Please see the article today "Öffentliche Kunst Die Tyrannei der Beleidigten" in http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/oeffentliche-kunst-die-tyrannei-der-beleidigten-14400937.html#GEPC;s3 and Thomas Cogdell's response: If I am understanding correctly the gist of this article critical of removing the Judensau (http://www.faz.net/…/oeffentliche-kunst-die-tyrannei-der-be…), then here is my response. 1) Mr. Bartetzky seems to confuse offense and repentance. This is understandable if insufficient research was done into the origins of the petition. The petition arose not from an offended Jew or group of Jews, but from a repentant group of German Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and other Christians from around the world, including myself. Richard's petition is a response to our repentance. We asked him for his perspective. And the vast majority of those signing the petition are non-Jewish Christians who are the offending, not offended, party. The author of the critical article addresses the culture of offense that extends to other arenas. It would have been more accurate (and perhaps more positive) if Mr. Bartetzky had considered the possibility of a the culture of repentance! 2) Mr. Bartetzky seems to confuse destruction with removal. There is a comparison made between our efforts and the destruction of a statue on the campus of a university in South Africa. The destruction of the statue can be seen as an attempt to forget the past or remove the fact that past injustices were committed. The author's desire to not have that happen in Germany is commendable. The rest of the world (including or perhaps especially my home country, the USA) has much to learn from Germany's culture of remembrance. However, we are not asking for the destruction of the Jew-Pig. We are asking for it to be removed to an appropriate location of remembrance. 3) Mr. Bartetzky seems to confuse worship with education. He makes the point that the best location for remembrance is the church building. This ignores the fact that the primary purpose of a church is to stimulate worship, not discussion. The worship that should arise from the Stadtkirche in Wittenberg should be in accordance with orthodox Christian faith. That is, the worship in the church would be directed to the God Who chose the Jewish people to be His people in a special way; Who Himself became incarnate as Jesus, a Jewish man fully embracing His Jewish identity. According to the Nicene Creed which is recited during the worship services in the Stadtkirche, the worship of Jesus is worship directed to the risen Son of God, who thus is still a Jewish man today, sitting at the right hand of the Father. To retain an anti-Jewish sculpture on the wall of this sanctuary is to subvert the worship that is its very purpose. To replace it with a piece of art that portrays Jesus as the Jewish son of God, would stimulate the worship for which the church was originally built, and hopefully is the purpose of its current stewards. Such a replacement could be suitably signed, with reference to the replaced Jew-Pig sculpture, and thus also achieve Mr. Bartetzky's goal (which is secondary but still important) of stimulating discussion about the roots and consequences of anti-Semitism. Do consider at reply! Your support and prayers much appreciated! Richard Harvey removejudensau1@gmail.com