In Afghanistan, the ruling group of Islamic Clergy, the Taliban is busying themselves with the task of destroying statues and artifacts from their past. In their apparently misguided interpretation of Islamic law, they believe these actions are in keeping with that religion's ban of idols. They have made most of the world mad at them with many countries, including Islamic ones, calling them cultural vandals. There are two statues in particular, in a place called Bamiyan, which date from the 5th Century and are carved into the sandstone and stand over 120 feet high. They are representations of the Buddha and are not seen as objects of worship by the Buddhists but as art. This line of reasoning by the Buddhist countries hasn't made an impact on the Taliban, who are intent on destroying every statue in their country. Offers to purchase the statues from the financially strapped Taliban Government have been met with the statement that "the devil is not for sale."

Every nation that has been asked for an opinion has condemned these actions calling on the Taliban to consider the historical significance of these statues. Some countries, such as Japan, have even hinted that the destruction of the statues would cause them to "rethink" their commitment to sending aid to war and draught stricken Afghanistan. Here is a country that cannot feed itself, antagonizing the entire world in order to enforce a gaunt view of an already narrowly defined religion.

The world picks and chooses what historical statues and symbols it deems worthy of saving or being outraged about. In Russia, there wasn't much of an outcry over the destruction of statues of Lenin by a people freed from the tyranny of Lenin's view of Communism. In the Southern United States, there are calls for the removal of statues and plaques commemorating the Confederacy because of the offense taken by certain groups of citizens. I hear no outrage from the world about the potential destruction of a Robert E. Lee monument except from a local yet small minority who cares about such things.

In all these cases, you have historical symbols, whether religious, political, or cultural that some group has taken offense to. They have called for the purging of these items from the land. Anything that one group believes is a reminder of hate is to be stricken from the historical record. The reaction is quite different because of the perception of the political forces calling for the destruction. "But the Buddha's are different!" The politically correct will cry. "Those statues don't represent hatred like the ones of Robert E. Lee." I would counter that the statues of Buddha represent hatred of God from the point of view of the Taliban just as Robert E Lee represents hatred to African Americans here in the southern US.

I believe we need to make a decision. Either keep all the statues of historical significance or destroy them all. In a world conversation, telling one group of people that their feelings of outrage aren't as worthy as another group's feelings of outrage bears the stigma of hypocrisy. We can't have it both ways. Either statues that generate outrage must be saved for their historical significance or destroyed to placate the anger of the critics. If we want to keep any statues that symbolize any point of view, any religion, any political entity or any culture, then we must protect them all. History doesn't change simply because we hide the symbolism from that era or destroy the statues. The existence of the Buddha doesn't disappear from Afghanistan by the destruction of the statues. Ignorance appears.