"Virgin Mary" stain defaced?

Please read this quote from CNN.com ( www.cnn.com... ) a few times to yourself:

"Police in Chicago said a man was arrested and charged after the stain was defaced."

This quote was taken from hitting 'next' on the image as a caption of another picture.

Now, I understand a man should be charged with vandalism for marking public property, but what threw me for a loop was the statement that he was charged "after the stain was defaced" instead of saying "after the underpass was defaced". Does anyone else see the difference here or am I being too particular about how carefully the media should choose their words?

Also, what motivates a person who thinks this is a "big lie" to go and commit something he knows is unlawful at the risk of 10 days in jail and a permanent record? Is there anyone out there who used to believe it was real, but since he did this, now does not?

"On Friday, some people gathered at the site and expressed sorrow" - CNN. Sorrow for an image? Help me out here, but wasn't there something in the Bible about feeling this way about images? (hint - Exodus 20:4)

More irony. This add was on the right-hand side here at ATS after I posted this:

virgin mary pictures
Meet Tens of Thousands of Sexy Catholic Singles for Love
www.CatholicCupid.com

??? What ???


[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]

Mod Edit: to repair link

[edit on 6-5-2005 by kinglizard]

Yeah, you are completely right about worshipping supposed images of Mary.

However, I think the wording was CNN's and probably not a government statement since it wasn't presented as a direct quote.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
However, I think the wording was CNN's and probably not a government statement since it wasn't presented as a direct quote.

Does this mean CNN is Catholic since they believe the stain is deface? Was it the reporter's opinion? Or reporter just jotting down whatever s/he thought looked right? Not that it makes any difference to me, I just always saw them as too 'neutral' to try to go one way or another.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]

What a terrible thing to happen.. there's so much evil in the world today, I just can't imagine somebody painting over the virgin Mary..

wait..

That's the perfect excuse not to paint over the stains on my fence! Alright!!

I think the reason for saying it was the Virgin Mary stain and not an underpass is because...Well, who in their right mind would want to read about a vandal defacing a bridge on national news? The link you provided was from CNN. They're going to report about something that holds a lot of people's interest. That stain did, the underpass did not.

It's all about marketing

Boil it down…It doesn’t matter what you think of the image. It doesn’t matter if you think the bible forbids the use of an image in this way. It doesn’t matter if you believe it was a vision of the Virgin Mary. The point is this…Some people found it to be manifestation of their faith so someone defaced the image because they didn’t feel the same.

It’s more than just painting or vandalizing an underpass.

after the stain was defaced" instead of saying "after the underpass was defaced". Does anyone else see the difference here or am I being too particular about how carefully the media should choose their words?

Good point. But I doubt thats the official charge. You are spot on tho, there is a big difference.

Does this mean CNN is Catholic since they believe the stain is deface?

Not fo rnothing, but catholics are hardly the only christians that venerate mary, and certainly not the first.

Some people found it to be manifestation of their faith so someone defaced the image because they didn’t feel the same.

I say, good for them. The whole thing is absurd. God enacted a miracle to make a oil/water stain on the underpass of a bridge to look sort of like the virgin mary? Lets get real. How are we supposed to tell the difference between 'god inspired maryish stains' and 'coincidental maryish stains'? The vandalism is a slap in the face of the overly credulous, but perhaps they need it sometimes.

Big Lie. Heck, its a valid statement. I agree, grafiti is illegal, he shoudl be punished. Now watch the outrage over his statement that will come out of this. Its a joke, he didn't do anything, other than grafiti.


Come on people. Is it the virgin mary, or a schlong? It could be anything, its a stain on an underpass. For people to go to it and put markers, flowers, etc, on it, its absurd. I mean, all religion is 'absurd', by definition, but this is ridiculous, look at it. Anyone that'd go out there to put flowers down is slightly off, there's nothing 'wrong' in telling them that.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Nygdan]

I’m sorry Nygdan but why does someone else’s faith need to conform to your ideas of faith? You are entitled to your opinion as are the people that found the image to be a sign of the Virgin Mary. It really doesn’t matter what you think…it matters what the faithful think. When I say faithful I refer to the people that believe it’s a vision of Mary.

Do you think Muslims worship an ordinary rock? Is it ridiculous to you? Is it okay to destroy the rock because you don’t believe?

Should we not have respect for the beliefs of others?

It’s not all about you…

Again how is your lack of faith more important than someone else’s faith?

Originally posted by kinglizard
Some people found it to be manifestation of their faith
so someone defaced the image because they didn’t feel
the same.

There ya' go. Exactly. The person who did it was being mean.
99.9% of Catholics don't believe God makes Virgin Mary 'stains'
(or whatever). The people who thought this was from God were
a bit nutty. The person who damaged the underpass was a bit
nutty. Nut meets nut. But still ... it was illegal and he should be
prosecuted.

The word 'defaced' .... I'll use an old saying - 'sometimes a cigar
is just a cigar'. I'm sure the reporter wasn't trying to push an
agenda or anything. It was just a word. I don't know if you
can 'deface' an underpass, or if it is just 'vandelize'.

Well I don't know the history of the rock in Mecca, so I won't comment, but this is, for God's sake, a damp spot on the concrete.

I find it blasphemous that somebody would say this is an image of Mary.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Do you think Muslims worship an ordinary rock?

It's a meteorite .. isn't it?
Probably made mostly of nickel.
I think I remember that most in the
Smithsonean are nickel based.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's a meteorite .. isn't it?

Yeah I wouldn’t doubt it. It’s blackened just like a meteorite would be from entering earth’s atmosphere though I don’t think they ever allowed the rock to be studied. Muslims say it turned black from absorbing the sins of pilgrims.

I used to live a few blocks away from the Mary that appeared on the windows of a bank. (really due to the minerals in the sprinkler water, as Clearwater has horrible water despite it's name. In fact, such similar images were all over the building, but one happened to somewhat resemble Mary). Thing is, the bank was bought by a church and converted. It was a traffic nightmare, until some kid shot it (the window) out with a slingshot and that was that....(no more traffic problems) Perhaps the man had a similar idea as motive... (the kid just did it for "kicks").

Defacing the stain...that's funny...

Something tells me that if one broke into the Kabbah and destroyed the stone, the Arabs wouldn't see it as just "vandalism", hehe....

We should respect the beliefs of others, even if we don't share them.

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's a meteorite .. isn't it?

Yeah I wouldn’t doubt it. It’s blackened just like a meteorite would be from entering earth’s atmosphere though I don’t think they ever allowed the rock to be studied. Muslims say it turned black from absorbing the sins of pilgrims.

Since we are on the conspiracy site, I'll allow myself the following comment: many years ago I was fascinated from the report (must have been reprinted from a tabloid, probably) that the rock is in fact a crashed UFO and there is a body of an alien inside. Quite small, of course.

Originally posted by junglejake
I think the reason for saying it was the Virgin Mary stain and not an underpass is because...Well, who in their right mind would want to read about a vandal defacing a bridge on national news? The link you provided was from CNN. They're going to report about something that holds a lot of people's interest. That stain did, the underpass did not.

It's all about marketing

Hm, nice perspective junglejake. Much appreciated

My oh my, the "holy stain" how susceptible some people can be.

That stain has gotten mighty defined since the first pictures of it, it make you wonder about "defacing or enhancing"

This is very scary indeed, I better hurry up and finish with the repairs on my home before the side of the house discolorations start to form "an Image of something" and I will have to live with a shrine in my front lawn.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by kinglizard
I’m sorry Nygdan but why does someone else’s faith need to conform to your ideas of faith?

Oh, I'm not saying it does. But just because someone beleives somethign doesn't make it valid, or sacrosanct.

It really doesn’t matter what you think…it matters what the faithful think. When I say faithful I refer to the people that believe it’s a vision of Mary.

Thats just it tho, what they think doesn't matter, they aren't somehow entitlted to that 'stain' or little part of the world moreso than anyone else is. And also, lets face it, its a sort of delusion to think that its god making an image of the virgin mary

Do you think Muslims worship an ordinary rock? Is it ridiculous to you?

Parading around in circles around a rock that is kept inside a big box? Yes, its pretty gosh darned ridiculous. Lots of stuff done in religion are.

Is it okay to destroy the rock because you don’t believe?

That'd be theft, but if the rock in the kabba was smelted into pig butchering utensils (its an iron meteorite), I'd be concerned, but not for the faith. I'd be upset if any sort of big historical object like that was destroyed, defaced. This is just some silly little stain. If a worldwide religion built up around it, I'd roll my eyes and say 'let 'em have it'. But then again, if they started camping out in tents around it, obstructing traffic, trambling people to death, having big fires in the tent cities, I'd have no complaints as to using the police to break up the conventions.

Should we not have respect for the beliefs of others?

Respect? No. Religious beleifs are not inherently worthy of repsect, at least not automatically. If a professor teaches a class in which he rips apart and totally blasts hegelian philosophy, are we all upset about it? But if its a book that blasts islam, then a fatwa calling for the authors death is issued. Thats absurd.

Again how is your lack of faith more important than someone else’s faith?

My lack of faith in that particular smudge of dirt and oil beign a divine miracle? Its central to the topic, since the guy, obviously, shoudlnt' be charged with anything more than mere vandalism. Sinead o'connor, dolt that she was, didn't do anything illegal in destroying a pic of the pope. And if a person bought, say, a copy of the koran from 700 ad, written in mohammeds hand himself, and pissed on it, well, thats their property, they haven't commited any sort of crime. It'd be disrespectful to a world relgion,m and greatly upsetting to a lot of people, and that might be good reason to not do it.
But this is stain on a highway underpass. If people are upset over it being 'defaced', then something is terribly wrong. I mean, if someone took a sledgehammer to newton's grave, I'd be upset, but I'd also know that thats irrational, since I don't even know newton, and who cares about some rock that has a putrified corpse in it. But if someone too a sledgehammer to The David, I think we'd all agree that there was a loss.

flyersfan
The person who did it was being mean.

Possibly. However, its quite reasonable to think that he saw these peopel venerating a stain on the wall and though, 'my god, this is terrible, don't these peopel realize what they are doing, they're venerating absolutely nothing'. Smacking a hysterical person in the face can be seen as mean and still not actually be mean.

aelita
I find it blasphemous that somebody would say this is an image of Mary.

Why? Its no more absurd than the Virgin of Gudalupae, or the Lady of Fatima, or any other appearances of mary. Heck, there's an element of every appearance of mary in this one. Its that the faithful beleive. Just like the faithful muslim beleives that he is doing something necessary, or important, by going to walk around some old meteorite that crashed into the desert millenia ago.

is a body of an alien inside. Quite small, of course.

And green and male right!?

gazrok
We should respect the beliefs of others, even if we don't share them.

Why? Not trying to be a jerk here, but why should a beleif get respect merely because someone beleives it? I don't respect the idea that the Queen of England is a shape-shifting illuminati reptiloid agent that eats human babies and what not. I don't respect the idea that organisms change over time due to an unravelling and progression of the "Scala Naturae" anymore than I repsect the beleif that all vertebrates are extensions and expressions of the universal vertrbrate archetype in repetition. Simply because people beleive it doesn't mean we have to respect the beleifs. I can agree, we shouldn't go around needlessly upsetting people, but lets remember again, its a stain on a wall that some people look at and say 'that must be the virgin mary'. I'm not being a jerk if I roll my eyes or shake my head, and I probably wouldn't be one if I spray painted on it the words 'wake up'. We often hear that people need a healthy dose of reality. Well, when people start looking at miracle grilled cheese sandwiches and funny looking water stains, its time to dose it up

This does remind me of similar roadside shrines, but for people who've died in a car accident. I think that's fine if your Shinto. If you're Christian though, I have to ask what in God's universe are you commemorating? The death of someone? Wouldn't that person want you to be grateful for your life and carry a smile when you think of them? If they're a Christian, then aren't they partying with God in heaven? In any case, they're not still there right?




Also, when I'm driving behind someone, someone who I haven't had a chance to meet yet, why is the first thing I know about them is that you're still saddened and grief stricken by "In Loving Memory, Grandma Someone 1913 - 2002"? Candidly, it doesn't want me to strike up a conversation because I know it's probably not going to end on a happy note. Even moreso for someone who used to drive 255 mph around a circular track not expecting to be killed. Even Dale Earnhardt said, "You win some, you lose some, you wreck some".





I'm not meaning to offend, I...just...don't...under...stand...





[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]

I don't think this is a case of who's right and who's wrong. I think BOTH sides are wrong. The people making a shrine around an oil stain need to get a grip, and the guy who graffitied the oil stain was being unecessarily malicious and disrespectful of others' beliefs.

If you want to see the Virgin Mary or Jesus in an oil stain, then good for you, if that's what you need to strengthen your faith. But there have to be limits to this kind of thing. If I mow my lawn and you see Mary's image in the grass when I'm finished, I'm sorry but in a couple of weeks I'm mowing it again. Move along folks, the wife's getting cranky about the grass height. If you see your saviour in my baby's poopy diaper, well bad luck, it's still going in the bin coz it stinks up the house.

However, what the vandal did was deliberately malicious and he obviously has a grudge of some sort. If these folks want to believe that the oil stain has religious significance, then that's no call to go trampling all over that belief out of spite, just like I don't run around ripping the turbans off Hindu men's heads, or even telling kids that the Easter Bunny and Santa don't exist. If you don't share their beliefs, then hey, go and do something else, why waste your time upsetting people and trying to change them?

Live and let live.

Well, he may have been a real christian seeing people lead astray. He knew that you are suppose to worship god, not a oil stain, or a grilled cheese sandwich with mold on it, or some other stupid thing. In the words(though altered so not copy righting or whatever) "I think Mary has a big enough budget to show up in the middle of the climatic scene in ID4, not the back of a billboard, or a stain on an overpass."

So to say he is anti-christian may not be true, may may be trying to "save" these morons from hell. Last I checked in the bible you are suppose to worship god, not a stain, or sandwich, or a piece of cloth made by Davinci.(the Turin, May 4th was Shroud Day for around 500 years)

Holy Sandwich?

www.xenophilia.com...

"The image of the Virgin Mary appeared on a grilled cheese sandwich. "Duyser said that she made the sandwich 10 years ago and on plain white bread and American cheese and cooked with no oil or butter. .."

[edit on 6-5-2005 by James the Lesser]