My son found a fleur-de-lis medal in the craft section of Wal-Mart for $1 and asked if he could have it. He just thought it was pretty. It made me furious.
It made me furious because I was wondering how long it will be before Wal-Mart announces it no longer sells items depicting that newfound “symbol of hate.” it made me even more furious when we saw one of those paintable wooden wall hangings in the shape and someone had broken it.
The fleur-de-lis is the symbol of New Orleans and other parts of the former Louisiana Purchase because it’s the symbol of the French monarchy and of French Catholicism. Yes, those regions practiced slavery and segregation. Yes the fleur-de-lis has far more of a claim of being part of “heritage” than a battle flag of an army that existed for five years and lost.
But to call it a symbol of hate is like calling the Three-leaf Shamrock a symbol of hate, and I’m sure that will be next.
Do people even realize that it was the Catholic Church that tried to ban slavery and successfully did so in some countries centuries before the Anglophone Protestant countries caught up?
Then there’s the debate about the Planned unParenthood baby parts video. Even with the woman saying they sell organs from aborted fetuses, people are still clinging to “blob of tissue.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy has argued in several abortion-related opinions that parents have the right to determine whether they think an unborn baby is a person or not. If that’s the case, then what about those of us who so believe? This blog was founded precisely on that premise and named after the miscarried child who would have been named after St. Louis of France (among others depicted above). If Person A chooses to interpret a symbol of Christian purity as a symbol of hate, and we have to listen to that person, why don’t pro-abortionists have to listen to the offense of those of us who choose to accept the science that an unborn baby is a biologically distinct human person and not offend us with their hateful rhetoric?
Why do liberals get a monopoly on being offended?