and
insensitive". It is fine to have such a display for a week or two after
the accident as part of the normal grieving process, but after that time
tributes should be placed on the victim's real grave. Having something
specifically codified will protect the landowner (or county maintenance
worker, etc.) from pain and suffering or theft claims by the mourners.
In many cases the mourners could be charged with littering and
trespassing as it is.

Dr. Brat wrote:
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses,
it is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through
to stop it.


On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law. What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth

--
Brenda
NEW to Styx, classic to the world: Big Bang Theory

"Dr. Brat" wrote in message
...
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses, it
is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through to
stop it.

On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law. What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth

Pretty sensible I should think. These things create a distraction which is
a potential danger to motorists!

Pat P
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Pat EAXStitch wrote:
"Dr. Brat" wrote in message
...
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses, it
is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through to
stop it.

On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law. What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth

Pretty sensible I should think. These things create a distraction which is
a potential danger to motorists!

Pat P
--


There is one near me, on what is a dangerous curve in a road where
speeding is the norm. I can't help but think it's a bad idea to put an
extra distraction in the way of bright pink plastic flowers and
fluttering ribbons on an area of road that has already proven so
dangerous that it's caused the death that the flowers commemorate.

BTW, the death was 4 yrs ago, somebody replaces the ribbons
regularly...just to make sure they do flutter and distract!

Caryn

wrote in message
oups.com...


Pat EAXStitch wrote:
"Dr. Brat" wrote in message
...
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the
crosses, it
is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law through
to
stop it.

On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law.
What
is the basis for it?

Elizabeth

Pretty sensible I should think. These things create a distraction which
is
a potential danger to motorists!

Pat P
--


There is one near me, on what is a dangerous curve in a road where
speeding is the norm. I can't help but think it's a bad idea to put an
extra distraction in the way of bright pink plastic flowers and
fluttering ribbons on an area of road that has already proven so
dangerous that it's caused the death that the flowers commemorate.

BTW, the death was 4 yrs ago, somebody replaces the ribbons
regularly...just to make sure they do flutter and distract!

Caryn

Someone planted a huge cross of daffodil bulbs on the embankment on a main
road into Bury St Edmunds - we naturally look out for it each Spring, but
even though it`s so much nicer than balloons and ribbons and only there when
daffodils are in flower, it`s still a dangerous distraction on a busy dual
carriageway.

Another dangerous one was on a cross roads near here, which is in the middle
of a heavily wooded area. Someone put a large, white wooden cross - with
the usual balloons, ribbons (nearly said "whistles") and flowers. It`s been
cleared now, I`m glad to say. It`s a spot where accidents often happen in
any case, as the visibility is NOT good, due to all the trees.

Pat P

Pat P

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:
Dr. Brat wrote:
Dianne Lewandowski wrote:

In my neck of the woods, it isn't MADD who is putting up the crosses,
it is families. The State of Wisconsin is trying to get a law
through to stop it.

On the face of it, that seems like a petty and unsympathetic law.
What is the basis for it?

From what I have garnered/gleaned from news reports over the past
couple of years: They become eyesores, it is difficult/impossible for
mowing the shoulders, they are a traffic hazard (some memorials are
quite large).

If it is the case that they are traffic hazards, then it makes more
sense to me. I don't really notice them when I'm driving, more when I'm
riding.

I don't believe it's petty or an unsympathetic law at all. There are
graveyards to honor the dead.

I don't think that graveyards hold the same meaning for some people as
they do for others.

While initially the crosses and flowers
(and balloons and teddy bears, etc.) draw attention to perhaps a
dangerous portion of highway in a given community, later they are just
distractions or hold no meaning for the general public.

Perhaps.

The placing of crosses plus decorations on highways is a recent
phenomena. I see no point to it, and indeed they eventually become
scenic eyesores in my opinion. There are places to honor the dead.
There are other avenues with which to point out the foolishness of drunk
driving.

That they are recent doesn't make them less valid. That you see no
point to it doesn't mean that others see no point to it. Not everyone
expresses their grief in the same way and I don't think that some
expressions are necessarily more valid than others.

I lost a dear family member to a drunk driver. That was long before
crosses were being put on highways. Everytime I've traveled that
dangerous stretch of road I remember my aunt. But I don't expect the
rest of the world to care. To me, familial grief is a private matter.

What about non-familial grief? What about community grief? A few years
ago, a woman who sang in chorus with me was knocked off her bicycle and
under the wheels of a bus by a motorist who opened his door into a
clearly marked bicycle lane without looking. I have no interest in
finding her grave and I am not one of the ones who places flowers at the
site of her death every year, but I am glad that they are put there,
even if not everyone who sees them understands why they are there. I
would not support a law forbidding the placement of those flowers on
that public street in her memory.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Dr. Brat wrote:
That they are recent doesn't make them less valid. That you see no
point to it doesn't mean that others see no point to it. Not everyone
expresses their grief in the same way and I don't think that some
expressions are necessarily more valid than others.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I really think this "memorial share
your grief" thing is a tad over the top. :-) By doing it, they are
dragging me into it - even though I don't want to go. I can avoid a
cemetary. I can't avoid the highway. And these memorials don't add to
the scenery after they become decrepid and are forgotten by those who
put them there.

What about non-familial grief? What about community grief? A few years
ago, a woman who sang in chorus with me was knocked off her bicycle and
under the wheels of a bus by a motorist who opened his door into a
clearly marked bicycle lane without looking. I have no interest in
finding her grave and I am not one of the ones who places flowers at the
site of her death every year, but I am glad that they are put there,
even if not everyone who sees them understands why they are there. I
would not support a law forbidding the placement of those flowers on
that public street in her memory.

One can remember every time one passes the spot. Are we to put small
memorials at every spot where someone dies? As I mentioned, there are
places for this, which have worked for thousands of years in many
different cultures: graveyards. If one has no desire to search out her
burial site, a donation can always be made to a cause of choice by the
grief stricken - in her name. Well, that was an awkward sentence. :-)
But surely there are other and better ways to remember someone.

It just seems to me that there is more than grief involved here.
Problem is, I can't put into the right words how I feel about it.
Almost at exhibitionism.

Dianne
--
"The Journal of Needlework" - The E-zine for All Needleworkers
http://journal.heritageshoppe.com

Dianne Lewandowski wrote:


One can remember every time one passes the spot. Are we to put small
memorials at every spot where someone dies? As I mentioned, there are
places for this, which have worked for thousands of years in many
different cultures: graveyards.

Because something has worked for thousands of years, that doesn't make
it the best or only solution. Fathers arranged marriages for their
daughters for thousands of years. I also know of at least one culture
that allows for plaques on buildings as a permanent commemeration to
people who died on that spot. We shall indeed have to agree to
disagree. I do think, however, that any such law as the one you
mentioned would be subject to challenge under the First Amendment.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*