VERY OT !!! RCTN member seeking religious knowledge

Very nicely said, Tegan. I especially like the warning road sign that
appears before the treacherous stretch.

Tegan wrote:
Dianne and Elizabeth both make valid points. I do think this is
definitely an "agree to disagree" topic! I personally, and as I said
before it's strictly my personal feelings that I'm expressing, resent
being drug into someone else's public display of grief. There's a
display that I pass on my way to my Mother's that really revs up my
irritation factor, and I think is the one that has colored my feelings
on this whole topic. The story in short order, is that the daughter
went missing, where the marker is located is where her CAR was found,
not her body. There was never any forensic evidence found that proved
she died on or near that spot. Her body was actually found many miles
away in another state (I'm close to Kansas, so border events occur
frequently). I completely understand how her Mother, who is the one who
maintains the memorial, can and does grieve for her daughter on a daily
basis. But why should *I* have to be reminded on a daily basis? The
Mother lives in Kansas City, so only sees the spot one day a month,
when she comes up to redo the decorations. Those of us that live up
here see it daily. And because it is located on a sometimes treacherous
curve, I've seen vehicles veer out of their lanes, showing me that the
drivers have been distracted by it and aren't paying attention to the
curve that should be their focus. On that very curve, somewhere around
30 years ago (and egads! I'm old enough to remember it!) there was a
carload of college boys who tragically lost their lives because they
missed the curve, but there's no memorial display for them.

And contrary creature that I am, I understand the initial displays,
such as the example of Diana's death that was given. There was a case
in KC that I'm sure made national coverage, concerning the found
remains of "Baby Doe", a toddler who's headless body was found in a
park. There was a tremendous outpouring of flowers, candles, teddy
bears, cards, etc.. I understand the initial response was from a need
to express sorrow over the loss of an innocent child in some tangible
way, but what I don't understand is why not give all those toys to
living children in memory of Baby Doe, rather than leave them exposed
to the elements and ultimate ruin? I think it's the wastefulness I see
with some of these memorials that bothers me most. I'm inclined to
agree with Dianne, that in some ways, this is not really done for the
benefit of the deceased or as comfort to the surviving family, but for
some sort of exhibitionistic display.

Many years ago, I accompanied my SO on a delivery he made into
Arkansas. I remember seeing a road sign, posted by the state, on a very
curvy, circuitous stretch of road that said (paraphrasing a bit) "7
People have lost their lives this year on this road. Don't YOU be
number 8", but there were no roadside displays or memorials. I thought
that was great, as it gave fair warning that this road could be tricky
and to pay attention.

Loss happens. People die. It happens everyday. I have my own grief to
deal with, without having someone else's forced on me in areas where I
least expect to find it. And again, this is all strictly my own
personal outlook.
Tegan


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

"Lucretia Borgia" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:59 GMT, "Pat EAXStitch"
wrote:


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...
Dr. Brat wrote:
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.

Understand your point. I still believe it's a little bit more at
exhibitionism. A plaque on a building is a quiet, unobstrusive momento
in comparison. I firmly believe if having a gravesite is not enough, we
need to find another solution besides monuments on roadsides.

I do think, however, that any such law as the one you
mentioned would be subject to challenge under the First Amendment.

Not if it's on private or state-owned land. If these memorials get in
the way of general maintenance, or are unkempt, the State has an
interest for the greater common good (scenic views). Just as many
states have outlawed billboards. Or severely limited them.

Putting flowers on a spot to commemorate a deadly accident is not the
same as erecting crosses and paraphenalia. If you want to build a
memorial, plant daffodils (as Pat suggested was done and rejected the
idea as well). :-) At least it adds to the whole - and will last and
grow in volume through the decades. Or a similar flower, depending upon
your climate. It's even environmentally friendly.

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

I like the flower planting idea - but in the shape of a cross, heart, or
something, still forms an inadvisable distraction - the cross I mentioned
is
still clearly recognisable as such, and it`s been there for thirty years
to
MY knowledge - but I`ve never met anyone who knows the name of who it
commemorates! If you just plant flowers in a less obvious manner - only
those who know will notice them. That`s a nice thought, to me, and not
likely to pose a problem.

We have several plaques on walls where famous people LIVED. There are
also
a few memorials in streets where people of note died - a Policewoman who
was
killed in her line of duty, for instance. I wouldn`t think it was
advisable
to allow plaques/memorials all over the country commemorating every Tom,
Dick or Harry who dropped dead or were run over "At this spot". Can you
imagine it? Everywhere would be swamped!

Graveyards or Memorial chapels have always been the places for that sort
of
thing and just because that`s been the recognised place for it for
thousands
of years doesn`t make it any less in a local wood. (Preferable not yet,
though! Too much to do yet!).apt today. (As a matter of fact, gravestones
in English graveyards are a comparatively new thing, only having been used
in the last two or three hundred years).

I very much like the tree planting idea, with a small plaque. We have
several of those appearing in the lovely open space where many people walk
their dogs. John`s brother has a really nice garden seat with a memorial
plaque on it in the local public gardens, where he frequently used to sit
looking out to sea when he was alive.

As for me, I want my ashes scattered in the local wood - preferably not
yet.
I still have too much stitching to do!

Pat P

Wow! I am the lone supporter of MADDs crosses - ask me how much I
care lol

You're not alone Sheena as I feel they serve a good purpose to remind us all
of the pain and suffering caused by DUI. They are well maintained,
recognized by most for what they represent and usually unobtrusive. As for
other privately placed memorial on public property that eventually become
nothing more than unrecognizable eyesores, I think they should be illegal.
On the other hand the cost incurred to enforce such legislation would
probably make it impractical.

Mavia

Lucretia Borgia wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:15:02 GMT, "Mavia Beaulieu"
wrote:






Wow! I am the lone supporter of MADDs crosses - ask me how much I
care lol

You're not alone Sheena as I feel they serve a good purpose to remind us all
of the pain and suffering caused by DUI. They are well maintained,
recognized by most for what they represent and usually unobtrusive. As for
other privately placed memorial on public property that eventually become
nothing more than unrecognizable eyesores, I think they should be illegal.
On the other hand the cost incurred to enforce such legislation would
probably make it impractical.

Mavia


Perhaps we support it because it works very well around here, where
maybe it does not elsewhere. It seems to me a few months back the
Dept of Highways ripped down that trio out towards the airport and
public dismay caused them to put it back and say in future the MADD
ones would be left alone.

Well I really like my company Mavia lol


I am in favor of the sort of thing you have in Canada, and I really
don't care who administers the program ( MADD in your case), but it
should be done in a consistent manner. Some people put up crosses, but
that won't work for all religions. One of the problems here in the
States is that if a specific State initiates a similar program, there
still will be no continuity from one state to the next. Maybe it is a
program that a big service organisation could run, such as Lions,
Elks,Masons, Rotary, Kiwanis etc.

Gillian

Mavia Beaulieu wrote:
As for
other privately placed memorial on public property that eventually become
nothing more than unrecognizable eyesores, I think they should be illegal.
On the other hand the cost incurred to enforce such legislation would
probably make it impractical.

According to highway department administrators here in Wisconsin, the
cost to remove is minor, as it will be done when mowing shoulders and
doing other general maintenance along highways. Many prisoners and
organizations currently remove litter along highways, and this would
just be a part of that maintenance.

I don't believe I've ever seen (don't get around much anymore) a MADD
sign/memorial on the road.

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

"Gill Murray" wrote in message
news:ZIDse.19562$2K4.4829@trnddc08...


Lucretia Borgia wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:15:02 GMT, "Mavia Beaulieu"
wrote:






Wow! I am the lone supporter of MADDs crosses - ask me how much I
care lol

You're not alone Sheena as I feel they serve a good purpose to remind us
all
of the pain and suffering caused by DUI. They are well maintained,
recognized by most for what they represent and usually unobtrusive.

You could suggest that the more unobtrusive they are, the more danger they
are - people just have to try harder to see them! LOL|!

Pat P

Pat P

"Mavia Beaulieu" wrote in message
news:aGCse.67770$9A2.20900@edtnps89...

"Lucretia Borgia" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:59 GMT, "Pat EAXStitch"
wrote:


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...
Dr. Brat wrote:
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.

Understand your point. I still believe it's a little bit more at
exhibitionism. A plaque on a building is a quiet, unobstrusive
momento
in comparison. I firmly believe if having a gravesite is not enough,
we
need to find another solution besides monuments on roadsides.

I do think, however, that any such law as the one you
mentioned would be subject to challenge under the First Amendment.

Not if it's on private or state-owned land. If these memorials get in
the way of general maintenance, or are unkempt, the State has an
interest for the greater common good (scenic views). Just as many
states have outlawed billboards. Or severely limited them.

Putting flowers on a spot to commemorate a deadly accident is not the
same as erecting crosses and paraphenalia. If you want to build a
memorial, plant daffodils (as Pat suggested was done and rejected the
idea as well). :-) At least it adds to the whole - and will last and
grow in volume through the decades. Or a similar flower, depending
upon
your climate. It's even environmentally friendly.

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

I like the flower planting idea - but in the shape of a cross, heart, or
something, still forms an inadvisable distraction - the cross I
mentioned
is
still clearly recognisable as such, and it`s been there for thirty years
to
MY knowledge - but I`ve never met anyone who knows the name of who it
commemorates! If you just plant flowers in a less obvious manner - only
those who know will notice them. That`s a nice thought, to me, and not
likely to pose a problem.

We have several plaques on walls where famous people LIVED. There are
also
a few memorials in streets where people of note died - a Policewoman who
was
killed in her line of duty, for instance. I wouldn`t think it was
advisable
to allow plaques/memorials all over the country commemorating every Tom,
Dick or Harry who dropped dead or were run over "At this spot". Can
you
imagine it? Everywhere would be swamped!

Graveyards or Memorial chapels have always been the places for that sort
of
thing and just because that`s been the recognised place for it for
thousands
of years doesn`t make it any less in a local wood. (Preferable not yet,
though! Too much to do yet!).apt today. (As a matter of fact,
gravestones
in English graveyards are a comparatively new thing, only having been
used
in the last two or three hundred years).

I very much like the tree planting idea, with a small plaque. We have
several of those appearing in the lovely open space where many people
walk
their dogs. John`s brother has a really nice garden seat with a
memorial
plaque on it in the local public gardens, where he frequently used to
sit
looking out to sea when he was alive.

As for me, I want my ashes scattered in the local wood - preferably not
yet.
I still have too much stitching to do!

Pat P

Wow! I am the lone supporter of MADDs crosses - ask me how much I
care lol

You're not alone Sheena as I feel they serve a good purpose to remind us
all
of the pain and suffering caused by DUI. They are well maintained,
recognized by most for what they represent and usually unobtrusive. As
for
other privately placed memorial on public property that eventually become
nothing more than unrecognizable eyesores, I think they should be illegal.
On the other hand the cost incurred to enforce such legislation would
probably make it impractical.

Mavia

What`s wrong with just having the "Accident black spot" road signs.
Perfectly adequate.

Pat P

"Brenda Lewis" wrote in message
. ..
Very nicely said, Tegan. I especially like the warning road sign that
appears before the treacherous stretch.

Tegan wrote:
Dianne and Elizabeth both make valid points. I do think this is
definitely an "agree to disagree" topic! I personally, and as I said
before it's strictly my personal feelings that I'm expressing, resent
being drug into someone else's public display of grief. There's a
display that I pass on my way to my Mother's that really revs up my
irritation factor, and I think is the one that has colored my feelings
on this whole topic. The story in short order, is that the daughter
went missing, where the marker is located is where her CAR was found,
not her body. There was never any forensic evidence found that proved
she died on or near that spot. Her body was actually found many miles
away in another state (I'm close to Kansas, so border events occur
frequently). I completely understand how her Mother, who is the one who
maintains the memorial, can and does grieve for her daughter on a daily
basis. But why should *I* have to be reminded on a daily basis? The
Mother lives in Kansas City, so only sees the spot one day a month,
when she comes up to redo the decorations. Those of us that live up
here see it daily. And because it is located on a sometimes treacherous
curve, I've seen vehicles veer out of their lanes, showing me that the
drivers have been distracted by it and aren't paying attention to the
curve that should be their focus. On that very curve, somewhere around
30 years ago (and egads! I'm old enough to remember it!) there was a
carload of college boys who tragically lost their lives because they
missed the curve, but there's no memorial display for them.

And contrary creature that I am, I understand the initial displays,
such as the example of Diana's death that was given. There was a case
in KC that I'm sure made national coverage, concerning the found
remains of "Baby Doe", a toddler who's headless body was found in a
park. There was a tremendous outpouring of flowers, candles, teddy
bears, cards, etc.. I understand the initial response was from a need
to express sorrow over the loss of an innocent child in some tangible
way, but what I don't understand is why not give all those toys to
living children in memory of Baby Doe, rather than leave them exposed
to the elements and ultimate ruin? I think it's the wastefulness I see
with some of these memorials that bothers me most. I'm inclined to
agree with Dianne, that in some ways, this is not really done for the
benefit of the deceased or as comfort to the surviving family, but for
some sort of exhibitionistic display.

Many years ago, I accompanied my SO on a delivery he made into
Arkansas. I remember seeing a road sign, posted by the state, on a very
curvy, circuitous stretch of road that said (paraphrasing a bit) "7
People have lost their lives this year on this road. Don't YOU be
number 8", but there were no roadside displays or memorials. I thought
that was great, as it gave fair warning that this road could be tricky
and to pay attention.

Loss happens. People die. It happens everyday. I have my own grief to
deal with, without having someone else's forced on me in areas where I
least expect to find it. And again, this is all strictly my own
personal outlook.
Tegan


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

The other signs that REALLY irritate me are the ones in cars. "Baby on
Board". So? And "Show horses/dogs/cats on board".

Pat P

Lucretia Borgia wrote:
They are completely plain, white crosses, ... One notices them,
particularly if there was more than one person killed at the spot,
but you don't exactly have to look away from the highway at them,
they just are there, instantly recognizable and a record.

I actually like these simple crosses. I guess I don't find them
distracting because they *are* easily recognizable and you don't
*really* have to actually *look* at them (I first saw them maaaany
years before MADD existed). To me, they are a visual reminder of
treacherous intersections or bends in the road and they are used more
as a cautionary reminder that the area is dangerous than as a
remembrance of a person.

I also agree that all the money spent on teddy bears, flowers, etc.,
could be put to better use. What *did* the royal family do with all
the toys left in memory of Diana, anyway? Anyone know?

Joan

"Lucretia Borgia wrote
Wow! I am the lone supporter of MADDs crosses - ask me how much I
care lol

The city of Regina puts up black traffic signs with the word fatality in a
coffin shaped outline at places where there have been pedestrian
fatalities. I think they serve a purpose, both for drivers and
pedestrians, to be aware. MADD doesn't put up crosses here. For a long
time, roadside crosses were not legal in Saskatchewan, largely on the
distraction/hazard argument. I see no problem with a simple marker--like
the fatality signs, they might increase awareness. But I see no purpose to
the piles of faded fabric flowers and sodden teddy bears that I seen
especially in British Columbia. I heard an academic on CBC radio who
actually studies roadside shrines, and there are instances where young
people have been killed driving drunk, and friends leave bottles of beer or
liquor"for them"at their shrine, which seems to do nothing to discourage
drunk driving.
Dawne

Caryn wrote
There was a Folk group from the early 60's called The Weavers. One
member, Lee Hays, had diabetes, it eventually caused his death. He'd
been an advid gardener, and asked that his ashes be spread over his
compost pile.

I believe the joke was that he wanted his friends to eat the vegetables
grown afterwards so he could be forever part of them.

Oh Caryn, thanks so much for this one!
When my mother starts going on about not wanting a funeral etc etc I have
threatened to compost her--now I can threaten to use her to feed the
strawberries.
Dawne