Highway artwork depicting religious symbols to move forward

[rug]

Tom Sharpe | The New Mexican
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2012

Artwork proposed for two bridges along N.M. 4 between Jemez Springs and Jemez Pueblo apparently is on track for installation next summer, despite reports that questions were raised about religious symbols in a government-funded project.

Historical Passes is to be cast in four concrete panels, each 28 inches by 14 feet, depicting images of corn, spirals and mountains, along with a priest, a mission church and crosses.

Jemez Springs Mayor Edmond Temple told KRQE-TV on July 18 that the Federal Highway Administration had ordered the crosses removed. “To do something because we’re fearful someone might be offended by it is really not how I think we should be running our government,” he said. Temple has not responded to messages from The New Mexican.

- snip -

But Michael McEntee, adjutant secretary for the state Department of Transportation, said that neither his department nor federal highway officials have sought any changes to the artwork, which remains on track for installation next year.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/080412indian

[annabanana]

1. If other panels depict Native American iconography I have

no problem with it. There is a "history of the state" argument that can be made.

[rug]

2. The name of the state capital would have to change.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Wow.

You forgot the sarcasm thingy.

You can't seriously be putting forth that 3rd grade argument.

[humblebum]

8. But all too logical and relevant nonetheless. Some like myself

consider much of atheists' efforts to rid the world of religious symbolism to be rather "3rd grade" mentality. But hey, that's just my take.

[Goblinmonger]

10. It's a strawman argument that nobody is making

This is about a city crest that the city has chosen NOW. The courts have ruled that these types of things are endorsement of religion and, as such, a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But I'm sure the statements of privilege will continue.

[humblebum]

11. Hardly a straw man and one that could easily be made under present circumstances.

The symbolism in question clearly represents the actual historical heritage of the local culture.

[skepticscott]

12. It's a straw man

unless you can prove that atheists are actually trying to "rid the world of religious symbolism", as opposed to simply ending the use of religious symbols in government emblems and government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded projects. You can start by citing a few examples of atheists trying to get rid of religious symbols on church property (since they are part of "the world&quot .

Have at it.

[humblebum]

14. It's all the same argument since it's certainly not confined to New Mexico. And

by extension atheist and secular opponents of ANY religious symbolism on public property must stop piece-mealing and direct their efforts to all such displays, in all public locations, and in all circumstances to remain credible. That of course would include any references to religion at both the Federal and state levels as well as local.

One would also have to include any Native American symbols of a spiritual nature - all totem poles, or any item related to religious ceremony, and quite possibly even any atomic symbol, which of course is one symbol of atheism.

If the protests are only directed toward Christian symbolism, then clearly there is discrimination occurring.

[skepticscott]

16. Non-answer

Just more BS dodging. PROVE that atheist are trying to "RID THE WORLD of religious symbolism" (your words). Except you can't, because that's not what they're doing at all. Hence your lame straw man argument.

And your lame BS dodging response just proves my point. By your own acknowledgement, atheists aren't even trying to get rid of all PUBLIC religious displays, so they certainly can't be trying to rid the whole WORLD of them. The fact that there are too many public officials trying to use public money and public property to promote and endorse religion to possibly fight all of them doesn't make the efforts to remove SOME of them any less legitimate.

Since you're incapable (again) of arguing with any intellectual honesty, rounds are over.

[humblebum]

17. Non-response.

As usual, you use ad hominem and trite little diversions like "rounds are over" as coping mechanisms. If the rounds are over then I probably should not hear from you again.

And do you really want to discuss atheism on an historical global level?

[Jim__]

3. Given that this is Native American art, what do the crosses represent?

Christianity, sure, but in what light? Do we really want to censor art because it might offend some people?

“We were totally opposing the change of our piece,” Jojola said. “They wanted us to revise it, and as artists, why should we? … Why should they stop us from telling our story? We know our history. We know our boundaries. We know what we can depict and what we can’t. But this was a true story. It was a harsh reality to my people at the time.”

[Goblinmonger]

5. I thought the same thing

but I don't think the majority of Christians will look at that as say, "Man, we sure we assholes to the Native Americans."

Plus it's not just about the artist once the state puts it up on state property with state money.

[rrneck]

6. It aint Guernica.

I don't see a harsh reality depicted in the piece. Nor will anybody else when the blast by it in a car. They'll see crosses and corn if they notice it at all.

This is a bit of self promotional brouhaha by the artists. Anybody that knows anything about art knows the antagonistic history between religion, art and government money. That slab of dreck was designed to generate career enhancement through controversy.

[cbayer]

13. It sure isn't a masterpiece, but NM highways have a lot of this kind of thing.

There's lots of native american symbolism, much of which could be considered religious in nature, as well.

My basic position is that if there is not a compelling reason to have it and some people object, why do it?

[rrneck]

15. Money.

Make something controversial and generate some buzz over it. Then claim "aggrieved artist censored by government/religion/right wing/ fascist yada yada. Standard bush league culture war bullshit. Beats pimping lattes at Starbucks I guess.

Any artist worth their salt knows better than to stir up shit with public art. You can't force people into an existential dilemma while they're driving down the road.

Although part of me has to admit it might have been fun to see Robert Mapplethorpe make one.

[pinto]

9. Eh. Don't feel the piece is worth a brouhaha one way or the other. Mayor's comment, though

is off-base, imo.

“To do something because we’re fearful someone might be offended by it is really not how I think we should be running our government,” he said.

[dimbear]

19. NM history at Wackypedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt