Speak up!

A man in a Muncie Indiana apartment complex sparked a controversy over a four-foot-tall lit statue of Jesus that resides(d) on his patio. Apparently, a nearby spotlight cast the statue’s shadow against the wall of a neighboring apartment. After the spotlight was removed, the statue remained an issue of contention, and the manager of the complex, Mike Desloover, wanted it gone. Why? Apparently, the manager didn’t want to offend anybody’s religious sensibilities.

Now, you know me. I’m a scary, horrible, heartless libertarian. But I have kind of a soft spot for managers. It can’t be easy to do their jobs, and most of the contact that they have with their tenants is because of complaints or overdue rent. They get a thousand complaints, half of which are actually under their jurisdiction, and they get little to no co-operation from the majority of the people that they’re working with. In short, it’s an awful job, and you get jaded fast. I wonder if Mike wassn’t simply looking to avoid some unpleasantness for himself in the future. I can’t blame him.

Now, this isn’t a really big issue, to be honest. Things a hundred times more horrible and shocking are our there for me to write about. In fact, this is sort of a minutiae. But I find that within minutiae, there are broader themes, and larger things at play. And so, I’d like to focus on a couple of what I see as the broader themes and questions that are raised over this issue.

I believe that the first question raised is about the nature of multiculturalism, for certainly, multiculturalism is the main source of momentum for this ‘issue’. Does multiculturalism demand that the statue be removed?

I believe that modern multiculturalism does. And by modern multiculturalism, I mean the touchy-feely,

mushy, indefinable sort of multiculturalism. The kind of multiculturalism that seems to demand for the lowest common denominator of mediocrity, in order that none feel left out, and in order that exceptionalism is not mistaken for xenophobia. The multiculturalism that will, ultimately, doom its subscribers to the mire of relativism.

Now, is this an issue of religious freedom? Or should Mike the manager be able to remove the statue? Daniel Long is, after all, staying in an apartment complex. Does some of the freedom that comes with owning property come to an end whenever one is in a sort of communal building?

And I believe that the answer to that second question is very tied in with the first. Daniel Long’s religious ‘expression’ is something which would, and should, be curtailed, if you look at things through a very multicultural mindset. Why should his expression encroach on other people? Why does he get to be so pushy? Surely he should be just as quiet about his faith as his neighbors are.

And there you come across the problem. Shouldn’t he be just as quiet as his neighbors are. What if his neighbors were to put up statues celebrating Buddha, or Confucius, or any one of the hundreds of Hindu gods? What if they were to paint the Islamic crescent on the outside walls of their home? What if they were to put a pentagram on their front door? Well at that point, Daniel’s lit statue really isn’t too big a deal, is it? So perhaps the problem is not one man expressing his beliefs, but that everybody else around him aren’t expressing their beliefs. If Daniel’s statue were simply to be removed; a mediocre half-measure, and in keeping with feel-good multiculturalism, then what sort of a precedent does that set?

This is completely ignoring the issue of private verses public property, I know. I suppose it depends on who owns the patio on which Daniel’s statue sits, ultimately. But morally, and philosophically, there is no benefit to Daniel’s statue of Jesus being removed. The statue’s removal would only mean that once again, mediocrity and conformity have been enforced, under the guise of ‘playing nicely’ with one another.

Mike the manager also had misgivings about the statue because it was visible from a polling site ( this was pre-election ). But why is that an issue? Surely a few people going to a public place to air their political views aren’t going to be threatened by another man’s religious ones. And if they are, I truly feel sorry for them. It would be one thing if the statue was at the polling site, like holding down leaflets or something. But quite another to be seen in a neighboring apartment complex.

Speak your beliefs and speak your mind. If you neighbors don’t like it, they don’t have to listen to you. If they can’t help hearing you, then they can ask you to tone it down a little. If that doesn’t help them deal with your beliefs, then perhaps they could find the time to muster a rebuttal. After all, opinion/rebuttal, that’s what a civilized society and discussion is all about, isn’t it? That’s a civilized interplay between people, and their ideas, right?

So do the civilized thing. Set up a neon sign in your backyard, and make sure it screams out your religious beliefs in bright red and hot pink. The more you express your views, the easier it is for everybody else to express theirs; after all, you’re the one who blazed the path for them; and after neon, it’s not that hard to put out a statue. And after a statue? Well, it’s not that hard to have a civilized debate about religion. It’s all about precedent, and it’s all about what we see to be appropriate.

Not that I’m saying we all need to have lit statues of Jesus on our front porch. Do whatever you want; they’re your views, and it’s your home. But don’t be afraid to say what you think and what you believe. Ultimately, it just makes it easier for the rest of us to do the same.