"Dr. Myers wants to solve the problem by getting more people to speak of the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of American inclusiveness, in order to keep it from being hijacked and used for other purposes."

That's a novel interpretation of the sentence, "Can we please take our country back from the christianists soon?" What led you to this interpretation?

But how will "taking it back" (whatever you construe it to mean) do anything to prevent a monument being built on private property?

"But the owners could have an epiphany, realize that it's a bad idea, and voluntarily decide to spend their money on something better. That's only going to happen if people speak out."

Sure, after being called "christianists" and accused of wanting to put Hindus in death camps, I'm sure the well-proposed arguments of PZ and his friends are keeping them awake at night.

"Can we at least agree that the statue is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive? That it carries an implication that non-Christians aren't "real" Americans?"

Different people are offended by different things. Some people are offended by drawings of Mohammed. Others aren't. Some people are offended by being greeted with "Happy Holidays". Others aren't. And some people are offended by a Statue of Liberty with a cross in her hand. Again, others aren't.

So, let's say that PZ is feeling "offended" by the statue. What should we do about that?

Can we at least agree that the statue is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive? That it carries an implication that non-Christians aren't "real" Americans?

Only the irrational among us will at least agree to such a foolish proposition.

Can we at least agree that the statue is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive? That it carries an implication that non-Christians aren't "real" Americans?

I would say that there are a number of positive ways that you could take it if you wanted to be charitable. Why can't we just view it for what it is — a highly isolated monument that an enormous majority of folks would never have the good fortune to see were it nor for pzmyers and chalk it up to bad taste, sort of like lawn ornaments.

I was in So. Illinois last year and those folks seem to like to erect enormous crosses. I saw one right beside the interstate and one on top of a large hill. It was kinda cool from a distance but rather ugly up close and it was no longer maintained but it was interesting. You had to wonder what those folks were thinking but knowing a lot of those folks I can tell you that they are pretty harmless . I just saw "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" again this week and I'm reminded of the line where the KKK leader accuses George Clooney and company of "desecrating a burning cross"

Exactly! Dr. Myers wants to solve the problem by getting more people to speak of the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of American inclusiveness, in order to keep it from being hijacked and used for other purposes.

But how will "taking it back" (whatever you construe it to mean) do anything to prevent a monument being built on private property?

Obviously there's no law that would prevent the statue from being built on private property. But the owners could have an epiphany, realize that it's a bad idea, and voluntarily decide to spend their money on something better. That's only going to happen if people speak out.

Can we at least agree that the statue is (perhaps unintentionally) offensive? That it carries an implication that non-Christians aren't "real" Americans?

"Krauze, I'm not sure what's confusing you."

I'm not confused. The only being confused seems to be you, thinking that I'm somehow contesting PZ's right to feel offended.

"So they want to "take it back""¦not by force of law, but by simply getting their rhetoric out there and having lots of people agree that Christmas has gotten too commercial."

In this case "taking it back" actually would solve what those people see as the problem, by getting more people to speak of Christmas as a religious holiday. But how will "taking it back" (whatever you construe it to mean) do anything to prevent a monument being built on private property?

Do you remember the "Put Christ Back in Christmas" thing that gets brought up every year? It's the same idea. In that case people are concerned that Christmas is losing it's religious symbolism and becoming a purely secular/consumerist holiday.

So they want to "take it back"…not by force of law, but by simply getting their rhetoric out there and having lots of people agree that Christmas has gotten too commercial.

(That's probably a bad example because Christmas is just one of many Winter Solstice holiday traditions. Certainly Christians have symbolic ownership of the birth of Christ, but sometimes it seems like the O'Reilly crowd wants to control the whole solstice.)

Mung, a lot of countries get their self-image from an idealized version of their past. They tend to be anti-immigrant just because immigrants come from different cultures. This is a big problem in Asia; Japan is one of the worst offenders. There's also a lot of it in Europe, especially Germany and France. When immigrants are allowed in, they're effectively forced into enclaves and don't get to interact much with the general population. (Take all that with a grain of salt; I'm just parroting what I've read in the newspaper.)

America has less of that. Of course you've got hate groups like the KKK obsessing about "preserving our heritage", but they're in the minority.

Thesciphishow, I think you're being naive. Maybe the leaders of the Nazi party were secretly neo-pagans, but the rank-and-file members thought of themselves as traditional Christians. The Holocaust was in many ways a natural extension of the centuries of riots and pogroms inspired by "Jews murdered Jesus"-rhetoric. Any belief system can be co-opted and turned to evil, even Christianity.

Not as the modern incarnation of some ancient monoculture…

You can't be serious. Ancient monoculture? Sumerian? Grecian?

"It's a symbolic taking-back in response to a symbolic theft."

A "symbolic taking-back" What exactly is that supposed to mean?

"Certainly he has the right to put up the statue, but other people have an equal right to be offended by the desecration and call him on it."

No one's claiming PZ and his friends don't have the right to be offended. The question is how all of this talk about "taking the country back" is going to make anyone less offended. Imagine this conversation:

"Look at those hippies, burning our flag. You need to give us your vote, so we can take this country back."

"So if I give you my vote, you'll make flag burning illegal?"

"Uhm, you see…"

"But flag burning is an expression of free speech, isn't it? And many of your own friends agree that ratifying the Constitution to make it illegal is a bad idea. So how exactly are you going to do anything about this?"

"I have a right to be offended…"

"Assuming that I agree with you that flag burning is a problem that needs to be stopped, why should I give you my vote, if you can't do anything about it anyway?"

"Maybe you could just give me a symbolic vote?…"

The "tired", "poor", and "wretched refuse" bits of the poem are being used ironically. Obviously you have to be resourceful and self-motivated to pack up everything you own and try to start a new life in a foreign country where you don't necessarily even speak the language.

And if a resourceful and self-motivated person happens to be poor and tired? Well, it's a safe bet that they just never got the opportunity to show off their talents.

And it's our good luck that America has been a haven for that sort of person, from Plymouth Rock all the way to the present. (Of course there have been regular outbreaks of xenophobia, but all things considered we're really doing pretty well.)

So: You're right that some people cynically use immigration as a source of votes or cheap labor. But at the core, it really comes down to how most Americans see their country: Not as the modern incarnation of some ancient monoculture, but as an amalgamation of the best ideas and the best people from every culture.

Happy Belated 4th of July, everybody!