Newtown memorial at Jamaica Plain monument

It's not that I welcome enmity, it's that I am resigned to it.

When I saw Facebook statuses about how “God is not allowed in school” and when people at work talked about the children all being “safe with Jesus now” and how “God has a plan for everyone, even if we can't understand it”, I just bit my tongue instead of finding a polite way to say that it was all bullshit. Everyone of us will probably cope with this tragedy in irrational ways, so let it be, right?

I was a little irked that the President asserted that he “knew” that Heaven and God was waiting for the kids, but I thought Not my kids and not my town – I will keep my mouth shut.

I personally don't like the proliferation of public memorials after a mass tragedy like the one pictured above. I find them ghoulish and think they are emotional triggers and cause us to ruminate over morbidity and gruesome tragedy to the point where it may be less than helpful for coping. Also, some people who are super-close to the tragedy may not want to be reminded of it at every corner. But I was going to keep that opinion to myself because other people's voices should be heard and people do this sort of thing to cope. Not a big deal.

But then Dani has the audacity to imply – innocuously, I might add - that maybe, just maybe, the Christian Cross isn't a one-size-fits-all piece of metaphysical iconography and that perhaps a few Stars of David were in order. After her comment, four comments pop up dismissing her point, one of the comments saying that her comment was “stupid”. It is amazing that people will more-or-less accuse Dani of going out of her way to be offended and respond by going out of their ways to find offensive the mere suggestion that a Cross wasn't good enough.

Dani's point is valid and reasonable. I would have been content giving her a simple Uhub +1 vote, but it seemed the crowd could only see her as some PC fascist. Someone else made the point down thread that including faith-appropriate symbols “...might say to a grieving family 'we cared enough to find out', which makes it about them, rather than 'put up crosses - we need a visibility site”' - I strongly agree with that. I also strongly agree with first amendment rulings that religious symbols do not belong on public property.

The reason I made the comment above is because I have view points that no one else was sharing. Those views weren't articulated in part because people disagree with me, but also because people who agree know it is an unpopular position and, like in my examples above, don't want to be the one to go against the grain in a sensitive time for everyone. I wanted my beliefs represented, even if it would piss of my compatriots at Universal Hub. I did not want the enmity, I wish more people agreed with me, but I knew it was coming.

First, let me say that you expressed yourself quite well in the comment appearing a couple above this one. You obviously have some strong feelings about this. I'm sure you showed some of the same restraint I did - mine as a Christian, yours as not - by not resorting to simple indignation and insulting language.

(I hope that doesn't sound condescending; I mean it only as a compliment. You took the time to articulate your side carefully and precisely, and I always appreciate that sort of thing.)

OK, I don't know where you live, or where Dani lives. I assumed that if it was Newtown, I'd be told that soon enough. And I would have taken that as my cue to shut the hell up :-) Now, that's not to say that anyone should be denied a voice because of where they live or don't live, but since the memorial is meant to be of some very minor solace to those in Newtown, I would consider a protest expressed from that locale weighty in a way that some folks in the Boston area tossing around offhand commentary is not.

(Some people here have expressed a belief that the memorial is self-aggrandizing. I don't think it is. That's a separate question, though.)

As to your point about crosses never being divorced from their representation of Christianity, I don't disagree. I do, however, strongly believe that the sentiment implicitly expressed by the cross, in this instance, is a respect for the dead and a respect for those related to the dead in some way. The inclusion of them was (in my opinion, of course, as I am not privy to the actual thoughts of the designer) meant only to convey solidarity, shown in the way he probably thought most strongly conveyed that. We all express emotion in varying ways. If he is a Christian (which I think is obvious) then his visual expression of emotion might necessarily include that symbol he finds most apropos of compassion, hope, or whatever else he feels would be nice to show the citizens of Newtown. As a non-believer, the cross represents something different to you than to him. What it represents to me may differ from both of you. The important thing is that he likely believes, in his heart, that people in Newtown will understand the intent as one of compassion, perhaps empathy.

An aside: I've never been a big fan of public memorial displays. They do seem somewhat tacky, at times, and I doubt I would ever build one or contribute anything to one. I just think it a strange reaction if the first thought that comes to mind upon seeing this one is that the person who erected it is somehow being insulting or offensive when, to my eyes, the intent is so obviously benign.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

I hope when someone you love dies, no one tells you long you should grieve and how. And please explain to me how his grief has an impact on the quality of your daily life?

Carlos Arredondo just saved a man's life in the bombing yesterday.

Saved a life. All because he was there (handing out flags to finishers in memory of his son) knew what to do and ran in to help when others were (understandably) running away from a horror show.

Can we ban anons now please?