Thomas Jefferson Statue Torn Down at Portland High School

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boatswain2PA said:
Romans were into pedophilia. How about any portraits of Pope Pious, after all, he helped the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Roman and Greek statues should go. Michelangelo “David” should definitely go. David stole a man’s wife and then had the man killed.
 
Last edited:
Should we get rid of all of the Menorah’s as well? How about all of the little Buddha’s? I mean, come on, they are into tantric sex…
 
Side note - Didn’t the Church just acknowledge this (okay, on reflection, might not have “helped” them, but didn’t stand firmly against them).
 
I would recommend some reading “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by David Dalin and “Hitler, the War and the Pope” by Ronald Rychlak
 
JonNC said:
They will not tear down Che, or Lenin. This isn’t about racism. It is about destroying western civilization.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is not about racism (or police brutality), they are being used to achieve other ends.
 
Thbolt said:
Well, you didn’t respond to the part where I say why, so I’ll just go with, that’s pretty darn close to the Jim Crow years and let you reply to my comparison to why if you would like.
Click to expand...
You can go with whatever you want. I gave the definition of slavery, and the Democrat Jim Crow laws don’t fit.
 
ok, so Pope Pious is safe. And monuments to your family are safe because they only jaywalked.

How about all thos Greek and Roman statues…tear them down? Buddha statues?
 
One of those murderous dictators worth respecting?
Click to expand...
I don’t thinks any of those people listed could be considered dictators. I know Lenin is often casted as such by bourgeois critics, but the others just absolutely aren’t by any standard.
He’s worthy of about as much respect as Hitler.
Click to expand...
If you think that then what is it that Hitler did that you even think is evil? Even by the “body count” standard that normally passes for historical analysis in these debates Lenin is well behind Hitler.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I don’t thinks any of those people listed could be considered dictators. I know Lenin is often casted as such by bourgeois critics, but the others just absolutely aren’t by any standard
Click to expand...
I wasn’t comparing him to the others. I compared him to Hitler, a rather fair comparison. He murdered priests. He murder civilians. He was a vicious dictator.
Regular_Atheist said:
If you think that then what is it that Hitler did that you even think is evil? Even by the “body count” standard that normally passes for historical analysis in these debates Lenin is well behind Hitler.
Click to expand...
He murdered millions of civilians. If you’re using the body count analysis, Hitler was behind Stalin and Mao, two other Anti-bourgeois “heroes”.
I’m not using the body count method of comparison. All on his own, Lenin was a murderous dictator. But then again, he was a communist, so that’s to be expected.
 
Last edited:
Thbolt said:
And that is called statutory rape.
Click to expand...
Back then, girls were married as young as 13 years old. Read Laura Ingalls Wilder’s On The Shores of Silver Lake. Girls were expected to be grown-up and do grown-up things a lot younger than nowadays.

Heck, nowadays, a lot of parents won’t even let their teenaged girls near a hot stove because they’re afraid their precious might get a burn.

Not say’in’ that Pres. Jefferson was doing a good thing. Just saying that back then, it would not have been considered a “rape.”

Think about it–today, in 2020, when a teenaged boy has sex with his teenaged girlfriend (which over 90% of teenagers do!), it’s not considered rape, even though to us Christians, it’s considered sinful. Hopefully someday, all people will recognize that we Christians are correct when it comes to extra-marital sex–dream on, right?

Again, just sayin’–what’s right and wrong changes with every generation. Some of the things that are now glorified would have been considered crimes in the past. Are we right and they were wrong? Maybe. And maybe not. But it’s not a good plan to use our modern-day understanding of right and wrong to judge people who lived in the past.
 
Thbolt said:
Jaywalking
Click to expand...
Here’s a little something for you written by Rex Murphy from the National Post regarding the mentality of those wanting to tear down statues:
Over in London, and this is a real test case, they want to tear down the statue of Winston Churchill. The correct and moderate response to that civic blasphemy is a vigorous, “Who in the hell do you think you are?”

If the woke mind — the present eruptions seem very much to be more a generalized woke mobilization than the ostensible protest over police — feels itself qualified to pass judgment of condemnation on Churchill, it has passed into regions of moral arrogance and transcendental righteousness truly frightening to contemplate. Who are these people who think they are the arbiters and declarers of who shall pass in their new kingdom, and who shall not? Who are they to excommunicate from proper honour one of the greatest heroes of all Western civilization?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
YADA, there is still controversy surrounding pope Pius XII, so I’m not sure how settled the matter is. The point is if such a statue was put up in his honour it would no doubt be defaced by those who believed he was a Nazi.

Even Blessed Mother Teresa is controversial, thanks to the likes of journalists like the departed Christopher Hitchens, so I can’t imagine a statue of her being erected without it being defaced either.
 
Last edited:
This should erase a LOT of transgressions…

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
 
Why is Karl Max’s statue a problem? All he did was offer an academic critique of capitalism. Nothing wrong with that. He’s not responsible for what the Bolsheviks or Mao did with his thoughts much later. There are many ideas on how to apply his thought in practice, but many people tend to equate Max with communism ala the Russians. They are not the same thing. Like many thinkers, for example Freud and Darwin, and others, there are many things in his ideas I disagree with. There are other ideas I think are not only good but true. No idea why the fact I think an old thinker was wrong somewhere should make his statue a problem, though. Ideas can be abused. The Nazis, for example, thoroughly abused Darwinian ideas. Don’t make a statue of Darwin problematic. The people whose statues are being targetted for removal (not by mob action but a civil process) did more than think ideas later found to be unworkable in some respects.

If I were to offer thoughts on the statues, I’d treat former presidents differently, all their flaws notwithstanding, than people who fought a war to maintain an evil institution; i.e., the “right” to legally treat black people as beasts of burden. (Oh yeah, I know, it was for “states’ rights” 🙃) They deserve no better honor than the Nazis. I think what’s happening now is typically what happens when a reasonable suggestion like “Get rid of public confederate statues” gets fought for (IMO) no good reason. Eventually, when the opportunity arises, you have that thing happening anyway, plus other things less desirable, because the thing gets out of control and becomes an over-correction. Kinda like metoo.
 
Last edited:

This article argues that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s theory of history contained racist components. In Marx and Engels’s understanding, racial disparities emerged under the influence of shared natural and social conditions hardening into heredity and of the mixing of blood. They racialized skin-colour groups, ethnicities, nations and social classes, while endowing them with innate superior and inferior character traits. They regarded race as part of humanity’s natural conditions, upon which the production system rested. ‘Races’ endowed with superior qualities would boost economic development and productivity, while the less endowed ones would hold humanity back. Marxist race thinking reflected common Lamarckian and Romantic-Nationalist assumptions of the era.

This article explores the racist components in the thought of Karl Marx and of Friedrich Engels. Their numerous horrendous comments on Slavs, ‘Negr**s’, Bedouins, Jews, Chinese and many others are well known, but the logic behind these comments has not been sufficiently examined.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Would you remove statues of Margaret Sanger? She was a major proponent of the eugenics movement and highly admired by Nazis!!

Do you think we would be allowed to by her admirers on the left (media, feminists, academia . . .)?
 
Last edited:
The question is not, “Who will allow us?” The question is, “Who will try to stop us?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top