coughshoehorncough
Yup. Another marketing idea that just doesn’t quite work in reality.
Count me in as someone who flinched when I opened that link.
I opened the link and was looking at the picture when **Rhiannon8404 **glanced over, not having seen the OP at all. Her immediate comment was “Oh my god! Is that a burning cross?!?”
Looking at just this thread, numerous people have had the same response I did, many unprompted.
It’s absolutely not “shoehorning” anything if something that looks like a burning cross… looks like a burning cross. If you don’t see it, that’s fine. But a lot of us do and pretending that it’s somehow the act of a bunch of offenderati is nonsensical.
er? Christmas didn’t start at the time of Jesus’ birth, nor was it celebrated in the years after his death. I have no idea when the official “christmas” celebration started, but I would assume it was either around or after the creation of the Church, around what, 340-360BCE? Also, it is widely known he wasn’t born on Dec 25th at all, both because the one dude out walking his sheep wouldn’t have been out, and cause he was born AFTER the census. But most importantly Christmas is based on the winter solstice, and so had been celebrated for centuries (millenia?) before Jesus was ever around. Sorry, just nitpicking, I know, but your comment confused me and I figured I’d clear it up cause, well, I’m like that.
That said, that cross is pretty terrible. There used to be a guy on my commute that had a lit-up cross, but it was just a cross covered in normal christmas lights (so multi-colored, red and green and blue and all those) and had no resemblance what-so-ever to a KKK burning cross. Still, I remarked on the whole “aren’t they supposed to be celebrating his birth, not his death?” thing
Particularly since no one here seems to be offended. Who has accused the company of having racist intentions? It’s clearly intended to be a lit-up cross and nothing more, just like those reindeer that are so popular now. But it’s, well, unfortunate to say the least.
My thought is that evangelical Christians have so popularized the cross that they no longer see it as having any other context. I’m not sure that many evangelicals even see the cross as a solemn symbol of sacrifice any more–witness things like Smiling Cross products. It’s like it’s supposed to be cheery. So I’m guessing that the whole ‘burning cross’ image is just completely bypassing the folks making these. Or maybe they live in China, who knows. It’s hard to believe that any semi-historically literate American would not see the problem here, but then those Hershey chocolate pudding pops didn’t get noticed either. :smack:
Yeah, I’m not offended even a little bit. I think it’s hilarious and shows that whoever came up with and/or approved the design has a massive blind spot.
I’m sure that their intentions were almost definitely to create a simple, fun, festive Christmas decoration. What they did instead is to create a light-up cross that looks a heck of a lot like a burning cross to quite a few people who are simply shown the picture with no commentary or forewarning. And a mistake like that in production/design/marketing is absolutely hilarious.
I’m actually a bit perplexed by the responses that claim or suggest that seeing this as a burning cross is somehow a deliberate reach or something startlingly strange. I can understand (as optical illusions work differently for different people), that not everybody sees it the same way. But to not even be able to understand why it’s reasonable that people might see something like that as a burning cross?
I don’t grok.
I can see somebody may think burning cross, but it doesn’t do that for me. A burning cross is not where my mind goes first. I see another gaudy lighted object. You think of what is foremost on your mind when you first see it, and I don’t have neighbors that burn crosses, but I do have neighbors that put up awful Christmas displays.
Maybe someone should tell them to offer a burning bush for sale. Apparently people will think it’s a real burning bush
Just a mention- to a Christian, the Sign of the Cross is not a downer nor a reminder of Jesus’ death. Why? Because of a little thing called THE FREAKIN’ RESURRECTION! OH! OH! ARRRRRRGH!*
*Is it possible to do a written approximation of the Sam Kinison Scream?
When reading the OP, I was wondering “Is FA bugged just because it’s a cross? Waaaait a minute, he’s not seeing a BURNING cross there, is he?”
So although I don’t think most people would see it that way, enough would that it’s not worth the hassle. A lit cross- OK. A fuzzily lit cross- ummm, no.
War on Christmas! War on Christmas!
Actually, put like that it kinda sounds like you are talking about the little known scene in the Bible where Jesus rises from the dead and eats the Apostle’s brains.
Hm, I think I would write it as OH! OH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHH! and leave out the R’s. This may require research.
I have a neighbor that has a life sized cross in their yard covered with white Christmas lights. It first appeared at Christmas one year but now they leave it up all year, so it’s up for Easter, too. I never saw it as a burning cross, just very tacky.
When I was a good little Catholic girl, we were taught that we need not flaunt our religion. There was this song we sung at church called, “You will know we are Christians by our love.” We were told it was our deeds that made us Christian. Then everyone would run out of the church and try to be the first out of the parking lot whilst honking and swearing at everyone else. Which is one of the reasons I am not a good little Catholic girl anymore.
I too saw it looking kind of burny. But it wouldn’t look much like that in real life - I think it’s because we know what flames look like when caught in a still picture, and it’s very similar to that photo. Of course in-person flames look very different, so I don’t think people would drive by and think it was a burning cross.
(As to whether the sellers meant to make a burning cross - of course not! From the rest of the site, it’s clear they hate *gay *people, not black people.)
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I can absolutely understand that some folks simply might not see it that way. I just find it odd that some people evidently don’t understand why some might.
Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with any religious displays in general. Sure, some in particular can be tacky or garish, but that’s true for all ornamentation. If Christians want to display their faith with big ol’ crosses, then more power to 'em.
It’s just that this particular design is just off.
I’m also not so sure that it wouldn’t look like it was burning in real life. Certainly if you were close up you’d realize that it wasn’t covered in flames, but I’d wager that from a distance it wouldn’t look all that different from a lightly-burning cross. At least to some folks prone to that optical illusion.
Here’s a delightful traditional holiday recipe for a lightly-burned Christmas Cross. For this dish you’ll need 1/4 cup of cinnamon, a heaping tablespoon of ground nutmeg, and just a splash of Christmas brandy. Sear the cross lightly on all sides to lock in the juices, sprinkle with seasonings, then cook in a shallow uncovered pan at 350 degrees for about 45 minutes. Garnish with a crown of holly thorns, douse with brandy, then turn out the lights and fire it up in a beautiful holiday display! Serve with custard and raisins.
Wouldn’t a fruit cake cross be more traditional? The bonus is people can often find the figure of Jesus in the fruit and nuts.
I’m just going to go on record here as saying I never want to see a manifestation of Jesus in some guy’s nuts. :eek: (Though it certainly would provide a boost for the pro-gay marriage folks.)