View Single Post
Old 10-29-2017, 01:22 PM   #9
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
After reading up on this it's not as crazy as initially positioned. There are two plaques, one for Washington and the other for Gen. Lee positioned on either side of the alter. It was becoming an issue and parish members didn't feel it created an inclusive environment. Rather than just remove the Lee plaque they decided to relocate both.
"Becoming an issue" is one of the incremental wedges Progressives use to change history, or change the way we are governed. And "feeling" is another wedge. Inclusive and environment are also key wedge words used in the fundamental transformation of our society and our government.

If there was really no "issue" with the Washington plaque, why should it be removed just because of the Lee plaque? Actually, Washington had more slaves than Lee. And most of Lee's Slaves were inherited from the original Washington estate. Lee did not actually buy any slaves. An he freed them before the Civil War was over, even when he was still defeating Northern armies.

If the "issue" was owning slaves, Washington was at least as guilty as Lee, probably more so. But the issue is "feeling," and "environment," and "inclusiveness." These are buzzwords feeding the entire Progressive movement. And it demands that the American past was destructive to those words, and its presence and history be erased from our present consciousness. Of course, it should be "moved" to some museum (where it will presumably not be visited by most now, and totally forgotten except for some curators of musty knowledge in the future--or "lost" in some mysterious fire).

Progressive ideology is one of abstractions. It purports to address the ills and inconveniences of abstract collectives such as "the poor" or racial minorities or the rich or the middle class or discriminated religions or genders etc., rather than the unmanageable problems, desires, abilities of actual individuals.

Freedom, as JohnR has been saying, individual freedom is the key. Government management of individual lives under the ruse of making it better for various groups is the path to Hayek's road to serfdom. There is no way some central power can satisfy the lives and aspirations of 350 million individuals, unless it tailors those lives and aspirations to suit its one size fits all formulas.

In a free people, individual "feelings" differ, as do the individual desires to be part of different associations and "environments."

But I understand how you would think the Church's decision is " not as crazy as initially positioned."

Last edited by detbuch; 10-29-2017 at 07:48 PM..
detbuch is offline