FFRF objects to religious symbol at Ohio Capitol

[rug]

July 18, 2013

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, on behalf of its more than 500 Ohio members, is objecting to a religious design on a Holocaust memorial to be built at the Ohio statehouse. FFRF, a Madison, Wis.-based association of 19,000 atheists and agnostics, is a national state/church watchdog.

The design selected for the memorial, created by architect Daniel Libeskind, incorporates stainless steel rectangular structures with the prominent sacred religious Star of David in the negative space. Libeskind's justification for using an overtly religious symbol on government property was, "one cannot separate the Holocaust from the star."

However, semi-finalists Jaume Plensa and Ann Hamilton did just that.

FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor sent a letter June 14, 2013 to former Ohio Senator Richard Finan, chair of the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board, stating: "Either of Plensa's or Hamilton's designs would be preferable to avoid a potentially unconstitutional entanglement of government and religion. Therefore, the state, in choosing Libeskind's plan using a prominent sacred symbol, knowingly selected and endorsed a design with constitutional concerns." -

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/18172-ffrf-objects-to-religious-symbol-at-ohio-capitol

The symbol is the Star of David on a Holocaust Memorial.

[cbayer]

1. Complicated one, imo.

While, as the article points out, some non-Jewish populations were identified for extermination, the Jews were definitely the most targeted.

They point out that there are memorials to other wars that do not include religious symbols. But the fact is that a particular religious groups were not targeted for extermination in those wars.

With all the separation issues at play in this country, things like this just don't seem a good use of FFRF resources.

They need to be going after Mary Landrieu's proposed law. That would be an excellent use of resources.

[rug]

2. It's ludicrous to minimize the anti-Semitic aspect of the Holocaust.

[MellowDem]

3. The Holocaust involved many more than Jews..

It would be a travesty to use the Star of David in the symbol in a public display as the centerpiece as this one does. It's offensive to all the others killed in the Holocaust and doesn't adequately represent the complexity of what the Holocaust was. It's very easy to present facts as part of the memorial that anti-semitism was a major factor and Jews were primarily targeted without using a religious symbol.

11 million people were killed as part of the Holocaust, and an estimated 6 million were Jewish. Why would anyone use the Star of David as the centerpiece of a secular public memorial? It seems incredibly insensitive to me. But then, I forget how strong religious privilege is in the US still, and many won't understand why it's offensive.

[cbayer]

4. This would be my question. Is the recognition of religion different than the

endorsement of religion? I think it is very different.

This is a holocaust memorial, and as Rug said above, the holocaust was consumed by anti-semitism.

No one would object to a Polish flag or a rainbow flag or an image of Romas.

Why should the symbol most associated with Jewish people be any different?

6 million Jews died due to their religious beliefs.

I think that's a good reason to make it a centerpiece of a Holocaust Memorial.

[MellowDem]

5. I wouldn't object if other symbols were part of the display...

But they aren't.

As it was, Jews were gone after for their ethnicity, not their religious beliefs. You could be an atheist Jew, and that wouldn't spare you.

This is a public memorial using public funds to help build it, which means it needs to be more thoughtful than if it were a private memorial done by some religious organization.

One could present the Holocaust as being about religious beliefs, but it really wasn't, it was about ideas of race. One could also present the Holocaust as a purely Jewish tragedy. Lord knows that is exactly how it has been portrayed in a lot of movies about WW2, and still, it's not a very good account of what the Holocaust was. Using a giant Star of David only serves to perpetuate these misconceptions of the Holocaust and downplays the suffering of others,or worse yet, totally ignores them, not to mention robs the viewer of some good present day lessons from history by giving short shrift to it.

It feels like the state giving preference to one group in exclusion of others as a result.

[cbayer]

6. So, if the artist displayed other symbols, say

in proportion to their losses, that would be ok with you?

You are right about the ethnicity of Jews. That ethnicity/religious definition of being a Jew does complicate things at times.

Be careful here. Some of your comments might be construed as anti-semitic. To say that the movie industry may have promoted a false story or exaggerated the degree to which Jews were persecuted during the holocaust is treading on very, very thin ice. It's almost like calling the holocaust a myth or something.

[MellowDem]

8. Bullshit...

Nothing I said was anti-Semitic, and if someone wants to construe it that way, they're idiots, invoking religious privilege in the most disgusting possible manner. If privilege has that much power, then we'd best hope that American media presents events surrounding the Holocaust right and never be subject to criticism, because, you know, Stormfront is always going on about Jews controlling the media, so, guess that's just off limits.

American public media always gives short shrift to history and always distorts it to an American-centric point of view. WW2 is no exception. I wouldn't think I'd have to point out that this is not a Jewish conspiracy, since I never said it was. Jews have for a long time been a significant and familiar minority to Americans and in American culture. The Roma? Not so much. Homosexuals? Well, they're just getting more familiar to Americans in the last couple decades.

No, I don't think the symbols should be in proportion to losses, that's asinine to suggest. I just think they should all be included, if you're going to have symbols. One giant Star of David is one giant Fuck You to history and the other groups targeted in the Holocaust. It's embarrassing. It demeans the religious symbol. Personally, I don't think there should be symbols of the targeted groups for a memorial, because it misses the point, but that's just me.

[el_bryanto]

18. You kind of lose me when you say putting up the star of david is a fuck you to history and

other groups. I don't see how it's an insult to other groups. Frankly I think it's a beautiful monument - great use of negative space, and the text clarifies that along with 6 million Jews there were plenty of others who were killed.

Bryant

[rug]

7. This is why it belongs.

This is the proposed memorial.

It's offensive to all the others killed in the Holocaust

Are you serious?

What you call a "religious symbol" was used to mark human beings for death.

[MellowDem]

9. That wasn't the only badge...

That marked others for death. And I'm very serious.

Why ignore other groups? Is there some good reason? It comes across very wrong.

[rug]

11. No, it wasn't but it was the most vehement, intentional and most targetted.

You assume that the memorial itself won't mention other groups targeted by Nazis. I highly doubt it. I have never seen a Holocaust memorial that does not catalog the stretch of fascism.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Actually I believe the Romani and the disabled were the first killed

because, unlike the Jews, they were thought to be without any use. So why not go with the black triangle (Romani later got a brown triange) that was used to mark those first killed?

[Rob H.]

13. This sculpture at Dachau might be a good example of a way to go

It includes the color-coded symbols that were used to distinguish most of the groups that were held there. (Note that not all the differing groups are represented--the black triangle representing "asocials" or "work-shy" prisoners, the green triangle for "criminal prisoners" and the pink triangle worn by gay prisoners are not shown.)

A single link:

?w=900

The chain from an angle:



Straight on:



More info here.

[cbayer]

14. A bit gaudy, but I like the concept.

The one proposed here is so much more profound and aesthetically pleasing to me.

But art is art.

[rug]

16. That's a well thought out monument.

[Jim__]

10. Is it a matter of perspective?

Here's a different view of the memorial star:

[center][/center]

The panels do not stand straight across from each other, nor do are they standing at a straight angle. While the Star of David is prominent, is it prominent from all angles? Would it clearly be a star if someone didn't know it was a star? Must we eliminate from state projects anything that could be interpreted as a religious symbol?

[rug]

12. Heh, aside from anyone being offended by a Star of David, that's a very clever structure.

Given the enormity of the Holocaust, I doubt any thinking person considers it a purely religious symbol.

[okasha]

15. The star incorporates

the shape of the triangle--two triangles, in fact.

Nested wrong. Reply to post 12.

[struggle4progress]

17. they're nuts

[okasha]

19. Seems to me they have a choice.

They can fire the Executive Director while claiming he was drunk/high/having a psychotic break.

Or they can be picketed by 90-year-old great-gradmas in wheelchairs with numbers tattooed on their forearms.