A Catholic website for the modern reader
August 2020
In the Image of...
31/08/20 15:36 Filed in: Image of God | Humanity
More than one religious tradition holds that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Although not specifically cited, that is the reason that the Declaration of Independence states “all men (sic) are created equal.”
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
Thank You, Mr. President
21/08/20 10:09 Filed in: Presidential Achievements | Unites States Government
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Joseph R. Biden made reference to former President Barack Obama and said, “Thank you, Mr. President.” I think it is high time that we do the same thing for Donald Trump. It’s time to give him a break and say, “Thank you, Mr. President.” There are a number of reasons I suggest this.
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
What's in a Name?
Romeo and Juliet may not be the best of Shakespeare’s plays, but it remains one of the most popular. How can one not appreciate a play about a love so strong that it seeks in vain to overcome longstanding hatreds? At the heart of that conflict rises the somewhat obvious challenge, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”
In Lieu of Statues
“An idea is a greater monument to God than a cathedral.” These words were spoken by Spencer Tracy in the film, “Inherit the Wind.” They are part of a lengthier monologue in which he discusses the individual human mind and the idea of progress. In a movie replete with memorable quotes, the one above is probably my favorite.
The recent movement to remove statues commemorating various Confederate generals, coupled with the suggestion to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after the late civil rights leader and Georgia congressman John Lewis, left me wondering. Do we approach our history from a perspective of immediacy and expediency, rather than principle?
Not unlike other cultures and countries, we lionize our past leaders—at least the ones we believe embodied the values we hold dear. There are, of course, exceptions. No other country would memorialize traitors. And, in fact, we have no statues to honor Benedict Arnold. He is the bane of the American Revolution. Then, why did we ever erect statues to honor the traitors who led the South during the Civil War? These monuments are a perfect example of bending history (and facts) to the expediency of the moment.
As has been pointed out in numerous journals and history tomes, most of those statues were built long after the war, the majority in the early part of the 20th Century. Had America forgotten the tragedy, the internecine conflict that tore apart not only a nation, but also families? No. But honoring these traitors served an agenda—the furtherance of white supremacy. As a result, while the violence had ended one could conceivably argue that the Civil War, itself, did not. After all, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, these statues espoused the clear conviction that blacks were subservient to whites, that segregation was natural and proper—all resulting in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And continuing today.
But there are also memorials to people that the entire country can hold in esteem. The most obvious examples would seem to be the Founding Fathers. In August 2017 President Trump lamented the removal of statues to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, complaining that monuments to Washington and Jefferson would be next. Trump does not know enough history to be prescient, so it was quite by accident that he stumbled on the question of whether we should honor even our Founding Fathers with statues.
Consider the unpleasant truths buried within American history. Many, if not most, Americans believe that Washington was not only a great general and president, but that he freed his slaves. He did no such thing. Or consider Jefferson, whose brilliant, philosophical and enlightened mind crafted the Declaration of Independence, which in its original draft condemned slavery. In spite of that he not only did not free his slaves, he enslaved even his own children, his progeny with Sally Hemings. Are these men really role models?
This brings us to the current movement to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after John Lewis. Lewis was a man who commanded great respect for his lifelong commitment to equality, justice and civil rights, especially voting rights. I admire him greatly and consider him as much the heart of the civil rights movement as was Martin Luther King, Jr. Lewis gave his life, literally to the edge of death, in service of civil rights. But there is a danger that in death he may be lifted beyond the mere mortal. And future generations may discover the imperfect in John Lewis.
Only after King’s death did his shortcomings surface, reminding us that he was first and foremost a human being. Like all human beings he was imperfect. The same can be said of every great leader of every race. Every president in American history, all but one of whom were white, was human and imperfect. That humanity should not diminish their accomplishments. In fact, it should enhance them, with each person being judged on the merit of their principles and their achievements—or lack thereof.
In Psalm 146 we are cautioned: “Put not your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no salvation.” And yet, we need inspiration to strive toward perfection. If we do not find it by honoring those who came before us, where do we? Why not in principles, in movements and in legislation?
The Declaration of Independence, even in its final and less perfect form, is the premier document of the United States of America. Without it there would be no Constitution, another essential but imperfect document. Set aside for a moment the fact that Mt. Rushmore was stolen property and the carving of the presidential images illegal. How much greater would it be to have carved the Declaration of Independence in that rock?
We already have Independence Hall in Philadelphia and multiple Constitution Avenues. We now have Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. In the case of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, might we not rename it “Bloody Sunday Bridge?” Then we can list the names of those who were beaten while peacefully marching to Selma.
It can be argued that erecting monuments to ideas, principles, movements and legislation serves another purpose. It causes people to think deeper than the image of a hero. It calls a nation to reflection and to the internalization of ideals. It reminds us that the work of justice is never complete. It prevents us from resting the on the laurels of those who came before us. It demands that we take up the mantel and be the force of change in our generation.
Perhaps future generations will see a Suffrage High School in every county. Or Voting Rights Parks dotting the landscape. Or downtown libraries named for Civil Rights. We are limited only by our ideals and our imaginations. Not only is an idea a greater monument to God than a cathedral. It is also a greater monument to heroes than a statue.
The recent movement to remove statues commemorating various Confederate generals, coupled with the suggestion to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after the late civil rights leader and Georgia congressman John Lewis, left me wondering. Do we approach our history from a perspective of immediacy and expediency, rather than principle?
Not unlike other cultures and countries, we lionize our past leaders—at least the ones we believe embodied the values we hold dear. There are, of course, exceptions. No other country would memorialize traitors. And, in fact, we have no statues to honor Benedict Arnold. He is the bane of the American Revolution. Then, why did we ever erect statues to honor the traitors who led the South during the Civil War? These monuments are a perfect example of bending history (and facts) to the expediency of the moment.
As has been pointed out in numerous journals and history tomes, most of those statues were built long after the war, the majority in the early part of the 20th Century. Had America forgotten the tragedy, the internecine conflict that tore apart not only a nation, but also families? No. But honoring these traitors served an agenda—the furtherance of white supremacy. As a result, while the violence had ended one could conceivably argue that the Civil War, itself, did not. After all, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, these statues espoused the clear conviction that blacks were subservient to whites, that segregation was natural and proper—all resulting in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And continuing today.
But there are also memorials to people that the entire country can hold in esteem. The most obvious examples would seem to be the Founding Fathers. In August 2017 President Trump lamented the removal of statues to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, complaining that monuments to Washington and Jefferson would be next. Trump does not know enough history to be prescient, so it was quite by accident that he stumbled on the question of whether we should honor even our Founding Fathers with statues.
Consider the unpleasant truths buried within American history. Many, if not most, Americans believe that Washington was not only a great general and president, but that he freed his slaves. He did no such thing. Or consider Jefferson, whose brilliant, philosophical and enlightened mind crafted the Declaration of Independence, which in its original draft condemned slavery. In spite of that he not only did not free his slaves, he enslaved even his own children, his progeny with Sally Hemings. Are these men really role models?
This brings us to the current movement to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after John Lewis. Lewis was a man who commanded great respect for his lifelong commitment to equality, justice and civil rights, especially voting rights. I admire him greatly and consider him as much the heart of the civil rights movement as was Martin Luther King, Jr. Lewis gave his life, literally to the edge of death, in service of civil rights. But there is a danger that in death he may be lifted beyond the mere mortal. And future generations may discover the imperfect in John Lewis.
Only after King’s death did his shortcomings surface, reminding us that he was first and foremost a human being. Like all human beings he was imperfect. The same can be said of every great leader of every race. Every president in American history, all but one of whom were white, was human and imperfect. That humanity should not diminish their accomplishments. In fact, it should enhance them, with each person being judged on the merit of their principles and their achievements—or lack thereof.
In Psalm 146 we are cautioned: “Put not your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no salvation.” And yet, we need inspiration to strive toward perfection. If we do not find it by honoring those who came before us, where do we? Why not in principles, in movements and in legislation?
The Declaration of Independence, even in its final and less perfect form, is the premier document of the United States of America. Without it there would be no Constitution, another essential but imperfect document. Set aside for a moment the fact that Mt. Rushmore was stolen property and the carving of the presidential images illegal. How much greater would it be to have carved the Declaration of Independence in that rock?
We already have Independence Hall in Philadelphia and multiple Constitution Avenues. We now have Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. In the case of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, might we not rename it “Bloody Sunday Bridge?” Then we can list the names of those who were beaten while peacefully marching to Selma.
It can be argued that erecting monuments to ideas, principles, movements and legislation serves another purpose. It causes people to think deeper than the image of a hero. It calls a nation to reflection and to the internalization of ideals. It reminds us that the work of justice is never complete. It prevents us from resting the on the laurels of those who came before us. It demands that we take up the mantel and be the force of change in our generation.
Perhaps future generations will see a Suffrage High School in every county. Or Voting Rights Parks dotting the landscape. Or downtown libraries named for Civil Rights. We are limited only by our ideals and our imaginations. Not only is an idea a greater monument to God than a cathedral. It is also a greater monument to heroes than a statue.