James M. Redwine

Jesus

Feet of Clay

by Leave a Comment

Picture by Peg Redwine

William Shakespeare had Marc Antony preach these words at Julius Caesar’s funeral:

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Act III, Scene 2

Antony went on to list Caesar’s accomplishments in addition to his being ambitious. There was some good, some bad. Perhaps the citizens of Rome should have erected a partial statue of Caesar honoring just the good parts.

This could be a solution to our current controversy over monuments to historic figures. A committee could be composed of people who admire the works of a now dead leader and those who find the figure’s behavior flawed. A few examples might be helpful.

George Washington survived Valley Forge, presided over the Constitutional Convention and refused the opportunity to be named an emperor. On the other hand he owned hundreds of slaves and helped enshrine slavery into our legal system. The Committee might consider cutting the Washington Monument in half.

Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the Bill of Rights that guaranteed individual liberty but only to twenty-one year old white males. He also owned slaves and had children by one of them. Today such an employer/subject relationship would result in severe censure. Perhaps the Committee might recommend the Jefferson Memorial be closed every other week.

As we search for unblemished heroes to honor we could consider Abraham Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. However, he at first averred slavery would be preferable to the disintegration of the Union and the Proclamation did not free all slaves just those in the states of the Confederacy. The Committee could maybe have a disclaimer added as a placard around his statue’s neck.

Andrew Jackson committed adultery, captured Seminole Indians under a flag of truce and as president created The Trail of Tears. On the other hand, he was a courageous and victorious military leader. A short bronze bust could replace his heroic sized statue.

As for Mount Rushmore the Committee would have to remove at least 3 of the 4 figures. Of course, Teddy Roosevelt had a penchant for shooting animals which might upset the ASPCA; so all 4 might have to be erased.

Right here in Posey County, Indiana we have a dilemma about what to do with our most famous citizen. Alvin Peterson Hovey was once Posey Circuit Court Judge, a Civil War general for the Union and our only governor. Unfortunately, he also was instrumental in helping to cover up the murders of seven Black men in October 1878. One of those Black men was shot and stuffed into a hollow tree on a farm owned by Hovey. Will the Committee have to remove the glowing patina from Hovey’s bronze in the Indiana State House?

One might look to Jesus as the paragon of virtue but even he got angry and threw the moneychangers out of the temple. He, also, voiced his hope that the cup of his great travail might pass from him. On the other hand, apparently no one knows what Jesus looked like unless one believes the Shroud of Turin is a clue. I guess the Committee would not be able to find any statues of Jesus to modify.

It appears that history has not provided us with any perfect examples to honor. Maybe the Committee will have to suggest that all statues be modified by substituting feet of clay.

Picture by Peg Redwine

Cultural Cleansing

by Leave a Comment

A nation is its culture and experience, its history. That is what determines its character. The same is true of the world. We learn or do not learn from the mistakes and accomplishments of ourselves and those who have preceded us. If we learn, we can accomplish more. If we do not learn, we may repeat mistakes. To learn from the past we must know and understand it. If we hide the past, we do not change what has happened but we may live to regret that we no longer remember it.

ISIS or ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq or the Islamic State of Syria, has been culturally cleansing the ancient Middle East for several years. Its members are offended by statues, monuments and artifacts that once, before ISIS destroyed them, carried within them thousands of years of human knowledge and culture. ISIS could not bear to allow memories of ancient or even contemporary peoples who had the temerity to have different beliefs from ISIS. This is particularly puzzling with religious differences since ISIS’s belief system is based on its particular interpretation of Islam which could not have existed before Mohammad who lived from 570 A.D. to 632 A.D. Yet ISIS viciously attacks the artifacts and history of cultures thousands of years old.

Of course, ISIS as all such denigrators of history, is not changing the facts of history. ISIS is merely proving their own ignorance of it. Such actions are much as children who put their hands over their eyes or duck their heads under the covers in an attempt to convince themselves that because they do not see something it never existed. Or as ISIS and some other people do, they destroy historical artifacts and try to convince themselves and others that a certain history never happened. Of greater concern is the very real possibility their actions will lead to the loss by future generations of an opportunity to learn from that history.

To preserve and observe a historical artifact, a temple to Baal that was 5,000 years old or a Christian church that was 2,000 years old for example, is not to worship Baal or Jesus but is to build upon and learn from history. To destroy artifacts of a nation’s past does not change that past but it may result in the nation repeating past errors because those errors are out of sight and therefore out of mind.

History teaches us that power waxes and wanes and that who is on top today may be oppressed tomorrow. The burning or banning of books, say the Bible for example, does not invalidate a book’s content. It does validate the lack of vision of those who arrogate to themselves the sole interpretation of truth or history.

Each of us has the right to venerate or denigrate whatever philosophy, religion or creed we wish. However, just because what happened in history may be offensive to us does not mean we should attempt to establish such history never occurred. Haven’t we lived through enough of such culture destroying behavior to recognize the danger in such a course?

Perhaps next week we can revisit such a revision of history that occurred right here in Posey County, Indiana and delve into what that revision might mean to us today

The Mote v.s. Log Conundrum

by Leave a Comment

In one of the greatest political speeches ever made Jesus told the audience on the Mount they were hypocrites who could find the minute faults in others while ignoring their own major failings (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5).

Muslims, to whom Jesus is second only to Muhammad as a prophet, and Christians, to whom Jesus is a god, might wish to reread his teachings on human relations. Other peoples might benefit too.

Those of you who have slogged through the most recent Gavel Gamut articles might recall the major topic has been the difficulty of one nation, say North Korea or Iran, understanding the true intent of another nation, say the United States of America, and vice versa. Differing languages often cause what might start as hurt feelings to end with bloodshed.

It is hardly a novel thought that countries, just as individuals, often seek to impose upon others restrictions they refuse to abide by themselves. If we concentrate on comparing and contrasting America and Iran and/or North Korea, outside observers might conclude one country that has thousands of nuclear weapons is threatening to use them to annihilate countries who attempt to even develop one.

Such an investigator might observe that one country strains to dispose of billions of tons of wasted food while it imposes dire economic consequences on countries whose populations are starving.

When it comes to health care one country debates at length the investment in care for its most vulnerable citizens while it spends trillions to rain munitions instead of medicines down upon countries which stubbornly refuse to agree such an approach is altruistic.

If Jesus was correct in his speech (promise?) that “blessed are the peacemakers”, what might we assume the war makers will reap? They probably will not gain acceptance as “sons of god”, more likely as sons of….