The Statue of LiberJesus
by tgirschJuly 14th, 2006
You want to know why so many of us think that the Religious Right is wrong (in both the literal and figurative sense)? I present unto you, exhibit A:
Click the picture for a larger image.
Move along, people, no Christian triumphalism to see here.
Where to begin? First, notice that the 72-foot tall Lady LiberJesus (actually named the “Statue of Christian Liberty”) holds the Ten Commandments in her left hand. Unfortunately you can’t make this out in the photo, but so far, only the First Commandment has been engraved onto the tablets. One can easily imagine them getting to Commandment #2 and thinking, “Aww, crap!”
Backstory here. And hat tip to Kevin R., who told me about this and insisted that I go see it for myself. You may think you live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, but let me assure you, our Jesus can beat up your Jesus.
UPDATE: First, let me make it clear that I don’t think there’s anything illegal about what they’ve done here. Horribly misguided, absolutely, but illegal, no. It’s a privately-funded structure on private property, and it violates no zoning requirements I’m aware of, so it’s legally just fine. That doesn’t make it spiritually okay, though. Never mind the fact that the second commandment seems to clearly prohibit this sort of thing; I doubt Jesus would be terribly impressed if he saw it. Otherwise, I’ll let David Opderbeck, a conservative evangelical Christian, take this one:
[T[he message it sends to those outside the Christian faith is awful. Some of us may look at this and think, "yes, Jesus gives freedom to the tired, the hungry, the huddled masses, through the cross." That's true, and it's an important message. But for most people outside the American evangelical subculture, this says "America: by, for, and of Christians, and no one else."
Categories: Church & State, Politics, Religion |
Fundie eye for the secular guy
And your point is … what? You just don’t like people expressing themselves if you disagree with them?
LiberJesus…
My buddy Tom Girsch of Lean Left sent me this picture, which he took in Memphis. Tom and I disagree about lots of things — stuff like politics (well, sometimes) and religion — but we agree on this: ugh!!!……
tg: Move along, people, no Christian triumphalism to see here.
Fred: What’s your problem? Is your heart so full of hate for Christianity that you feel compelled to take any and every opportunity to criticize it? Do you have a problem with Christians having freedom of religion and speech? In your world, is freedom only for the secular humanists?
Maybe you can explain how this offends your open-minded liberal sensibilities.
GOOD LORD!!
That…thing…is in appalling taste! It looks like something out of a John Waters movie.
Does anyone really think Christ would approve of such kitsch?
I don’t know if He would or not. Why do you care whether or not Christ would approve? I didn’t take you for a believer.
Why are liberals so intolerant?
Fred, it’s not that liberals are intolerant. We’re just united in agreement that this is bad taste, ie. tacky. Not because it’s Christian. Because it’s linking a major symbol of the USA with Christianity in such a way as to suggest that in the US, somehow liberty is only for Christians. No-one is suggesting that it is illegal. We are just suggesting that it says things about the right wing that it might prefer not to be known.
Old Guy:
They can express themselves all they want. Just like I can express myself in saying that the message they’re sending is equally awful from a Christian perspective, and from a secular perspective.
Fred:
It’s not Christianity I hate — it’s this sort of misguided, Jesus-as-bully-stick sort of Christianity that I object to. In large part because it’s so badly at odds with everything Jesus actually taught.
Pejar, such is the power of interpretation.
When I saw the picture, I though it was simply something of a historical statement regarding our country’s Judeo-Christian roots and in no way implying that liberty in our country was only for those of the Christian faith.
You’re apparently looking for a offending statement in this picture. Your interpretation is through the rose colored glasses of liberalism and an apparent distrust of any symbology being shared between the state and the church. Well, I’m guessing that this wasn’t a state sponsored statue, Pejar, so don’t fret - the “United Southern Baptist States of America” isn’t going to be a reality any time soon.
Pejar: ” it’s linking a major symbol of the USA with Christianity in such a way as to suggest that in the US, somehow liberty is only for Christians.”
Fred: Nonsense. Where do you liberals come up with such inane thoughts? Christians in the U.S. have fought for the freedom of all Americans.
Pejar: “it’s not that liberals are intolerant. ”
Fred: LOL That’s a good one. Looks like we have a jokester in the forum.
ARCountryBoy:
When I saw the picture, I though it was simply something of a historical statement regarding our country’s Judeo-Christian roots and in no way implying that liberty in our country was only for those of the Christian faith.
Um, it’s a symbol of the USA *holding up* a cross, the symbol of Christianity, and with the 10 Commandments in its other hand. You wouldn’t think at all that that suggested America promoting Chistianity? Obviously things can be interpreted in different ways, but somehow I think the rose-tint on your glasses is turned up slightly higher than mine!
Well, I’m guessing that this wasn’t a state sponsored statue, Pejar, so don’t fret - the “United Southern Baptist States of America” isn’t going to be a reality any time soon.
No frettin’ going on here. I just think it’s incredibly tacky.
Fred:
LOL That’s a good one. Looks like we have a jokester in the forum.
Why yes, I am the merry jester. Yodalee yodaloo.
For what it’s worth, I think you are misinterpreting liberal tolerance. We’re perfectly willing to criticise when we think something is offensive or (as here) tacky. It’s just we’re less likely to criminalise it. *That’s* the kind of tolerance we stand for.
ARCountryBoy:
Really? Then how is it that David Opderbeck, an outspoken conservative evangelical, came to exactly the same conclusion? See my link in the UPDATE above.
Pejar:
We’re perfectly willing to criticise when we think something is offensive or (as here) tacky. It’s just we’re less likely to criminalise it.
Very well put. Even if you used the Socialized Europe(tm) spelling of “criminalize.”
Wow, if David Opderbeck says it, I surely should be convinced. I’ve been a conservative evangelical all my life and I’ve never heard of him. His judgmental contention that the erection of the statue is a sin is unfortunate. Of course, I guess all of us have our opinions about what is sin and what is not sin. I guess we will have to let God make that determination.
Fred wrote: “Wow, if David Opderbeck says it, I surely should be convinced.”
No Fred, you don’t have to agree with him. But throughout the post you seem to suggest that the…object…we are discussing is offensive to intolerant liberals. I think this makes the case that it is offensive to people regardless of their political or religious convictions.
Janusz:
You don’t understand. Fred doesn’t just hurl insults at liberals. He hurls insults at anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry for any confusion.
Besides, while your point is exactly correct, I didn’t spell it out explicitly, using small words, so you can’t really blame him for missing it.
Why do you lie so much?
I find it interesting that someone can claim to be a conservative evangelical for “all my life”. Consider the ramifications of that statement…
tgirsch;
I would never dispute your right to offer critique of public information, I simply wished to know your basis for doing so.
Our country doesn’t have its roots in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It has its roots in Enlightenment Era deism. Please, get it straight AR Country Boy.
Equally appalling is the cost of the…thing, money that would have been much better spent on charitable causes. The Christ I was taught about would have been more concerned with helping the needy than in self-aggrandisement.
Only two things come to mind on this topic and all the retoric added by mr. fred: The Tower of Babel and Moses’ Golden Calf. I grew up in the church, studied the teachings of Jesus and can find one word for this: abomination.
Mikefromtexas, the two cases you stated have nothing to do with the statue. The Tower of Babel was an attempt to show man as good as God and the Golden Calf was an object of worship. Try again.
perhaps Jesus ment this statue to be made. remeber Jesus said: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
http://unicef1.blogspot.com/
It is a statement that draws upon the traditions that founded the nation. To superimpose anything else upon it is the subjective response of the viewer. With that in mind, all the responses to it prove it to be a valid example of real art. Whether you agree with it or not… it demands a thoughtful response. Cudos to the designer and creator of the piece… again, whether or not you agree with it. I find the statue provacative and interesting without being vulgar and stupid.
Dan gets it right:
“Our country doesn’t have its roots in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It has its roots in Enlightenment Era deism.”