Post

Religious Icons and Historical Mementos are Different (David Duggan, USA, 03/31/23 2:13 am)

John E asked if there is any substantive difference between destroying Confederate statues and blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

I've got other fish to fry in the persons of the taxman and the idiots who staff the "call centers" to report lost or stolen credit cards, etc. (my wallet was just stolen on the Lori Lightfoot-defunded-police CTA), but a distinction can be drawn between a religious icon and simply a historical artifact or memento.

It's called the 1st Amendment. Anyone can march through the streets and proclaim "Slavery [or segregation] forever." But having the government either tear down a statue of Jesus or sit idly by and not prevent its destruction is necessarily favoring one religion over another, and that is prohibited. So, if a city doesn't prohibit the destruction of a Robert E Lee statue or prosecute those who commit it, that's its choice. Preserving a piece of cultural patrimony does not rise to 1st amendment dimensions.

JE comments:  David, very sorry about your wallet. If I may ask, do you know the specifics of how it happened?

As you go back far enough in time, is there a clear-cut difference between religious icons and historical artifacts?  Humanity celebrates countless Pagan artifacts without embracing Paganism.  Afghanistan has no 1st Amendment, but the Buddhas might have had a better chance of survival if the Taliban had understood their historical (not religious) significance.

Visits: 46