|
|
Post by stevec on May 13, 2014 7:56:19 GMT -6
At one time I would have been more confident in predicting the outcome of this case, now I suspect crosses will be going up everywhere on publicly owned lands. Time for me to go into the crucifix business. Supreme Court Upheld Prayer at Meetings, Now Courts Take on Crosses Dispute |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 13, 2014 8:43:39 GMT -6
They already are going up everywhere on public lands. Every time a teenager drives off the road, a little Christian shrine gets erected on the roadside. I'm all for letting people work through their grief in ways that make sense to them, but I would argue that "Jessica died here" on a busy road is not exactly a helpful coping mechanism and that this falls in the same category as funeral proselytization, i.e. a post mortem attempt, conscious or no, to extract eternal meaning from a senseless death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2014 9:10:45 GMT -6
They already are going up everywhere on public lands. Every time a teenager drives off the road, a little Christian shrine gets erected on the roadside. I'm all for letting people work through their grief in ways that make sense to them, but I would argue that "Jessica died here" on a busy road is not exactly a helpful coping mechanism and that this falls in the same category as funeral proselytization, i.e. a post mortem attempt, conscious or no, to extract eternal meaning from a senseless death. Hi FB. Your post comes across (to me at least) as a bit colder than necessary. It seems reasonable to me that road-side shrines help the bereaved cope with their loss. In that way, the shrines are beneficial to the family whether or not God exists. Also, it is possible that the little shrines remind teen drivers of their own mortality when they are behind the wheel, so they might actually benefit society. (I recognize that most teen drivers believe that they are in fact immortal) So, I'm not sure why you would say that these are "not exactly a helpful coping mechanism..." Seems kind of judgmental for you. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2014 9:29:55 GMT -6
At one time I would have been more confident in predicting the outcome of this case, now I suspect crosses will be going up everywhere on publicly owned lands. Time for me to go into the crucifix business. Supreme Court Upheld Prayer at Meetings, Now Courts Take on Crosses Dispute Hi Steve: I can't really tell for sure from the article and a quick Google search, but I do not think the Supremes have agreed to hear this case yet. If they do not, it looks like the cross in San Diego comes down, based upon the 9th Circuit opinion. I think that the Supremes will hear the case and will overturn the 9th Circuit. They have already heard cross on public land cases. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042801949.html It is interesting that the lawyer for the Obama Administration arguing for the cross last time was Elena Kagan. I wonder if she will flip now that she is no longer a hired gun? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 13, 2014 9:46:04 GMT -6
They already are going up everywhere on public lands. Every time a teenager drives off the road, a little Christian shrine gets erected on the roadside. I'm all for letting people work through their grief in ways that make sense to them, but I would argue that "Jessica died here" on a busy road is not exactly a helpful coping mechanism and that this falls in the same category as funeral proselytization, i.e. a post mortem attempt, conscious or no, to extract eternal meaning from a senseless death. Hi FB. Your post comes across (to me at least) as a bit colder than necessary. It seems reasonable to me that road-side shrines help the bereaved cope with their loss. In that way, the shrines are beneficial to the family whether or not God exists. Also, it is possible that the little shrines remind teen drivers of their own mortality when they are behind the wheel, so they might actually benefit society. (I recognize that most teen drivers believe that they are in fact immortal) So, I'm not sure why you would say that these are "not exactly a helpful coping mechanism..." Seems kind of judgmental for you. Jim I get that, Jim, and of course I would never tell a patient's family how to grieve or not. Nor would I write editorials saying, "get the damned crosses off the boulevard". Where I think I might have something to offer in this discussion is a pretty extensive experience of observing tragedy, particularly sudden, unexpected deaths. I have been doing this for 20 years, and one does get a sense of what relatively healthy and unhealthy grieving look like. The problem with a roadside cross is that it serves as a constant and visible reminder of the death. In my experience, families triumph by focusing on the life. Again, I don't mean to be prescriptive, but if I were asked about how to grieve the sudden death of a loved one (and I am not, generally), I would stress home movies, websites, photo albums, gathering to tell stories etc.--all deliberately focused on the precious life. I really don't care if you call or think me judgmental, but a) if you think I am making an fundamatheist stand here, or b) that I am indifferent or unsympathetic to family grief, you're either not thinking this through or giving me much credit. I have had more opportunity to ponder these things than most people (except perhaps Ken) would have in a dozen lifetimes. It's my $0.02, not my billboard or newspaper editorial. Incidentally, Ken's comment here would be interesting given that he has certainly been in the same arena. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2014 10:03:53 GMT -6
Hi FB. Your post comes across (to me at least) as a bit colder than necessary. It seems reasonable to me that road-side shrines help the bereaved cope with their loss. In that way, the shrines are beneficial to the family whether or not God exists. Also, it is possible that the little shrines remind teen drivers of their own mortality when they are behind the wheel, so they might actually benefit society. (I recognize that most teen drivers believe that they are in fact immortal) So, I'm not sure why you would say that these are "not exactly a helpful coping mechanism..." Seems kind of judgmental for you. Jim I get that, Jim, and of course I would never tell a patient's family how to grieve or not. Nor would I write editorials saying, "get the damned crosses off the boulevard". Where I think I might have something to offer in this discussion is a pretty extensive experience of observing tragedy, particularly sudden, unexpected deaths. I have been doing this for 20 years, and one does get a sense of what relatively healthy and unhealthy grieving look like. The problem with a roadside cross is that it serves as a constant and visible reminder of the death. In my experience, families triumph by focusing on the life. Again, I don't mean to be prescriptive, but if I were asked about how to grieve the sudden death of a loved one (and I am not, generally), I would stress home movies, websites, photo albums, gathering to tell stories etc.--all deliberately focused on the precious life. I really don't care if you call or think me judgmental, but a) if you think I am making an fundamatheist stand here, or b) that I am indifferent or unsympathetic to family grief, you're either not thinking this through or giving me much credit. I have had more opportunity to ponder these things than most people (except perhaps Ken) would have in a dozen lifetimes. It's my $0.02, not my billboard or newspaper editorial. Incidentally, Ken's comment here would be interesting given that he has certainly been in the same arena. Thanks for the good explanation - it gives me something to think about. I am aware of your front line experience with sudden, unanticipated death and I value your opinion. I obviously approached this topic from a "whatever works for them is OK by me" perspective, but you have caused me to admit I do not have the background to observe that some things might objectively work better for the bereaved than others. Side point - You've noted in the past that we need to quit coddling each other. "Seems kind of judgmental for you." was indeed a short phrasing, but I had hoped that the "for you" part would not be overlooked. What I meant is that your post seemed kind of judgmental to me, which was surprising to me since you are not typically judgmental at all. Cool? J |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 13, 2014 10:34:24 GMT -6
Of course it's cool, except for the fact that we both mentioned it. We'll be back to the healthy throwing of vegetables eventually, and the sooner the better!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 13, 2014 11:08:38 GMT -6
At one time I would have been more confident in predicting the outcome of this case, now I suspect crosses will be going up everywhere on publicly owned lands. Time for me to go into the crucifix business. Supreme Court Upheld Prayer at Meetings, Now Courts Take on Crosses Dispute Hi Steve: I can't really tell for sure from the article and a quick Google search, but I do not think the Supremes have agreed to hear this case yet. If they do not, it looks like the cross in San Diego comes down, based upon the 9th Circuit opinion. I think that the Supremes will hear the case and will overturn the 9th Circuit. They have already heard cross on public land cases. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042801949.html It is interesting that the lawyer for the Obama Administration arguing for the cross last time was Elena Kagan. I wonder if she will flip now that she is no longer a hired gun? Jim The Mojave Desert cross was originally on public land that was transferred to private ownership. A veterans group now owns the land and is responsible for maintaining the memorial. I don't know what the timeline was for the transfer, but I suspect that may have been a factor n the Supremes' decision. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 13, 2014 11:33:54 GMT -6
Long ago I went skiing with my nephew and the story has become a knee slapping family classic. The short story is that I slid off the trail and fell face down. My skis didn't come off, so I couldn't get up, and to make matters worse, I was sinking in deep snow. I had to continually turn my head to make a blowhole to breathe. After about 15 minutes I thought - this is a stupid way to die. A couple of minutes later a I heard a voice, "is that you Uncle Steve?" My response was, "thank god you're here to save me". He later wrote an school essay titled, "Going Skiing With Uncle Steve", which he received an "A" for the effort.
He and his wife were down in FL last week and the families were all together, and of course the story had to be retold. At the end I told him that it would give me great pleasure to know that he would paint a message on my tombstone - "is that you Uncle Steve?"
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 17, 2014 10:19:38 GMT -6
|
|
