Just Let It Be!
It doesn't seem to take all that much for people to get on one another's nerves. Why we cannot be a little more sensitive and accommodating to others continues to baffle those of us who manage not to get apoplectic with rage over assumed insults. When the presence of a majority is a dominating factor, it simply makes sense that the minority, while enjoying their rights, should acknowledge that the simple fact of majority status invariably results in the symbols of majority being up front and fairly obvious.
Why this should be seen as an assault on the frail sensibilities of the minority speaks of the thin-skin sensitivities of equal-entitlement. Equality means recognition under the law and through social acceptance within a given culture that the majority population approves of accommodation for the minority. And there it should rest. There is nothing wrong with symbols of majority culture or religious adherence being prominent on public display, and it is in fact symbolic of their right as a majority.
Equally, accommodation is made for proportionately-adequate recognition given to the symbols of minorities, and that is generous enough. Here's another instance of minority resentment raising its ugly head, in California's Mojave National Preserve, where a two-metre-tall cross was installed 75 years ago by veterans to honour their peers who were killed fighting during the First World War.
As a result of criticism of its purportedly not adequately representing the entire religious make-up of all veterans, the U.S. Supreme Court is pondering how to rule. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California's position before the court is that many Jewish war veterans would have taken umbrage at having a cross represent their sacrifice as it is "the predominant symbol of Christianity".
Justice Antonin Scalia, attempting Solomonic wisdom contends that "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead", absenting from his mind the obvious, that in his experience it is, reflecting the majority-population-religion of the West, and also ingenuously overlooking what the cross signifies. Having said which, even while it stretches a point, it is a common symbol in anyone's mind.
Unless you're a Jew perhaps, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Sikh, or Hindu, to all of whom the cross represents a primary symbol of another religion other than their own, inappropriate to the purpose of honouring their dead. Americans United for Separation of Church & State get it: "Is Scalia seriously arguing that the cross is no longer a religious symbol? Now that is an outrageous conclusion."
On the other hand, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected that cross in the park in 1934. It has some historical resonance, and it certainly has tradition on its side. The entire problem could be cleared out handily if the National Park Service encouraged the veterans' association to be reasonably accommodating, and to offer to erect secondary religious symbols representing other religions, to complement the existing cross.
Failing that, the suit should be dropped and respect given to the venerability of the 'cross in the desert'.
Why this should be seen as an assault on the frail sensibilities of the minority speaks of the thin-skin sensitivities of equal-entitlement. Equality means recognition under the law and through social acceptance within a given culture that the majority population approves of accommodation for the minority. And there it should rest. There is nothing wrong with symbols of majority culture or religious adherence being prominent on public display, and it is in fact symbolic of their right as a majority.
Equally, accommodation is made for proportionately-adequate recognition given to the symbols of minorities, and that is generous enough. Here's another instance of minority resentment raising its ugly head, in California's Mojave National Preserve, where a two-metre-tall cross was installed 75 years ago by veterans to honour their peers who were killed fighting during the First World War.
As a result of criticism of its purportedly not adequately representing the entire religious make-up of all veterans, the U.S. Supreme Court is pondering how to rule. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California's position before the court is that many Jewish war veterans would have taken umbrage at having a cross represent their sacrifice as it is "the predominant symbol of Christianity".
Justice Antonin Scalia, attempting Solomonic wisdom contends that "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead", absenting from his mind the obvious, that in his experience it is, reflecting the majority-population-religion of the West, and also ingenuously overlooking what the cross signifies. Having said which, even while it stretches a point, it is a common symbol in anyone's mind.
Unless you're a Jew perhaps, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Sikh, or Hindu, to all of whom the cross represents a primary symbol of another religion other than their own, inappropriate to the purpose of honouring their dead. Americans United for Separation of Church & State get it: "Is Scalia seriously arguing that the cross is no longer a religious symbol? Now that is an outrageous conclusion."
On the other hand, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected that cross in the park in 1934. It has some historical resonance, and it certainly has tradition on its side. The entire problem could be cleared out handily if the National Park Service encouraged the veterans' association to be reasonably accommodating, and to offer to erect secondary religious symbols representing other religions, to complement the existing cross.
Failing that, the suit should be dropped and respect given to the venerability of the 'cross in the desert'.
Labels: Human Relations, Religion
posted by Pieface | 6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home