Heading toward Civil War?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

I know, when it comes to Lee he was for it before he was against it. lol

At any rate... here's something to consider:

Statues honor individuals, but much more importantly, they honor the causes for which those individuals stood. A denial of history does not stem from a preservation of tradition, but from memorializing a cause that had, at its core, the defense of a terrible wrong.

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," Lincoln wrote to a friend. On that, we will all agree. But casting a modern-day blind eye toward millions of fellow citizens who have a genuine right to be deeply offended is also inherently wrong.

In the midst of conviction, we must, however, be both realistic and discerning historians. To obliterate the existence of memorials to all great Americans found personally guilty of the tragedy of slavery is both misdirected and counter-productive. In so doing, our intellectual integrity would force us to disqualify the very man who penned, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, along with 11 other American presidents, owned slaves, including Washington during his presidency.

How, then, can a distinction be made among these American "greats"? (Robert E. Lee, a former superintendent of West Point, was a man of great personal character and unquestionable honor.) The distinction should be very clear: It is the cause for which the man (or woman) is remembered and memorialized, rather than the attributes of the man alone. American presidents are memorialized for leading the great nation that, according to Lincoln, was "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Not so with the generals of the Confederacy. In stark contrast, these men were memorialized because they were identified with the defense of a much different proposition, the very premise of which was that all men are not created equal. That's the distinction. And that's why we Christians and students of history should understand why memorials to Confederate generals should be moved from places of public honor, such as city parks, to places of intellectual curiosity and history, such as museums.

It's the intellectually honest, but more importantly, the right thing to do.

Paul wrote concerning those offended by others eating meats dedicated to idols,

I Corinthians 8:1-13 (ESV)
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Paul's answer was one of love. He would rather give up meat altogether than risk offending a Christian brother.

While we are rarely concerned with meats offered to idols in our day and age, we do have brothers, sisters, and fellow Americans taking deep offense at the memorialization of the Confederacy. I believe that the true Christian would gladly support the removal of such statues from public lands and state parks wherein they appear to praise and memorialize a confederate system essentially built on the backs of slaves and dedicated to the perpetuation of slavery itself.

A statue is only a statue. Your offended brother or sister is infinitely more important. And that being so, how can a true Christian not support removal of such monuments knowing that so many of our brethren and fellow Americans are offended by them?

Remove them to where they belong. Places such as history museums.

[n david]

Not a real comparison between Paul's example of meat offered to idols and historical statues. One was viewed as sin, the other isn't.

I don't know any true brother or sister who are actually offended at these statues. The only ones offended are the astro-turf activists. There may be a few on the fringe who have been moved to becoming offended due to the media fomenting division. But actual people, real humans who aren't being paid by Crowds On Demand ... very, very few.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Not a real comparison between Paul's example of meat offered to idols and historical statues. One was viewed as sin, the other isn't.

I don't know any true brother or sister who are actually offended at these statues. The only ones offended are the astro-turf activists. There may be a few on the fringe who have been moved to becoming offended due to the media fomenting division. But actual people, real humans who aren't being paid by Crowds On Demand ... very, very few.

Now ask yourself, "Who is paying these astroturfers? And why? What's the end game?"

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now ask yourself, "Who is paying these astroturfers? And why? What's the end game?"

I know it's far fetched, but marshal law and dictatorship come to mind.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now ask yourself, "Who is paying these astroturfers? And why? What's the end game?"

Soros. Dems. Deep State. Rothschild's. One-World'ers. Take your pick.

Currently why is they want to weaken and destroy Trump, IMO. The media is fomenting division the most. I've seen tweets from journo's posting locations of monuments and statues during the aftermath of C-Ville and the wackos going around trying to destroy them. I've seen tweets from journo's listing the companies and persons on WH councils, and other tweets keeping a running tally of which one had quit the council. And I've seen tweets even this morning from journo's targeting organizations who rent Trump properties for their company conferences.

There is true hatred against Trump from the media and radical left. Just look at what CNN was doing last night -- openly claiming Trump was mentally unfit and claiming he has "early onset dementia" and should be removed using the 25th Amendment.

As far as the end game - to keep people reliant on the government.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Soros. Dems. Deep State. Rothschild's. One-World'ers. Take your pick.

Currently why is they want to weaken and destroy Trump, IMO. The media is fomenting division the most. I've seen tweets from journo's posting locations of monuments and statues during the aftermath of C-Ville and the wackos going around trying to destroy them. I've seen tweets from journo's listing the companies and persons on WH councils, and other tweets keeping a running tally of which one had quit the council. And I've seen tweets even this morning from journo's targeting organizations who rent Trump properties for their company conferences.

There is true hatred against Trump from the media and radical left. Just look at what CNN was doing last night -- openly claiming Trump was mentally unfit and claiming he has "early onset dementia" and should be removed using the 25th Amendment.

As far as the end game - to keep people reliant on the government.

But muh GOP!!!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know, when it comes to Lee he was for it before he was against it. lol

At any rate... here's something to consider:

Statues honor individuals, but much more importantly, they honor the causes for which those individuals stood. A denial of history does not stem from a preservation of tradition, but from memorializing a cause that had, at its core, the defense of a terrible wrong.

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," Lincoln wrote to a friend. On that, we will all agree. But casting a modern-day blind eye toward millions of fellow citizens who have a genuine right to be deeply offended is also inherently wrong.

In the midst of conviction, we must, however, be both realistic and discerning historians. To obliterate the existence of memorials to all great Americans found personally guilty of the tragedy of slavery is both misdirected and counter-productive. In so doing, our intellectual integrity would force us to disqualify the very man who penned, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, along with 11 other American presidents, owned slaves, including Washington during his presidency.

How, then, can a distinction be made among these American "greats"? (Robert E. Lee, a former superintendent of West Point, was a man of great personal character and unquestionable honor.) The distinction should be very clear: It is the cause for which the man (or woman) is remembered and memorialized, rather than the attributes of the man alone. American presidents are memorialized for leading the great nation that, according to Lincoln, was "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Not so with the generals of the Confederacy. In stark contrast, these men were memorialized because they were identified with the defense of a much different proposition, the very premise of which was that all men are not created equal. That's the distinction. And that's why we Christians and students of history should understand why memorials to Confederate generals should be moved from places of public honor, such as city parks, to places of intellectual curiosity and history, such as museums.

It's the intellectually honest, but more importantly, the right thing to do.

Paul wrote concerning those offended by others eating meats dedicated to idols,

I Corinthians 8:1-13 (ESV)
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Paul's answer was one of love. He would rather give up meat altogether than risk offending a Christian brother.

While we are rarely concerned with meats offered to idols in our day and age, we do have brothers, sisters, and fellow Americans taking deep offense at the memorialization of the Confederacy. I believe that the true Christian would gladly support the removal of such statues from public lands and state parks wherein they appear to praise and memorialize a confederate system essentially built on the backs of slaves and dedicated to the perpetuation of slavery itself.

A statue is only a statue. Your offended brother or sister is infinitely more important. And that being so, how can a true Christian not support removal of such monuments knowing that so many of our brethren and fellow Americans are offended by them?

Remove them to where they belong. Places such as history museums.

Lee was outspoken against slavery years before the war. If you really were educated on this topic, you would have known that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I know it's far fetched, but marshal law and dictatorship come to mind.

They seem to be stirring up all this contention as an excuse to create mass chaos, then they will conveniently supply the "solution". Order out of Chaos. Hegelian dialectics.

There really are communists, subverting every institution of American society, just like we were warned about in the 20s, 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.

(But not the 40s because we had to give our lives to defeat Hitler and ensure the communists could take half of Europe and Asia.)

[Originalist]

Just two months before Lee surrendered, the Lincoln Administration tried to entice the South into laying down its arms by suggesting their hasty reentry into the Union would most likely prevent the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery from being ratified. Yes, you read that right. Had the seceded States returned to the Union in February 1865, slavery might have lasted at least until the turn of the 20th century. So why did the Confederates turn such an offer down and instead continued to fight for independence? After all, all they were concerned about was keeping their slave property, right? By that time, the Confederates were willing to sacrifice the institution of slavery ,if that is what it took, to win their independence. After the CSA turned down the Administration's offer, owners began freeing slaves to fight with the boys in gray in the CS Army......
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/...ade-the-south/

[Esaias]

I have ancestors who fought on both sides. I am offended at the desecrations and destruction of American monuments.

And, no, I won't be Reconstructed.