Post About Crosses on Buildings Downtown

[soonerguru]

Apparently, it is somehow verboten to discuss the overt use of religious symbols in our skyline. Strange. I find it highly relevant.

Will the Devon tower have the largest cross ever displayed on a downtown building? Which building will win the "most Christian" award?

[mmonroe]

who cares, to each his own...

[kevinpate]

I won't be surprised if Devon also displays religious symbols, but it would surprise me if they tried to set a size record.

[Midtowner]

It's their building. What do I care which lights they leave on at night?

[okcpulse]

If displaying crosses on buildings during December is such a problem and makes OKC look "backward", then Christ the Redeemer does the same for Rio de Janeiro. Everyone seems to be okay with Rio's permanent landmark.

This is ridiculous. Besides, only two downtown buildings display crosses and it became a tradition years ago. So I doubt Devon would follow suit. It's not done on Oklahoma Tower, First National Tower or City Place.

It's just tradition. Trying to figure out why America has gotten so insecure about tradition is practically a science.

[bluedogok]

They are privately owned buildings, it is well within their legal rights to have a religious display if they want to. Where it is effectively verboten is if the buildings were government owned, that is not the case here.

[dmoor82]

I am willing to bet there is already a thread started on this subject!

[hipsterdoofus]

me thinks soonerguru was trying to rile people up

[DammitDan]

I hope the Devon tower has a menorah on it. You know, just to balance things out...

[Spartan]

Well if I had enough money to build a tower taller than Devon I would definitely also start my own religion as well, and put that religion's emblem on the buildings the other 3/4ths of the year that the crosses aren't up--just to hear everyone bitch and complain.

[CuatrodeMayo]

This has to be a new record.

The first "Crosses on Buildings Make Us Look Bass-Akwards" thread is posted 248 days before Christmas.

[OSUMom]

I remember in the days after the bombing they lit up the crosses. It was comforting, as much as anything could be in that time. A few network news men made a point to show that during their broadcasts, but the comments were not bad. They felt it was a good thing.

[ourulz2000]

I hope the Devon Tower is like Seattle's Third Avenue Tower and has a cross design built into it just to tick people off.

[Pete]

guru, the issue was this kept being introduced on a thread where is was completely off-topic.

And depending on how this goes, this thread may be moved to another board.

[soonerguru]

I understand. That's why I've avoided adding my commentary.

[HOT ROD]

As for private building owners putting any lighting they want, I dont think that is the case. I think the city has a say so on it.

Another point, what would people say if a building owner put a swastica (sp?) or something anti-christian/anti-religion on their tower? What would all of you "it's their tower, they can put what they want" people say then. .....

I dont think its' People aren't insecure about being christian, I think it is people now days recognize that Christianity isn't the ONLY way - and that America now has sizeable amounts of people who are not Christian and therefore shouldn't have it rammed down their throats.

I think having one cross on a skyscraper is actually pretty cool, but two? - seems a bit ridiculous to me; christian or not. Not even the most religious of cities do anything as ridiculous (again, my opinion) as this.

I think something better would be one cross, and maybe another building doing 'christmas colours', perhaps. Maybe the city should let both towers propose why theirs should stay, then pick one - Im sure OKC govt has control over skyscraper lighting schemes just like is the case in other major cities.

I'm all for tradition and I think one cross every year is cool - could we do one tower one year then do the other the next year? or could there be something other than just crosses? Is there a compromise that isn't too intimidating? These ARE valid concerns regardless of what Christians think.

OKC will be far more progressive when we all realize that diversity of the world and freedom from intimidation (ie - TRUE religious freedom) is what makes our city/country better overall.

[OU Adonis]

OKC will be far more progressive when we all realize that diversity of the world and freedom from intimidation (ie - TRUE religious freedom) is what makes our city/country better overall.

So progressive means to suppress religious overtones?

Got it.

And I am not sure how a cross on a building is supposed to intimidate someone.


For the record, I am athiest. I just find it disgusting that America is so soft nowadays when it comes to offending people. We are way too PC nowadays.

[PennyQuilts]

Well if I had enough money to build a tower taller than Devon I would definitely also start my own religion as well, and put that religion's emblem on the buildings the other 3/4ths of the year that the crosses aren't up--just to hear everyone bitch and complain.

If you owned a commercial building and what you put on the side caused people to bitch and complain to the point that it affected your bottom line, you'd reconsider. There is a built in correction if people go too far in an off ball direction. Sometimes I wonder if some people even consider the context of things and where it all fits.

[Caboose]

As for private building owners putting any lighting they want, I dont think that is the case. I think the city has a say so on it.

Another point, what would people say if a building owner put a swastica (sp?) or something anti-christian/anti-religion on their tower? What would all of you "it's their tower, they can put what they want" people say then. .....

I dont think its' People aren't insecure about being christian, I think it is people now days recognize that Christianity isn't the ONLY way - and that America now has sizeable amounts of people who are not Christian and therefore shouldn't have it rammed down their throats.



I think having one cross on a skyscraper is actually pretty cool, but two? - seems a bit ridiculous to me; christian or not. Not even the most religious of cities do anything as ridiculous (again, my opinion) as this.

I think something better would be one cross, and maybe another building doing 'christmas colours', perhaps. Maybe the city should let both towers propose why theirs should stay, then pick one - Im sure OKC govt has control over skyscraper lighting schemes just like is the case in other major cities.

I'm all for tradition and I think one cross every year is cool - could we do one tower one year then do the other the next year? or could there be something other than just crosses? Is there a compromise that isn't too intimidating? These ARE valid concerns regardless of what Christians think.

OKC will be far more progressive when we all realize that diversity of the world and freedom from intimidation (ie - TRUE religious freedom) is what makes our city/country better overall.

Intimidated by a cross on private property? Progressive means telling private property owners they can't use religious symbols? Sorry, that was just dumb.

Oh, and I am a fierce agnostic.

[soonerguru]

So progressive means to suppress religious overtones?

Got it.

Be careful, you may get whiplash from all of the knee jerking.

[rcjunkie]

As for private building owners putting any lighting they want, I dont think that is the case. I think the city has a say so on it.

Another point, what would people say if a building owner put a swastica (sp?) or something anti-christian/anti-religion on their tower? What would all of you "it's their tower, they can put what they want" people say then. .....

I dont think its' People aren't insecure about being christian, I think it is people now days recognize that Christianity isn't the ONLY way - and that America now has sizeable amounts of people who are not Christian and therefore shouldn't have it rammed down their throats.

I think having one cross on a skyscraper is actually pretty cool, but two? - seems a bit ridiculous to me; christian or not. Not even the most religious of cities do anything as ridiculous (again, my opinion) as this.

I think something better would be one cross, and maybe another building doing 'christmas colours', perhaps. Maybe the city should let both towers propose why theirs should stay, then pick one - Im sure OKC govt has control over skyscraper lighting schemes just like is the case in other major cities.

I'm all for tradition and I think one cross every year is cool - could we do one tower one year then do the other the next year? or could there be something other than just crosses? Is there a compromise that isn't too intimidating? These ARE valid concerns regardless of what Christians think.

OKC will be far more progressive when we all realize that diversity of the world and freedom from intimidation (ie - TRUE religious freedom) is what makes our city/country better overall.

You think wrong, the City had absolutely no role in the display of crosses on any building. I may not support what someone displays plublicly, but I do support "The Freedom of Speech:".

[kevinpate]

...
Another point, what would people say if a building owner put a swastica (sp?) or something anti-christian/anti-religion on their tower? What would all of you "it's their tower, they can put what they want" people say then. .....

Hot Rod, some of us would say exactly the same.
Not my building = not my decision what gets displayed.
That's not a real complicated position.

If a building owner wants to light up something in lieu of a cross, or in addition to one, or go plain ol' dark, that's the owner's call.

Sort of like the houses that elect to use all green lights during the holidays. Personally, I don't care for the look, but not my house, so I just move along.

[HOT ROD]

Aside from the personal attacks or being called dumb, the fact still remains.

If OKC wants to shed it's backwater image, I think this is a simple move that can make the city look less intimidating. And, I dont think we should get rid of both crosses - but I think maybe one is enough. ...

The other interesting thing, is the Cross is an Easter symbol (you know, Christ's death and resurrection) not a Christmas symbol (you know, Christ's birth). ... So, isn't it a bit oxymoronic to have crosses prominently displayed during December/Christmas?

Oh touche', I rest my case. The crosses are a symbol of CHRISTIANITY. Ah! Got it now. And this is my point, and I for one AM a Christian but dont thump or push my beliefs around on others - and therefore I have traveled and have friends from all parts of the world; not just OKC. ... Maybe has to do with the fact that I am more worldly and inclusive? you think.

And most cities do regulate lighting and signage on skyscrapers. If OKC doesn't then I stand corrected.

[HOT ROD]

So progressive means to suppress religious overtones?

Got it.

And I am not sure how a cross on a building is supposed to intimidate someone.


For the record, I am athiest. I just find it disgusting that America is so soft nowadays when it comes to offending people. We are way too PC nowadays.

Are you sure you're atheist?

I have been to countries/cities that are atheist (and am in China right now) and there is not ONE prominent skyscraper anywhere with any religious symbol on it. Is there even any other city in America?

My point is, we should be more inclusive and dynamic as a city so that we embrace all and not force conservative beliefs on everyone - even in so called conservative territory (which OKC is actually becoming more and more liberal every day now - people just claim to be 'right').

[Larry OKC]

...And most cities do regulate lighting and signage on skyscrapers. If OKC doesn't then I stand corrected.

Color me confused but how does existing lighting apply in this situation?

Are those building owners putting up special (additional) lighting (such as a Batman like spotlight pointing at their building?

Are they hanging banner(s)? You know, like the ones Sandridge has hanging from their building supporting the Thunder? Is there some City ordinance that Sandridge might have violated?

Is there some City ordinance banning unoccupied offices from having their interior lights from being turned on after hours?

Given the grid of the office building, what other symbols would be easily recognized and even displayable using the method employed?

As a side note, it has been mentioned a few times that the crosses are displayed on 2 buildings, but I distinctly recall seeing them on 3 buildings in years past (going together with the the 3 crosses described at Christ's Crucifiction). Anyone else recall this?