ant wrote:Roosevelt statue to be removed
I guess this has been said, but the statue is not a problem because it portrays Teddy Roosevelt but because it places a Native American and an African-American in positions that are clearly inferior (TR is on horseback between them), so that the overall message of the statue (which may have been meant to be inclusive to start with, I don't know) is now a problem.
Not sure why anyone is going after peripheral problem statues, but I suppose they are trying to catch the tide. I am completely undecided about Andrew Jackson. I detest many of the things he stands for, and stood for, but there is room in my honors category for such a significant figure as long as his racism was not the main thing he represented. Some would say removal of Native Americans was his signature program, but he also represented military success in the War of 1812 and a political revolution of the ordinary citizens against the lawyers and elites.
ant wrote:somewhere on the list of demands are paintings depicting Jesus as a white man.
This is an interesting subject. There are plenty of artworks depicting Jesus as black or Middle Eastern. The question is whether those are the only ones acceptable. In one sense there is a case to be made, since Jesus was almost certainly not someone who looked Italian or French or other brand of European.
The trouble with that line of thinking is that it makes sense to adapt depictions of Jesus to the local culture. If Jesus is shown as Chinese in China, there is no reason to object to that. When Christians said, "The Lord is Risen" (one of the earliest formulations of "doctrine" in the tradition), they were referring to a Jesus living in our hearts as well as to his bodily appearances, as far back as we have any evidence for. So to "localize" Jesus is to transcend the limitations of his earthly life, in a meaningful way that embraces Christological thinking. In short, the same latitude that allows a Chinese Jesus extends to Europe.
So it's kind of dumb to pull down "white" pictures of Jesus. But it might be a good idea to put up Christs of Color in the same room or wall.
ant wrote:this will eventually lead to all religious paintings and symbols being removed
While I don't expect anything like this, I do understand why there is resistance to removing religious symbols from public spaces, and to general secularization. But I think the fear is misplaced. I find it more important to protect the minority views on religion than to promote religious symbols (even though I consider them rather healthy). I think it is fine to open Congress with prayer, but it is equally important to rotate in representatives of some of the minority religions present in America and of non-religious groups who stand for common values on an atheistic or agnostic basis.
It gets tricky when people want to promote their cults. Satanism, even Wicca, have something to prove before they take a turn in a role of spiritual leadership or honorable recognition. In fact, such participation should never include an opposition to meaning structures of other people (much as I would like to see some meaning structures criticized from positions of moral authority.) It's too easy, and too corrosive to the self, to demonize even militarism and materialism and some of the other things I think threaten me. There is a time and space for that, but religion is not it. Long experience shows that demonstrating a better way is more effective than criticizing, and more healthy.
ant wrote:which in turn will be the suppression of religious freedom for Christians (which would make many old atheist liberals happy because of their disdain for religion)
I am also not too concerned about the suppression of religious freedom, especially for Christians. Some people want to define their religion by who they look down on and who they feel superior to, and that is one way to do religion. People will remain free to disdain others. And I have seen some folks, especially fans of Harris and Dawkins and their ilk, who genuinely do want to suppress religion, for example by preventing religious folk from teaching their ways and their beliefs to their children. I have enough faith in the empathy and common sense of most people to believe we will maintain our defenses against such seductively oppressive approaches.
So it behooves me to examine my own disdainfulness. Which groups do I dislike mainly because I want to see myself as better than, rather than wanting to offer them an example they might find appealing? When does my search for moral purity get in the way of connecting with people who see the world differently from me? How much effort have I exerted to find the value in the priorities of those whose conclusions clash with mine? One way of asking this is to ask how much I have made myself a prisoner of the choices I have made, letting them block me from basic human connection. For me, those kinds of questions open the door to Jesus' true religion.
ant wrote:but the slave owner and pedophile Mohammed will not be included in the above.
Now that is an amazing conclusion. Everybody I know who attacks Christianity per se, rather than particular tenets or particular cultural manifestations, considers Islam to be the prime example of the evils of religion. The idea that Christianity will be forced from the public sphere while Islam is defended there strikes me as nothing less than a paranoid delusion. But then, we have several Fox commentators and a radio agitator named Rush who specialize in promoting exactly that sort of far-fetched scenario. How does "Poor me, my privilege is melting" turn into this "Poor me, the government is after me"? Not sure, but I will be giving it more thought.
