WTHell??? I'm amazed this man hasn't received death threats. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
when my son (atheist) saw it, he laughed, but then he said it wasn't right. Just cuz you think its stupid doesn't mean you can make fun of it. He doesn't like people making fun of his beliefs, so why make fun of theirs.
He was trying to make a statement that Christmas was becoming to commercialized and businesses were the only thing that matters , NOT SANTA and his true meaning.
It is pretty bizarre this 'person' would decorate in front of his house with crucifixion. Wikipedia: LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
He has taken a symbol enjoyed by young children and turned it into something to scare them. It is one thing to discuss and even argue religion or beliefs with an adult but it is quite another thing to ruin the holiday for little kids. The man is a mean spirited ass.
I just think it is sad. What if your neighbor crucified an effigy of a pooch like you have in your avatar? The way you throw fits here i already know how you would react. Regardless of what you believe it is a depiction of the human form....
It can't possibly be that people are missing the point, right? Wow. Some of you just don't have much for a sense of humor. If Cosmictraveler's explanation— —somehow confuses you, read the article: Thus I would ask Orleander— —what, exactly, her son finds cruel about it, as in who is being made fun of? And I would ask John99 what the hell— —his point has to do with anything other than sulking (note the single quotation marks)— —and taking shots at MZ3? (Seriously, what is the comparison there? A canine effigy? Really, how are we supposed to connect the two? What is the basis of the analogy?) Mr. Conrad's Christian neighbors and associates have not expressed any outrage; one of his coworkers, who is Christian, apparently likes the display. The first comment listed at the Kitsap Sun article complains about mocking religion°, but I don't see the mockery. Unless, of course, people are upset that the man is protesting the exploitation of religious beliefs for commercial profit. In recent years, the number twenty has been floating around. As in twenty percent; Christmas accounts for twenty percent of some retailers' business. Without Christmas, certain retail operations would cease to be, and these aren't necessarily mom & pop operations. Our national economy would actually suffer without Christmas spending. Christmas may be important to Christians for what it symbolizes, but unlike Pentecost, the commercial value of the Christmas myth is the primary reason for its prominence in society. Pinning all that on baby Jesus? Come on. One thing Christians and infidels alike can often agree on is that Christmas is too commercialized. Someone goes out of their way to make the point and suddenly he's mocking people's religious beliefs? Who the hell are these religious people being mocked? I knew finance and economy were looked upon with religious fervor sometimes, but I wasn't aware they were components of any official church. Sometimes I think there's a big joke going on, where conservatives get so angry at political correctness that they just set out to mock it with petty complaints. You know, like, "Just because I believe I'm superior and should be treated that way doesn't mean you get to call me bad names like 'supremacist'." Or, "How dare you oppress me by suggesting I should be equal to my neighbors!" Except in this case the notion falls apart rather quickly under the slightest rational scrutiny. On the one hand, there's the classic argument against conspiracy theories: there's just too many people taking part for the whole joke to stay intact, and someone should have blown it by now. And then there's also what seems an observable fact, that this counterintuitive sense of violation isn't entirely reserved to delusional primadonnas and sociopolitical conservatives. There is some other connection between diverse people who are offended by someone who goes out of his way to say something that, on other days, they would seemingly agree with. Of course, maybe I've estimated people wrongly. Maybe there are a lot more people who hold sacred the commercial aspect of Christmas than I had realized. And there's also the suggestion that some people just aren't capable of understanding the point, but as I hear it, I would be rude to suggest that was the case. So I'm not. We most certainly should cross off the list the idea that people are upset because they just don't get it. In the end, that's the one thing it just couldn't possibly be. ____________________ Notes: ° first comment listed ... complains about mocking religion — It's an interesting exchange. "Gov" complains: Place a human on the cross or set it on fire = hate crime felony charges in Superior Court. Mock religions, especially Christianity, and call it freedom of expression = Free Ride.And "cattamaranj" responds: Completely two different things, non comparable in my opinion. Don't quite understand why everyone isn't talking about the headless Santa with the knife in it's hand on the front porch...now what's the meaning on that one?Strangely, "gov" responds by asserting that if one can hang Santa on a cross in his own yard, another ought to be allowed to come onto your property and set a cross on fire as a threat: Freedom of speech must be absolute -- not CONDITIONAL. If it's acceptable to you that Santa hang from a cross, then it must also be acceptable to not limit anyone else's intent to express their form of free speech ....Really, how are we supposed to take such arguments seriously? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to "oppress" anyone here, but what the hell is wrong with people? Because here's a punch-line: "gov" apparently agrees with Mr. Conrad's statement about the commercialization of Christmas. I wonder if "gov" got busted for burning crosses once upon a time ...? Works Cited: Gardner, Steven. "Strange Santa Scene Makes Bremerton Man's Comment on Christmas". KitsapSun.com. December 21, 2007. See http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/dec/21/strange-santa-scene-states-bremerton-mans-on/
*Sigh* You really didn't get the message behind it? I'll give you a little hint.. Commercialisation and forgetting the true meaning of Christmas... Hence the Santa on the cross.. Get it? I don't think I want to know where you are getting the idea of crucifying a dog. That's just warped.
Weird? Lots of people venerate the crucifixion. Some even wear representations of it. And some have them dotted throughout their homes. Just go to a catholic mass on Good Friday. You want weird? Try having to line up to kiss the bloodied feet of a statue of Christ nailed to a cross.
Lynched Santa crosses many contested boundaries. It's traumatic for the people who still believe in Santa (or other deities) to confront, in such an abrupt intersection (collision?) of reason with correctness. The crux of it is, too much abrupt truth can backfire into more trouble than contemplation. The image is funny to me, and I readily identify with the expressed sentiment on many levels. But then I remembered that it's both mean and dangerously provocative to needlessly upset the many people who are still handicapped by superstitions. Conspicuously fucking with the totems of primitive cultures isn't nice. According to the news story, there wasn't much community fallout from this display, which (as you remarked orleander) is surprising, almost unbelievable. There would certainly be unpleasant consequences where I now live, and everywhere I have lived, with the exception of a place or two in Europe. I know places in the USA where this scene would quickly provoke bitter, and even dangerous confrontation.
