Click the link above the image to go to the interactive site. Once there you can mouse over the various persons in the painting and read the descriptions as to who they are and what they represent. America has lost sight of who she is. This painting represents, to my mind at least, who she was and where she now is.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm a Christian. Christ Jesus is my Lord, Savior, and God. And whether you believe it or not this nation was founded upon Godly principles; a house built upon a rock. But no more.
Could get back to that time? It is possible, but is it likely?
"I do not believe that the U.S. Constitution should be depicted as being held by Jesus Christ."
ReplyDeleteNeither do I. I only submitted it as an acknowledgment of Christ as the center of everything that America is... or was. Without Him there would have been no constitution. Or at least, one we would not recognize, which might have allowed the America we see TODAY to have arrived in American history much much sooner.
But your point is well taken, and well received.
On this however, "It may suffice to say that the United States IS NOT the new Israel: the Christian Church is..." I must disagree. The Church has NOT replaced Israel. The promises God made to Israel still stand. That aside, the promises made to the Church are quite different from those made to Israel.
All this, of course, assumes my interpretation of your quoted text means what it appears to mean.
Didn't mean to delete that comment...
ReplyDeleteHere's what I wrote, and to what Eric responded:
--
Eh...
I certainly have no intent to offend, and I'd probably agree with some of what the artist believes (almost certainly not all), but I don't think that painting is very good or very edifying artwork.
For one thing, I do not believe that the U.S. Constitution should be depicted as being held by Jesus Christ.
One thing that the founding fathers got profoundly right is what Thomas Sowell describes as the "benighted" or "tragic" vision of conservatism, that man is imperfect and (on this side of history) imperfectible.
The Constitution is brilliant because it's a human document whose authors are PROFOUNDLY aware of human limitation, EVEN THEIR OWN. Just as its checks and balances would have been unnecessary if man were to be ruled by angels (as Madison put it), the amendment process would have been unnecessary if the document was supposed to perfect.
It's not a perfect document, only a VERY GOOD framework, the "least bad" of all the very many bad alternatives of earthly government.
It's an insult BOTH to Jesus Christ (obviously) AND to the founding fathers to put their imperfect document in His perfect hands: it profoundly misunderstands both Him and them.
This isn't the time or the place, but I'm actually not entirely convinced that American political philosophy is WHOLLY compatible with the Bible, though the possible incompatibilities are most certainly NOT what the supposedly Christian left would imagine them to be.
It may suffice to say that the United States IS NOT the new Israel: the Christian Church is. At best, the U.S. is a very good iteration of the Roman republic, and though both the Christian church and the political philosophy of Western classical liberalism are under assault from the same radical enemy (for much the same reason) we shouldn't confuse the two.
Anyway, Eric, I agree that Western Civilization -- and by extension, the United States -- has been changed fundamentally, or for the better, by Jesus Christ, but that symbolism still rubs me the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that God's promises to Israel still stand, and probably most of the NT references to Israel are to the Jewish people, but I believe that there are times -- e.g., Gal 3:29 & 6:16, and Phil 3:3 -- where the allusion to "Abraham's offspring," the "Israel of God," and the true circumcision is more likely a reference to the Christian church than to the Jewish religion.
Much of the Old Testament imagery can be rightly reapplied to the church, but not to any earthly nation, including the United States.
As much as I consider myself a Reaganite -- especially in that I continue to stand for the Buckley/Reagan fusion of libertarianism and traditionalism, defended by a vigorous foreign policy -- I do half suspect that Reagan went too far with the "city on the hill" imagery.
Or, at the very least, the imagery can be taken the wrong way. The United States IS the last great hope for freedom, but this earthly hope in liberty -- the one truly radical political idea in human history -- is no substitute for faith in the one truly radical theological idea of salvation, not by works, but by grace through faith in Christ and His death.
Hey, I agree with Bubba.
ReplyDeleteIt's an insult BOTH to Jesus Christ (obviously) AND to the founding fathers to put their imperfect document in His perfect hands...
Also, I am not seeing any descriptions on mousing-over any part of the picture - and I tried it in Mozilla and IE.
I'd be interested to see who all is supposedly portrayed there - I assume those in the foreground on Jesus' left hand are supposed to be the "goats" spoken of in Matt 25? As in Jesus is separating the sheep from the goats?
So I suppose instead of feeding the poor, comforting the sick and grieving, visiting the imprisoned, etc... instead of all that, those on the Left are those who disagree with the political Right? (Those who don't want to criminalize abortion, who are in the media, probably gay guys??)
Is that really what the artist is trying to portray? That Jesus is a Republican American White dude? (I notice maybe two or three dark faces in that mostly white crowd, by the way - telling, that).
Dan, the link is above the photo and wrongly described as being part of the image:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#
That you would leap to playing the race card without seeing the detailed description of that painting is despicable but not the least bit surprising.
It sounds like you were pretty quick to start counting "dark faces" in that mural. Telling, that.
LOLOL!
ReplyDeleteChill Dan, just follow the link above the picture, and have fun.
Thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteIt's despicable that I would notice that in this supposed pantheon of great americans (regular and famous) we have ONE (count them ONE) black man portrayed as a college student, and then four "historic" black folk - Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and two black soldiers, civil war and modern - to represent all the contributions of black Americans? Out of about 60 people, black Americans get 5 figures? Or 8%?
And NOTHING of the Civil Rights era?? One of the greatest moments of US history?
No Reverend Martin Luther King?? I guess he was a commie and a womanizer, so he's not worthy to be put on a page with Ronald Reagan?
That's not playing the race card. That's observing a salient point: White Americans often overlook and undercount the contributions of minority Americans, this artist appears to be no different.
Beyond that, I was just agreeing with you: This is not a very good painting with some bad meaning/connotations to it.
Dan, your supposedly salient point -- that "White Americans often overlook and undercount the contributions of minority Americans, [and] this artist appears to be no different" -- is exactly what you deny that it is.
ReplyDeleteYou're playing the race card, and now you're being less than honest and accurate in claiming that you're not doing so.
I'm not going to ignore that fact just because (surprise!) you find the work less than meritorious. I don't intend to smear the work's artist or fans as racist, you apparently do, and so I don't want my objections with the work to be associated with yours beyond sheer coincidence.
I did not call the artist racist because that thought did not cross my mind. I observed that he had few black people drawn in his picture.
ReplyDeleteYou assumed that of him, not me.
I think the artist only meant to signify the Christian underpinnings of our founding and not to suggest that Christ had any direct hand in it's creation. His presence in the painting merely shows Him as the source of the ideas and attitudes that lead to the founding. There's only so much an artist can do in using symbolism. Here, he tries to do a lot and maybe too much.
ReplyDeleteDan,
Here's an idea: create your own painting and include as many minorities and homosexuals as it'll take to satisfy you. Who is depicted only shows who the artist thinks made the most impact on our nation. As we can see by all the hosannas you lefties sing out toward Obama, it seems MLK had far less impact than I thought. Had we really taken his message to heart, Obama would be as unknown now as he was before his big national speech a few years ago. The quality of his character would not have served him as MLK intended. Thus, MLK's absence from the painting seems about right. He obviously was no more than just another guy talking against racism and thus not worthy of being considered a great man of any real importance. His wonderful speeches about brotherhood has done nothing in the great scheme of things for too many consider race as a relevant factor. You certainly seem to by commenting on the number of black people depicted.
You guys are aware, aren't you, that Jefferson made his own New Testament in which he cut out all the miraculous and mystical stuff, keeping only the rational, ethical elements -- befitting a deist, but not an orthodox Christian?
ReplyDeleteAnd Franklin? Not what most of you would consider Christian at all.
Throw in what Dan is noting and the painting is a cheap, shallow manipulation of history in order to sacralize an agenda. And it abuses Christianity in the process.
Jefferson and Franklin still had a strong knowledge of Christianity and the linked site presents quotes from each illustrating their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe artist comes far closer to symbolizing what America is supposed to be, based on the people depicted and their impact, than anything either Feodor (in his most feverished false priest dreams) or Dan seem to believe and support. Of course, what Feodor believes is tough to say since he hasn't the stones, ability or intelligence to impart.
Notice how Marshall equivocates by not defending Jefferson and Franklin's faith but their "knowledge" of Christianity. This kind of smoke and mirrors is a textbook definition of dishonesty, much less not having any balls.
ReplyDeleteFrom your presentation of yourself, Marshall, you have no choice but to consign Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and, in all likelihood, Lincoln to the long road you send so many down due to an overdeveloped sense of judgment - thereby taking over God's job as your own.
Most were deists, at best, with Lincoln never settled on the full truth of Christianity. Now me, I admire their humanity, that all people have no choice but to believe and live with unbelief.
But you should be quoting the one who said, even the demons believe. For your views demonize almost all the "Founding Fathers," whether you are honest about it or not (or, rather, smart and ethical enough to know your own implications).
Now if Jesus were depicted as holding the Nobel Peace Prize - now that would be something!
ReplyDeleteSurrounded by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Ralphe Bunche, Albert Schweitzer, Dag Hammarskjöld, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu... and...
Oslo, Norway is, in a sense, quoting a scriptural principle to world today:
ReplyDelete"Now faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen.'
Which shows how little you understand both the quote and the faith. Oslo has shown a decided lack of political acumen by awarding such a prize to one like Obama, Carter or a Palestinian terrorist. It's so surprising that they can enlist intelligent people to consider the sciences and mathematics, but find buffoons on the order of Feodor to consider such people as listed above. The award is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI think I would prefer some PHYSICAL evidence as his accomplishments remain, to this day, unseen.
ReplyDeleteWe KNOW the painting is worthless and racist now! Obama is no where to be seen? Mount Rushmore? Racist! Where's Obama? Our currency? Racist (and near worthless thanks to Oh)! Where's Obama? Hometown America from sea to shining sea? Racist! Racist! Racist! Where are all the schools and boulevards named after Obama? I guess that's why Obama apologizes for America at every turn, because America hasn't honored Him as befits His noble self. Because America hasn't recognized His Kingly presence. Europe understands, but America? That's why Obama has risen from the sea of humanity at this time: to bring America into the glorious light of Himself.
ReplyDeleteOslo... what a has-been you've become. What a joke... a by-word. Your prize? Fit only to wipe the unwashed asses of the unwashed masses.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I did not call the artist racist because that thought did not cross my mind. I observed that he had few black people drawn in his picture.
"You assumed that of him, not me."
You not only "observed" that there were relatively few blacks in the painting, you said that that fact was "telling."
You then "observed" that "White Americans often overlook and undercount the contributions of minority Americans, this artist appears to be no different."
The clear implication is that you believe the artist is racist.
It hardly matters that you didn't use the word, and it is hardly likely that the accusation didn't cross your mind, because these supposed observations imply NOTHING else.
You then "observed" that "White Americans often overlook and undercount the contributions of minority Americans, this artist appears to be no different."
ReplyDeleteThe clear implication is that you believe the artist is racist.
Yes, I observed what you point out and I then pointed out the truism that White Americans often overlook and undercount the contributions of minorities - THAT was my conclusion, not that the artist was racist.
You see, you can look at my words and understand my conclusion IF you read my words and take them for what they say. If you try to guess at my meanings, well, you have demonstrated a poor ability to guess at my "hidden meanings."
In truth, I'm not that complicated a guy and generally speaking, when I SAY "white americans tend to overlook the contributions of minorities..." what I ACTUALLY MEAN is "white americans tend to overlook the contributions of minorities..."
If I SAID the artist was racist, THAT would indicate that I think the artist is racist.
IF the author had shown some stereotypical black "welfare queen" over on Jesus' Left, THEN I might have concluded the artist was racist. In truth, the thought had not crossed my mind that he was racist. Just that he was undercounting and overlooking the contributions of minorities... you know, like I said.
"That you would leap to playing the race card without seeing the detailed description of that painting is despicable but not the least bit surprising." - Bubba
ReplyDeleteSooner or later, every reasonable person who is unfortunate enough to encounter Dan the Deceiver comes to this same conclusion.
Dan knows better...he just doesn't want others to.
Physical evidence: my wife has been traveling in Brasil for business this past week. On Monday, she was in a taxi cab in Sao Paulo. The driver said how moved he was by the American election and inauguration of President Obama. He said America had given Brasilians so much hope that one day they expected that Brasilian leadership would soon not always be limited to the whitest of the nation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a kind of hope for people around the world that, I am terrifically sorry to say, most of you do not get, will never get, and so will remain ugly Americans, unprepared for the world, unready for leadership, without, in the final analysis, deep moral contribution to society.
And yet you have such intense, though dysfunctional, desires to find a moral vision.
So, Marshall, if you want to understand how biblical principles are really active worldly things and not just laws that dictate from your pearly heaven, go to Brasil.
ReplyDeleteThere they can educate you about, "now faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen."
When Obama was elected, there were tears of joy in the homes of many, many Americans. But in almost every African American home the tears came in storms, and they came for days. And the sense that the world is changing in the ways hegemonic cultures are sharing power with people of equal skill is not limited to the U.S. In South America, the Caribbean, Africa, parts of south Asia, they were dancing and celebrating for hours.
ReplyDeleteKenya, a nation of 38 million people declared the immediately following Thursday a national holiday.
When the President was inaugurated, most Americans were proud of a new sense of social change for the better in terms of how we accept people of skill, regardless of the background. Perhaps we took this change too far and thought we "no longer see color" (as if such a thing is internally possible).
When Judge Sonya Sotomayor was confirmed by Congress, spanish speaking New York wept, as did many spanish speaking communities across the nation.
And just this past Tuesday, before Friday's Nobel announcement, my wife, in Sao Paulo, Brasil, on business, was in a taxi and the driver said how moved he was by the American election and inauguration of President Obama. He said America had given Brasilians so much hope that one day they expected that Brasilian leadership would soon not always be limited to the whitest of the nation.
Apart from the way President Obama is conducting political business and political speech from the executive seat of the world's only superpower (pretty impressive feat to maintain ethical choices given the reality of the rabid forces of every opposition), the Nobel committee sought to recognize the phenomenon of deep, deep hope and inspiration that has filled the hearts and minds of perhaps a billion people on the planet.
That is sloughed off by white Americans says much more about the shallow and pre-mature judgment of white Americans than anything about the Nobel committee.