I know it sounds unliberal and I don't agree with Scalia, but I get a little tired of Christianity constantly being mocked as if it doesn't deserve the general respect granted other religions.
After 75 years should not this World War I memorial with its cross be allowed to stand if for no other reason than it represents a historic period and its sensibilities and not be destroyed or covered up to suit the prejudices of this present age?
To remove it would be as ridiculous as Columbia University was when it substituted a Prussian spike for the cross on the crown that symbolized its founding by Anglicans as King's College.
Paul Woodrum |
October 17, 2009 6:48 PM
I get a little tired of Christianity constantly being mocked as if it doesn't deserve the general respect granted other religions.
Say wha? Some Buddhists wanted to put up a memorial there, and were denied. How does that equate to the above statement?
"Whites Only" and "Coloreds Only" signs "represent a historic period and its sensibilities" too. Therefore...???
October 17, 2009 11:09 PM
I'm not sure how one gets from a war memorial to whites and colored only signs -- apples and oranges -- but was expecting an argumentum absurdum response. I thought the orange might be the Confederate flag flying on state capitals.
The Buddhists weren't mentioned in the Cafe post and I don't recollect what they wanted to memorialize. If it is also American WW I dead, maybe they were a little slow getting around to it.
Paul Woodrum |
October 18, 2009 3:32 PM
I think this is one example of Colbert at his most profound and effective as a satirist. Colbert, who is a faithful Roman Catholic, exposes Scalia's views as truly anti-Christian because they empty the Cross of all its uniquely Christian meaning. Anyone who has ever heard or read about Colbert's devotion to his Roman Catholic faith (or simply witnessed it obliquely in some of his interviews and commentaries), will appreciate how deeply serious he is in both reciting the Nicene Creed and mourning its antithesis in Scalia's assertion that Christian symbols are so broad that they fit all, without regard for the significant particulars of doctrine or creed. Colbert no more mocks Christianity than Dean Swift.
October 19, 2009 8:40 PM
Kathy - Exactly. Thanks for the translation. For those not familiar Colbert's work this might have been clear.
John B. Chilton |
October 20, 2009 12:20 AM
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by
requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real
names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)