Well, what about offensive historical public monuments?

[Philip]

All of the sudden clamor over various people suddenly outraged over old monuments and historical things - ready to destroy them or have them removed - has gotten me to thinking: Where does that end - to what degree do we do so?

First thing is, they are everywhere. There are monuments on the grounds of SC's statehouse honoring a few people from history that I find despicable racists - and so I don't think they are appropriate, find them offensive - particularly those whose public appeal was based upon such terrible views and statements. But where does such wholesale removals take us - and how far do we go? And, no doubt, whenever some agenda-laden group (especially over race or politics) decides some symbol from the past must go, it stirs up anger in those that find their cultural and personal meanings in their racial self-identification (whatever it might be). So, as if we don't have enough hatred and problems, people want to create immediate controversies that the media can help feed - as if it's a crisis. Really dangerous road to go down.

And how far do we take the removal of historical symbols. Do we bulldoze the houses of Jefferson and Washington - both slaveowners of hundreds of people? What about the American Indian museum - countless massacres of innocents by some tribes - and most of them carried out against other tribes - took slaves, too! Take away the American flag - some pretty terrible actions were done under that flag in the distant past. How about in other countries - how about destroying the tourist attractions of ancient Aztec and other warrior societies - where they not only took slaves, but also sacrificed children and virgins to pagan gods? Egypt, same deal? Europe - destroy all of those ancient slaveholding Greek and Roman sites - like the Coliseum - untold barbarity forced upon slaves.

I'll end with the Lincoln Memorial - perhaps we should bulldoze our cherished memorial to "St. Lincoln" - due to his comments upon blacks and slaves, made during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates (just two years before he was elected president):

"I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

So, based upon the above, should not the Lincoln Memorial be razed as well???!!! See, it's a slippery slope with no end, even though clearly there are some monuments to people that were really bad human beings (I don't include Lincoln so much in that - as he was a man of his time, and I think his racial views slowly moderated, his actions mostly helpful. In fact, he received famous black abolitionist Frederick Douglas in the White House in 1863, and subsequently invited him back in 1864).

[Philip]

See what I mean? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/ ... ve-owners/

[RickD]

See what I mean? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/ ... ve-owners/

He wants the Andrew Jackson statue taken down, and put up a statue of an African American hero like Jesse Jackson, or Michael Jackson.

And this guy is a pastor?


While we ignore all the good George Washington did, because he owned slaves, I wonder if fruitcake pastor would use the same standard to judge MLK?

Let's throw out all the good MLK did with civil rights, because he was a chronic adulterer.

Nobody who destroys his own family, the very bedrock of society, deserves a statue or a holiday, right?

[edwardmurphy]

The slippery slope argument against removing monuments to heroes of the Confederacy is silly. Today it's Jefferson David, and tomorrow it's Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln? Please.

Guys like Davis, Lee, and Stonewall Jackson are known for one thing and one thing only - trying to destroy our country in defense of their right to keep other human beings as property. Their monuments were put up as symbols of Southern pride and resistance to Yankee interference in their politics and culture, by which I mean government sanctioned white supremacy, racial violence, the heroic myth of the noble Lost Cause.

By comparison, Washington and Jefferson are the founders of our country and Lincoln was it's greatest defender. Yes, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and profited from their misery, and yes, that's indefensible, but that's not ALL they did. They deserve to be celebrated for their achievements, even as their flaws are exposed and condemned. Same for Lincoln. His goal was to preserve the Union by any means necessary, and that included trampling the Constitution, ignoring the law, and putting abolition on the back burner. I think those are legitimate criticisms, although they'd have a lot more weight if he hadn't saved the Union and freed the slaves.

In short, the slippery slope argument fails because it's predicated on the notion that the people who founded our country and the people who tried to destroy it are equally deserving of a place in the American pantheon. They're not.

[RickD]

The slippery slope argument against removing monuments to heroes of the Confederacy is silly. Today it's Jefferson David, and tomorrow it's Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln? Please.

Guys like Davis, Lee, and Stonewall Jackson are known for one thing and one thing only - trying to destroy our country in defense of their right to keep other human beings as property. Their monuments were put up as symbols of Southern pride and resistance to Yankee interference in their politics and culture, by which I mean government sanctioned white supremacy, racial violence, the heroic myth of the noble Lost Cause.

By comparison, Washington and Jefferson are the founders of our country and Lincoln was it's greatest defender. Yes, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and profited from their misery, and yes, that's indefensible, but that's not ALL they did. They deserve to be achievements deserve to be celebrated, even as their flaws are exposed and condemned. Same for Lincoln. His goal was to preserve the Union by any means necessary, and that included trampling the Constitution, ignoring the law, and putting abolition on the back burner. I think those are legitimate criticisms, although they'd have a lot more weight if he hadn't saved the Union and freed the slaves.

In short, the slippery slope argument fails because it's predicated on the notion that Jefferson Davis and George Washington are equally deserving of a place in the American pantheon. They're not.

Ed,

I think you underestimate the lengths that your leftist compadres will go to, to push their agenda.

This "pastor" wants to get rid of George Washington monuments and replace them with a monument of an African American guy named Washington, that nobody has heard of.

Ed,

Leave the leftist dark side, and join the conservative light.

[edwardmurphy]

You seem to be stuck on the ridiculous notion that there's such a thing as a unified left with a common agenda. That's not the case. We're talking about some guy's opinion. Who cares?

I actually just read that there are three times as many statues of Confederate traitors in Washington D.C. as there are of Black Americans, so I can understand his irritation. I disagree that Washington is a reasonable target for replacement, though. There's a statue of Jeff Davis there, too.

[RickD]

You seem to be stuck on the ridiculous notion that there's such a thing as a unified left with a common agenda. That's not the case. We're talking about some guy's opinion. Who cares?

I actually just read that there are three times as many statues of Confederate traitors in Washington D.C. as there are of Black Americans, so I can understand his irritation. I disagree that Washington is a reasonable target for replacement, though. There's a statue of Jeff Davis there, too.

The Sahth weel rahz uhgayen!!!!

[B. W.]

Yes, certainly a slippery slope all contrived with he left's agenda and carried out by use of Alinsky's tactics.

How - look over his points...

Saul Alinsky’s 13 Tried-and-True Rules for Creating Meaningful Social Change
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_RadicalsQuoted form this article linked here[/url]

11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

How so.. Apply the rules for radicals ...

First, Tactic -11-find out which organization is the worst that even your opponents agree with are bad, evil, in order to win public sympathy and push its negative hard enough that even your opponents will also help push: In this case a minuscule bunch of racist losers. Make sure that group reacts violently.

Next, Tactic- "13-pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions"

KKK, Neo Nazi's, types are a minuscule bunch of losers and have no real power so they are easily to isolate and use them as a smoke screen to launch the bigger objective of the goals of the left = absolute power and control. Use these deranged folks in order to label anyone as a racist and bigot as applying to all whom the left opposes - hurt them with ridicule as public opinion has been manipulated to gain public support.

In this case, the larger goal is not to go after evil loser but rather - Use Tactic 1- go after the 1st Amendment right to free speech in order to silence all conservatives opponents, and and use hate speech card in order to rid the world of actual critical thinking that Judaic/Christian principles indeed teach ie, such as: test all things; beware of false people and those who sow discord; do not be easily deceived; forgive; use righteous judgment; avoid those who sow discord, mark them, etc and etc.

The left is using this incident to further its goals of getting rid of the bible as a hate speech book. Setting the stage to eliminate future opponents to get their way to change america into New Marxism or rule of central planners that control every aspect of life in society.

This has been used before and recently too. Socialism never works and the left wants America to cease and they are crazed to do this without thought that they too will be destroyed and their way of life too when the USA is destroyed by their governance.

They do so by Tactic 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty and Tactic 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Under the disguises fairness-justified but feigned injustice, hurt feelings, all evil confederates statues equate to Republicans, Christians, Conservatives, and others who oppose their quest for fairness, retribution, and power. They do so by making folks live according to their own book of rules to entrap them to do their bidding of the destruction of the American way of life; thus, they create increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty by contriving crisis after crisis.

This is called suppressionism. Suppressionist revolutions are the worst kind. Both the French Revolution and all the Communist Revolutions of the 1900's to current date are of this kind, leading to to the death on multiplied millions. They suppress free speech by claiming they are supporting it.

Let's face facts, the America Civil war ended 1865. Lincoln's word's - "and Malice toward none" helped curtail stupid people form acting in a vile manner against the defeated south and rile the Democrat party whom was solely responsible for starting that war to later rebel against harsh retributive treatment against the south.

However Lincoln was killed and the harsh retributive treatment against the south began which lead to the Democrat party's segregationist laws, approved lynching,s and help create the KKK. That is a matter of historical fact.

The civil war ended with the idea of 'malice toward none' but now it is being revived by those leftist who want to erase an nations history, identity, its very can-do we-can-improve and learn from mistakes - attitude, and turn the entire USA into one gigantic Native America Reservation where folks have no hope, no future, and only a life of handouts and despair who are easily controlled.

The Democrat party under Andrew Jackson began that policy against the Frist Nations people. Stipped them of who they are as a people and re-educate them to be good citizens. The first took their language away. Nowadays, our language is being taken away by legalized PC speech and terms redefined by the left. They also want to take away property land rights and did so the the Fist natins people so do not think for a moment that they do not seek the same toward you.

The Left wants to re-distribute wealth to themselves, by exploiting and using a conquered people for their own gain. Just like the Southern Democrats of the 1800's who supported an uber aristocracy to govern all aspects of society, the uber left desire that same model today.

Those on the left are not our friends. They will of course mock this but the fruit is in the pudding and no longer can be hidden. They will go after statues that serve as a historical reminder not to repeat the errors of the past and seek to remove them in order to label all who oppose them as bigots so they can shame their way into total power and control.

All the left is utterly evil, even the ignorant fools who side with them are so deceived that they cannot see that they are being used as useful idiots to cut their own throats.

Under the Historical Preservation Act, all these statues come under that rule. Removing them is stupid and puts 'malice toward none' to shame.

The USA is not a racist nation. Racism almost was died out, that is until 2009, when Obama, a Democrat, revived it as a tool to fundamentally transform America.

Yes, there are a few wacko racist in it who are so minuscule that they should be left alone to further make themselves look like the fools they are so they disappear in time peacefully. So now have a new minority racism on the rise governed by and the bigoted left in accordance with the Marxist Didactic.

The larger issue was why the permits were approved for the Nazi's types to protest to begin with. The ACLU is to blame for that, however, how could they not approve it because to deny the fruitcakes their right to free speech will provide the legal means (slope) to deny others their right to free speech later on.

Think about it.

Reminder to ED - The left has an agenda and it is being played out before our eyes. Your own FFRF has its agenda as well and if left alone to have its ways robs people of their Bill of Rights protections and you cannot deny this.
-
-
-

[Hortator]

It's happening



//www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Abe-Linco ... 97443.html

[RickD]

It's happening



//www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Abe-Linco ... 97443.html

Oops,

I rushed to judgment too soon. I posted prematurely, it seems, so I edited my post.

That Lincoln bust has been damaged as early as July 4, and doesn't have anything to do with the recent confederate state issue.

[Hortator]

Not a monument but a name, which is even more petty

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/17/ch ... rhood.html

[edwardmurphy]

I edited your post for brevity, but don't worry, I was careful to preserve your message.

Argle bargle argle bargle Democrat Party flaggle blaggle argle flabble!!!! Blarrrgh!

It's the "Democratic" Party. Calling it the "Democrat" Party makes you look childish and petty.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't know much about the American Civil war, besides what is taught in school, so I searched about Lee and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

This part here stuck out a bit:

Lee's views on slavery
Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the war, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war. The argument that Lee had always somehow opposed slavery helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation. Freeman's analysis places Lee's attitude toward slavery and abolition in a historical context:

This [opinion] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington, the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best, and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionists or the effect of their agitation.[68]

A key source cited by defenders and critics is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife:[68]

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856
The evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery included his direct statements and his actions before and during the war, including Lee's support of the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia,[69] the success of his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation,[70] the freeing of Custis' slaves in 1862, and, as the Confederacy's position in the war became desperate, his petitioning slaveholders in 1864–65 to allow slaves to volunteer for the Army with manumission offered as a reward for outstanding service.[71][72]

However, despite his stated opinions, Lee's troops under his command were allowed to raid settlements during major operations like the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania to capture free blacks for enslavement.[73][74][75][76][77][78]

In December 1864 Lee was shown a letter by Louisiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emancipate the slaves and put all men in the army who were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get black soldiers, saying "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[79]

Seems far more complex then simply saying he was for slavery.

Then here:

Civil War

Lee in uniform, 1863
Main article: American Civil War
Lee privately opposed the Confederacy in letters in early 1861, denouncing secession as "nothing but revolution" and an unconstitutional betrayal of the efforts of the Founding Fathers. Writing to his eldest son in January, Lee stated:

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union," so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.[84]

As with all historical figures, it is not correct to make them out to be, pardon the pun, "black and white".

[Philip]

The REAL issue is that people are using the baggage of the historical past as an emotional wedge per their present-day politics, in an attempt to cause more fighting and anger - so irresponsible. There can be a civil way to assess where certain symbols and monuments should be put - perhaps in a museum-like park. But tearing them down, destroying them, using mob tactics to inflame emotions, cause violence - these are evil things that divide us!

[PaulSacramento]

Reminds me of when those historical statues and such were destroyed by the Taliban and others.