The Calgary Herald reports:
A dancing elephant statue at the Calgary Zoo has kicked up controversy after a Christian group condemned the figure as an inappropriate religious icon.Zoo officials say they have no plans to replace the Ganesh statue — which has stood near the elephant enclosure for at least two years — despite calls for its removal from Concerned Christians Canada….
Grahame Newton, the zoo’s director of corporate services, says the Ganesh statue isn’t a religious icon, rather a cultural symbol that shows the tie between the elephants and Asian culture.
Here’s the letter from Concerned Christians Canada:
This letter is an official protest on the part of Calgarian Christians to the placement of a hindu “god” statue in the Calgary Zoo, in front of the Elephant Crossing Exhibit. Since the zoo is publicly funded by taxpayer dollars, the zoo is accountable to taxpayers, a segment of whom we represent. The statue we are referencing is the statue of Ganesh, the Hindu “god” known to Hindus as “Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles”. You can see a full description of this idol here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh.The zoo is not a place of religious indoctrination, it is supposed to be a safe family environment free of religious icons and selective religious partiality. The displaying of different gods in a public place, like this, is an offence to our beliefs and does not represent the diversity of views that should be reflected, if the zoo is embarking on teaching the public about world religions as they relate to the natural world. If, in fact, the zoo is on a quest to expose people to different religious viewpoints, which I presume atheists would take exception to, the zoo should not be selective and exclusive. Therefor, if this is the intent, I make a proposal that a display be erected including the cross of Jesus Christ, the ten commandments (as seen in the old testament of the Bible – Exodus 20) Noah’s Ark, and a display sharing the Biblical Creation view of nature’s origins which reflects our Christian beliefs and the beliefs of our nations forefathers.
The display of foreign gods is offensive and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians. Today we make a request that unless the Calgary Zoo is willing to expand their exhibits with the proposed additions we outlined above, that the zoo would in fact maintain its former state of being neutral with respect to religious beliefs and backgrounds by not displaying any religious icons, idols, or texts within its grounds….
Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
EH says:
The display of foreign gods is offensive and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians.
Huh, the real God is Canadian. That certainly explains a thing or two.
September 30, 2009, 4:40 pmzippypinhead says:
Is there any equivalent to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in Canada?
Although regardless whether there’s any legal hook to hang this complaint on, there’s something passing strange about a dust-up over an elephant statute at a zoo…
September 30, 2009, 4:44 pmLeo Marvin says:
Maybe the real source of the grievance is Canada’s concerned Christian elephants.
September 30, 2009, 5:03 pmloki13 says:
Ah, the ever-popular offense racket!
First, we have the idiots that are offended.
Then, we’ll have the idiots that are offended that there are offended idiots.
Coming full circle, we’ll have the idiots offended that there are people offended by those who took offense to begin with.
It’s like the circle of life- but with idiots.
I always thought evolution was supposed to be slower- how is it that homo sapiens sapiens managed to select for such a thin skin so recently?
September 30, 2009, 5:07 pmu. saldin says:
It has nothing to do with thin skin. They are strategic and calculated reactions to further social agendas.
September 30, 2009, 5:11 pmPerseus says:
Intervention by the (Not so) Intelligent Designer.
September 30, 2009, 5:12 pmDjDiverDan says:
And Now Under the Heading “People with WAYYYY Too Much Time on Their Hands” . . . .
September 30, 2009, 5:13 pmBorris says:
Canada, eh?
Well if I was the Zoo I’d make a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about these Christians.
September 30, 2009, 5:28 pmI mean Christianity, that has to be a per se Human Rights violation as far as the HRC is concerned.
Randy says:
I guess they are terrified that if their children see an elephant god, they will abandon Christianity. How insecure these people are!
September 30, 2009, 5:30 pmBeandip says:
One aspect of the “establishment” of religion in Calgary (I am not sure how it works in other parts of Canada) that is not well known is that there is a separate, publicly funded Catholic School District. Individual taxpayers can choose to have the education portion of their property taxes directed towards funding for the catholic school system (see text and link below). It has always fascinated me that other religious orders haven’t tried to avail them of this form of school choice (or maybe they have…).
From http://www.cssd.ab.ca/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=197
“Taxes declared in support of the Calgary Catholic School District benefit your children. To ensure your property taxes are supporting your Catholic school, make sure your school support is shown as “Separate” on your annual property assessment notice and tax bill.
If a declaration of school support is not filed by a property owner, the property assessment and tax bills show the school support as “Undeclared”.
If your support designation is wrong, it can be changed by completing and submitting a School Support Declaration form, obtained from the City of Calgary, Taxation Customer Service Centre or Calgary Catholic School District, Business Services Department at (403) 500-2531.
A change to school support does not take effect until the following calendar year.”
September 30, 2009, 5:34 pmNI says:
OK, so they’re crazy, but in fairness this is no more crazy than the ACLU suing every time it sees a cross on public lands. Truthfully, the statue probably does have religious significance, and what’s good for the goose . . .
September 30, 2009, 5:38 pmHm says:
Any group that cites wikipedia in their official press release is a bit suspect, no?
September 30, 2009, 5:39 pmDangerMouse says:
They’re learning. Now all they have to do is threaten to saw the heads off of the zookeepers, and then they’ll have as much influence as other religions.
September 30, 2009, 5:48 pmloki13 says:
and what’s good for the goose . . .
Okay, I have to get this peeve off my chest. I absolutely hate it when people write this. You see, normally, when this is employed, it is used to refer to someone getting an extra benefit that should be extended. Traditionally, think of this is in terms of male/female relations (like the saying!)….
H goes out with his buddies every night. W would like to go out with her friends. What’s good for the goose….
Unfortunately, it is now being used to justify any kind of obnoxious, immoral, or illegal behavior just because someone from the other side of the partisan divide engaged in it (or, more often, because you *believe* that someone from the other side might have engaged in it):
IOW, it’s okay to be a total jerk, because somebody, at some time, that you disagree with, might have been a jerk.
So yeah, I’m going to stop being personally responsible for my actions, and instead ignore everything I should believe in because I once heard that a member of the opposite political party did that. What’s good for the goose…
September 30, 2009, 5:48 pmNathanM says:
Sort of, but it’s not as strong as in the United States. In fact, s. 93 of the Constitution Act (that is the Canadian Constitution) specifically provides for certain government funded religious schools.
S. 2(a) of the Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. This has been interpreted to prevent some government promotion of religion, such as a law requiring shops to remain closed on Sunday.
This isn’t an especially hot button issue in Canada and the law isn’t very well developed. There is a decent summary of Canadian law on freedom of religion here, but again the main issue is what government restriction on religion is permissible, not what government promotion of religion is impermissible.
September 30, 2009, 6:03 pmbillo says:
Actually, it makes perfectly good sense to me. As a Christian, I get tired of someone using being offended or claims of “separation of church and state” to censor even the most trivial visible integration of faith into my life. Unfortunately, this kind of censorship, at least in the US, is pretty selective — people complain about any whiff of Christianity, but similar expression of other faith is just dandy. Display a small creche on your desk at Christmas and get fired. Display a different religious icon, and it’s just great. If that were a statue of Jesus with a lamb at that zoo, you’d see the police in there with jackhammers in a second and evangelical atheists burning the Zoo administrator in effigy.
So, let’s all play the game. If combative antichristians want to take offense at the barest hint of tolerance of Christian expression, let’s all take offence at everybody’s expression of everything. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s been my experience that when *they* are the target of this kind of crap, even the most evangelical atheist and thin-skinned Moslem suddenly rediscover the benefit of freedom of expression.
September 30, 2009, 6:04 pmloki13 says:
It’s been my experience that when *they* are the target of this kind of crap, even the most evangelical atheist . . . suddenly rediscover the benefit of freedom of expression.
Wow, Billo. Have you been overly threatened by the appearance of nothing in zoos near you? By people having non-religious pictures (say, of their family) in the workplace? By the huge amount of air erected on hills in National Parks? By the burning desire to not really say anything before a football game?
You must have large shoulders to carry that chip…
All joking aside, I sometimes wonder if I live in the same United States as some of these commenters. I am often wished a Merry Christmas (and sometimes a Happy Holidays) during the month of December. Most people I know are practicing Christians. I have free and unfettered access to a huge variety of churches. I get the (Christian) holidays off. I’ve got more than a fair number of (Christian) religious stations available over-the-air and on cable. Not bad for a secular, majority-Christian nation.
Did I miss the lions?
September 30, 2009, 6:15 pmNathanM says:
Except the Canadian Civil Liberties Association doesn’t sue over crosses on public lands, or Christmas trees, or things like that. I’m not saying it’s never happened — no doubt someone tried at some point — but I cannot think of a court case dealing with this issue.
There is a fairly broad consensus in Canada that the government shouldn’t promote religion, so at least on the federal level it just isn’t an issue,
September 30, 2009, 6:19 pmSara says:
I have no idea, but wouldn’t some Hindus be offended by this? Their God belongs in a zoo? I know some Christians, who would be offended by the agnus dei in the zoo barn.
At any rate, I laughed at the wiki reference. Are they serious?
September 30, 2009, 6:32 pmJohn Burgess says:
Is Canada now contending with Ireland for the title of “The World’s Most Permanently Offended”?
September 30, 2009, 6:33 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Not a religious icon. It would be interesting to get the opinion of devout Hindus regarding this.
September 30, 2009, 6:33 pmbillo says:
“Did I miss the lions?”
Well, yes. The claim “Well I’m not a Christian and nobody bothers me because of my beliefs” really doesn’t address the issue. Neither does “Nah, see, some of my best friends are Christians.”
Try this:
It’s slightly better in the US. But not all that much, and it’s moving in that direction.
September 30, 2009, 6:33 pmbillo says:
“but I cannot think of a court case dealing with this issue. ”
Then you haven’t been looking.
September 30, 2009, 6:37 pmBruce B says:
Turn about is fair play. They would get better results, though, if they threatened to start beheading people.
September 30, 2009, 6:40 pmbillo says:
“Wow, Billo. Have you been overly threatened by the appearance of nothing in zoos near you? By people having non-religious pictures (say, of their family) in the workplace? By the huge amount of air erected on hills in National Parks? By the burning desire to not really say anything before a football game?”
No, but I’ve been a bit put off by evangelical atheists claiming that parents raising children in their faith constitutes child abuse and should be prohibited. I’ve been a but put off by atheists calling the Bible “hate speech” and then spouting even worse caricatures of Christians. I’ve been a bit put off by atheists threatening people with jail for daring to pray. I’m a bit put off by evangelical atheists insisting that a valedictorian not be allowed to speak at graduation ceremonies because she *might* note that her faith had something to do with her success.
September 30, 2009, 6:43 pmFub says:
Reminds me of that old joke about the psychiatrist showing the patient Rorschach inkblots. Patient keeps reporting seeing sexual images. Finally psychiatrist says “You seem to see sex everywhere.” Patient says “What? You’re the one that’s showing me all those dirty pictures.”
September 30, 2009, 6:49 pmNathanM says:
I glanced through that paper and didn’t see any cases dealing with the government display of religious icons, limitations on government promotion of religion, or s. 2(a) of the Charter. Did I miss something?
September 30, 2009, 6:49 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
(comment deleted)
September 30, 2009, 6:59 pmvic says:
I am nominally a Hindu, having been born one, but never having practiced it.
Ganesha, the half man half elephant god, is one of the most popular deities in multi-theistic hinduism.
There is nothing cultural about thi, this is a religious icon, no more and no less, and needs to be treated with the same veneration or lack thereof of any christian, jewish or other iconography.
what is good for the goose needs to be good for the gander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha
September 30, 2009, 7:03 pmRicardo says:
I can tell you that you would get agreement from many non-devout Hindus. Elephants are also an important cultural symbol in Buddhist Thailand which reflects the historical influence of Hindus in the country.
Hinduism is comparable to Judaism as it is as much a cultural and ethnic identity as a religious one. Hindus also have no interest in evangelizing* since, by definition, one cannot convert to Hinduism — you are either born as one within a certain caste or you are not.
* There are exceptions, with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness being the most prominent. But these exceptions are very small compared with the overall Hindu population.
September 30, 2009, 7:05 pmDave N says:
Loki, you need to quit making sense.
September 30, 2009, 7:20 pmDave N says:
And billo, I agree that many “evangelical atheists” took their charm lessons from Madelyn Murray O’Hair–and they make Pat Robertson look like Dale Carnegie in comparison.
September 30, 2009, 7:31 pmArthurKirkland says:
If I start a religion that worships stop signs, can I demand that all stop signs along my customary routes be removed?
Or will Concerned Christians take care of that for me?
No nuts like religious nuts.
September 30, 2009, 7:37 pmreadery says:
How about the complainants offer to drop the complaint about the Ganesh statue if the zoo agrees to put up a creche next to the camel exhibit?
That’s just a cultural symbol too, right?
September 30, 2009, 7:40 pmBen P says:
I can’t really address the other situations, but even speaking as someone who’s definitely not a member of an “easily offended” group, I do have a pet peeve with people who refuse to recognize the significance of a situation.
The link you posted isn’t about a “person” it’s about a school administrator, an official of the state. You don’t think “establishment of religion” or “freedom of religion” have any bearing on people acting in the course of their government duties?
In any case, they’re not being threatened for praying. They’re being threatened with jail for directly disobeying a court order directing them not to pray. It’s pretty much an article of law, that if a judge directly orders you to do something, you don’t get to ignore them, even if it’s wrong, your remedy is to appeal it.
September 30, 2009, 7:42 pmreadery says:
ArthurKirkland,
One can find living religions who would take almost all the main symbols of a courtroom as religious symbols. That woman with the blindfold and the scales — the goddess Justitia. Those pictures of dead judges — the spirits of ancestors watching over the proceedings. The raised dias, pews, etc. come from temple architecture, the robes from clerical garb. And on and on.
September 30, 2009, 7:43 pmArthurKirkland says:
I am not trying to rid my sight of courtroom symbols.
I am trying to get rid of stop signs, er, religious symbols that offend my core beliefs to the point (a) I can not abide the sight of them and (b) society should protect my religious sensibilities.
September 30, 2009, 7:52 pmSebastian Tombs says:
I keep hoping to see a followup saying that this was an April Fool’s item. Shouldn’t they also be demanding the removal of statues of bulls (sacred to Mithras) and the banning of fire (worshiped by Zoroastrians)?
September 30, 2009, 8:10 pmLarryA says:
Those comparing themselves to our feathered meals might consider that the original saying is, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
September 30, 2009, 8:21 pmSteve2 says:
Not one of those has anything to do with Elephants (ok, Noah’s Ark vaguely does, but it’s a stretch – the relationship’s way too tenuous to have any sort of essential nexus. It’s animals generally, not elephants specifically). So, since this is the Elephant Exhibit, not one of those has any business being put up there. Ganesh is an ELEPHANT god, so having a Ganesh statue at the ELEPHANT exhibit makes some sense (i.e., because of the ability to teach “In some ‘foreign religions’, there are elephant-gods. See, here’s a statue of one to prove it – we aren’t making this up!”). Unless there’s some Christian sect of Elephant-Jesus, or St. Mary of the Elephants, Christianity has nothing to do with Elephants, so it… doesn’t belong anywhere in the Elephant exhibit. The Elephant Exhibit is for Elephants and Elephant-Related-Topics only, just like the Panda Exhibit is for Pandas and Panda-Related-Topics only, etc., etc.,
September 30, 2009, 8:24 pmArthurKirkland says:
Oh, I think there’s a connection. Elephants have huge a$$es, and Concerned Christians Canada . . .
September 30, 2009, 8:53 pmdisintelligentsia says:
So, I suppose it would be hunky-dory to put up exhibits next to the several animals mentioned in the Bible (or thought to be referenced in the Bible by people who want to see them there):
The snake in the creation account representing Satan;
Or the bronze snake sculpture that the Israeli’s looked upon for healing of a plague;
Or Moses’ staff turning into a snake;
Or the animals of the ten plagues- locusts, frogs and herd animals that died;
The donkey that talked to the prophet Balaam;
The various dream related animals – representing countries (a goat for the Greek empire, etc.
Or you can look at, naturally, Wikipedia for a list of animals mentioned in the Bible.
Or young-earth creationists use the unknown animal “behemoth” to say that it refers to dinosaurs.
If you really wanted to, you could probably string together a pretty effective retelling of the Bible or teach theology through the animals mentioned or that played a central part in the stories in the Bible.
September 30, 2009, 9:30 pmRicardo says:
None of these animals plays a role in Western culture or in religious iconography that is equivalent to the role that elephants play in South and Southeast Asia. Walk into the home of a randomly chosen Indian Hindu or Thai Buddhist and there is a good chance you will see an elephant figurine or image of Ganesh near the entrance. Walk into the home of a randomly chosen Christian in the U.S. and, if anything, you are likely to see a crucifix and that’s it.
September 30, 2009, 10:08 pmEH says:
Dang, homie, you ought to at least read the summary at the top of the post. The CCC has pre-emptively done you not one better, not two better, but:
They’ll do you four better. That is, if one Ganesh is allowed to stand, then the zoo should install three sculptures and a museum. Sounds about equal, and not at all insane.
September 30, 2009, 10:09 pmloki13 says:
No, but I’ve been a bit put off by evangelical atheists claiming that parents raising children in their faith constitutes child abuse and should be prohibited. I’ve been a but put off by atheists calling the Bible “hate speech” and then spouting even worse caricatures of Christians. I’ve been a bit put off by atheists threatening people with jail for daring to pray. I’m a bit put off by evangelical atheists insisting that a valedictorian not be allowed to speak at graduation ceremonies because she *might* note that her faith had something to do with her success.
Well, I am very sorry that you are a bit put out. I think it comes with living in… what’s that word…. society? I’m a bit put out by a neighbor that like to play Air Supply REALLY loud on the weekend. I’m a bit put out by people that wear t-shirts with swear words. I’m a bit put out by those fashion-challenged that think beach wear is appropriate for a formal dining experience. Yet I get over it. Live and let live.
I am glad that you have the time to collect anecdotes of obnoxious atheists to keep your righteous anger going. Whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right! But the funny thing is, obnoxiousness is not confined by race, color, or creed. There’s plenty of it to go around, whether it be atheists (*militant* atheists, of course!), Christians, Buddhists, or worshippers of Kali. And here’s a prediction for you- if they weren’t being obnoxious about (insert religion or lack thereof here), they’d be obnoxious about something else.
Probably Air Supply.
Anyway, like I said, you must live in a different part of America than I do, surrounded by the proverbial arugula-eating elitists. Where I’m at, Christianity is not so much under attack as assumed.
The jerks? That’s universal.
September 30, 2009, 10:22 pmhazemyth says:
I suspect that, in stating that the statue was not a religious icon, they meant that the statue was not intended for worship or other religious practice. Rather it was there for it’s educational value, regarding Asian culture (of which Hindu beliefs are a part). I.E., just because there’s a statue of Ganesh, it doesn’t mean the elephant house has been transformed into a state-run temple.
September 30, 2009, 11:21 pmDave N says:
Loki, I’m fairly mild-mannered but even I will be obnoxious about Air Supply–they represent everything wrong with 80′s music.
September 30, 2009, 11:31 pmApu Nahasapasapeemipetilon says:
Please do not feed my god a peanut.
September 30, 2009, 11:39 pmMike McDougal says:
The proper zoo response to the group: “STFU.”
September 30, 2009, 11:54 pmAndy McGill says:
This is interesting because it shows how North American society treats non-Christian religions as not really religions. It makes sense culturally, though I can’t see how logically that works.
October 1, 2009, 12:05 amdisintelligentsia says:
As a complete aside, I love this from the Oregon Zoo about elephants as deities in Buddhism:
October 1, 2009, 12:19 amdisintelligentsia says:
Not being Hindu, I wonder if they find putting elephants in zoos religiously offensive? I suppose not since they have long been used for labor animals in Hindu and Buddhist dominated regions, but it seemed like a logical question given the veneration that cows receive in Hinduism.
October 1, 2009, 12:21 ambillo says:
“I am glad that you have the time to collect anecdotes of obnoxious atheists to keep your righteous anger going. ”
Throwing people in jail, arresting them and dragging them into court, destroying their careers and abrogating their civil liberties is not just being “obnoxious.” I can ignore a loud mouthed antichristian bigot. I can’t ignore a cop with a gun or a pink slip. The fact that you can’t tell the difference is exactly the problem.
And the fact that you don’t see such things as wrong is to be expected.
But to get back to the original article, this is simply the civil liberty version of going John Galt. If the evangelical atheists and militant antichristians want to play this game with our expression, it’s only fitting that the game gets played back to them. Frankly, it’s amusing to watch the hypocrisy.
October 1, 2009, 4:40 ambillo says:
“Rather it was there for it’s educational value, regarding Asian culture (of which Hindu beliefs are a part). I.E., just because there’s a statue of Ganesh, it doesn’t mean the elephant house has been transformed into a state-run temple.”
But, you see, that argument isn’t accepted when it comes to Christian symbols. If it’s not accepted for one, then it shouldn’t be accepted for another. Goose and gander again.
October 1, 2009, 4:42 amArkady says:
Too bad it’s a “pagan” god, seems tailormade for Republican campaign adverts.
October 1, 2009, 4:44 ambillo says:
“Unfortunately, it is now being used to justify any kind of obnoxious, immoral, or illegal behavior just because someone from the other side of the partisan divide engaged in it (or, more often, because you *believe* that someone from the other side might have engaged in it):
IOW, it’s okay to be a total jerk, because somebody, at some time, that you disagree with, might have been a jerk.”
No. It’s simply using the same tools to control the narrative that the other side is using. The fact, loki, is that, as you’ve said, you don’t see it as a problem when these tools are used against Christians. So, in fact, you *don’t* consider it being “a total jerk” when Christians are the target. It’s when *nonchristians* are the target that it *suddenly* becomes a problem and *suddenly* becomes “obnoxious, immoral, or illegal.”
That’s the point. To make folk recognize that it *is* “obnoxious, immoral, or illegal.” Once we have agreed on that, then we can *all* stop it. Until then, however, as long as you consider it fine to attack the civil liberties of Christians, then perhaps more education is warranted.
October 1, 2009, 4:47 ambillo says:
“And billo, I agree that many “evangelical atheists” took their charm lessons…”
It’s not about charm. It’s about civil liberties. The evangelical atheists try to divert this issue into one of being a “jerk” or “charm” or something like that in order to move the narrative away from the fact that these are fundamental attacks on freedom of expression. I don’t care about charm. I don’t care about evangelical atheists being obnoxious. I care about them throwing people in jail and costing them their jobs.
October 1, 2009, 4:50 amKen Arromdee says:
You see, normally, when this is employed, it is used to refer to someone getting an extra benefit that should be extended.
But it is referring to that: Hindus get to have a religious symbol, so Christians should get to have one too.
October 1, 2009, 5:59 amRicardo says:
It is certainly accepted for Greco-Roman pagan symbols. For instance, see this description of sculptures in the U.S. Supreme Court building:
Again, a case of religious symbolism that becomes part of a wider cultural tradition.
October 1, 2009, 6:03 amRicardo says:
Christians do have one: the crucifix. I don’t see how that particular symbol would be appropriate for a zoo, however. Some Christians might even take offense at its presence in a zoo: what kind of statement is its placement making? The fact that a Hindu symbol may be appropriate in a zoo while a Christian symbol would not is a function of the fact that Christians are not poly-theists and don’t attach any spiritual significance to the animal world. There is no Ganesh or Hanuman in the Christian tradition nor is there any veneration of certain animals like cows. It’s as simple as that. If you don’t like the fact that Christians do not have any religious symbols on par with Ganesh or the crucifix from the animal world, start a new sect of Christianity.
In a history museum talking about the history of Spanish missionaries in California, on the other hand, displaying Christian symbols of some kind would be almost inevitable for educational purposes. I don’t think even the ACLU would ever have a problem with that.
October 1, 2009, 6:13 amseattle law student says:
Cops are shooting people for being christian? Throwing them in Jail for being christian? What are you smoking and where can I get some.
October 1, 2009, 6:22 amegd says:
Well, you would think they wouldn’t have a problem with historical references…
October 1, 2009, 7:38 amSimon Jester says:
Just privatize the damn zoo!
These religious debates almost invariably arise because of the extension of government into zoos and schools and parks and other so-called public goods that would be better off in the hands of responsible private owners. Presumably, our collective objections toward Ganesha, crosses, sex education, etc. are inflamed because they are funded by our tax dollars.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
October 1, 2009, 7:50 am-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Sara says:
In the US (and probably in Canada too) there are whole galleries of public museums filled with Christian symbols and artwork: whole bible stories, miracles, saints and holy judgment. Perhaps, you should visit them.
October 1, 2009, 7:51 amBen P says:
I think some people could say exactly the same thing from the opposite perspective. They can ignore a preacher, they can’t ignore a school principal who thinks it’s his personal duty to proselytize students, or a police officer or judge who lets his religion interfere with how he does his job.
October 1, 2009, 8:22 amCato The Elder says:
I find that liberals love to play these ridiculous post-hoc games after the fact. For example, recall what the argument was with regards to an implausible Republican filibustering of Sotomayor’s nomination — “Well, just because Ted Kennedy invented the term ‘Borking’, and Alito was compared to a Nazi, doesn’t mean you can oppose this righteous Latina princess. Why don’t you respect the august process?!” Of course, this is utterly unlike how they or their interest groups act. To time and again obstinately commit to this disingenuity would be to effectively put conservatism to the sword. Simply for the sake of political economy, one should ignore the rhetoric.
I”m not a Christian, nor am I invested in this dispute; if I were, I’d certainly want to press the issue just to prove a point to the evangelical blowhards. Get rid of the thing.
October 1, 2009, 8:41 ambillo says:
“Cops are shooting people for being christian? Throwing them in Jail for being christian? What are you smoking and where can I get some.”
Cops wear guns when they arrest folk. Read the articles I posted. Or, I guess, you don’t have a problem with folk being *arrested* for being Christian, just being *shot*?
October 1, 2009, 8:45 ambillo says:
Ricardo:
“In a history museum talking about the history of Spanish missionaries in California, on the other hand, displaying Christian symbols of some kind would be almost inevitable for educational purposes. I don’t think even the ACLU would ever have a problem with that.”
The link that egd gave you is fixed here.
October 1, 2009, 8:48 ambillo says:
“I think some people could say exactly the same thing from the opposite perspective. They can ignore a preacher, they can’t ignore a school principal who thinks it’s his personal duty to proselytize students, or a police officer or judge who lets his religion interfere with how he does his job.”
That, of course, isn’t what the cases I’ve referred to are about. Nor is it the case of the ACLU threatening to sue because of the cross in the LA city seal representing the history of Spanish missions. And, I’ll be happy to agree with you that teachers should neither proselytize *nor* denigrate a person’s faith. Unfortnately, the latter seems to be de rigeur.
And, of course, the idea that cops — or anybody — should not let moral and ethical values affect what they do is simply silly. The demand should be the moral and ethical values acted upon be ones that are worthwhile; they should not involve persecution based on their origin. It’s not that way, unfortunately. Instead, we are told to lie about it and claim they are justified in terms of secular philosophy because any mention of the *real* religious basis for some of them must be punished. The antichristian insistence that recognizing one’s ethic of “Thou shalt not steal” is be based on one’s religion be punished is simple bigotry.
One would think that if a student’s religious beliefs led her to work hard, be ethical, and achieve success, it should be encouraged. Instead, antichristian bigots refuse to allow those students to mention the reason they developed those attitudes and insist that they either lie or be silent.
The bottom line is that if evangelical atheists and other militant antichristians want to use the force of law to promote their bigotry, then they should be willing to live by the same constraints. And that means that “hate speech” is not limited to Christian expression, but also include hateful bigotry against Christians, and should be viewed as such. It means that if Christian expression should be censored, then similar nonchristian expression should also be censored.
And, when it suddenly becomes obvious that such censorship is not a good thing, then everybody — Christian and nonchristian — should benefit. Who knows, we might develop a society that doesn’t center on finding things to be offended about.
But until then, goose and gander is the way to go.
October 1, 2009, 9:07 ambillo says:
“Presumably, our collective objections toward Ganesha, crosses, sex education, etc. are inflamed because they are funded by our tax dollars.”
It’s going to get worse, not better. As we move more towards socialism, then more and more of our lives will involve government subsidy/involvement/interference. And as that happens, the militant antichristian bigots will further use the cry that anything involving government funding must be purged of the evil of Christianity. Just watch as the concept of the faith-based hospital is made functionally illegal. Get those crosses out of those clinics!
October 1, 2009, 9:14 amyankee says:
The last time I checked, “evangelical atheists” were typically not Hindus and very few Canadian or American Hindus are “militant antichrisitans.”
On the merits, I think different treatment of Christian and non-Christian symbols is appropriate. Christians are the overwhelming majority in this country: almost 80% of Americans are Christians of one stripe or another. Of the 535 members of Congress, only 50 are non-Christians and another 8 are “not stated,” making at least 89% of Congress Christian (at least 86.5% if you consider Mormons non-Christians). Because of the overwhelming dominance of Christianity in this country and the minuscule number of Hindus, no reasonable person would interpret the presence of a Hindu symbol as a government endorsement of Hinduism. The situation is very different with Christianity.
I doubt things change a great deal in Canada, since 80% of Canadians are Christians too. I haven’t looked up statistics for their Parliament but I doubt it includes any significant number of Hindus.
October 1, 2009, 9:43 amyankee says:
Under what circumstances have people been prohibited from discussing the religious origins of their work ethic? Do you have any evidence that this has ever happened?
October 1, 2009, 9:46 amloki13 says:
Billo,
I think this exchange illustrates how difficult it is to bridge the divide between some people. For me, America is a mostly tolerant place, where Christianity is far and away the dominant religion (see- the Supreme Court, see also Congress, see also the Executive, see generally We the People). I’ve heard of these “militant atheists” because they publish books and provide some color on the news (see Hitchens). But I’ve never had one come to my door to try and get me to come to (no) god, like the LDS, or the Jehovah’s, or… um, well, several other less identifiable denominations. I’ve never had them approach me in malls and question me with their “clever” brain teasers to try to get me to understand only (no) god has the answers. There’s no position set aside in prisons to minister to the atheists, and there’s no army (non) chaplain. Neither my undergrad nor my grad school had a “Atheist Society” (perhaps they met with the apathetic society while listening to air supply?), yet they had thriving Christian Fellowships.
I don’t get time off for atheist holidays. There are no respected atheist ministers in the community. The asked question where I used to live isn’t whether you are a Christian, but what kind of Christian are you (it may or not be acceptable to be Jewish). Now that I’m back in the big city, it’s just live and let live.
So yeah- I’m sure that crappy things have happened to people because they were Christian. And because they’re black. And because they’re gay. And because they’re male. And because they’re gingers. And because they’re my brown eyed girl. But to say that it’s some systemic problem? Wow…. I would need advanced Victimology 401 to understand that.
I’m sure that members of *any other* religion, or atheists, would be happy to exchange their place for the hated, despised, hunted-down place that Christians have in American society today. I can only imagine that a Jewish reader, or a Sikh (for example) is reading your litany of horrors (everything short of the lions) and thinking- yeah, y’all got it rough!
They would love to have to have your saucey goose.
October 1, 2009, 10:05 amCato The Elder says:
One idea that is beyond the grasp of many liberals: fairness ain’t fungible.
October 1, 2009, 10:11 amChrisTS says:
Well, really: imagine yourself as a kid being dragged on the weekend to a building full of solemn adults, told to ‘behave,’ forced to dress up, and seeing pictures of some poor guy nailed to a cross with thorns digging into on his head. Then, you go to the zoo, eat fun food, get to run around and shriek, and when you get to the elephants you see a dancing elephant statue. Who wouldn’t convert?
October 1, 2009, 10:52 amChrisTS says:
Re Loki and Billo:
As much as I sympathize with the perception of Christians in the U.S. that they are de facto excluded from the public sphere, I cannot say the perception is well-founded.
As loki points out, Christianity of one sort or the other is the default in this nation. Take your kid anywhere around Christmas time and some smiling sales clerk will ask her/him what Santa is bringing for Christmas. Look on Inside Higher Ed for the recent story about Christian students at some college complaining that having no classes on Jewish holidays ‘discriminates’ against them – with nary a moment’s reflection on all those Christian holidays simply built into all school calendars. Look at our paper money; the God in whom we trust is not a Hindu elephant god.
I really thought the Canadians had more sense.
October 1, 2009, 11:02 amChrisTS says:
Re Loki and Billo:
As much as I sympathize with the perception of Chrstians in the U.S. that they are de facto excluded from the public sphere, I cannot say the perception is well-founded.
October 1, 2009, 11:04 amAs loki points out, Christianity of one sort or the other is the default in this nation. Take you kid anywhere around Christmas time and some smiling sales clerk will ask her/him what Santa is bringing for Christmas. Look on Inside Higher Ed for the recent story about Christian students at some college complaining that having no classes on Jewish holidays ‘discriminates’ against them – with nary a moment’s reflection on all those Christian holidays simply built into all school calendars. Look at our paper money; the God in whom we trust is not a Hindu elephant god.
billo says:
“Under what circumstances have people been prohibited from discussing the religious origins of their work ethic? Do you have any evidence that this has ever happened?”
You must be joking. It happens all the time. The denial around here is laughable. You and loki13 are like a middle class white guy in the 1950s saying “Why are some of these silly blacks blathering on about racism? I’m not racist, and none of my friends are. I have black friends, and they are all polite and pleasant. What’s the big deal?”
Some of the more egregious examples:
More recently, it was Mary Allen, president of the Pace High School graduating class.
In addition:
Here
Here
Here.
Here
Here
And I can get you an arbitrary number more, if you like.
How many will it take before apologists for this kind of censorship stop pretending it doesn’t happen?
October 1, 2009, 11:20 ambillo says:
“As much as I sympathize with the perception of Chrstians in the U.S. that they are de facto excluded from the public sphere, I cannot say the perception is well-founded.”
Well, that’s an interesting rephrasing of my positin, but it’s a mischaracterization. My position is that if it’s good to use taking offense to censor Christians, then it’s equally good to use it back. It’s your and loki13s position that as long as there are a lot of Christians around, it’s OK to censor them, fire them for their jobs and throw a few in jail if they express their beliefs. There are plenty more left.
I respectfully disagree
October 1, 2009, 11:40 amloki13 says:
It’s your and loki13s position that as long as there are a lot of Christians around, it’s OK to censor them, fire them for their jobs and throw a few in jail if they express their beliefs. There are plenty more left.
What an…. interesting characterization of my position! It must be very hard to meet in underground rooms, knowing that the next centurion’s knock means you go to the arena.
Seriously, there are jerks, and they do bad things. What I find alternately laughable and pathetic is that… well, let me quote you:
You and loki13 are like a middle class white guy in the 1950s saying “Why are some of these silly blacks blathering on about racism? I’m not racist, and none of my friends are. I have black friends, and they are all polite and pleasant. What’s the big deal?”
Being a Christian in America today is *just* like being black in Selma in the 50s. Really?
I started the post talking about people’s thin skins, and the circle of idiocy. I guess everyone is an oppressed group now. So who, exactly, is the oppressor?
Oh yeah, them.
Anyway, if you got it so bad, I guess the rest of them got it so good. The atheists (it’s good to be an atheist in middle school… not so much)… jewish people (there’s no anti-semitism in America)… the Sikhs (tuban means muslim, y’know!)… the muslims (sorry, Islamofascists)… the hindus (that’s in *God* we trust, not *Gods* ya furriner)….. the buddhists (well, they do have to suffer Richard Gere)…
What I’m saying is… get over yourself. If you really want the whole goose/gander treatmeant, you might want to think this through. Ever hear about walking a mile in someone’s shoes? Perhaps you’re fixated on the beam in your eye? ;)
Take care.
October 1, 2009, 12:24 pmloki13 says:
I am adding a final note to the post, not in direct response to Billo, but as a general observation. It’s not that I don’t understand Billo’s fears, exactly, but I think that they are an overreaction. In order to explain, I have to go the notion of what is normal, and what is default, and how those ideas have changed in America. Way back in the day, I did a study on violence in the media. To greatly simplify, I found the following:
If the level of violence in society was at level 5, the media reporting would make it appear to be at level 7, because of the way they featured the violence (leading the program, featuring national stories of violence that weren’t applicable to the local community etc.). Therefore, when people were polled, they would report that their actual community level of violence was at level 7, and would act accordingly. Here’s a more concrete example- the rate of violence against children is at levels seen in the 60s. However, parents do not treat it as such because they are innundated with stories of violence against children and child kidnapping. So the method of parenting isn’t shaped by the actual security needs of children, but rather by what parents *believe* the security needs of the child to be.
I think something similar is happening to Billo and others like (him?). If you search long enough and hard enough, you will find evidence of people acting like jerks toward Christians. This reinforces a belief that “Christianity is under attack” (a belief that some media outlets are only too happy to serve). But the situation day-to-day is very different. America is a nation dominated by Christianity, to such an extent that it forms a background unnoticed to most of us (see, for example, our default holidays). Part of the recent evolution in America has been to understand this and to grow more accepting of those with other beliefs so that, for example, Jewish people can choose to get Yom Kippur off. I think that this is frightening because for many, it is not enough that Christianity not only be the most commonly practiced religion and the “default” religion in America (and only moreso, given that immigration trends favor Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular), but it must be dominant, and any accommodation is seen as a loss. Hence, it is not enough to be inclusive and wish people “Happy Holidays” (even if you live in an area with a large Jewish population)- you MUST wish them a Merry Christmas.
Now, this isn’t to say that there aren’t specific wrongs. There are atheist jerks who go out of their way to denigrate people of faith. There are Christian jerks who go out of their way to denigrate atheists. There are those who file frivolous lawsuits to keep God (or Gods) out of everything. There are those who file frivolous lawsuits to put God (or Gods) into everything. What can we learn from this?
1. People are jerks. Don’t be one. And if someone else is a jerk, it doesn’t give you the right to be one just because you can say “What’s good for the goose…” (Here’s a clue- if your friend rapes a kid, would you do it too, because “what’s good for the goose…”?)
October 1, 2009, 12:55 pm2. There’s at least one lawyer for every jerk out there.
billo says:
“I think something similar is happening to Billo and others like (him?). If you search long enough and hard enough, you will find evidence of people acting like jerks toward Christians.”
Or, of course, you could simply *be* a Christian and experience it, then it wouldn’t seem so unusual to you. But, of course, you aren’t. You simply project your denial as reality. It doesn’t matter *how* many examples I give you, it will never be enough.
I know, I will *never* convince you that arresting Christians for their faith is anything to get worked up over, and you will *never* believe that this taking of offense thing happens enough to make you care. When that kind of denial occurs in other arenas, it’s called “willful ignorance.” It doesn’t work well with sexual harassment, where SCOTUS condemned an employer for denial saying they “must have known, or was engaged in willful ignorance and did not wish to know.”
You do not wish to know. And, accordingly, you never will.
October 1, 2009, 2:34 pmbillo says:
“Being a Christian in America today is *just* like being black in Selma in the 50s. Really?”
No, you are simply engaging in the same kind of denial. We can either talk about the point I’m making or you can have a conversation with your pretend Christian about a pretend issue that you create on your own.
October 1, 2009, 2:37 pmChrisTS says:
billo:
October 1, 2009, 2:57 pmThe cases you link to are not cases of people trying to censor Christians on grounds of ‘offense.’ They are cases in which school officials and/or students attempt to use public platforms to express their religious views – in some cases, to clearly proselytize.
As for anyone whose job is in danger because of expressions of faith: if the person is a public employee, then s/he is not allowed to engage in such expression on the job; if s/he is a private employee, then the employer has every right to determine what is and is not proper in the workplace.
The dispute over the dancing elephant-god at the zoo comes closer to being a matter of religious neutrality, if the statue is seen as being merely an expression of religious belief on public premises. If you could present a case that displaying crosses at a zoo is parallel to having this statue, you might have an argument. But repeatedly complaining that – somehow, just somehow – this is all tied up with mistreatment of Christians gets you nowhere.
loki13 says:
Okay Billo,
Let’s look at your examples-
1. Person facing jail time for *violating an out of court settlement*. I know you’re not big on the law, and stuff, but you’re not allowed to that. If you do, you get in trouble.
2. Person whose mike was cut off after they deviated from school-approved graduation speech to evangelize during the speech. You’re not familiar with the jurisprudence, but this is considered a school-sponsored speech. Not supposed to do that (just think about your kid being forced to sit and listen to a speaker telling them to convert to Islam).
3. Same as 2, above, but less certain since we only hear from the plaintiff. Again, this is school-sponsored speech. Had the student done it in the hallway, no problem.
4. Is more of a close call, since we only get one side. If the school was harrassing a student, that isn’t right. But still- mentioning beliefs is fine, but ou shouldn’t be using a *school platform* to evangelize to a captive audience.
5. Same. Graduation speech.
6. Again, close call but the same.
So… that’s it? Christians are being hunted down because our current jurisprudence doesn’t allow high school graduation speakers to try and convert a captive audience? You realize that this applies to other religions, too, right?
*sigh* I wish I had the problems you did.
October 1, 2009, 3:10 pmChrisTS says:
.
I missed this earlier. That is not any ‘position’ of mine. My point was that Christianity is the default in our nation and that, therefore, the notion that Christians, in particular, are being picked on requires further reflection.
It is wrong to censor anyone’s speech, but speech sometimes conflicts with other rights and legal principles. Separation of church[es] and state is one of our legal principles, and many rights flow from it. These include the right of non-Christians and non-religionists to not be captive audiences to religious speech at publically supported events.
You regard this as censorship of speech; the law regards it as protection of those who do not wish to be proselytized on their dime.
October 1, 2009, 3:54 pmbillo says:
“The cases you link to are not cases of people trying to censor Christians on grounds of ‘offense.’ They are cases in which school officials and/or students attempt to use public platforms to express their religious views”
Ahem. Let me remind you of the question:
“Under what circumstances have people been prohibited from discussing the religious origins of their work ethic?”
That you *approve* of it doesn’t change what it is.
October 1, 2009, 4:51 pmbillo says:
“So… that’s it?”
Ahem. Once again, remember the question I was responding to. These are exactly cases that are responsive to the question. That they are not responsive to a question I wasn’t answering is not surprising.
And, again, the fact that you *approve* of it doesn’t change what it is. Calling every expression of religious belief “proselytizing” is a cute way to support the criminalization of faith, but it doesn’t make it right. And, as long as folk like you think that criminalizing expressions of faith is a good thing, then it’s appropriate to respond in kind.
October 1, 2009, 4:55 pmbillo says:
“You regard this as censorship of speech; the law regards it as protection of those who do not wish to be proselytized on their dime.”
Actually, when these go to court, freedom of speech frequently wins. The problem is that antichristian bigots are very good at using SLAPP tactics to intimidate folk. The reason that things are changing is that Christians are beginning to fight back.
But, it’s fun to see this conversation follow the familiar path that it takes with antichristian bigots:
First there’s the denial: “This never really happens.”
Then the minimization “Well, it happens rarely and it’s not a big deal.”
And then, finally, the admission: ” OK, it happens. And I think it’s a good thing. The law’s on my side, so shut up or I’ll do my best to see you hurt.”
October 1, 2009, 4:59 pmbillo says:
“You regard this as censorship of speech; the law regards it as protection of those who do not wish to be proselytized on their dime.”
Right. The bar on censorship is set so low that you want to silence people who are not even offensive. Simply expressing a belief system different than yours is enough to warrant silencing by force. I get it.
And the “on their dime” is an interesting thing. Do you believe that people who don’t like gays should be able to silence pro-gay speech if the speech is in a public forum? Do you believe that people who hold political views that you don’t like should be stopped from speaking in a public forum? Do you believe that people who hold values different than yours should be stopped from speaking in a public forum? No? I get it. Just Christians.
Well, Christians pay their dime, too. And if your position is that it’s OK to censor speech any taxpayer doesn’t like, then let’s get to it. There’s a lot of speech that needs to be stopped on the public dime.
And, of course, as we become more and more socialized, *every* place is on *your* dime. Eventually, with any luck, you’ll be able to stop all expression altogether.
Congrats.
October 1, 2009, 5:06 pmloki13 says:
Billo,
Um, okay, I’ll bite. You were making references to people getting fired, and here you were talking about “criminalizing”. Well, if you enter a voluntary consent decree, and you violate it, you can go to jail. It doesn’t matter what the subject is. Your position on this is as silly as me saying that they’ve criminalized freedom of assembly because a person violated a TRO. Or that they have criminalized freedom of contract because a court is enforcing a non-compete clause. *gag*
As for the rest- yes, you don’t get it. I don’t want Christians (or anyone else) being forced to shut up. I have no problem with someone coming to my door and tryng to convert me (I could politely ask them to leave). In fact, I have no problem, at a school assembly, for a student speaker to make a brief mention… like, “I’m here thanks to my faith” or “I’d like to thank my parents, my priest, and most importantly, God”. In fact, having attended school assemblies (the life of a parent) I’ve seen this many times. What I don’t want is for people to use a school (government) platform to get a free shot at converting people who are a captive audience, and our jurisprudence supports that. Heck, it’s not just the law, it’s just common sense and courtesy.
And I say that whether the speaker wants to rant about converting to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or uses the platform to tell the students that they should all be atheists because there is no god. It’s not appropriate.
Think about the work situation- if you’re at work, it should be fine if a co-worker tells you about his experience in church, or temple, and proudly displays the ornaments of his religion. But if a co-worker is using work-time to continuously proselytize you (or, conversely, to argue for atheism), it’s a display of bad manners.
October 1, 2009, 5:37 pmbillo says:
The problem, loki, is the consent decree. Your position is that “I don’t want to throw him in jail I want him censored. I want to throw him in jail because he broke his agreement to be censored.”
“As for the rest- yes, you don’t get it. I don’t want Christians (or anyone else) being forced to shut up.”
Bullshit. You follow this by very carefully detailing exactly when you think people should be forced to shut up — at the point you find them disagreeable. Then they should be fired or jailed. Got it.
October 1, 2009, 7:13 pmloki13 says:
billo,
Apparently you manage to mine my words evidence of the same anti-Christian animus with which you scour these here intertubez. It must take a lot of um, fertilizer to nourish your garden of victimhood. Not much else to say. Good luck- I’ve found that a benign feeling of equanimity and forgiveness is a better way to go through life than seething anger and resentment, but whatever works for you.
October 1, 2009, 9:26 pmbillo says:
“I’ve found that a benign feeling of equanimity and forgiveness is a better way to go through life than seething anger and resentment, but whatever works for you.”
Well, if your idea of “equanamity and forgiveness” means acting as apologist for calling the cops on people who express their religious beliefs, I’ll have to respectfully disagree.
October 3, 2009, 12:51 amChristian Church supplies says:
not all the statue were create as religious icon, sometimes it’s just for fun or to have a great view. Also maybe because it reflects the culture of the place. So we don’t need to judge for what they have done, we need to ask them first.
October 11, 2009, 9:41 pm