Libs want to remove or relocate the Washington Monument among others
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
So, to begin with, I will note that it says remove, relocate, OR CONTEXTUALIZE. They’re. Not necessarily advocating the removal of all of these statues and they based their suggestions on a defined and semi-reasonable list of criteria broth with both pros and cons for the individual. after reading the group that wrote this lengthy study on the naming of not only monuments but also street names, community names, school names etc... they actually did a pretty in depth and well thought out procedure to coming to their determinations
I wouldn’t support most of their removal, and the Benjamin Franklin one confuses me. Wasn’t he a Quaker that argued against slavery? He was a member of the Pennsylvania abolitionist society when being an abolitionist wasn’t yet as in vogue as I would be in succeeding decades.
They must not be just grading in support for slavery or subjugation alone.
In response to trying to make Democrats out like they’re going to go from removing Confederate statues to removing the founding fathers, I think you have a false argument there at least with most Democrats. There’s not much support for removing the founding fathers.
I will say though, that having statues of confederates in the south where there are large African American populations is a bit like the British putting up monuments to English Kings who fought William Wallace in Scotland. It just doesn’t happen because the Scots would riot. Same thing would go for them putting an Oliver Cromwell statue in Ireland. It’s just in terrible taste and it’s disregarding the suffering of many people at the hands of these men or as a result of the causes that they supported.
I wouldn’t support most of their removal, and the Benjamin Franklin one confuses me. Wasn’t he a Quaker that argued against slavery? He was a member of the Pennsylvania abolitionist society when being an abolitionist wasn’t yet as in vogue as I would be in succeeding decades.
They must not be just grading in support for slavery or subjugation alone.
In response to trying to make Democrats out like they’re going to go from removing Confederate statues to removing the founding fathers, I think you have a false argument there at least with most Democrats. There’s not much support for removing the founding fathers.
I will say though, that having statues of confederates in the south where there are large African American populations is a bit like the British putting up monuments to English Kings who fought William Wallace in Scotland. It just doesn’t happen because the Scots would riot. Same thing would go for them putting an Oliver Cromwell statue in Ireland. It’s just in terrible taste and it’s disregarding the suffering of many people at the hands of these men or as a result of the causes that they supported.
Last edited:
I remember someone predicting over a year ago that the call to remove statues and monuments would quickly expand to Washington. I also remember those board members calling such a prediction ridiculous.
No. Tearing down statues is the historical equivalent of tearing down statues.
These statues on this list were not just haphazardly erected. Our major cities were created as a fulfillment of an ancient Egyptian prophecy And designed to harness an Alchemical energy which we Affectionately refer to as the pulse of the city. The statues erected for our founding fathers and those who proceeded them were to honor their participation and sacrifice to the cause \/G to recreate a new and more powerful Egypt. In my opinion, what we are seeing is a classic battle between Enki and Enlil, Osiris and Set, Marduk and Tiamat, Quetzalcoatl vs Tezcatlipoca. One deity (side) trying to usurp another. This is history repeating itself just as it did in each of these cultures with the defacing/destruction of their historical figures. The statues over time will come and go but the ideology \/Gthey represented will last through eternity.
As I said in an above quote, they aren't intent on removing all of those statues. More importantly, some of those statues should never have been erected in the first place (like Pike or Newlands) and some of them were erected when the general public had a less comprehensive view of the actual actions of some of these people. It's not erasing history. It's about acknowledging history. Erasing history would be leaving the statues up and glorifying the individuals despite any uncovered wrongdoings.
For some of these men, there positive contributions certainly outweigh their sins. But, some others aren't as clear cut. If historians some day find out that on top defending New Orleans in the War of 1812 (after the treaty ending the war had already been signed), and sending civilized Native Americans on the trail of tears that Jackson actually made some other great contribution to our society then maybe future generations will decide to put a statue of him back up.
After all, it's not like these people are just singling out one party. 3 or 4 of the guys on there were Democrats or Proto-Democrats. It just so happens that they were Democrats back when it was OK to be racist in the Democratic Party.
You have more faith in how history will play out than I do. I don't even know if Christianity will survive another 150 years.
My prediction is in no way dependent on the existence of Christianity. It is an objective and scientifically verifiable fact that abortion is the intentional ending of an innocent human life. I believe this fact will become more and more widely accepted over the years, and that as that happens, the moral outrage against abortion will continue to grow.
Is it alive? If not, what is it?
Is it human? If not, what is it?
Is it innocent? If not, what did it do wrong?
Is abortion the intentional ending of its life? If not, what is it?
I hope and pray this version of Christianity is exposed and destroyed in 150 yrs!
I think the trend of popular opinion is going in the opposite direction and the biggest thing slowing its momentum is religion. Not going to argue the merits ore demerits of abortion in a thread about statues though.
I think you underestimate the power of a woman's insistence for right to choose, and subsequent ignoring of the facts at hand. I don't think that will change.
Just to be clear, to what version of Christianity are you referring?
Yeah, I don't think you got the gist of my 'er, what?' emoji's. It's just part of your conspiracy theory world. It's so wonderful you have come to believe in heretical Christianity, which is logically irrational. Your version of Christianity is against the very concepts of Christianity.
One thing I would never leave up to a theory is my eternity! The evidence is all there supporting my words. The real issue comes when people begin to question the narrative. Fear of not being accepted, liked, ostracized, or called crazy grips people. People fall to the pressures of group think. I started on my journey through researching to prove someone else wrong about their anti Christianity. My search for the truth led me right where I asked the creator to be. Prove me wrong! I challenge you!
I already have, and you refused to address the one simple issue I brought up, which dismisses your heretical beliefs. When you refuse to listen to reason, there is not much hope for learning.
Heretical was a word created by evil men as a tool to solidify Their power through their fear as they corrupted spirituality. Your conversation pertaining to the Bible starts with the Old Testament. My conversations start with the Sumerian Tablets.
No, heretical was a term meant to define something going against the dictates already established in a religion or theory. If you already don't believe in that word then you cannot go any further than that. It was not evil. Some of the heresy's were evil. I am talking about a logical fact that transcends whichever text you are reading from, but keep on ignoring the issue, it's the only way you will hold on to your heresy. You don't even address the logic, you just say heresy is an evil word.
The term Christianity was not even a thought when the first Sumerian Tablets were written.
Once again, address the logic. Whether you are talking about sumerian tablets has no matter here. You are just talking around this to keep your fallacy close to your heart. Sumerians, egyptians, illuminati, masons, lizard people, blah, blah, blah.
Defending New Orleans after the Treaty was signed is only an unimportant fact. The treaty was signed in Europe which did not yet have cell phones, CNN or Fox. The Treaty would have traveled by packet ship, probably to DC then copied to not just NO but everywhere else there were troops. Both the Brits and the Americans thought they were still at war. And both fought. Jackson was a great general and advocate for America, he just happened to also be a bad person. The Trail of Tears was a disgrace.
I understand that, and I agree. Jackson was simply a terrible human being in terms of empathy to the public. I would argue that he was probably one of our most complex presidents in terms of his accomplishments vs his mistakes. Fun fact.... in his letter to congress (state of the union) he lobbied every year for a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College and put term limits on congress.
I'll requote myself, from when you ignored the logic the fist time. I posted the reasoning behind the labeling of gnostics as heretics.
we must remove all pictures, plaques, and other memorbilla about clinton, kennedy, ... they are documented womanizers. Hell Kennedy killed his girl friend.
Wrong Kennedy? If you're going to remove documented womanizers from the annals of the Whitehouse you're going to be removing about half of the presidents.
Gnosticism is just one piece of the ancient teachings. Teachings the Bible copied and bastardized to hold on to power. The alchemy teachings which help you learn to do Greater miracles than the son in your bible, reside hidden from you in the Vatican Or controlled by a secret society.
You are officially a conspiracy theorist. You know, the kind that latches on to every conspiracy theory out there, as true. Alchemy is a false science, and that's why they poo pooed it and wanted no association with it and the religion.
You delved into Gnostic teachings to start this path down the road of religion, heretics, blasphemy, conspiracy, etc. I jumped on the first, the most basic, and the easiest to understand refutation of your theory of everything, tied into your using of gnostic gospels. It was supposed to be taken as an example of the rather simple refutations that are there for almost every individual piece of your theory of everything.
And once again you refuse to argue with the simple logic of the reasoning I laid out. Not once have you tried to argue against the monotheism vs dualistic or polytheistic argument that I brought up. It was the first and simplest defense against your argument. The reason you don't bring up the argument, I suspect, is that you know you would lose that argument. And I'm guessing most of the arguments that followed that one.
Let’s clarify some things first and foremost. This is not a debate this is a discussion and more of an exchange of knowledge. If I don’t answer your question than RESPECTFULLY ask me to re-engage. If I fail to meet your expectations with my response blame it on my lack of understanding of your question. Nothing more or less! The Gnostic teachings identify one source for creation and from source, lesser creator gods were created. Gnostics believe the Old Testament figured Yahweh perpetrated himself as source but in fact is not. Alexandra was where all religions came together to share this ancient knowledge and where the knowledge was housed. When Rome burned the library of Alexandria they took the teachers and books that contained this wisdom back to Rome. The corruption of these teachings after being relocated to Rome led to the forming of the Bible. This schism caused those who disagreed with Rome to be burned at the stake and countless wars were fought over the churches name. Not sure what else you want to discuss!
Last edited: