No, it’s only a “travesty” to Christians. It’s not a memorial for people that had to use lifeboats, it’s a religious symbol.
1 Like
I see both sides of that argument. I never really gave it a second thought until I saw the link to this being covered in a Israeli news channel. I must confess, sometimes shining a spotlight on an issue allows different perspectives to gain clarity. In this case it seems obvious that the picture could be offensive to some and could be perceived as an issue for some. I don’t find the picture to be offensive but it probably is better placed in a Chapel than a conference room.
1 Like
"The complaint suggested that the painting sends an improper message of preferred faith in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. "
1 Like
Should have put quotation marks around Christians as reference to rigidity and intolerance. Freedom of religion is a given, freedom from religion should be our objective.
3 Likes
Glad we’re finally framing the subject in actual terms, the separation of church and state, rather than some fictitious concept invented to divide us.
Not that religion can’t be divisive.
Look at the matter in a slightly different way. Let’s say we’re talking about the same painting but the imagery was slightly different. Instead of Jesus, let’s say the imagery was of the Virgin Mary. The painting would show the castaways in the lifeboat under the protection of the Virgin Mary.
For Catholics at the school the emotion and sentiment behind the painting would be exactly the same as if Jesus were depicted. But for Protestants, especially believers from those denominations who regard images of the Virgin Mary as idolatrous, it might be offensive.
In this alternate universe, some Christians might demand for the painting to be moved to a Catholic chapel, while other Christians would be offended by this and demand it stay put.
Reading the article in the OP it seems part of the problem was framing the painting as possibly being offensive rather than as a violation of Establishment Clause.
Which article? There are several.
I edited my post.
The staff and students who complained about the painting went to a specific organization to have things changed. Since that org is centrally involved, here is what they say about the matter (I added the bold type):
"Yesterday, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), acting on a complaint from a group of seventeen alumni, staff, faculty, and midshipmen at the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York, sent a demand to the Academy’s superintendent that a gigantic painting of Jesus hovering over a lifeboat be removed from its completely improper and Constitution-violating location in the Academy’s administrative building. MRFF suggested that it be relocated to the Academy’s chapel, the only place that such a painting should ever be displayed at any government institution…’
So it seems they are arguing, in part, the painting violates the Establishment Clause.
I like the painting. I only take exception to the idea that the issue has anything to do with the fantasy of “wokeism”.
Here is the apparent credo of the MRFF, for what it is worth:
“When one proudly dons a U.S. Military uniform, there is only one religious symbol: the American flag. There is only one religious scripture: the American Constitution. Finally, there is only one religious faith: American patriotism.”
I just thought of a great idea for the painting that could result in everyone being happy. They should just donate it to the Seaman’s Church Institute. I suppose they could also donate it to their on campus maritime museum, then it would be an artifact of cultural value, from a community of people who have historically been majority Christian, not just a Christian religious symbol.
1 Like
When I read the complaint it made sense to me.The Bill of Rights addresses the involvement of religion or the support of religion clearly. It basically it says stay away from government getting involved with one religion or another. Each individual can choose their own religion or no religion and the government will not interfere.Religion or the lack thereof is an individual choice not to be proscribed or judged by the government. The writers wisely knew that religion has no place in government policy as history shows it only leads to conflict. If there had been a painting of Mohammad, Buddha, Confucius or Satan watching over people at sea the uproar would have been as vehement I would hope. That being said it is a nice painting. Donate it to an art museum.
1 Like
They’d check all the boxes with that one, Muslims would also be offended.
2 Likes
I thought about that. Muslims consider paintings of Muhammad idol worship. Also wondered why Christians don’t get offended at all the Jesus paintings depicting him looking so European caucasion. He was a Jewish guy born in the middle east. 
I’m partial to an idea of a Satanic statue in their main quad. I can hear Sean Hannity now.
1 Like
This is a historical depiction of Merchant Seaman in times of severe distress asking for Divine Intervention. For the times it was a favorably accepted idea that Jesus would watch over them.
Should we place our “present day morals” on yesterdays heros is a travesty of their sacrifice.
For the same reason God in paintings looks suspiciously EXACTLY like zeus. Familiarity sells when it comes to artistic license. It’s not anything deeper than that. Commerce.
I’m just wondering why nobody is upset about the obvious lack of diversity in portraits depicting the King of Rock&Roll upon a velvet medium. Why can’t I easily find more blatino Elvis portraits when I am shopping for fine art out of the back of a 1979 winnebago in a Dairy Queen parking lot?
In a lot of cases where things are swept by the woke tidal wave without regard to context or logic or reason, I agree. An example is recasting the founding fathers as one dimensional evildoers because they owned slaves. That’s revisionist and dishonest.
A religious icon is in a different category and doesn’t belong in a government location when that government is founded on the principle of separation of church and state.
I was always felt it was wrong when military padres addressed troops automatically assuming we were all of the same religious persuasion.
3 Likes
The term “politically correct” got worn out and needed to be replaced. The word “woke” is far better for that purpose, it’s one syllable, easy to bark out. But it’s getting worn out too,
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed say the term means “to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices.” That includes not only three-fourths of Democrats but also more than a third of Republicans.
Overall, 39% say instead that the word reflects what has become the GOP political definition, “to be overly politically correct and police others’ words.” That’s the view of 56% of Republicans.
From here:
He probably would be admiring his likeness!
I agree, our view of the founding fathers doesn’t have to be one-dimensional and neither do our views of anyone’s set of political beliefs, be they right or left.