I see your point here, Don, but I also disagree with it, and I'll explain myself. Would you expect anything less?

In a country whose most common religion (in cases where people HAVE religion) is Christianity, a symbol from Christianity carries with it, for most of the people viewing it, a certain degree of knowledge associated with that symbol.

In the case of Ganesha, on the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that over 90% of the people seeing it could not identify it with the religion with which it's associated. Of the remaining 10%, I'd be further willing to bet that 90% of them couldn't tell you what Ganesha represents. I know I couldn't, and I like to think I'm at least fairly erudite regarding world religions (Hindu is, admittedly, my weakest area of knowledge of the world's major religions, though).

Is there anything on the statue explaining/educating/indoctrinating its viewers into the Hindu ways? I'd be stunned if there is. As it is, most people's interpretation, at best, is probably that they remember seeing a character that looked like it when Apu got married on "The Simpsons."

On the other hand, a statue of Mary or Jesus or, to use your example, Noah leading the animals two by two, would instantly be recognized as a Christian symbol. And, for better or worse (I'd probably argue for worse--I do agree that the clamping down on religious displays is out of hand), it'd be thought to be an endorsement by a publicly funded institution of Christianity. I don't think that the statue of Ganesha has a similar effect on the majority of people. In short, because I have no idea what view Ganesha represents, I don't feel that a statue of Ganesha is imposing anything on me, whereas a statue of Noah and the Ark would at least make me think of that part of the Bible, whether I want to or not.

I think you know that I say all of the above as a Christian myself, but also as someone who is proud of the traditions of seperation of church and state. It took me a LONG time to accept Jesus as my savior, and a large part of my resistance was the cries of victimization by Christians in the United States, when Christianity is clearly the dominant religion here.

A religion is just your opinion. Don't take it so seriously. I mean, it's not like you care about my opinions. Just do what you gotta do, and stop trying to force your beliefs on others. Maybe you can get rid of some of these negative christian stereotypes. Most people see christians as being more forceful and unwanted as army recruiters. So do us all a favor and quit yer whining.

If you're going to advocate for equal rules for all religions, then do it fully, Don. Christianity, because of its dominance in the American "marketplace," has a distinct advantage over other religions to start with. If you're going to push for Christ next to Ganeesha at the zoo, then you need to push for "A Charlie Brown Kwanzaa," too.

Somehow, I knew you'd like that. I ain't a writer fer nothin'. :)

And generally, yeah, I'd like to see religious icons kept out of public institutions, regardless of what religion they represent.

Now you'll have to excuse me. "A Waco Family Christmas" is on ABC any second now.

There was a time when statues from pagan religions could be considered as exotic relics, rather than religious symbols. Look at the Shriners, who were founded on the notion that it was good fun to PLAY at being Muslim. Now, Hindu, Muslim and other religions are too close to home to do that any more. I can't think of a Christian symbol that really fits in a zoo though -- which should be about the animals, and Ganesha certainly is an elephant. By definition, monotheistic faiths don't worship animal gods. Maybe the "Lion of Judah" in front of the cat house? (No pun intended). How about Jonah being swallowed by a great fish (NOT a whale, check your KJV). Let's keep it equal, but also keep it light.

Hi Danz,

I am a Hindu so I should know. Thankx for posting the picture of Ganesh(a). It is a beautiful piece of art made in the classic Tamizh style of Tamizh Naadu the state I belong to in India. This does not represent an animal it is clearly a classic Ganesh icon of the sort you will find in any Hindu temple as here http://www.tulsatemple.org/ in your own Tulsa. Ganesh is the God of first things you propitiate him before you take up any task - he is the remover of obstacles and the protector of the weakest of the weak and the most humble. Hinduism holds many deities (about 3.3 billion) sacred. However Hindus also believe that all deities are ultimately forms of the one supreme being. The relationship of all creatures with this Supreme Principle is the subject of millennia of debate among philospophers of the Hindu faith.

I haven't talked to the people who run the Tulsa Zoo, but I am not sure if they understand these subtleties. As a Hindu living in a secular nation (as also being from India a secukar nation) I would not want any undue preference shown for my beliefs or anyone else's religious beliefs. I believe we can hold the two together - Respect towards people's religious beliefs as well as no favor for anyone's beliefs. The Establishment Clause made this clear over 200 years ago and I concur with it.

Many Hindus have been wrestling with a different sort of problem over the last three years. You can read more about it here.http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305899

I am nobody to decide where and how an icon of Ganesha shd be displayed. And if it is done with insentivity all I can do is express my disappointment and hope that better counsel will prevail. I wish the folks at Tulsa Zoo had consulted Hindus in Tulsa before they decided to instal this icon. With all the controversy raging around I would rather have this icon taken away. Ganesha apart from being the remover of obstacles and the protector of the weak is a picture of contentiment and joviality. I would like it to be that way.

Your comparison is great. Everyone one knows the courthouse displays have an agenda other than being purely historical*. Just as the secularists running the Tulsa Zoo have an agenda in what they are willing to display and what they will fight to keep from displaying.

Look what our Hindu friend shiva said above: Ganesha, "does not represent an animal." Rather, it represents a Hindu God. And the Tulsa Zoo proprietors didn't think twice about displaying it and now upon further reflection still defend the display. Yet, they fight with all their ability to keep anything Christian out of the Zoo. In my opinion, their bias and agenda is even more obvious than the courthouses displaying the Ten Commandments. At least the courthouse proprietors can make a rational argument in their favor.

*But this, of course, still did not make the courthouse displays unconstitutional because such clearly does not rise to the level of "respecting an establishment of religion." Congress and every other governing body can pass all kinds of laws which regard or touch upon religion as long as they don't rise to the level of "respecting an establishment of religion" or prohibits the free exercise thereof. The absolute separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and therefore does not exist no matter how much the atheists and earth-worshipers want it to.

I wonder why you keep talking about athiest and earth worshipers. Plenty of Christians do not want the US gov messing with their religion. Seperation of church and state is not an issue that is divided christian vs athiest.

The seperation of church and state comes in part from the constitution and from the words of our founding fathers, who said that the intent of the first amendment was 'to build a wall of seperation between the church and state'. Since the SCotUS looks at the intention of the founders, that is where the words "wall of seperation" come from.

What the zoo is trying to avoid is putting up christian propaganda. The intent is to put up a creationist display, which will then be broadcast as "The Tulsa Zoo supports creationism".
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0605/234149.html
And it is opposed by christians, also.
From the article:
But, opponents, including fellow Christians, argued there's a difference between religion and culture. And, there are too many differences just within the creation belief.

"Therefore they're going to have to decide how and which of the hundreds of creation stories that are in the world including many dozens that are in the U.S. from the Native American people to include in that exhibit," says Reverend Marlin Lavanhar with Tulsa Metropolitan Ministries. "It's hard to create fairness when you're talking about this."

Dear Danz family;

Thank you for publishing a photo of the Ganesha statue on your website. As you may realize, there is extensive controversy on this.

There is no "public" photo of the Ganesh statue on the web. Somebody from our group dug this up. It constitutes the only concrete evidence as to whether this is a religious display or not. Clearly it is.

That's a cute baby picture!

If you feel your privacy has been violated, you have my apologies.

Sincerely, Michael C. Emmert

It's not a double standard to worry about _very_ _frequent_ displays of Christian iconography on government property, but to be unworried about _very_rare_ displays of Hindu imagery.

If Hindus had significant political power in this country, or if Hindu images were hundredth as common as Christian ones, I _would_ feel very differently. I'd be extremely leery of anything that could plausibly be interpreted as an endorsement of Hinduism.

I doubt anybody is going to come away from the Tulsa Zoo thinking that it's a Hindu-run zoo advocating the Hindu religion, or that this is "a Hindu country" run on Hindu principles.

But that is exactly the kind of thing many Christians want. They care about the monument on my (Texas) capitol grounds that says "I AM THE LORD THY GOD" precisely because they DO want to foster the impression that this is a _Christian_country_; they do want to abolish separation of church and state so that it will NOT serve as a check on majority power---i.e., Christian's ability to impose Christian principles on non-Christians via the government.

Separation of church and state, like most rights issues, is largely about keeping the majority from imposing its views and its will on minorities. The difference between a powerful majority and a powerless minority IS supposed to matter.

That's _not_ a double standard. It's a designed-in check on the power of the majority, to avoid the "tyranny of the majority."

It isn't a double standard to acknowledge this and act accordingly. I don't have a double standard about Hinduism and Christianity. As soon as Hindus start to show any signs of being a potent political force in the US---as they are some countries---I'll worry about them imposing their religious dictates on me, in exactly the same way I currently worry about Christians. As soon as any significant number of people actually finds it remotely plausible that Hinduism is a potent force in American life and American politics.. well, _then_ I'll think it's important to disabuse them of any notion that the US government in any way endorses Hinduism.

That said, I do see a problem with the Ganesha statue. I have a Ganesha statue on my private property, but that's different. (And certainly anybody who knows me would know I'm not endorsing Hinduism---I just think it's cool-looking.) If people can't _see_ the validity of the above argument about limiting majority power, or the harmlessness of tiny minorities, maybe we should give up on such "complicated," seemingly hypocritical reasoning and take a clear, absolute, hard line.

I'd be happy to be even-handed about this and say Ganesha must go---_if_ the 10 Commandments monuments _are_ removed from the capitol grounds, and similar imagery is removed from similar government property. (But that's NOT happening. 10 Commandments monuments are staying, and more will be put on government property.)

If the people opposing the Ganesha statue would concede that, I'd be thoroughly delighted.

Until then, I'd like the worked-up Christians to consider a few things.

First, the Ganesha statue does NOT say, anywhere on or near it, "I am the LORD thy God."

Second, few people seeing the Ganesha statue know what it means, or care in the way that matters. When that changes, let us know! We secularists will get worked up, too---I promise.

Third, Christian iconography on US government property is not only many times more common than Hindu iconography, but is _vastly_ more common--- the ratio is much greater than the proportion of Christians to Hindus in the US. So even if we didn't check majority power, as we should, by being evenhanded, we're letting majority do something close to a winner-take-all trick. The minority is not getting _proportional_ treatment, much less _fair_ treatment. That's doubly unfair.

In the context of the Tulsa zoo, Ganesha is a _novelty_. That should matter. When he stops being a novelty act, we definitely _should_ worry. In contrast, Christian iconography is _not_ novel, or educational in any secular sense. Seen it. (I encounter hundreds of churches for every Hindu temple I see... don't you? Where I live, I can't drive four blocks without passing a church, or stop at a major intersection without people soliciting my money for their Christian mission.)

Everyone sees the religious significance of a cross, and the significance of it being on government property---which is the only reason why anyone on _either_ side cares very much about it.

So, sure, boot Ganesha from the zoo if you want to. Be a hard-liner about separation of church and state. _Make_my_day_ by conceding that zero tolerance is the only simple, workable, clear line---and boot the 10 commandments monuments from capitol grounds, too.

I could live with that. If you can't recognize that in this context, and the current political and demographic climate, Ganesha is cute and harmless... well, great. Neither is "I AM THE LORD THY GOD."

Paul W, I was siding with leave the statue up. But after reading your thoughtful comment, I am now leaning towards taking it down. While it means very little to me other than it is a symbol from Hinduism, it's still a religious piece. Zoos are places of science not open displays for religion. We need to have equal opportunity, after all.

Don, your quote from above:
"No thanks. I just want one set of rules. And, then I'll fight to have them equally applied."

That's very chilling to me. That also sounds all too familiar as applied to other parts of the world by our own government. If that is the Christian mentality, we're all going to see the Rapture all too soon. The only sucky part is that no one's going to heaven. As an atheist, I totally expect this. Just not the “all too soon” part. =D