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?

who cares, to each his own...

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

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

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.

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.

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

me thinks soonerguru was trying to rile people up

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

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.

This has to be a new record.

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

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.

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. :bright_id

http://thecrossweb.com/images/skyscraper_cross.jpg

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

So progressive means to suppress religious overtones?

Got it.



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

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:".

...
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.

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.

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').

...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?

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.

The Cross is a symbol of Faith/Christianity/Devotion, not Easter or Christmas.

For what it's worth, and assuming my memory is correct, the display lighting is not related to leaving regular office lights on at night and killing off other nearby lights. I believe the display results from special fixtures hung at specific windows. I don't recall whether the fixtures are installed and removed each winter or if the fixtures are permanently set. Seems like someone from within one the buildings posted on that a while back, but I simply do not recall.

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').

I think you need to step back and really think about what point you are trying to make and start over. No one in OKC is stopping you or anyone else from expressing their religious freedom. For every building in OKC with a cross on it there are at least a thousand without a cross. Where did you get the idea that conservative beliefs are being forced on anyone via architecture?

I think you need to step back and really think about what point you are trying to make and start over. No one in OKC is stopping you or anyone else from expressing their religious freedom. For every building in OKC with a cross on it there are at least a thousand without a cross. Where did you get the idea that conservative beliefs are being forced on anyone via architecture?

Great point. Apparently OKC is backwards and exclusive because we have two buildings with a cross on them for a few weeks out of the year....What about the other thousands that dont replace any religuous symbols? 2 out of a few thousand or so seems pretty inviting and inclusive to me. Of course everyone would rather find something to complain about and say we are "too conservative." Well, I can promise that if America went back to its traditional conservative values of the early 1900's or even the 1950's that America would be a much better place... We are all traveling down the wrong path and have lost sight of what is important. Believe it or not, Norman Rockwell paintings really did depict America at one time...

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.


Is it possible to be wordly and a true Christian?

1 John 2:15-17 TNIV

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If you love the world, love for the Father [a] is not in you. 16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful people, the lust of their eyes and their boasting about what they have and do—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

For what it's worth, and assuming my memory is correct, the display lighting is not related to leaving regular office lights on at night and killing off other nearby lights. I believe the display results from special fixtures hung at specific windows. I don't recall whether the fixtures are installed and removed each winter or if the fixtures are permanently set. Seems like someone from within one the buildings posted on that a while back, but I simply do not recall.
They are permanently mounted, and in regards to cities controlling building lighting, those fixtures were installed long before building departments/plan reviewers things like energy conservation codes and dark sky ordinances were even a thought, let alone enforced. Not sure what codes OKC is under now (been away for 7 years) but most cities have just started adopting those codes, if someone tried to do them now they might have to face a review, but existing ones are most likely grandfathered in.

.

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. ...



i like how christianity is viewed as backwater nowadays, and crosses on buildings are shoving religion down peoples throats. give me a friggn break.
while on the other hand we have public schools and universities handing out prayer rugs, and thats cool. its just getting ridiculous.

They are permanently mounted, and in regards to cities controlling building lighting, those fixtures were installed long before building departments/plan reviewers things like energy conservation codes and dark sky ordinances were even a thought, let alone enforced. Not sure what codes OKC is under now (been away for 7 years) but most cities have just started adopting those codes, if someone tried to do them now they might have to face a review, but existing ones are most likely grandfathered in.


And if my memory is correct, seems like it first started out as just turning on certain lights and having the others dark. I'm sure that got to be too much hassle every year. Would take just one tenant to ruin the effect. But I could be mistaken, that was a long time ago when I think it was that way.

I just moved home from being back east for ten years. I worked with kids and teens for most of that time. In the whole time I was there, I never heard one single, solitary disparaging remark about Christianity except for a muslim father in one of my custody cases and even he was respectful. The kids I worked with were frequently involved in church but many weren't. The whole discussion of church wasn't really on the radar.

Here in the bible belt, there are several churches per block and it is a big deal. Back east, people really are live and let live on the subject. I think they believe it would be rude and decidedly weird to make a judgment on someone else's faith. All this christianity bashing strikes me as frickin bizarre.

If there is anyone being backwoods about it, it is this strange need to criticise the personal faith of others. I can understand getting aggravated if a Christian tried to get into my business. But I haven't seen much of that and simply telling someone you aren't interested seems like the appropriate and rational response. What I HAVE seen is some people all excited about attacking other people's faith. It is kind of creepy. I guess it is a product of being in the bible belt where you gotta rebel against something and that is something that people hold near and dear - so it becomes a target.

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').

Hot Rod, it's not likely that you'll be finding any religious symbols on building in China anytime soon and that's because the government would crack down on that. Try bringing bibles into China to distribute. If you think that is a model to follow, I strongly disagree. You equate conservatism with religion and in some cases that may be true but I am a lifelong liberal and a Baptist. You can't just make general statements like that. The crosses on the buildings at Christmas just give me a warm fuzzy feeling and I never think about liberal versus conservative when I look at them.

I have heard many compliment the crosses and wish 'their' city did something similar. I think its cool to come through OKC in the Christmas season and see those lights on. "Freedom of" does not equate to "Freedom from", the words Separation, State and Church are never found anywhere in the constitution together. The tail has wagged the dog long enough lately.