Ed’s Last Writes

The Editor on Christians, demons and nudity

Google ‘tolerance’ and you’ll ten-to-one make your first stop at Dictionary.com where the noun is defined (in part) as: “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own”.

I like the idea of tolerance; having said that, I’ll admit that the adjective ‘tolerant’ sits a little less comfortably with me. In my home, for example, my four-year-old knows that not all behaviour will be tolerated and that’s particularly true of some of the behaviour he sees accepted in the homes of others. I think of ‘tolerance’ as ‘understanding’ and ‘tolerate’ as ‘accept’. I’ve tried to explain to him that understanding and acceptance are quite different, and I console myself that he’ll grow up one day to be both open-minded and principled; but he’s four, so we have a way to go yet.

Having recently concluded a lengthy explanation to him that TV is not a dessert to be enjoyed as the last course to Sunday dinner, with


the words “Do you understand?”, I couldn’t help but dissolve when he looked at me intently and replied “No; but I accept.”

I wondered what he would make of the following mail I received from a friend just a day before:

Dear Friends
 
Members of the Shofar Church, in their ignorance of the meaning behind Dylan Lewis' work, are moving to have his work removed from Stellenbosch, viewing it as Satanic. 

Dylan Lewis' work is in no way affiliated with a religious message.
Please take a moment to sign the petition, and support artistic freedom.
http://bit.ly/HYAJgN

Please feel free to forward this email to anyone you feel would support freedom of artistic expression.

Regards

Not being a member of either the community of Stellenbosch or Shofar, I followed up on the  mail and came across a number of letters in Die Burger that relate to the petition to "save" Lewis’ works and the gist of the petition of the students who have taken offence at two of his statues on campus. My understanding is that the issue of exposed male genitalia is possibly of more concern than any demonic connotations.

The wording of the "save" Lewis’ works petition does not indicate that only two works are in question, nor does it properly explain why some people have taken offence and it also doesn't indicate that the students have simply called for the works to be placed in a museum, as opposed to having them "removed from Stellenbosch" as the forwarded mail suggests.

Without seeking to prejudice the intent of the parties involved, and Lewis in particular, it strikes me that from time to time those who would have us tolerate their views, often exercise very little tolerance themselves. I wonder who the police would be asked to remove first, the Lewis statute flaunting its manhood or the editor of The Month, similarly attired? I'm opposed to censorship - so certainly don't want to see Lewis’ works removed from Stellenbosch, but I do understand that some would want to avoid being subjected to a particular spectacle and that they have the right to make their feelings known.

For the record, I'll sign neither petition, and I’ll be sure to keep my birthday suit well and truly packed away lest the Publisher happen upon this missive as a means to get rid of me cheaply.