Posted by Hemant Mehta in When the “Elephant Crossing” exhibit opened at the Calgary Zoo in 2006, a private donor gave the zoo a statue of the Hindu god Ganesh — it was in honor .
For some reason, the zoo accepted it and stripped it of “all religious symbolism.” Which is ridiculous because an elephant in that pose is itself a well-known image of Ganesh. That’s like saying someone donated a statue of a man on a cross, and the zoo accepted it because there’s no indication that it’s Jesus.
The right thing to do would be to simply remove the statue.
But the zoo isn’t doing that:
“Our desire in putting the statue here was to demonstrate to our visitors the connection between cultures and animals, much like the same way the bald eagle for example depicts the American culture, the lion Britain, the beaver Canada,” explained Grahame Newton, the zoo’s director of corporate services, on Friday.
I think the problem is simply that most people don’t have enough cultural knowledge to make the connection that the statue is considered sacred for a part of the population. They don’t know it’s a religious icon.
Meanwhile, one Christian is very angry about all this… he actually makes some sense, up until the last sentence, when he gives away his true feelings:
Jim Blake, national chair of Concerned Christians Canada, sent a letter to the zoo on Thursday, calling for the sculpture to be removed.
“The zoo is not a place of religious indoctrination, it is supposed to be a safe family environment free of religious icons and selective religious partiality,” Blake wrote.
“The displaying of different gods in a public place like this is an offence to our beliefs and does not represent the diversity of views that should be reflected.”
If the zoo wants to keep the statue and “[embark] on teaching the public about world religions, Blake suggested that the facility also erect the cross of Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments and Noah’s Ark
“The display of foreign gods is offensive and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians,” he continued.
The headline at Reddit summarizes that argument perfectly: “You can’t erect a statue to your elephant god because my sky fairy will be offended.”
(Thanks to Yuri and Brett for the link!)
The fact that it’s a ‘foreign god’ actually makes it less of an issue, not more. A crucifix in a mainly Christian country raises the question of whether something is being forced on people. An exotic or historical superstition, however, is merely an unthreatening curiosity. They could put up a collection of beast-headed Egyptian gods, and no one would feel anything was being pushed on them or advocated.
However, in the spirit of fairness, these things should probably be banned/discouraged. It’s best not to let Christians have an excuse to portray themselves as victimised.
The zoo is not asking anyone to worship at the statue, I think their position actually makes sense.
Christians (not all of them, just the rabid ones) love too see themselves as victims, but the article quotes a reasonable Christian woman saying how she liked the statue.
I’m actually OK with the statue staying, maybe because it annoys the xians. But I’m in favor of educating kids about world religions, and pointing out that elephants were the inspiration for a Hindu god, and also that Hindus have special ceremonies involving elephants, is certainly something worthwhile to learn about elephants. I also think there should be a statue of Thoth next to the ibis exhibit and totem poles near bear or raven exhibits, etc. Go ahead and talk about mythology, and how animals appear in it. The only way a crucifix would be appropriate, though, is if the zoo had an exhibit of humans, and I don’t know of any zoos that do.
This does raise interesting questions. My first thought about the Egyptian gods analogy was that it didn’t fit because no one worships those gods anymore. Then I wondered if I was correct that. I also wondered about Native American totem poles. Are some of them displayed places as artifacts and do some people still worship the spirits they represent? The right answer is bound to be that if religious artifacts are to be displayed by a government body they should be displayed in appropriate educational settings where they can be accompanied by nonreligious text describing their origin and purpose.
The website of these particular cranks describe this statue as an ‘Idol’.
’nuff said.
Wouldn’t getting rid of the whimsical elephant come uncomfortably close to the Taliban dynamiting the giant Buddhas? The pachyderm seems harmless to me.
Darn foreign gods… Hey, wait?… Isn’t the christian god originally from the middle east? Damn middle eastern gods…. Stay Out of Canada! We only want to worship beavers and moose.
“The right thing to do would be to simply remove the statue.”
And while at it, they should shoot all the elephants too. They are religious symbols, after all.
Anyone who is not capable of making the distinction between promoting religion and educating people about it just shouldn’t blog.
I think it is wrong to show Ganesh! Take down the evil dancing elephant statue (and replace it with one of my agonizingly tortured human being nailed to a bit of wood statue instead).
“if the zoo had an exhibit of humans, and I don’t know of any zoos that do.”
US Congress?
I had to laugh, imagining how a foreigner has taken up an issue like this. At this rate you cannot get any animal statue in there…
Where’s your right to creativity now…and my goodness so much for Lord Ganesh, I am happy that you have educated so many people on this, otherwise they would not have known HIS popular existence….
I have a question if there is no religion why at all be bothered about it…
Seems to me that the zoo’s intention presupposed that the Ganesh statue had no inherent religious ‘value.’ (Or, perhaps, that the ‘religious value’ was irrelevant.) It was being presented as a interesting cultural/artistic statement about animals and their native habitats and interactions with aboriginal people. The very use of the statue in the non-religious setting serves to denigrate the religious significance of the piece. The xian insistence on quid pro quo serves to re-elevate the ganesh statue or, in turn, denigrate the xian symbols used to ‘balance’ the message. From the xian perspective, it seems this would be a lose-lose proposition.
Clearly it was not the zoo’s intent to establish a temple to ganesh. It seems so silly for xians to react to things like this in the way they do. Stupid is as stupid does.
There are similar statues at the LA zoo.
I think they are there in terms of cultural education, and not as promotion of a religion.
Also, tgr makes a good point, educating about a religion isn’t the same as promoting a religion.
The clear solution is to put the statue in a suit with a bow tie and put a crown on its head.
Nobody would be offended by Babar.
I can’t see to much being done about this. I have seen the statue. The only people that would identify it as a god or idol would be those who have religion stuck in hyper mode inside there brain. Most people like that around here will be ignored, that is if CBC doesn’t decide to become obsessed with it. I hope it is not a slow week in the news. Go Iran!!!!
To me it looked like a happy elephant dancing, Some Indian heritage piece, never would have thunk it to be a god. Like Vincent said, Babar.
I think this kind of thing is good. It tends to remove the irreverence of such things and bring it down to it’s rightful place. A neat statue.
Let the christians skwak, keeps them from being on the streets preaching. It lets them pretend their doing something worthwhile. Fifteen minutes of fame to make them proud of themselves. Then they can ride on that coat tail for years. Really could we ask for anything more??
It’s a shiny little disk to keep them occupied while the rest of the world moves on.
The zoo holds celebrations every year for Easter and Christmas. As long as they insist on continuing to do so, the statue should stay, simply in the spirit of fairness.
I’ve been to that exhibit several times and I’ve always really loved seeing that statue. I’m an atheist who believes strongly in the separation of church and state but I also happen to enjoy learning about world religions and mythology.
I think the issue here is that the Calgary Zoo is not trying to promote Hinduism. If anything it should be the Hindus getting offended that kids are climbing on the statue and wiping their runny noses all over it. Its hardly an object of veneration.
As ChameleonDave said, I think most people don’t have a problem with it because it’s a “foreign god”. Having a statue of Ganesh and saying it’s just an elephant is really no different than having a large wooden cross set up and calling it a lower case T.
I like it and have no problem with it myself but I also would have no problem with other religions, including Christianity, being represented in a way that made sense. The Christians wouldn’t have to have a cross, they could have a statue of a lamb. Almost every religion I can think of has some symbol of an animal involved, even if it’s not exactly a god.
I think the people complaining have a point but I’d go the other way and include all rather than toss the Ganesh out.
A statue of a fat elephant hula dancing seems pretty tacky to me. I mean it has a pot belly and a skirt. If it had six pack abs maybe it would look a little more god-like.
But as Stephen Colbert said you have to be impressed by a deity that can eat without using its hands.
Actually, Jim Blake contradicts himself nonsensically in the first two sentences quoted. First he says this correct and sensible statement:
But then he makes this oxymoronic statement:
So, the displaying different gods at the zoo offends him, but a diversity of views should be reflected. So he wants the zoo to be both a completely secular place and a pantheon at the same time.
You know, Jim, if you took those pills that the doctor gave you, after a while The Voices would stop bothering and confusing you.
Once again, we see theology by democracy. Whichever is the true god is determined by majority vote, rather than by the god itself.
I just realized what that Ganesh statue reminds me of. Without all the heavy jewelry and headdress, it looks like that nauseating Digital Dancing Baby.
Now that’s an abomination if ever there was one.
I like the statue. Maybe it’s illogical because I’d be pissed if they put up a cross… although I can’t think of any way possible to make a cross be related to the zoo, so it just would not fit. I’d love to see Egyptian god statues in the zoo, too. That would be fun!
I can’t say I think Blake makes much sense. This Ganesh statue is not an idol or trying to indoctrinate anyone. He’s essentially saying “some people use animals as religious symbols” [a fact] is the same as saying “this religion is really great, you ought to follow it” [an opinion]. I’d love to see more zoos have displays drawing the lines between animals and people (and if the zoos in my state are any indication it is becoming more common, whether it’s left as decor or discussed with signage). It makes good sense when so many people in city settings are becoming disconnected from nature.
Blake ought to see the jaguar exhibit at the Palm Beach Zoo. . . it’s clearly indoctrinating people into the Maya religion. . . . And at Jacksonville too!
(He obviously does not know any zoo people either. Zoo people as a general rule are really not into indoctrination. They may follow a particular religion themselves, but they’re not the type to try to force others to. Of the 10-12 people I’m sure of their religion at my zoo (out of 150 staff and volunteers, give or take), five are Christian, four are Jews, there was a Buddhist for a while. I’m the only one I know of right now that specifically identifies as atheist. We’d rather discuss the animals, weather, each other’s families, than each other’s beliefs.)
I think they should put up more animal themed deities in the zoo. In Egyptian mythology Anubis had the head of a jackal, Bast the head of a cat or lioness. In Hindu myth there was Ganesh of course with his elephant and Hanuman with a monkey head. Even the Hebrews had a Golden Calf.
A Golden Calf would look excellent next to Ganesh.
You can’t do anything these days, no matter how innocuous, without a dumb vocal minority getting upset about it. Was it a slow news day?
Crucifix must be from Holy Land and then it will have a real power
“The display of foreign gods is offensive”
Damn straight. Let’s stick to displays of Raven and Glooskap.
All joking aside, the naked racism in this is pretty shocking. Most Hindus in this country are of East Indian descent – something which makes them no less Canadian than fellow citizens who are of French or British ancestry.
Alright, I’m in the US, not Canada, but I bet they’d still say, “The display of foreign gods is offensive” even if they lived here.
So I’ll have to sign off right now, march up to my very American friend’s office, and inform her Hindu ass that her god is FOREIGN. Right.
Incidently, I have a small ‘rock garden’ in a bowl on my desk here, which includes tiny Ganesh and Buddah statues. Why? They came from the estate of a friend who traveled the world and killed himself a few years ago. There are also a few scraps of stone he brought back from the top of the great pyramid, interesting rock samples from my childhood collection, glass from a friend’s visit to China, gems in the rough, and rock samples from Aswan and Valley of the Kings brought for me by my Hindu friend form Egypt.
Oh yeah, and a rosary with a medal of St. Expidite instead of a cross. Very helpful for work.
Culture is interesting. I say keep the Hula Ganesh. LOL
I did release God was Canadian.
Sorry, but neither Jim Blake nor the blogger are making much sense here. The statue is clearly being used in a cultural not religious format. Is there any calls for the the orca statue at the Vancouver aquarium brought down, seeing as how its an aboriginal religious symbol as well? Of course not! and neither should there be any such calls for this statue.
This statue is an abomination!
I agree with the zoo’s rationalization regarding the dancing elephant: that its a cultural expression linked to the place this species occupies in Asian societys. Also, to suggest that “religion is something more than a cultural artifact or expression is to give religion much more credit than it deserves. Religion is if nothing else, a cultural/mythological narrative that gives meat to the bone of collective and individual identity. Whether you take it as a literal belief system or as a poetic/literary albeit mythical symbolic expression I suppose is the divide between believers and non-believers. Although I am a non-believer, I enjoy exploring the rich world of myth, magic and metaphor to be found in biblical and other religious text.
However, having stated the above it is also critical to point out that true believers thrive on confrontation, it feeds their sense of righteousness and makes them feel alive in relation to their core religious beliefs. They even strap bombs to their bodies or willingly throw themselves into the flames to prove their faith in the deluded belief that they have been granted one form or another of eternal life due to their unwavering faith and degree of submission or obedience. How dangerous is that? It certainly warrants from those of us rooted in rationality, a very close examination in order to avoid and protect ourselves from such madness.
Rian has the right idea!
Zoos don’t have people in cages and that’s a big reason why Jesus wouldn’t fit in there. Ganesh is cooler by far. Not cool enough for me to put any belief into him, but it looks like he avoided the fate of being hung like a picture which has been the death of other popular one-third deities.
That’s a typical Christian response: “How dare they put up statues to these false pagan gods? They need to put a display up to honor the one true God. You know, the one I worship.”
I love that! ^_^ But yeah, I lived in Calgary and I feel sad that I never got to visit the Calgary Zoo. I passed by it all the time when I lived in Northeast Calgary.