A xeroxed announcement appeared in the mail room of my Manhattan apartment building a while ago: “Our Lady of Fatima Visits Our Parish.” The notice had a photo of one of those creepy painted sculptures of Mary with oversized, tear-encrusted eyes and an undersized mouth; a very large crown perched on her head. This itinerant wooden doll was going to visit a church on E. 90th Street, where believers could touch and crown her. “’In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph,’” the announcement declared.
Non-believers are told again and again that they must respect religion. I try, I really do, but I confess that such manifestations of religious faith make following this injunction somewhat of a challenge. It would be one thing if this chromatic doll were putting in an appearance in Mexico City, filled as it is with superstitious peasant believers; it’s another to figure out what the doll is doing on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. I ask in all sincerity: are Secular Right’s fellow highly-educated conservatives ready to prostrate themselves before, and put a toy crown on, a wooden effigy? Or do religious conservative pundits see such outbreaks of folk superstition as the price they must pay in order to preserve the higher mysteries of the faith? But isn’t such a bargain terribly condescending?
I must respect religion. I understand, but I honestly don’t see how to distinguish the worship of a wooden icon from the belief in the healing power of crystals or in the predictive power of entrails. I know I must be missing some essential distinctions here, but for the moment they elude me and I remain at a loss to understand.
If you click through the link, the pictures at “click here to view images” are unintentionally quite funny. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the regal pomp and circumstance accompanying the doll’s visit was old-fashioned idolatry.
“I must respect religion.”
Come again? Tolerate it, yes, you do have to do that. But respect it? Why?
Crazy people work in mysterious ways.
I find this less offensive than that easter mass with all the cardinals in their perfect robes preaching in that giant gilded castle. Wasn’t there something about camels and needles? or is that Gods gilt?
It seems there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Ms. Mac Donald’s views on religion… exasperation over theodicy and sneering contempt for popular piety.
Honestly, Heather, where’s your sense of mystery? I once was a Catholic and, when I was 7 or 8, I spent my precious pocket-money on a plastic statue of the Virgin which glowed green in the dark. I loved it for one night but soon realized that I should have spent the money on a new brakes for my bike.
Manhattan Diarist reports:
Tell that Peggy Noonan to just knock it off, OK?!
The sincere question:
Somewhere Graham Greene wrote about the first Mass he attended in his local parish church after he converted to Catholicism. Of course some of the attraction of the Church was aesthetic. Greene’s first Mass as a believer took place a few days before Christmas, and the statue of the Virgin was wrapped in festive Christmas tree lights.
Your characterisation of Mexico City is a little unflattering and possibly unfair too. I realise that Manhattan can seem to be on a higher plane of existence (though I personally think London takes the crown) but that should not lead us to denigrate some other perfectly civilised metropolises.
I think you fail to see the complexity and variety of religious belief; not all of it is unsophisticated, nor do all religious people subscribe to iconography and mysticism. In fact, large branches of religion (viz. Protestantism, Islam) actively eschew it. This is not to say that these are ‘true’ religions, insofar as the claims they make are accurate, but it should caution us not to think that the disproval of a particular belief system necessarily disproves the rest.
Yes, they do – by definition.
Your examples of religious sects that supposedly eschew mysticism are incorrect. Both Protestantism and Islam actively embrace mysticism. It’s just that the targets of the unreason tend to be more abstracted; they have just as many sacred cows as other religious systems, but they tend to be points of dogma rather than physical objects. But the veneration is the same, the abandonment of reason is the same, and the absurdity of the resulting behaviors is the same.
I understand, but I honestly don’t see how to distinguish the worship of a wooden icon from the belief in the healing power of crystals or in the predictive power of entrails.
The theology of icons is based on platonic philosophy. The icons are shadows of or pointers to the real entity they represent. They are thus supposed to make God more concrete and aid the believer. They are not supposed to be idols or totems in themselves–though of course in practice this gets forgotten quite often, by priests and heirarchs as well as laity. This abuse helped inspire the iconoclastic heresy in Byzantium and the Protestant reformation. It probably had a role in Islamic theology as well, I imagine.
Let me put it to you this way: if I produced an original of some notes from the Constitutional convention, you’d probably handle them with quite a bit of reverence. If I handed you one of Thomas Jefferson’s quills, you’d probably feel a bit of a rush holding it. Is it because of the power in the paper or the quill? Of course not. It’s because the proximity of the items to their products makes the event the more pressing in your mind. Well, icons and relics have the same effect on the religious (Yes, many are frauds, but the believers don’t see it that way).
That’s just a rationalization, Polichinello. Christian believers treat their sacred objects the same way that “idolators” treat their idols. They’re not pointers to ideas that are sacred, they become sacred in themselves.
Whenever there’s been a backlash against the ritual that surrounds sacred objects, and “idolatry” becomes sinful, within a short time reinterpretations and rationalizations of treating objects as having religious power arise. The belief that the physical embodiments of the Scriptures have supernatural powers goes as far back in both Christianity and Judaism as we can trace them. Superstition is never actually destroyed by religions; how could it be, as religion is superstition in its very essence?
Every weeping icon or statue, every miraculous healing that supposedly occurs when someone touches a sacred relic, every veneration of texts or symbols exposes your claim as a flimsy lie, Polichinello.
Well, I guess there’s nothing like calling the other person a liar to encourage civil conversation. Try to bear in mind that I’m not saying I subscribe to these theologies, I’m simply trying to explain their point of view. MacDonald’s first post was asking how more educated religious conservatives could accommodate icons. I pointed out that there is a body of theological work based on platonic philosophy doing just that. If you don’t like it, or if it leaves you feeling icky, well, that’s your issue.
Christian believers treat their sacred objects the same way that “idolators” treat their idols.
No, not really. For example, during droughts pagans would put the idols out in the middle of field under the belief that the god would get hot and make it rain to cool off. The idols were seent to either contain or formed a part of the god itself. No Christian subscribes to that view vis-a-vis icons, at least they are not supposed to. The “weeping” icon miracles are the result of an action upon the item from without, not from within it. The healings are the result of intensified faith of the believer. Yes, you will find many Christians who will describe these things in pagan terms, but they are, strictly speaking, wrong according to higher church theology.
Let me again remind that I do not buy into this because I do not believe in God. I am simply explaining the logic behind it. If you think I’ve gotten this wrong, or that I’m missing something, please, let me know in something resembling civil language.
@Polichinello
For what it’s worth, I think you Polichinello. Religious believers, or some of them, do try to avoid allowing the icon to simply ‘point to’ the thing / deity they want to venerate, though I think we have to admit that the distinction becomes blurred on some, perhaps even most, occasions.
@Caledonian
Caledonian, I think you’re right that in many cases people are venerating an icon, even when they want to be venerating a deity. That doesn’t mean it’s the case in all religions.
When it comes to abandonment of reason, etc. I have to disagree with you. Whilst some religions and individuals do not use reason to justify and / define their religious views, some do. And whilst the conclusions of their reason may not satisfy you, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t using their heads. To return to Protestantism, it’s a tradition very much based in the use of history, and an interpretation of historical facts. Now, you may interpret those historical facts differently, and you may even question their accuracy, but I think it’s fair to say that the fact that you disagree with it doesn’t make it untrue. Two equally intelligent and rational people can reason their way to different points. That’s the nature of inquiry.
Have you seen Obama’s campaign ads in Kentucky, where his is shown standing in front of a cross made of standard light bulbs? Absolutely hilarious. Obama reminds me of a televangelist, constantly asking for money, (no amount too small! send whatever you can!) while living a lavish lifestyle.
My ex-wife’s Polish Catholic friend baffled us all by burying a figurine of St. Joseph in the yard when she wanted to sell her house. In case that seems unbelievable: http://www.snopes.com/luck/stjoseph.asp. It is much the same as the god in the field, though if anything harder to understand. Thanks for the god in the field btw, that is very entertaining and even though I studied classics I didn’t know it. Do you have a citation so I can read more? Google wasn’t immediately forthcoming…
Also whether Christians are “supposed to believe” it or not is a lot of what Heather was getting at, I think. She’s often cutting away at the linkage between elite defenders of religion and the actual folk practice of it that is somehow not the real religion while also being by far the dominant form of it.
“I must respect religion. I understand, but I honestly don’t see how to distinguish the worship of a wooden icon from the belief in the healing power of crystals or in the predictive power of entrails.”
I do not understand. To respect religion, why must you be able to distinguish between three rituals, all of which are religious?
Ethan,
The example came from a discussion I had with a historian of Medieval history. He was aware of it because new Christians were repeating the practice with icons and it was condemned by preachers and missionaries. Another heretical Christian practice was to place an icon underneath the chalice so the saint could lay his hands on the communion offering.
Looking at the snopes link you provide, the practice you cite, seems to indeed fit that description. It should be subject to more active criticism. But if we’re going to hang this on Christian intellectuals, then you’d best be ready to take some heat for every atheist yahoo who decides he doesn’t have to follow the law or even be charitable or polite since there’s no god.
As far as Heather’s post goes, she wanted a distinction between respectable religious acts and grosser forms of superstition. Well, as I pointed out, you have a body of theology discussing icon veneration. You can see where people are trying to “game the system”, as in the case of the St. Joseph figurines, and you can see where they’re paying homage to God and his saints, as is the case in Heather’s example. She may not like the aesthetics (fair enough), but there is a difference between this ceremony (where the believer gives to God) and reading entrails, where the believer is trying to take from God.
Mind you, being respectful, IMO, does not equal not criticizing or challenging. I’m not sure if that’s what Heather means when she deploys the term.
I have known four real believers, all RCs, for long enough — I’m talking decades — to have formed the following hypothesis: that they are more tolerant of the folkish side of their faith now than they were when young. Young RCs — these are all college-educated — seem to be more inclined to the intellectual side of faith & are embarrassed, even scornful, of the idolatry (yes, yes, I know), adoration of the BVM, etc. These same people 40 years on seem not to mind the folkish stuff at all, even engage with it.
Anyone else notice this? Do I have an unrepresentative sample? Is is some characteristic of the times? Or what?
Is there a word with a meaning somewhere between respect and tolerate? Respect gives too much. I don’t think a person is made better because he attends mass every Sunday/doesn’t eat pork/whatever. But tolerate sounds a little too harsh, like it just barely passes muster.
What the dogma says, is not necessarily what people do.
Even the religions that claim they venerate icons rather than idols take actions that are incompatible with that claim – and this, while not logically necessary, inevitably arises from the nature of the human mind.
Consider the ancient Christian belief that copies of the Bible, placed beneath pillows during sleep, can banish headaches and mental disorders. Or the current human beliefs about holy water – such as the idea that introducing normal water into a given amount of holy water results in an increased amount of total holy water. Or the beliefs about the Eucharist and its disposal. It’s not treated as a symbol, it’s treated as inherently holy – and whether there’s a lot of dogma stressing that the holiness comes from without doesn’t change the way people *behave*.
People inevitably treat the objects as important, rather than as what they signify being important. See the “secular religion” in America involving flag veneration. Lots of rituals and defined proper behavior towards flags, little concern for the ideas that the flag is supposed to represent. Burning a flag (in an “inappropriate” way) is often treated as an attack on the ideas it’s supposed to represent.
@Polichinello
Oh certainly. I’m with Dalrymple when it comes to Harris and Hitchens, and Dawkins in his non-scientific writing, and how much more then the keyboard-chewing internet atheist. (I only lick mine.) But irksome though it is to me to be joined in even a negation with the frothers, a religion includes a large set of affirmed positive statements. The problem for intellectual Christians is not that they are responsible for the errors of others, but that those errors are so extensive in time, space, scope, and number of adherents that it leaves elusive what connection could even be said to exist between the educated few and the massed ranks of the Church militant and triumphant as those individuals really lived and believed. An esoteric/exoteric distinction would answer nicely but is not supposed to exist in Christianity.
Anyway this is not actually something I get much exercised by; having formerly been one of those educated few I’m familiar with how maintaining the contradiction feels. Though of course it blew out into atheism for me so perhaps I’m a terrible example.
Mr. Derbyshire,
Just to speak for myself, I am a Catholic (college and law school educated from working-class roots) and when I was younger I didn’t much like the more, shall we say, colorful aspects of Catholicism. I am now on the cusp of 40, and I find that I do have a growing appreciation of such devotions. I think that is a product of two things: 1) a growing understanding of the power of symbolism in the regular practice of a religious tradition; and 2) a growing understanding of how many of the folk aspects of Catholicism preserve and emphasize the culture of the peoples out of which those folk aspects developed.
For example, in my family all of us who are Catholic are the descendents of Barvarian peasant stock who came to North Dakota in the 1870’s to farm and escape the looming hand of Bismark. Many of the “folk religion” practices that my grandmother practiced were things that helped her — a second generation American who had watched her family’s German heritage decimated by the Americanist reaction during WWI and WWII — to preserve what little shreds of her family’s living history remained. Those folk practices — weird as they looked like to me as a teenager back in the day (and, to be honest, they were weird) served as a vital link to her ancestors. So, in the age of the space shuttle (homicidal invention that), my grandmother still had her favorite statue of Our Lady of Alloting, etc.
Ms. MacDonald,
Well, yes, religions often has kitschy elements. Weird art, strange rituals, the encrusted practices of centuries. I am sure that many of the elements of my own religion that continue to be less than clear to me today were like crystal during the late Roman period. Just like there are things about the American Founding generation that puzzle me, but I still like the Declaration of Independence, for example. And thank heaven (oops) that atheists never go into kitsch: http://orientem.blogspot.com/2009/08/totalitarian-kitsch.html.
@Caledonian
Two things: first, I agree that there seems to be something of an inbuilt tendency in humans to venerate things, be they Gods, Wayne Rooney, the US flag or whatever. But doesn’t that mean that religions are not special in this respect? Your issue whould be with humans verating objects, whether they are religious or not.
Second, I still think that you dont take into account the variety of religious belief. There really are religions and religious people who don’t subscribe to iconography. They may not be a majority, but they do exist.
Some guy on the secular left, Antonio Gramsci, wrote approvingly that the Catholic Church (which he saw as the enemy) applied constant discipline to insure that the intellectual elite didn’t get too far away from what was promulgated day by day in the parishes. This counteracted what might be a natural tendency, as seen in some Eastern religions, to diverge into two different versions of the religion: one for the educated upper class, and one for the masses.
Isn’t it inevitable that a religion – a public religion, not these little private fads like Wicca – will have both an elite and a folk manifestation? I would think that the elite attitude would be this: we must do our best to correct all errors of theology among the faithful, but error is inevitable in the church on earth, and we must alway keep in mind that our ultimate objective is not to perfect the believers’ religious practice, but to save souls.
Ploni:
I think you are exactly right.
Bradlaugh:
I think you are correct, although I don’t know if it’s a question of aging. It’s more a reflection, I think, of the fact that the Catholic Church is, well, catholic, and there are many different ways to approach the faith. No Catholic is required to go to a crowning of Our Lady of Fatima, or even to believe that Mary appeared at Fatima. As for me, I see nothing wrong with popular Marian devotion (quite the contrary), and well remember widespread admiration for a movement marked by deep Marian devotion (including a leader who customarily wore a small Marian icon on his lapel) and what it accomplished: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asAW30hDEfY&feature=related
@Philip But doesn’t that mean that religions are not special in this respect? Your issue whould be with humans verating objects, whether they are religious or not. Totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
Do not attempt shell games.
1) The concept being discussed is idolatry, not iconography. Iconography as distinct from idolatry is indeed not subscribed to by many people – by the majority, in fact – even in religions which claim that such a distinction is made.
2) The existence of non-idolators, which is what you should have been addressing, is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Your comment does not constitute a valid response to the points made, nor does it contradict them.
Bradlaugh,
I see the same with my wife’s Orthodox family. I tend to share in the feeling. Things like the Marian veneration provide a reason to bring the community together in good feeling. Burying an icon of St. Joseph to help a sale may be silly, but it has some history, so why not continue a tradition that possibly goes back to Medieval Europe since it does no harm? These are things any conservative can see, even if the belief is erroneous.
The problem for intellectual Christians is not that they are responsible for the errors of others, but that those errors are so extensive in time, space, scope, and number of adherents that it leaves elusive what connection could even be said to exist between the educated few and the massed ranks of the Church militant and triumphant as those individuals really lived and believed.
It is a problem, I agree. But look at what they have to work with. You’re talking one billion people from all sorts of cultures, some of which were at a stone age level only a few centuries ago. Ideally, they’d all have the understanding of a St. Thomas Aquinas, I suppose, but it’s not really possible to impose that and still incorporate local cultures and practices into their faith. If you have to err, erring on the side of winking at a few totemic customs is better than a smothering iconoclasm.
@Caledonian
Caledonian, I think you’re tone is a little aggressive, as Polichinello noted earlier.
Anyway, I have to say that I thought what we were discussing is whether all religious people, especially ‘elites’ subscribe to iconography. I therefore thought that to show that some religious people and groups eschew them would go some way to proving that point.
With regard to iconography and idolatry, in fairness, I think I used the right term. The use of a doll of Mary is very much iconography, as it is seen as a conduit to the monotheistic God. My impression was that idolatry is the worship of other Gods. Dolls of Mary are generally thought of as icons rather idols. Am I right, can anyone shed any light?
You thought wrongly.
I’m sure you’d prefer that we sat back passively instead of seeking to confront your rhetorical abuses. If you choose to associate active skepticism with aggression, that is of course your decision.
They are claimed to be icons; they are treated as idols.
Actions speak louder than words.
Caledonian:
Why do you care whether veneration of a Marian state is “iconography” or “idolatry,” since you are on record as believing all religious belief is superstitious nonsense? Why should that make any difference to you?
As for me, I’m quite content to note–in line with the youtube video I linked to above–that my view of Marian veneration is the same as Lech Walesa’s, and yours is the same as that held by Wojciech Jaruzelski and Yuri Andropov, both of whom wanted to bring about the reign of reason on earth and were quite upset about the superstitious Poles and their devotion to “Maryja Krolowo Polski:” http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naj%C5%9Bwi%C4%99tsza_Maryja_Panna_Kr%C3%B3lowa_Polski
@Caledonian
Can you explain what it is you think we were discussing? I am slightly lost.
I have no problem with scepticism; it’s the bandying around of terms such as lies, shell games, rhetorical abuses that, besides being slighly oblique in cases, come across as aggressive. However, since you seem to be assuring me that you aren’t being aggressive, I’ll try to interpret your comments as such.
Philip, I believe you’re new around here. It’s really no use trying to engage with Caledonian, who is on the record as wanting “to destroy the Catholic Church.” He clearly has some sort of deep emotional hangups where religion is concerned, possibly involving a renounced faith. I’ve never witnessed him engage in a constructive conversation here.
Kelly at #2 above asks:
“‘I must respect religion.’
Come again? Tolerate it, yes, you do have to do that. But respect it? Why?”
I didn’t see anyone try to answer the question, though I’m sure somewhere on this website there has been a lively discussion of this particular topic. Let me try my own hand at it.
For centuries, many, many very smart people have been religious and have engaged in many, many deep thoughts, discussions, writings, etc. about the topic. To discount that entire body of human thought based on the evidence and arguments any single individual can accumulate in a lifetime, even a very smart, diligent individual (which I’m sure everyone writing for this blog and commenting on this blog post presumes himself to be), I think is too hubristic. Smart and diligent individuals might disagree with these past centuries of thinkers, but I think it prudent to give them respect. (This is not to say that all religious people, or all religions, deserve equal respect.)
On the other hand, one thing that annoys me about the overly religious, like the idol-wielding crowd that is the subject of this post, but more so the smart conservatives generally on the side of good and righteousness, is their certainty. Just as centuries of thinkers and writers have argued in favor of religion, so have many centuries of thinkers and writers, especially since the scientific revolution, argued against the existence of religion. Moreover, any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that the history of generally accepted human knowledge has moved from religious explanations of observable phenomena to scientific explanations based on observations, hypotheses of regular natural processes, predictions, and repeated confirmations of those predictions. There aren’t too many people who honestly think that a necklace of enchanted animal bones will stop bullets. Even scientific breakthroughs of massive utility for centuries, like Newtonian mechanics, have been shown inaccurate.
Yet with all these centuries of demonstrated failure of religion to explain observable phenomena, and the demonstrated success of the scientific method for discovering useful knowledge, many smart people are still darn sure there is a God, He is of the nature and disposition their particular religion dictates He is, and revel in the fact that they need no “proof” of this because it is a matter of “faith.”
I guess that makes me an “agnostic” but any prudent person (in my opinion) is agnostic, to some degree, about everything (and for each thing, a different level of agnosticism depending on the available evidence).
Problem is, things like “alchemy”, “ghosts”, and occult topics in general have also had lots and lots of brainpower expended upon them, with massive amounts of writings regarding them accumulating over the centuries. They can be substituted for “religion” in your argument.
Yet no one worth listening to suggests that we should respect alchemy or binding spirits to our will. They’re not only regarded as untrue and invalid, but as absurd. No one seriously suggests that disregarding the collected past work on alchemy is hubristic or arrogant.
No, there are no such smart people. There are clever people like that, but by definition they fail to use their brainpower effectively.
Stupidity is very powerful, as the facts you reference indicate, but it’s not worthy of respect.
Well, no. As I clearly say: “This is not to say that all religious people, or all religions, deserve equal respect.” Alchemy and ghosts and other occult topics I would put at the “very little, if any, respect” end of the scale. But there is a reason that Notre Dame Law School (where I attended) still teaches the jurisprudence of St. Thomas Aquinas whereas its chemistry department does not teach alchemy.
Even if you think all religion is so clearly error, on the scale of alchemy, far, far more people today still believe in God than in alchemy. Do you think that there is nothing in those centuries of thought and writing worth your attention? At a minimum, that religion has so many adherents today should be worthy of respect, even if you believe all those people are dumb. Other (in your view) equally fanciful beliefs have not taken such hold. Why is that? That is an interesting question and a very good reason to respect religion, even if you do not believe yourself.
Because chemistry by its nature must deal with reality, while law is a human creation beholden only to human opinion.
Aquinas was a terrible logician, in the best style of the medieval world, and his “reasoning” is just standard associational rhetoric: it’s composed almost entirely of the fallacies that persuade and convince non-rational listeners, but has little of substance.
So?
No. Acknowledgment of power and influence is not equivalent to condoning or viewing as worthy that which is powerful and influential.
Yes, they have. Superstition and illogic compose nearly the entirety of human thought. What is remarkable is that, for a brief period of time over a limited extent of the world, a few societies developed modes of thought that broke out of that endless rut of error.
We seem to have radically different definitions, much less criteria, for “respect”.
Western “education” has focused for far too long on the observable to the detriment of the real, much of which can’t be directly observed (take for example love and justice: neither is measurable on any scale, but both are as much a part of reality as the physical elements). See Schumacher’s Guide for the Perplexed for a quick introduction to the philosophy behind honoring statues (actually, those they represent) and praying to saints.
Devotion to Mary has been one of the great shaping forces of all that is good in Western culture, much more so than (say) Darwinism. See Tom Piatak’s response to this piece on Chronicles for just a few examples.
Granted, some Marian devotions (and devotees) may offend an overrefined sensibility, but the statues in ancient Athens were painted too, possibly quite garishly.
I refer you to the Viet Nam Wall and it’s effect on people. It’s not an idol, but it embodies the people whose names are enscribed somehow.
There are scaled-down versions travelling the country which are “venerated” in much the same way as the statute being discussed.
SHORELINE, Wash. — To Casper Townsend, the words etched into the black wall are more than just names. They are his fellow soldiers and friends who never made it home.
“Boys I grew up with, went to school with, served with,” Townsend said through tears as he stood in front of the traveling Vietnam Wall. “This is kind of like a coming home, so to speak.”
The wall, formally known as the Dignity Memorial Vietnam Wall, is on display at the Acacia Memorial Park in Shoreline.
[snip]
“It’s just an honor to be able to stand among my comrades and salute them and honor them, and say I was a part of a great movement in this country,” he said.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/53240262.html
The nose of Lincoln’s statue at his tomb in Springfield, IL has been rubbed so much for good luck that it looks different from the rest of the statue. The site shows other statues similarly burnished.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/rant/rub.html
Compare to the silly Catholics who superstitiously rub the foot of the idol of St Peter at the Vatican.
http://romeitaly.ca/vatican/footofstpeter.html
Heather, your comment about the peasants in Mexico City reveals your elitism. Who are you to decide that you are better than a peasant when it comes to religious matters? Catholics don’t worship statues, they worship what the statue embodies. If it is an old statue of Mary, it embodies the faith and prayers of all those who have knelt before it to pray to Mary. Only an idiot would think they are praying to the statue in and of itself.
“Mexico City, filled as it is with superstitious peasant believers”?? OK, you are a very insensitive atheist bigot, who believes that crude & profoundly offensive remarks indicate “respect.” But this derogatory remark about Mexicans sounds remarkably racist. Listen critrically to yourself! All Mexicans are “superstitious peasants”?
By the way, if you have a photo of your family on your desk, ask what the difference is between that “doll” you despise and the piece of paper you cherish because it shows an image of people you love.
Would you respect a murderer? A suicide bomber. A torturer? If not, then no one has to respect religion. The religious do not respect my beliefs. Why should I respect theirs? Tolerate? Read Sam Harris. Even tolerance of the irrational is at great risk to the long term viability of society.