Transportation workers and citizens defacing crosses at roadsides where family and friends mark site of car accidents. Interesting. ===================================================

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGISU3VJW3C.html

Religious Quarrel Sprouts on Oregon Roadsides

By Amalie Young

Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Foes of roadside memorials for car-crash victims are waging an ideological war with Christian believers by posting signs bearing black crosses with a red slash through them - and some with the Satanic mark, "666."

The anonymous placards are part of an escalating public debate in Oregon over whether crosses and other memorials familiar in states across the country should be allowed at crash sites.

Transportation workers recently began removing religious memorials after people complained they aren't appropriate on public roads.

A state senator, Republican Marilyn Shannon, has launched a campaign to declare the religious memorials legal, and the Legislature's Transportation Committee is considering crafting a bill to legalize them.

But some who oppose the religious memorials apparently have launched their own campaign. The activists left one of the black cross placards, with "666" painted in red, on Shannon's lawn.

....snipped short.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000

Answers

"by posting signs bearing black crosses with a red slash through them - and some with the Satanic mark, "666.""

Didn't some one centuries ago mention a thing called Hypocrisy?

Guess Black Crosses are ok?

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 26, 2000.

No doubt Mark! At least the state employees yank both types. Irony is the folks planting either cross are the taxpayers who fund the removal project.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Here in Ohio, these "shrines" are regularly removed, in the course of mowing, or litter pick-up. The explanation is that the State Public Works crews which do the mowing truly do not have time to maintain them in appropriate condition.

HOWEVER there is ONE, on I-71 at about Rt 250, that is particularly well maintianed, is ALWAYS mowed, and the flag, badge, and flowers always seem to be fresh. This is for the Trooper shot to death a couple years ago when he made a routine stop to assist a motorist. The fact that it is less than 3 miles from this trooper's home baracks is TOTALLY coincidental.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 26, 2000.

Chuck, I suppose if the troopers want to maintain the memorial (and the surrounding lawn area) themselves and save the public works guys the hassle, what's the big deal?

-- Die Fledermaus (shadow@alliance.org), January 26, 2000.

I think it is terrible and sick that someone would deface these memorials.

But I'm not sure I understand why people feel it is significant to mark the spot of someones death with a memorial. Memorials like this belong in cemetaries. I hope it doesn't sound like I am being insensitive to peoples grief because I'm not but I don't think these kind of displays are appropriate for sides of highways.

-- Scottsworth (NewEnglander@Ct.com), January 26, 2000.

Scottsworth, to me that these monuments serve a similar purpose to seeing a Batesville Casket Company truck on the highway. It reminds you to buckle up, and slow down. Heaven can wait.

-- Die Fledermaus (shadow@alliance.org), January 26, 2000.

I find the roadside memorials somewhat tacky. But, as long as they don't interfere with road maintenance, and don't get in the way of traffic trying to use the shoulder of the road (if it exists), I don't care too much.

Also reminds me of the Asian belief (I think) that says in cases of sudden violent death, the soul of the departed often wanders in confusion, and that the memorials are supposed to be a message to them. Who knows?

-- Bill (billclo@blazenet.net), January 26, 2000.

Yes, let's direct our time, energy and resources to this very important subject. I suspect that if just a fraction of the problems appearing on the horizon should happen, we will quickly see how insignificant this 'problem' is.

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), January 26, 2000.

Remember cemeteries? Where the dead are laid to rest and memorials -- permanent ones -- erected in their honor? In commemoration of their lives -- not the tragic circumstances of their death. Battlefield memorials for slain war heroes who died in sacrifice are one thing; but the spontaneous eruptioj of roadside crosses on every other gaurdrail; tree and telephone pole are a bloody nuissance, and show a sadly unfulfilling view of human life. Lives should be memorialized. Not the settings of tragic accidents resulting in gory death.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), January 26, 2000.

if memory serves me correctly i believe that there was an insurance company that used to put up small white crosses at the sites of fatal accidents, one for each person that died in that accident. this was when i was a child and i remember my father telling me about it when i saw some by the road. whenever i saw one, or especially a cluster, it reminded me that i needed to remember to drive carefully. this was usually on smaller roads, some were country roads. back then there weren't such large busy freeways. i have no objection to them, but can see how they might be a distraction or inappropriate on some of the busy high traffic areas.

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.