Church and State, or State Church?

[SDR]

Does anyone remember what the podia looked like, at the last Republican National Convention (NYC)? I say podia, because the central feature of the stage wasn't just one speaker's podium, but a triuvirate of pedestals, veneered in matching panels of a warm-colored wood, perhaps American Walnut. The composition of those panels, varying enough in tone to be distinguishable from each other, resembled nothing so much -- on the central and tallest pedestal -- as a cross; there was a vertical element, lighter than the background, that ran from top to bottom, in width perhaps one third of the total width of the face, and a cross-element, also contrasting in color and of a similar width, seeming to cross behind the vertical, about one-fourth of the way down from the top of the face of the podium. The other matching pieces of the grouping were similarly "dressed," without themselves presenting any recognizable forms.

While pefectly obvious as a Christian symbol, this imagery was subtle enough that it could, if one chose to portray it as such, have been nothing more than a pleasant abstract composition in varying warm brown tones.
But the "coincidence" of these shapes adding up to a cross seemed unlikely to me; I can recall just the briefest public allusion to this phenomenon, in the midst of all the other hoopla of that brief four-day event, and have not (as yet) sifted the record for proof of any comment that made it onto a printed page.

If anyone has an image of the furniture in question (it appeared momentarily as part of an unrelated news story, this past week) it would be interesting to have it posted here for review.

In the meantime, we have a brief piece on the related phenomenon of the President's Easter message, which was couched in particularly Christian terms, to remind us once again, perhaps, of a threatened theocracy looming in America's future?

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032705A.shtml

SDR

[Architorture]

well how else would one talk about the easter holiday but in christian terms???

easter isn't a national holiday and it hasn't been quite as secularized as christmas, yet, i personally have no objection to speaking about easter in explicitly christian terminology...

its not like he said "i'm glad we are a christian nation, or anything even remotely like that" he simply extended a 'happy easter' to his fellow americans...

as for those who are not of christian faith or no faith at all... is it an insult to you to wish you a happy holiday that you do not observe? when someone says merry christmas, and you happen to be jewish, is that offensive? someone is wishing you well and you are going to take that as an insult?

this article is a little off base i think... they take what is an entirely benign statement by the president and try to swirl it up into being more than it is... i imagine every president has given some form of easter address in which they wish everyone a happy easter...what is the problem?

the last paragraph just seems like a paranoid freak out... how is the statement they reprinted anywhere near saying bush is going to create the united states of jesus...

does the writter not support bush's own right of freedom of association and religion? bush is allowed to be as religious as he cares to be... just b/c he quoted the bible and not the constitution on easter sunday doesn't mean we are going to be a theocracy tomorrow...

[Architorture]

[Architorture]

oh yeah here is your podium too



google owns image searches...

[Architorture]

after some further research...

turns out there was a story about this circulating during the convention... it was liberal radio personality ellen rattner who came out and claimed it was some kind of 'secret message' to evangelicals... bc she had not noticed the subtle symbol until a friend of hers who was raised evangelical pointed it out...

i mean come on...who really thinks that a cross is a secret message to evangelicals? i mean you can find crosses all over the place if you want to start looking for them... it is such a simple and basic geometric construction i think it would be difficult to not accidently end up with a cross in many circumstances...


here's another

there is actually quite a bit out there on this from the conspiratorial side, haven't found too much in the way of rebuttals besides people saying you can find crosses everywhere if you want to look for them

[Architorture]

was the photographer sending out a message to get the evangelicals on the move?

[SDR]

To all of that, I can only say "wait and see. . ."

(Seems to me "he doth protest, too much"?

SDR

[Architorture]

i just think its a little much... there is alot out there on the blogs and such going over this subject...

so far nothing has come out in the months and months that have passed since then saying that the RNC went to a podium designer and demanded that there be a 'cross-like' configuration on the podium, but in such a way that it wasn't blatantly obvious...

i mean, we are designers, we know what is going on... a podium by its very nature is tall and slender generaly and there is often times a wider portion at the top to act as a surface and draw one's attention toward the speaker... so any manefestation of horizontal and vertical lines are going to end up creating a cross configuration...

that little podium shown to the side was actually for the gavel and wasn't present during any of the 'headliner' or 'primetime' speeches... during those speeches the other 2 podia were present as you described flanking the main podium on either side and to the front

on those podia there was just a single vertical piece that was of lighter wood...

i just think it if really was intentially made to resemble a cross we would have some furniture designer telling everyone how they were told to do it... i mean i imagine where ever the podium came from is a matter of public knowledge so one could find out if they were interested you know...

[SDR]

First, thanks for the images. It appears that my memory was faulty, for it was the smaller piece that had the most obvious cross on it. So, when would the gavel have been in use? During daytime sessions?

I only watched during some of the prime-time hours (as much as I could stomach!) -- I do remember seeing four objects, at least some of the time.

I don't see the point in dismissing or denying the obvious -- the ensemble was without doubt designed to provide an encouragement (albeit a deniable one, as you demonstrate) to the vitally-important fundamentalist sector of the Party, this time around. To deny the plausibility of this as intentional makes no sense to me, unless one wished to be an aplologist for the Party's pandering to this group, which has been widely acknowledged, within and without the Party, as a crucial (no pun intended) component of the electorate in the recent election.

The argument that the designer of these pieces would have "fessed up" by now is specious; they would certainly have used one of the party faithful for this assignment, don't you think? (There must be at least one or two contemporary designers who carry Republican Party membership cards, much as I dislike to think so.)

Why are you arguing as you do? I'm not claiming a "conspiracy" -- the Repub's plans are being carried out in plain sight, more or less. The complicity of the mainstream press and the gullibility and distraction of the public make it unnecessary for them to hide much of what they do.

I agree that the piece I cited at the top of this thread isn't as strong an indictment of the trend as could be found -- of course, presidents have traditionally used Christian terminology in an Easter message, though usually without citing Scripture; some would say this is where the line of Constitutional separation is crossed. As an elected official, it is incumbent upon him to be especially certain not to appear to favor any one religion over another; isn't that the meaning of the Constitutional caution? And I find it useful to be reminded of his unnecessary and inflammatory use of the term "crusade," uttered at the beginning of his "holy war" against "Islamic terrorists" other terms he used, unadvisedly and briefly, at the time, I believe.

If one were looking for a stronger example of blatant pandering to a fundamentalist base, this week's "right-to-life" circus -- with Tom DeLay proclaiming off-the-record that God brought Terri Schiavo to him-and-his to point out how he-and-his are being unfairly attacked for alleged improprieties -- should suffice, I think.

SDR

[SDR]

Another brick torn from the wall that keeps the religious from imposing their beliefs on the American people as a whole:

www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/opinion/28mon3.html?th&emc=th

The editorial seems to end with the regret that a business (Imax) might suffer as the result of self-censorship on the part of science museums and other venues; the basic point, however, is one of broader concern.

SDR

[Architorture]

we don't elect an ideology to be president, we elect a man...

that man carries all the same rights as you and me... freedom of speech freedom of religion ect ect...

bush is a christian, everyone knows that... easter is a christian holiday, there is do arguement about that, so i don't understand, if bush is going ot extend a happy easter, to those who celebrate it, why it would not be appropriate to use the text with which that holiday is most closely associated with...

now maybe if he were talking about the fourth of july and decided to quote the bible i might be a bit more suspicious... but what do you wish for him to quote on easter, the most important of christian holidays?

i'm really sick of those who are freightened of religion trying to take holidays away from those who actually are celebrating them for the appropriate reasons... this is almost as bad as people getting upset about nativity scenes around christmas.... that is what christmas is!

i'm not trying to be apologic for the party trying to get the evangelical vote, but to say that the symbol was made intentionally on a podium seems ridiculous... as if no matter what was said at that podium, the evangelicals would know it was said in the spirit of christianity...

i really think it was an accidental manifestation of horizontal and vertical lines...although they did place the presidential seal right at the top when bush was speaking.... almost like the sign posted above christ head.... eerie.... is bush the king of the jews? haha

[SDR]

"We don't elect an ideology, we elect a man." *Exactly.* Which is why he should keep his religion *to himself.*

The point is that, as a spokesman for, and leader of, *all the people,* it is incumbent upon him to scrupulously avoid speaking for one religion and not another -- or, more properly, to speak for none at all. It's part of the deal, when you step out of the crowd and assume the office. He is no longer "just a man." The Founders recognized the impropriety of conflating Church and State, though most of them were believers in (a) God. (It is when men -- and religions -- take the position of "my God is real, yours is false" -- as did a major US military leader during the current war -- that men put themselves "above God," and the damage begins. Sadly, this simple fact is not clear to a great many "men of God."

I absolutely agree that the "political correctness" that would forbid Americans from displaying nativity scenes -- on private property -- is silly and destructive. Would *you* agree that the displaying of The Ten Commandments on government property -- as struck down by the Courts, in their interpretation of the laws and the Constitution -- is improper? Do you acknowledge the difference between these two examples?

SDR

[Architorture]

the funny thing about the 10 commandments is that there is a US law on the books for almost every commandment...besides the obvious...idol worship ect ect...

well by your thinking then we most certainly should not have any holidays as national holidays in which governmental offices and services shut down... is that what you want then?

the president and any other elected official should never be allowed to utter the words christmas, easter, holy, god, jesus, ect ect? is that what you want?

being christian is part of who bush is... its not the only thing he is, but it is one of the things he is... do you get upset when he congratulates father's on father's day? he is a father, he is only congratulating fathers on that day... what about all the men out there who aren't fathers? or women? why is he allowed to only talk about fathers...as an elected official he must be saying that the state sponsors fatherhood.. it must be b/c he is a father and by him recognizing other fathers he is throwing the rest of us under the bus...

don't you see how stupid this stuff is?

bush is a christian, he was wishing a happy easter to all those other people out there that celebrate easter... he read a passage from the bible, which is associated with the holiday and what the holiday is actually about... i see absolutely no problem with that...

[Architorture]

i'm going to temper all of my other comments with this statement...

issues of separation of church and state and ideas of religion and faith particularily get under my skin... not so much in that i am some crusading bible thumper myself... but that i do consider myself to have strong convictions and a deep faith that i have developed over many years of questioning and answering...

i don't consider my faith some 'spoon fed' set of morals or ideologies as some like to characterize anyone who claims to have religion... i am critical of my religion of choice, roman catholic, and have read and learned what i can about the various issues i have concerns with and feel i have made appropriate decisions for myself about those things...

i'm not one to preach to others about faith or religion b/c i consider my own very personal... but i do take issue when i see people throwing all faith and religion together and claiming how horrible it is... when often times those people don't have the faintest understanding of faith... and not in terms of jesus christ or anything that specific, but just any concept of what a 'faith' is...

and so when i see writings, like the one you posted, that are so obviously driven by some kind of deep fear of people who claim to be religious it bothers me... it bothers me b/c i have so many times been written off as soon as i mention the fact that i am catholic and the discussion ends there, b/c it is believed anything i will say is driven by my religion...

of course i don't blame only those who are religio-phobic i also blame those who are the sheep and who claim to be whatever faith but don't understand it at all... they are probably more the culprit than anyone else...

i'm just suspect of what are usually overreactions to things that have even the smallest taste of religion in them by some people... it is just ridiculous

[SDR]

For some reason, you choose to evade the point, either by dragging in every possible irrelevancy or by refusing to comment on the central point, the Constitutionally-mandated prohibition against "the establishment" of any religion (. . .Congress shall make no law. . .") If you follow what has been happening, you cannot avoid acknowledgingthat seriousinroads in violation of this principle are taking place, both at the instigation of certain religious organizations in America (ie, the censoring of textbooks by biased school committees) and at the behest of the current administration (ie, "faith-based" initiatives).

What I am talking about, as I'm sure I've made clear, is NOT any man's personal religious beliefs, but rather the propagation of those beliefs by any part of any institution which is supposed to be treating "all the people" without bias. One cannot avoid the clear impression that, rather than condemning the sort of destructive bias represented in the Imax/science museum editorial (above) or the religious hysteria surrounding the Terri Schiavo matter, the President and other leaders in his party welcome and encourage it. This is not simply "a man practicing and proclaiming his *private* religious beliefs."

SDR