« On the other hand, it's not exactly rocket science ... | Main | "Turn Me On, Dead Man." »
June 1, 2005
History: A New Victim of the "War on Christianity" Meme?
A naïve person might mistake a cross-burning in the South for a racist act, but no: Durham resident Teresa Lovell argues in a letter to the Durham Herald-Sun that these cross-burnings were a persecution of Christians:
"I personally feel that the burning of the crosses was not racially motivated, but motivated as an act against all Christians. Burning the cross is worse than desecrating the United States flag. It is a symbol of burning the cross that Jesus bled and was beaten on and died on, so that we might be saved and live with him in eternity. It is good to see Christians of all races banding together to show their love for one another and their disgust with this horrible act."I "personally feel" that she doesn't have the faintest idea what she's talking about. In these parts, Ms. Lovell, cross-burning has been a menace to non-whites (because of the fact that they're non-white, not because they're Christian) and to Jews (who, if I'm not mistaken, are not Christian at all).
Posted by Eric at June 1, 2005 10:03 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.isthatlegal.org/cgi-bin/mt33/mt-tb.cgi/195.
Comments
I feel that Jews are Christians. I also feel that someone should give me ten million dollars. Finally I feel that my dissertation is done.
Posted by: Michael Benson at June 1, 2005 11:30 AM
Not sure about the last bit- I'll check with Leo Frank and get back to you.
Posted by: Simon Spero at June 1, 2005 11:51 AM
To put the best light on her statement, she might have meant it all to lead to her final sentence, with which it would be hard to disagree. Her problem is in referring in her first sentence to the perpetrators' "motivation." But this does get me wondering: why did haters of African-Americans choose the symbol of cross-burning to express their hatred and threats?
Posted by: Henry at June 1, 2005 2:14 PM
I can't tell from the quoted text whether the original writer was attempting to deny racial motivation, or to 'expand' the group of people who should be gravely offended to all Christians.
If it's the latter, I think her attempt was flawed but admirable -- arguing that the Cross should be a symbol precious and sacred to Christians, and that burning it as a tool of racial intimidation is an offense to all followers of Christ, seems like a good idea.
Mind you, attempting to intimidate someone because of their race should be an offense to followers of Christ whether there's a cross involved or not...
Posted by: Jeff Eaton at June 1, 2005 3:13 PM
Also a menace to Catholics, who really are Christian despite being denied as such by some other Christians. I think it is safe to say that people who burn crosses are potentially dangerous to anyone who is not inclined to burning crosses.
Posted by: Mike at June 1, 2005 4:46 PM
Rally at the Durham Armory, 4pm, Sunday
http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/news/NewsDisplay.cfm?vNewsID=829
Posted by: Simon Spero at June 2, 2005 7:12 PM
It's funny to hear a Christian take offense to cross burning when these acts have traditionally been carried out by self proclaimed 'God Fearing Christians' who then turn around and use their sacred holy symbol to intimidate minorities. Klansmen go to church on Sundays too.
Posted by: Jon at June 23, 2005 9:27 AM