It had to happen eventually - I was in a majority opinion today.

[viewing ownly]

The private owner of the Mt. Shasta ski resort in Northern California is in the process of erecting a gigantic religious statue, and some of the public is irate. A petition has been signed - I don't know what kind of legal implication that could possibly have - for the project to cease immediately.

The consensus of reactors was to leave the owner be, as it's his right to do what he wants on his own private land. If skiers are upset about it, to find somewhere different to ski. Unless the entire story isn't being told (and we're well too familiar with that being the case), this to me seems reasonable to let the owner do as he pleases.

If this statue emits a blinding reflection that effects vehicle or air traffic, or makes irritating sounds at all hours, I could understand a public outcry. Whatever business is lost with those who boycott will more than be made up by people who are happy it's there and want to come to see it.

[samhexum]

13 minutes ago, viewing ownly said:

the Mt. Shasta ski resort

who cares about a ski resort named after a third-rate (at best) soda?

[viewing ownly]

As third rate as it may be, it's been around for a LONG time, both mountain and pop.

[samhexum]

10 minutes ago, viewing ownly said:

As third rate as it may be, it's been around for a LONG time, both mountain and pop.

So has Mountain Dew Dew.  I wouldn't name a ski resort after it.

[wsc]

36 minutes ago, viewing ownly said:

If this statue emits a blinding reflection that effects vehicle or air traffic, or makes irritating sounds at all hours, I could understand a public outcry. Whatever business is lost with those who boycott will more than be made up by people who are happy it's there and want to come to see it.

I assume there's a permitting process, even for construction on private land, that will look at issues like this, so those concerns will probably be addressed.

In Virginia, after some incident that renewed calls for not displaying Confederate flags, a contrarian put up a 50+ foot flagpole on his own land next to I-95, then hoisted a supersized battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (the more commonly seen one, with the blue saltire, or X-cross, emblazoned with white stars on a red field). Except for height restrictions, which this flagpole did not violate, the only other concerns officials could legally press was stability to ensure the pole wouldn't be overturned and fall across the interstate. Otherwise, he could do what he wanted on his own land.

I suspect patronage of the business will be the true test of acceptance or rejection, and thus of wisdom or folly.

[+ purplekow]

Unless the statue shows Jesus having a religious experience with Mary Magdalene in exquisite detail, it would seem that this will come down to a freedom of speech issue, if all other local ordinances are met.  

Should Mary Magdalene be on her knees and reciting the 23rd psalm in a sultry way,  a community standards issue will probably stop the construction.  

“For You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.” Psalm 23:4.   I suppose most of us have been comforted by a rod or a staff.  

[samhexum]

37 minutes ago, purplekow said:

I suppose most of us have been comforted by a rod or a staff.  

Before she got back with Ben Aflac, JLo was often comforted by a rod and I'm willing to bet she's had a full-time staff for  years now.

Edited December 19, 2023 by samhexum
for absolutely NO @%!*ING reason at all!

[wsc]

I once heard that Monica Lewinsky, after accepting a job to work on the President's staff, completely misunderstood the nature of the work and the whole thing just blew up in her face.

[soloyo215]

12 hours ago, viewing ownly said:

The private owner of the Mt. Shasta ski resort in Northern California is in the process of erecting a gigantic religious statue, and some of the public is irate. A petition has been signed - I don't know what kind of legal implication that could possibly have - for the project to cease immediately.

The consensus of reactors was to leave the owner be, as it's his right to do what he wants on his own private land. If skiers are upset about it, to find somewhere different to ski. Unless the entire story isn't being told (and we're well too familiar with that being the case), this to me seems reasonable to let the owner do as he pleases.

If this statue emits a blinding reflection that effects vehicle or air traffic, or makes irritating sounds at all hours, I could understand a public outcry. Whatever business is lost with those who boycott will more than be made up by people who are happy it's there and want to come to see it.

I am aware of how within his rights the owner is in building a statue in his property. I have a now former friend who lives in Brooklyn, and he became a born-again weirdo. He went through the same opposition from his neighbors about building a giant cross in front of his home, and the neighbors lost the battle. He is entitled to place any religious image, figure, sulpture or structure, for as long as it doesn't violate codes, ordinances or laws.

I think that the larger issue is the reaction to those religious things from some people. Some people are going to look at that and feel threatened for being non-believers, and having an uneasy feeling of being judged, oppressed, mistreated, proselitized on, and who knows what else. Those concerns are real, as there is a history of people who are that kind of religious (I mean the ones who always seem to need to be vocal and public about it) being self-righteous, always wanting to have the last word, not listening to anything else, preaching and proselitizing in every conversation that they have, not understanding that being nice doesn't mean an invitation for their religious recruiting, and wanting to be right about every single thing that they say. Placing religious objects representative of their faith normally also involves other activities, such as prayers, ceremonies, merchandise and or literature that invite people to join their faith.

It's not just about placing an object; there are many other things attached to them. I find it distasteful, but they are in their right to do as they please for as long as they are not violating the law.

[+ azdr0710]

It will be only twenty feet tall and on a remote section of private property.  

[jeezifonly]

17 hours ago, samhexum said:

who cares about a ski resort named after a third-rate (at best) soda?

The powder is often Nehi.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

Thank goodness our entitled attitudes of "don't offend me with art" didn't exist in Brazil when their major tourist landmark was constructed.

Be careful about asking a government to stop its construction by private enterprise on private land.  For if that government succeeds, then there should be nothing to stop it from preventing the display of giant rainbow flags on private property either.  Be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it.

I appreciate that most posters here realize this is a non-issue.