MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Are you arguing that we should take down statues of Thomas Jefferson?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One can indeed take the position of pacifism. It is a Christian position. From that perspective, Jefferson should condemned for promoting war. For a pacifist, the reason is somewhat irrelevant. Wars of freedom are equivalent of wars to protect the right to keep slaves.
of course notAre you arguing that we should take down statues of Thomas Jefferson?
of course not
If we were a pacifist state, we might; we might get rid of all honoring of military action.
As it is, there are many, many American heroes. Jefferson is one. There are many traitors and those who have fought against us; Lee is one.
Personally I believe that Lee was a skilled tactician and an honorable soldier, and I would have no objections to a monument in his honor.
Your original argument for why Lee should not be honored was that he was responsible for too many deaths in a rebellious war. Now that you admit that Jefferson is guilty of the same sin, your reasoning for why Lee should not be honored changes.
Personally I believe that Lee was a skilled tactician and an honorable soldier, and I would have no objections to a monument in his honor.
If your objection is that we shouldn't honor non-Americans, I don't understand that line of thought. Honorable people always exist on both sides of the war, and soldiers in every war have recognized this.
As I said before, I would have problems honoring Lee, Julius Caesar, Rommel, and lots of others at a war college.
When you win, it is a revolution. When you lose, it is a traitorous rebellion. The winners write the histories.
If Trump means Antifa, he should say so. If he means BLM, he should say so. If he means any primarily black political organzation that opposes hi, he should say. Otherwise, no one has a clue what he means.You realize that the 'alt-left' he was talking about was Antifa, who actually started the fights the other day, and who have rioted and attacked people before? You must denounce both sides or both sides will continue to grow.
It's founded on black supremacist principles. Rotten roots mean rotten fruit.
If Trump means Antifa, he should say so. If he means BLM, he should say so. If he means any primarily black political organzation that opposes hi, he should say. Otherwise, no one has a clue what he means.
And thus the sin of Robert E Lee was not being immoral, it was fighting for the losing side.
If the south had won, it would therefore be morally acceptable to have statues of Lee.
Of course, we might consider that Francisco Franco did win the Spanish Civil War. Yet some people do not like that there are memorials to soldiers who fought for him. Do you think that there is a problem? I mean, he did fight for the winning side and all.
Mark, in another thread you admitted to being older, so let me explain Antifa to you. They are not the "worker rights" communists you are probably familiar with. These people are violent radicals who consider liberal Western democracy an evil to be stamped out. They despise western / European thought and proudly boast that they will kill Democrats too. Can you understand why many of us don't agree with the neo-nazis but don't want to cozy up to these nuts either?
Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.Most news organizations have no clue what "alt-right" means but that doesn't stop them from using the term.
Trump lashes out at 'alt-left' in Charlottesville, says 'fine people on both sides'
Trump has made another clarifying post, in addition to his tweets.
For him, we are having a debate between the KKK, white supremacists, and nazis on one side and the left on the other. Clearly many of his backers are among the "good" people in these groups.
I can add little. The president has every right to his views. As president, he can declare that the KKK, nazis, skinheads and white supremacists should no longer be considered terrorists. The people will tell us their opinions with their votes. As was the case with Obama, I suggest that many, many Republicans will NOT want Trump anywhere near their 2018 campaigns. Of course, many will.
My OPEN question is what will happen to the Republican Party in 2020 and 2022. Will the Trump changes become relatively entrenched?
Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.
Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.
I would prefer that, since that would be a more specific and well-defined allegation. On top of that, if they made that claim they could be sued for libel in many cases since many of the people described as alt-right aren't in any sense white supremacists, neo-nazis or part of the KKK.
The President is the de facto leader of his party.Personal Prophesy is not allowed in CF. Its in the terms of Service.
But to your point, Trump is not the leader of the party.
Naturally he will have some influence.
Hopefully everyone will manage their fears of everything.
I guess you are right on that.The President is the de facto leader of his party.
You sure he's the least political Republican?I guess you are right on that.
But he is the least political Republican in a long time.
He had zero experience in any elected office and has changed parties several times.You sure he's the least political Republican?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?