Wow Girl!!! I like your comments. No one can get converted in India but everyone else can become Hindu. You are beauty, beast and brains. Great Going!!!

Since the Tulsa Zoo plays country, I demand they play creationist. Sting's 'Rock Steady' should do ;)

It said volunteers wanted for a very special trip
To commune with Mother Nature on a big wooden ship
We took a taxi to the river in case any places were free
There was an old guy with a beard
And every kind of creature as far as the eye could see...

He said he'd heard God's message on the radio
It was going to rain forever and he'd told him to go...

She said, "Hey baby, I don't mean to be flip,
But it seems this old man is on some power trip"...

Wow Girl!!! I like your comments. No one can get converted in India but everyone else can become Hindu. You are beauty, beast and brains. Great Going!!!

Umm, Abhi is a dude. You may be confusing him with Anna?

Umm, Abhi is a dude.

Yes, 'tis true. Although, and pardon the lack of modesty, but I still like to think that I am beauty, beast and brains. :)

whatever...this country's going to hell, and we might as well accept it. We can move somewhere with health care if we do :)

damnit, what did i do NOW? ;) i didn't even write this one!

Saurav:

Your sentiments were mine for a while, but the true patriot in me decided to stay and fight. Even if pure logic is my only tool against abject irrationality.

That said, pardon the following, the soda dispenser that is my mind has to sputter out some bile before aforementioned logic flows:

Yes, Any Minute Expression Of A Culture/Religion Other Than Literal Fundamentalism Constitutes Discrimination And Spongebob Is Gay.

Back to logic: If the Ganesha and Native American symbol are taken down, will these numbnuts go away?

That confirms it.There is no such thing as malice, only stupidity. 8-}

Your sentiments were mine for a while, but the true patriot in me decided to stay and fight. Even if pure logic is my only tool against abject irrationality.

Maitri, I agree--although I would uncomfortable calling myself a "true patriot" of a state that's destroying thousands of people's lives at any given moment with the implicit consent of large chunks of its citizenry :)

In any case, yes, I'm still here (in the US), and engaged in political work and continue to point out that pure logic is a relatively useless tool against abject irrationality. I forget who said it--it might have been someone on this very board--that nothing placed in your mind without rationality can be removed with rationality.

There are many, many other tools available to you--most noticeably building collective power among likeminded people. And communicating on an emotional level with people who, for reasons many of us fail to understand but probably have roots in some legitimate social gripe, are turning their backs on modernity and trying to force the rest of us to do the same (or are otherwise being highylirrational and oppressive in specific ways :) I don't think the logical points can ever hit home unless there's some trust there first between people.

I would like free health care, though (as opposed to sea wolf submarines and the such). It's ridiculous that I have to pay for it or "get a real job."

So some people want to have a creation exhibit at a zoo. It's not like it's a science class... I don't see what the big deal is. If they can have a Ganesh statue at the zoo because it shows the way that other cultures view animals, why can't we look at the creation exhibit in the same way?

It's not like it's a science class...

Au contraire, zoos have a long association with science (hello, zoology) and school field trips.

oops anyways. Hats off to all desi's who are truly secular. Non secular folk its time you replace the animals in the zoo and then talk of religion.
I did confuse Abhi and Anna.

I did confuse Abhi and Anna.

I definitely need to lay off on the bench press and shrink these pecs in that case. :)

shrink these pecs in that case.

Plastic surgeons offer gynecomastia (man-boobs) reduction operations.

Au contraire, zoos have a long association with science (hello, zoology) and school field trips.

I recall going to the zoo during my elementary school years on a field trip. We looked at animals. There was nothing scientific about it. People don't go to the zoo to do serious zoological research, they go to have a fun time.

Let us assume, then, that zoos do in fact provide an enlightening experience for children. What harm would the creation statue do that the statue of Ganesh doesn't?

Let us assume, then, that zoos do in fact provide an enlightening experience for children. What harm would the creation statue do that the statue of Ganesh doesn't?

wait....am i reading this right? Zoos are definite centres of education, and give detailed accounts of ecosystems, habitats, geology etc. You don't throw creationism into that. If the ganesha image gets associated with religion in the zoo....get rid of it...but you do not indoctrinate kids into not believing in evolution (its bad enough that most people don't understand it or even try to understand it, and skip all biology classes in college).

Y'all think too highly of zoos.

All this brings to mind 'Life of Pi'. I think highly of zoos after that book.

This doesn't surprise me at all, being from Tulsa myself. I mean, come on, this is the home of Oral Roberts University!

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/map/ok.html

Needless to say, I am really glad I don't live in Tulsa anymore.

remember calvin and hobbes, where calvin comes running to hobbes and says that Mom's taking them to the zoo, and will hobbes go too? and hobbes says, sure, but only if we can go to the prison after that and look at the prisoners..

Welcome to Afghanistan. Now if the conservatives would only wear the turbans!

The underlying need of these creationists is to get their montage, and thus their beliefs, displayed at any opportunity they get. It has nothing to do with "a Hindu god and Native American aphorisms are up there, so we should have our religion expressed there as well." If so, just make an Ark display and show how pairs were loaded two by two (as the title of this post suggests) or something more creative.

They simply do not want humans to form any kind of association with the zoo animals, lest we fall prey to that wicked seed of evolutionary thought: that these animal are our distant kin. Dun-dun-duuuuuuun.

You know, if and when I go to the zoo, I like to check out the albino alligator and observe gorilla interaction -- quite riveting, actually. Even as someone who finds evolution a pretty credible theory, never have I gone to the zoo to find my speciated siblings for family picture time, if you know what I'm saying.

Like I rhetorically queried earlier, "If the zoo takes down the religious stuff, will this non-issue please disappear?"mu

Like I rhetorically queried earlier, "If the zoo takes down the religious stuff, will this non-issue please disappear?"

In this specific instance, yeah...but overall? It's just going to encourage them. It's kind of a vicious circle too, because the more we allow these ideas to control larger and larger circles of information dissemination and education, the more credible their theories appear. And the less receptive more and more people become to the key idea-- that science is a stronger methodology for figuring out empirical truths than biblical literalism. If Jesus really is the Son of Man, I hope he steps in soon to help these rabid people understand that they're making their society dumb and undermining the capacity of their own faith traditions to serve real human needs.

Anyway, living in New York, I just don't have the capacity to understand what's threatening these people's faith so much that they feel the need to overcompensate like this by overregulating zoos. I hope it's not me! ;)

What the heck is wrong with you BanglaW? Create-O-crap is not being pushed as religious mythology, rather a statement of fact - at par with any scientific theory. And why should Ganesh or native american stuff be removed? Hindus don't consider it a matter of scientific fact the existance of Ganesh (whether or not he existed - see if that just riled you!), and the 2 exhibits were there as 'interesting/fun facts re: non-Oklahoma cultures', not as pushing a religion.

Oh and to the argument of - there are other religions being represented, why not ours - would I be totally off my rocker to suspect that Ganesh statue was put there in the first place to allow them to push their pseudo-science into a publicly-funded entity? By the same logic Hindus should fight to set up a temple next to every church then. Sheesh!

I don't think my feelings on the subject are much different than most others'. The critical thing now is - what to do next? How to stem this insidious fundamentalism? How do we advocate better sense in our communities? As Saurav said above, our tolerance for stupidity only makes it widespread. Any ideas?

If so, just make an Ark display and show how pairs were loaded two by two (as the title of this post suggests) or something more creative.

Have I missed the point here? At first I thought a lot of you were making mountains of molehills because I got the notion that the "creation exhibit" would have been something along the lines of a statue of Noah's Arc, or Adam and Eve with animals. I saw no problem with a display of the Christian view, as long as it was along the lines of a historical/cultural display (like the Ganesh statue and the Native American saying).

I reread the article, and I didn't notice any details about the proposed display. If it turns out to be something similar to the Ganesh statue, then I still see nothing wrong with it. If, however, its basis is religious, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to eat my words.

Apparently this guy Hicks is a longtime socially conservative Tulsa Zoo activist. As far back as 1996, he negotiated for changes in the zoo's signs about evolution of horses and human beings and he protested Gay Day at the zoo. I can't tell if someone spending so much energy trying to transform the Tulsa Zoo is scary or funny or both.

Here's the Creationist group that Dan Hicks is a member of and that's spearheading this effort among others so you can see all their criticisms of the zoo and what they ended up winning.

I try not to make fun of people like this, but they're making it really hard:

"Pray for the development of this web site."

Ummm, what exactly does the Biblical creation story have to do with elephants?

REEEEEeeeEEEeeeeeeEEEEEeeeeach!

Ummm, what exactly does the Biblical creation story have to do with elephants?

Based on the pictures, I actually sort of understand part of the Creationists' specific point now (from their perspective)--it seems like the Tulsa zoo sadly set themselves up for this by including lots of multiculti feel good statements and the such. It's not just the elephant imagery, nor, apparently, is the zoo devoid of signs that could be construed as statements of spiritual belief. Yet another reason not to appropriate other people's religious imagery and other meaningful iconography as fashion or a feel-good pseudoeducational tool. Also, the compromise apparently called for other faiths' creation accounts to be displayed too.

Nonetheless, it still sucks that this came up at all as an easy opportunity for a dominant group to impose its faith on other people, and the length and intensity of the underlying effort is still disturbing (this Creationist group has been doing this for at least 10 years!). And there's still absolutely no moral defense (as opposed to pragmatic issues of funding and the such) for the Tulsa Zoo altering the language around human-chimp common descent signs, as they reportedly did to placate the Creationists in the past.

If they ever try to impose something like this in my geographical community, I'm going to go ape$hit. Thankfully, we still produce elephant dung Virgin Marys in New York and even our Republicans dress in drag.

Maitri, you're absolutely right. Biblical creation has nothing to do with elephants or any SPECIFIC animals, unlike the Ganesh which is appropriate because it's relevant to the elephant exhibit.

The Native American saying on the other hand is just as inappropriate in a zoo as a plaque with the first few chapters of Genisis. As an atheist, I can honestly say that I find all forms of religious proselytizing to be equally offensive. It's all the same to me, whether it's "Create-O-crap" or some hocus pocus about the Earth being my father.

Why should Christianity be picked on and not the Native American saying? This is in fact a case of majority discrimination by giving an obscure minority special treatment. Since two wrongs don't make a right, the Native American saying should be taken down.

BanglaWarior, no doubt the zoo is no place for religious proselytizing. But this certainly isn't the case of giving an obscure minority special treatment. Either of the two religious angles portrayed do not encourage visitors to view the zoo from their point of view. (heck one statue or one saying doesn't even present enough to view it as anything but a tangent to the main exhibit) The presentation of the Biblical story on the other hand would quite certainly would. Imagine a 6 yr old on a school visit to the zoo who encounters the Ganesh statue or the NA saying. Follow that up with the Noah exhibit. Do you notice the disparity here? And its as likely, no, almost guranteed to be presented as much a Creationist theory account as it is a biblical account. That pretty much would be peddling a religious/mythological account as a scientifically accurate portrait.

I don't know the context of Native American inscription, but the reason Christianity is being 'picked' on vs. Native Am saying has to do with the extent or dominance of the biblical display. It certainly wouldn’t bother me if even each exhibit was accompanyed by a religious artifact of any/multiple faiths in context of the exhibits. In that case it would be an interesting visit of animals punctuated with examples of their existance in global spiritual psyche.

Seeker, I agree with you on the Hindu vs. Christian displays. Where I disagree with you is on the difference between the Native American and Christian view. First of all, if by dominance you mean how prominently they are displayed, the Native American saying is written on a large globe so it certainly isn't subtle.

If you're trying to make the point that the Christian display would be a lot more indoctrinating than the Native American saying, then I think you're flat out wrong. While the Genisis display could ingrain the divinity of the Bible in an impressionable mind, the Native American saying does the same thing with the idea that the earth and the sky are somehow divine. If you want evidence of how influential the latter can be, look no further than society's millions of "tree-huggers", many who believe in new age ideology. So, no, I don't notice the disparity here. A seven year old child visiting the zoo is just as likely to be influenced by a plaque of Genisis as he is by a Native American saying. If we're to stay true to seperation of church and state, neither should be on display at the zoo.

Apparently the creationist exhibit was nixed a couple weeks ago by the Parks and Recreation Board.