When a mob came to tear down the statue of St. Louis in St Louis, Missouri, a priest and Catholics praying there stood in their way

[sealabeag]

Serious question in response to the attacks on Catholic statues and the mob violence: Do you think it would be moral or necessary or both for Catholics to form groups prepared to defend Catholic property? Just a thought.

 

[goout]

“Before the demonstration, St. Louis Treasurer Tishaura Jones was blasted on social media for calling those opposed to toppling the statue “an alt-right/KKK rally.””

No, she does not know that.
The current generation (generally speaking) is ignorant of where it came from, so it will repeat the same tired mistakes of the past.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

They certainly have IMO.

“White Supremacist” has traditionally meant that you as an individual belief the caucasian race is superior to all other races, whether in eugenics and DNA or a united “White” culture. Think Nazi Germany, and the Democrat, Jim Crow KKK folks in the early to mid part of last century. In our woke media and mainstream culture, the term has been watered down to weaponize the term. This way, they can use it against their political opponents even if the target doesn’t believe anything of the kind. It can be “systematic racism/white supremacy”, or even “crytpo racism/white supremacy” and not even known. While differences between cultures are a universal reality (different values create different results), there’s no way to prove “White supremacy” is any reason or intent for it whatsoever, and it’s foolish to have to even say these rather obvious conclusions out loud, but I guess that’s a sign of the times (This isn’t directed at you).

But by golly, just listen to them. It’s there. It has to be there. And if you aren’t on the front lines being angry and shouting at the racism of America, Police, and white people… then you apparently are “part of the problem” and racist yourself. It’s quite the convenient argument. You have to participate or you’re guilty, even though the initial claim can’t be proven.

Meanwhile, just a tidbit… The “If you don’t understand you’re part of the problem” line that is constantly recited by the left today? It isn’t an argument. It’s actually nothing more than a passive aggressive insult and disrespect to those who demand a scale of heavily correlating or causal proof for a MAJOR claim. They cannot be bothered to provide the necessary information and rhetoric to justify their drive-by claim, and gigantic, mammoth claims such as “The entire system is racist and is designed to hold blacks down” is a whopper. Instead, they will just call you names. There’s nothing virtuous about it at all… it can be used in any argument, and should be laughed at in any argument. If a leftist was debating late third trimester abortion with me, and I called it murder, and they attempted to argue the merits of how it’s still expendable… and I simply said “If you don’t understand, you’re part of the problem”… I failed my duty in rhetoric. I can point specifically to how it is murder. I just need to treat people with respect and engage rather than be nasty and drive-by slander them.

 

[Odilon]

What a brave priest and his flock. We all need to stand up to the hateful mob like they did.

 

[Tommy999]

The priest was brave indeed. The only problem I saw was that he was appealing to reason, logic, decency, and history — things apparently held in low regard by the mob.

 

[phil19034]

Serious question in response to the attacks on Catholic statues and the mob violence: Do you think it would be moral or necessary or both for Catholics to form groups prepared to defend Catholic property? Just a thought.

At least form groups ready to respond to the the Truth regarding who these Catholic Saints are.

 

[phil19034]

National Catholic Register’s account of this

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-ne...schumacher-among-defenders-of-st-louis-statue

 

[Welshrabbit]

The video embedded in the story was hard to watch…

 

[goout]

Serious question in response to the attacks on Catholic statues and the mob violence: Do you think it would be moral or necessary or both for Catholics to form groups prepared to defend Catholic property? Just a thought.

Morally justified only to a point. It’s just property. Yes our Churches and statues are sacred, but they are not worth killing people over.

 

[sealabeag]

But one has a right to defend one’s property with force. And it isn’t “just property”, it is our faith and everything it represents. And if we take the “it’s not worth it” attitude, doesn’t that give them freedom to go further and further?

 

[phil19034]

The video embedded in the story was hard to watch…

Yeap, sure was

 

[goout]

But one has a right to defend one’s property with force. And it isn’t “just property”, it is our faith and everything it represents. And if we take the “it’s not worth it” attitude, doesn’t that give them freedom to go further and further?

There is a civil right to protect one’s property with the force of physical harm.
You would have a hard case to prove a Christian imperative to protect property with physical force.

 

[phil19034]

But one has a right to defend one’s property with force. And it isn’t “just property”, it is our faith and everything it represents. And if we take the “it’s not worth it” attitude, doesn’t that give them freedom to go further and further?

I think we should focus more on learning our history & how to defend it better.

Because all this stuff happens because far too many Catholics don’t know our history.

Yes, there were terrible sinners, but St Louis, St Junipero Serra, & Christoper Columbus were not among them.

So our focus should be more on evangelization, catechesis, and apologetics (esp in regards to Church history, the Saints, and the “hard teachings” of Christ).

God Bless

 

[sealabeag]

Granted. I’d be interested in thoughts on this though!

 

[goout]

My thoughts are that human life, even that of someone trying to desecrate Church property, is more valuable than the property.

It’s not very popular, but Christ clearly demonstrates non violent resistance to evil. The cleansing of the temple is always the rebuttal, but that episode does not rise to the level of taking someone’s life to protect Church property.

these same Gospel values inform voting decisions, where the right to live is primary to other legitimate human rights that might have various solutions.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Why do the protestors around the country believe that toppling/vandalizing monuments, statues, buildings, and local businesses will gain any respect from their opponents?

They don’t.

They’re not looking for respect. They’re looking for confrontation. They’re looking for an enemy.

 

[Peeps]

They’re not looking for respect. They’re looking for confrontation. They’re looking for an enemy.

What I hear you saying…is that they really aren’t interested in ending racism, because if they ended racism, there would be no enemy.

Is that the general idea?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

“White Supremacist” has traditionally meant that you as an individual belief the caucasian race is superior to all other races, whether in eugenics and DNA or a united “White” culture. Think Nazi Germany, and the Democrat, Jim Crow KKK folks in the early to mid part of last century.

This is already where it starts.

1. no love was ever lost between Hitler and the KKK. In fact Hitler spoke against them on a number of occasions. KKK people who fly nazi flags at their rallies are just so dumb.
2. the nazis were more anti-semitic than broadly racist. Most of the Jews they murdered where as white as any German. They even murdered Germans who had recently converted to Judaism. So they were clearly not murdering them on account of their race or DNA but because of a single minded hatred of anything Jewish. They similarly went after Roma and homosexuals. On the other hand they permitted Muslims from the Middle East and Central Asia to serve in the SS. I even once read an article about a black woman who was shocked to discover that her father had been a member of the nazi party.

But somehow modern education with its low resolution approach has ignorantly conflated these details and created an overall single category of white supremacy into which they throw all these things.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

What I hear you saying…is that they really aren’t interested in ending racism, because if they ended racism, there would be no enemy.

Is that the general idea?

If you as a group have a monopoly on deciding what racism is, you will always find racism.

A bit like the communists who decided what bourgeousie was. They never ran out of bourgeousie to fight against.

 

[Peeps]

If you as a group have a monopoly on deciding what racism is, you will always find racism.

Abit like the communists who decided what bourgeousie was. So they never ran out of bourgeousie to fight against.

I see.

My husband says that this is why the Democrats look like they’re providing so much help to the poor and disadvantaged–but the help they give doens’t seem to help the poor and disadvantaged to rise up, and that’s just the way the Democrats want it. After all, if the poor became self-sufficient and overcame their disadvantages, the Democrats wouldn’t have anything to campaign about.

If this is true, it’s terrible.