Comments on: For Many Washington Churches, Cornerstones Reflect Altered History

By: ticosmith

ticosmith — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 02:38:59 +0000

Here’s my hypothesis. I think that many of the churches with the replaced cornerstones are African American churches that previously may not have had a building or may have meet in smaller locations. Upon being able to raise enough money to purchase a building from another church, these congregations may have been interested in establishing their own identities by marking their new church with a new cornerstone. I don’t think it’s “disrespectable” if it was done for the purpose of empowering these congregations, groups that experienced great hardship.and harsh discrimination. Who knows, maybe I’m completely wrong. But I think that changing the cornerstones (while historic preservationists will disagree with me) in this case would be justified so that these congregations of people with zero rights in society could form a shared sense of identity.

By: Angry Parakeet

Angry Parakeet — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:05:45 +0000

I find it interesting and thanks, Kent, for the nuggets of local history Apparently each new congregation feels the need to mark their territory and obliterate memory of the last. Very in keeping with religions’ m.o.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:26:14 +0000

Ooops, please excuse my grammar. No coffee and writing on my phone.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:24:40 +0000

I find the practice very disrepectable to the history of the building’s history.