I would like to commend Brian Ebers for writing a splendidly crafted story (Pictorial Exhibit Displays Racism, Feb. 27 Daily Egyptian). However, I must take issue with Mr. Akil’s depiction of Christ.
March 17, 1998
Associating the image of Jesus with the likes of Charles Manson was a calculated and misguided attempt to antagonize. If you want to claim that Jesus was black, that’s fine. It may even be historically accurate, but if you feel the need to excoriate the notion of a white Jesus by associating his image with a psychotic, murderous, acid-head like Charles Manson then you are making a serious error in judgment.
It is unfortunate that a Black History Month event was used as the occasion for this offensive blasphemy, particularly given the fact that many people of African dissent are Christians who view Jesus as the savior of the human race. Yet, the truly evolved people of all races, heed the message of Dr. King:Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but for the content of his character.
I won’t pretend to be the guardian of the Christian’s conscience, nor will I even to object on moral grounds to the insidious remarks made by an individual who defiles the sacred symbols of another’s creed. The point is that we no longer know how to advance a cause without dragging the issue through the rhetorical sewer. This is the Jerry Springerization of dogmatic nonsense. Nothing is sacred! Those who use racist justifications to smear a deity are too dishonorable to reckon with on moral grounds, and too ignorant to argue with on intellectual grounds. Angry, mean-spirited blasphemers take solace only in their own capacity to tear down.
Advertisement
For the record, the followers of Manson stuck forks in the womb of a pregnant mother and tasted her blood after stabbing her to death. The followers of Jesus Christ built churches and wrote the New Testament. Shame on any racist, ignoramus who tries to score rhetorical points by associating a messiah with a maniac.
Perhaps next month we can associate the Virgin Mary with the image of a crack whore, or we may suggest that the Mahavira looks like a pedophile. Maybe a cross-dressing Buddha is more to your liking. It’s all OK, because we have the First Amendment right to say dumb things.
graduate student, political science
Advertisement