In 1953, was it
really wrong to commemorate Gen. Robert
E. Lee in the stained glass of Washington, D.C.'s National
Cathedral? For context, a typical statement from this post-war
unifier from March 15, 1866:
“We shall have to be patient, and suffer for awhile at least; and
all controversy, I think, will only serve to prolong angry and bitter
feelings and postpone the period when reason and charity may resume
their sway.”
Politically
correct progressives, it seems, are in a cultural jihad with his
ghost. A modern-day McCarthyism-style fervor
to annihilate the famous figures populating their own Confederate
history. It's analogous to a real-life “Fahrenheit 451”: tearing
down statues of their forebearers instead of burning books. However,
the goal to eradicate threatening ideas—both sets of objects
represent—is identical. Unfortunately, Democrats' demented
dogma has recently shuttered the windows of a national religious
landmark.
Last
Tuesday evening—after a two-year debate—the cathedral's governing
board voted to remove two 4-by-6 foot stain glass panels. Related to
church windows, what do parishioners typically see other than
emanations of color and beautiful designs? Still, the fact that they
depict two important Confederate generals, Lee and Gen. Thomas
“Stonewall” Jackson, now means they must
be purged. Per Church officials, this sudden “eyesore” is “a
barrier to our important work on racial justice and racial
reconciliation.” A convenient excuse of the self-righteous to
perpetrate retribution against demonized, and defenseless, targets.
Flawed as they may have been, weren't these American
soldiers also Christians? Thus, to utilize Scripture as a guide:
“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked,
'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother [Confederates] who
sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you,
not just seven times, but seventy-seven times!'” (Matthew 18:21-2)
As
their religion's prime directive is forgiveness, why have these
church elders sown
dissension instead?
Hence,
their brief deconsecration service that followed Thursday was a
farce. A hypocritical effort to mask scorn via a “respectful”
ritual toward disparaged
subjects. Yet, liberals' self-serving perpetuation of an ancient
grievance has no relevance, for example, to Lee's post-war
actions. In this matter, their ire is a bizarre and destructive
(often violently
expressed) mind-set. Thus, as the acknowledged face of the
Confederacy, Gen. Lee is a scapegoat
for Democrats' own existential crisis of conscience. In short,
they use his image to inflame today's political
landscape. Their groundless accusations—as their unfounded
rage—have no bearing
on him, then as now.
Neither
do their baseless
claims of his influence have any connection to race
relations in America of 2017. Our widespread celebration
of diversity—as demonstrated by commonplace interracial
marriage—is a case in point. Those needing a more blatant
example of societal evolution need only consider the last
occupant of the Oval Office. What greater honor can be bestowed
upon anyone to represent all Americans then electing that person to
helm the country?
Speaking
of obvious truths, the Cathedral Chapter's unfortunate determination
is actually an insult to the gift, and the legacy, of the completely
blameless United Daughters of the Confederacy (and a private
benefactor). After all, they raised the funds and donated the
windows to the church. Thus, for 64 years the Daughters' intention
was to honor the past, not justify its mistakes. This fact was even
acknowledged by religious progressive Gary Hall, the former dean of
the cathedral, who stated in 2015 that the prominently placed panels
signified a desire to “foster reconciliation between parts of the
nation that had been divided by the Civil War.” Historically,
that means the Confederacy’s descendants commissioned the windows
as an act
of contrition: to promote unity, and healing.
In other words, precisely what Lee did
during the Reconstruction Era. Therefore, what reflective message
could be more appropriate in a hallowed space than that one? To the
well-informed, removing the windows only abets ignorance of the past.
Quite an “enlightened”
decision in this topsy-turvy political climate!
Tragically
such visual beauty has also become a Rorschach test for polarizing
partisans in the MSM. For example, The Washington Post's Colbert
King misconstrued:
“The solemn truth was inescapable:
The windows honored a system that rested upon black
subjugation and white supremacy. They were a
stain on the cathedral and were, as the chapter’s removal
resolution stated, 'inconsistent with [the church’s] current
mission to serve as a house of prayer for all people'. ... They had
to go.”
Interestingly, this columnist's spouse,
Gwen, is a member of the Cathedral Chapter. She voted to strip the
nave of these “offensive” artifacts, too. Given the Kings'
collective advocacy of vanquishing the National Cathedral's
“silent
symbols of a bloody war fought to uphold a traitorous Confederacy
rooted
in slavery,” perhaps they should complain about the open
display of crucifixes next? After all, didn't the Ku Klux Klan
(read: the militant
arm of Southern Democrats) habitually burn crosses to
terrorize minorities? Aren't these archaic instruments of Roman
torture as off-putting to the delicate
sensibilities of their flock as their newly condemned windows?
As followers of Christ, what would
Jesus do?
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002
