George Washington's own church is removing a plaque in his honor because he owned sla

[JohnR]

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Washington's own church is removing a plaque in his honor because he owned slaves

President George Washington attended the Christ Church in Alexandria for more than 20 years and bought one of its pews in 1773 when it opened
A stone plaque that reads 'In memory of George Washington' is displayed on the left side of the altar, but will be taken down
A plaque honoring confederate leader Robert E. Lee will also be removed
The plaques will come down next summer but its unclear where they will head





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oring-him.html

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

George Washington's own church is removing a plaque in his honor because he owned slaves

President George Washington attended the Christ Church in Alexandria for more than 20 years and bought one of its pews in 1773 when it opened
A stone plaque that reads 'In memory of George Washington' is displayed on the left side of the altar, but will be taken down
A plaque honoring confederate leader Robert E. Lee will also be removed
The plaques will come down next summer but its unclear where they will head





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oring-him.html

The Constitution was written by several slave owners. Take it down.

[detbuch]

Oh . . . wait, Washington helped to found the church . . . tear the church down.

[detbuch]

Your quote of Orwell's passage from his novel 1984 indicates how far to the left Progressives have gone--to the point where they are more and more resembling the "Party" in that book.

[Liv2Fish]

I thought history was to be preserved for lessons learned. Why would those wronged in the past want it erased? Makes no sense to me. This past political cycle, starting back in the beginning of the primary, through present, has had a fairly profound impact on me. I have friends, family and close coworkers on both sides if the isle and some who are affected by executive order. I've always leaned right economically and left socially, but what is going on in this contry lately has really caused me to think deeply about what is really best for us all, not just "us", the moderate fiscal conservatives that I align with. I can understand how it's offensive to many people to have to go about their daily lives around memorials to leaders who perpetuated what has long been deemed dispicable, but it makes no sense to me to want it erase it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Start accusing the Progressives who wish to erase the past of doing so with an agenda that they really want it easier to repeat history since their goal will be destructive in the end if they get their way. I can't believe the amount of sheeple in this country.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Liv2Fish

I thought history was to be preserved for lessons learned. Why would those wronged in the past want it erased? Makes no sense to me. This past political cycle, starting back in the beginning of the primary, through present, has had a fairly profound impact on me. I have friends, family and close coworkers on both sides if the isle and some who are affected by executive order. I've always leaned right economically and left socially, but what is going on in this contry lately has really caused me to think deeply about what is really best for us all, not just "us", the moderate fiscal conservatives that I align with. I can understand how it's offensive to many people to have to go about their daily lives around memorials to leaders who perpetuated what has long been deemed dispicable, but it makes no sense to me to want it erase it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ya know, if we want to hole down the rabbit hole far enough we can find pretty much everyone is a descendant of a slave or a slave owner. We can parse the histories of leaders and find good and bad.

What I think is the finest device to prevent future slavery is freedom. Freedom is specified and guaranteed in the BoR/Constitution. When and where the Constitution had fault, it was added to over time (suffrage, rights to all, free slaves, etc.).

Before the Progressives kept coming, we knew they would one day be here for this. Some of the more severe Progressives will support the most aggressive forms of Slavery: Communism. Freedom and Communism are incompatible. I fear within 10 years there is a good chance we all will need to pick a side.

[Liv2Fish]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I fear within 10 years there is a good chance we all will need to pick a side.

I think you're right. I just don't think the right side exists yet. Progressives and conservatives seem to be further apart than any time in my lifetime. There are many things about both that I just can't align with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Removing a plaque does not change history

all it does is rally the base who prior reading the article which shocking all right wing sites are running ... never knew the plagues the church or who went there even existed... LOL

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Removing a plaque does not change history

History is like the tree that falls in the forest but nobody is there to see it. It takes someone to see it and report it for the history to exist. If the report is edited or "interpreted," the tree's history is changed. If the historical report is removed to some vault that few will visit, the history of the fallen tree disappears until some curious scholar/reporter rediscovers its existence.

all it does is rally the base who prior reading the article which shocking all right wing sites are running ... never knew the plagues the church or who went there even existed... LOL

Yup. All knowledge requires discovery and a record of it. That's how we learn about all things to which we are not personally a witness. Even right wing witnesses discover and report things. Do you have some issue with right wingers reporting what they see?

Are you some kind of psychic that knows, without some report, what has happened outside of your personal perspective? The rest of most of us are not so fortunate. We often appreciate reports of various current histories that we could not otherwise see or know. The reports can, and do, inform us about the current drift or direction that our society is taking. Do you have a problem with that?

[spence]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If there was really no "issue" with the Washington plaque, why should it be removed just because of the Lee plaque?

Because the plaques were installed together so the parish decided to treat them in the same manner. Seems like it was a well thought out decision...John's thread title is highly misleading.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Because the plaques were installed together so the parish decided to treat them in the same manner. Seems like it was a well thought out decision...John's thread title is highly misleading.

Sounds like a nice spin. And if it is true that they didn't really want to remove the Washington plaque but did so because they wanted to treat it in the same manner as with the Lee plaque simply because they were installed together doesn't sound well thought out to me. Not keeping a plaque that honors your church with the recognition of it being the first President's go to Church and his investment in it simply because it was installed with another disfavored plaque sounds kind of stupid if not idiotic.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And if it is true that they didn't really want to remove the Washington plaque but did so because they wanted to treat it in the same manner as with the Lee plaque simply because they were installed together doesn't sound well thought out to me.

Did you read what the parish actually said?

[nightfighter]

All these factions are successfully manufacturing outrage over bullcrap. Same as the Houston Texans who took offense to their owner who butchered a well known phrase that previously offended no one. He said " can't let the prisoners run the prison" when the phrase is more commonly patients running the asylum..... But the players weren't outraged enough to forego their paycheck by boycotting the game! No, they just knelt during the anthem.... Country's gone to hell and there is just no respect anywhere anymore.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You think the report is about information your not that naive.. the story was written to inflame and outrage .. thats it

The report is not about information. It is information. That's the way I took it. Why it was written didn't occur to me. You seem to absolutely without a doubt know why. And you think that your omniscient knowledge of the "why" supersedes the "value" of the information. Call me naïve, but I don't care why in this case. Either the information is true, or it isn't. And, BTW, I wasn't inflamed or outraged. Perhaps you're outraged that someone wanted me to be outraged.

There no plaques of Hitler or swastika Germany, Christopher Columbus is not the hero he once was portrayed yet no one has forgotten the history of theses men .. nor will we forget Washington or general Lee the good and the bad ..but Conservatives like you love these stories that reinforce your Tin foil hat views that some how the whiteness is being erased from our history .. and the Government wants your guns

It may be that you're naïve to the subtle ways that history can be erased. Interpreting the narrative in ways that denigrate it or makes it out to be a lie destroys it's validity. Thus the narrative no longer holds sway. It becomes a story of deception, malfeasance, of evil. And so, if it is to be remembered at all, it is only to be portrayed as some violation against humanity, as an injustice, regardless of some supposed good in the story. The history will be relegated to some sort of library where few will venture to visit. And the educational system will focus on the really good, and true current regime of government. As will the media, which may from time to time, for profit or politics, create a movie or TV documentary or series, and so forth, of how truly deceptive the old history was and how glorious it was to discover the truth of the old evil regime and to instill the righteousness of the new.

Hitler and the swastikas were portrayed by the Third Reich as a glorious revival to power of the Aryan race. And that Reich did actually revive German pride, power, and economic status. There was some actual "good," for the Germans provided by that regime. Yes, we still remember Hitler (mostly because we insist on comparing those we don't like to him). But very few remember it now in the way that the Nazi regime portrayed itself. The Third Reich has passed into the so-called ash heap of history, and most of us now know very little about it, except that it was a horrible instance of inhumane atrocity, and the notion of Hitler being a convenient comparison to those we want to disparage.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you read what the parish actually said?

Yes. The congregation worried that their "worship space" was threatening to some. They wanted all, with no exception, to feel welcome to their worship space. They also wanted, somehow to preserve their "larger history" and look to their future.

Like so much of what the rest of their letter says, this sounds more like the current wave of "social justice" nonsense such as "safe spaces" on college campuses.

They were concerned about where God was calling their church.

Apparently God was telling them to remove the plaques. Even God doesn't like those plaques.

They recognized that the church was present at the center of two of the most important events in our nation’s history.

Shifting away from God's call, they recognize their church as being in the center of our nation's history.

They understood that Washington was "unique in our nation’s history: the leader of the Revolution, the visionary who not only refused to be king but also gave up power after eight years, and a symbol of our democracy. He regularly worshiped in our pews and helped shape our city’s character."

But a plaque recognizing him as a parishioner is threatening to some. Maybe the pew he sat in should also be moved. That could really be scary. Might still be some biological traces in the wood--he sat there for 20 years of Sundays, or more.

They understood that both Washington and Lee were children of God and lived in a different time than ours.

Apparently, God no longer wants their presence in His worship space.

They said that "Today our country is trying once again to come to grips with the history of slavery and the subsequent disenfranchisement of people of color."

More shifting away from God and concern with our country's grips. Slavery and blocking votes of "people of color." More politically correct diction. Let's see--negro, black, African-American, now people of color. How about the God's calling thingy--children of God.

They quoted Hebrews 13:2 which says, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Apparently, the strangers have no responsibility to respect your house. Did the Hebrews re-arrange their temples every time strangers entered?

They said "The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques."

Now, why would they receive an unintended message? Wasn't the presence of Washington once a positive message? What has changed to make a reference to Washington a cause for fear? In the paragraphs above, Washington is given great honor.

They said their sanctuary is a worship place not a museum.

So what is truly being worshipped in their sanctuary? Is it God, or is it political correctness? Washington worshipped in their sanctuary for twenty years. If he is as great as depicted above in the letter, how does it detract from worship if it is noted that perhaps the greatest founder of this country and of their church worshipped there and is symbolically present there?

They said "The Vestry believes that the memorial plaques to George Washington and Robert E. Lee should be considered together. The plaques were erected at the same time. They visually balance each other, maintaining the symmetry of our sanctuary. The men they memorialize are giants in our nation’s history and were members of this parish. Robert E. Lee has taken on outsized symbolism in the national conversation about race and inclusion."

So Washington's plaque distracts from worship but "the national conversation" doesn't? How does the national conversation fit into the worship. Again, what is being worshipped in their church?

And the symmetry of their sanctuary is part of their worship? I guess it's not a museum, but sort of a house of fung shway.

They said "that the plaques create a distraction in our worship space and may create an obstacle to our identity as a welcoming church, and an impediment to our growth and to full community with our neighbors."

Sorry, but this quote sounds exactly like the politically correct, social justice community gibberish that is hectoring us on campuses, the media, politics, and even in the market place and football fields, rather than a house of Christian worship. It sounds as if at heart the church is more inclined to be a community center than what used to be a Christian church which revered God, Christ, the Apostles, the founders of the church and all its saints and even gave a nod to the other great men who were part of its history.

And that the plaques would " be relocated no later than the summer of 2018."

Ah . . . the relocation of Washington's presence will make the sanctuary safe for strangers. Do we see a pattern here? Do we see a widening of the influence of SJW mentality that has been spurring protests around the country? Do we see a further expansion of the Progressive rejection of the American past, seeing it as an unjust oppression that must be devalued in order to make way for Progressive governance?

They made three bullet points explaining why and how their moving the plaques to a sort of the church's history museum will allow the church to "take ownership of our history." And how that will explain their relationship to the plaques and other things in their history.

Then they ended with a call and prayer to bring all the parishioners together.

That all sounds nice. But it also sounds like their church is accommodating current Progressive social thought rather than God's "calling" to which they referred. The idea that a plaque honoring Washington would be more frightening or unwelcoming to average strangers than the actual demands Christianity puts on those who believe and worship is ludicrous.

"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Luke 13:24. "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." Apparently, Alexandria's Christ Church has a different view than the Bible it professes to preach. It wants to make their sanctuary a welcoming place, without exception, and doesn't want any strangers to feel "unsafe" or "unwelcome." Washington's plaque will scare people away, but the gospel message won't? A gospel, BTW, which doesn't change its appearance to accommodate strangers. Rather, the strangers must accommodate themselves to the gospel.

Reading their letter gives me the impression that the church is caving in to the Progressive message above the Christian one. It sounds like a go along to get along move rather than a standing on principle. And their idea of moving the plaques to another place where they can explain their relation to it and explain their history can appear to be a sort of split personality disorder (I know you will fear the plaque in the church to which you are welcome, but you won't fear it in our museum to which you are also welcome) as well as a misunderstanding of how those who are prone to the Progressive view would react to visiting the proposed museum. To those who feel unwelcome or unsafe in a church that honors Washington and Lee (as stupid as that is), visiting the museum where they will be honored will still reflect on the Church's connection to those men. And for those who believe that our unjust past was created by Washington's and Lee's, there is no explanation that can justify honoring those men whether in a church or a museum.

And yes, I believe, wittingly or unwittingly, the church's action is just a part of the ongoing effort to dismiss and devaluate the past. At best, to put it in a museum.

[wdmso]

examples of historical censorship that get twisted into personal comparison .. what a leap

[wdmso]

White House chief of staff, Kelly Has Some Revisionist Civil War History

Goes on fox news and changes History .. Lies


"lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war," not slavery??

I will tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country. (sprinkle in states rights )

And you guys are upset over a private church removing Jim Crow era plaque to Robert e lee and re locating it .. saying its removing History

But the POTUS Chief of Staff spewing debunked version of the civil war is ok?

Does this concern anyone ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

White House chief of staff, Kelly Has Some Revisionist Civil War History

Goes on fox news and changes History .. Lies


"lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war," not slavery??

I will tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country. (sprinkle in states rights )

And you guys are upset over a private church removing Jim Crow era plaque to Robert e lee and re locating it .. saying its removing History

But the POTUS Chief of Staff spewing debunked version of the civil war is ok?

Does this concern anyone ?

Who's upset? Sounds like you are upset. Sounds like you're . . . how did yout put it? . . . sounds like you're trying to inflame and outrage ...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Who's upset? Sounds like you are upset. Sounds like you're . . . how did yout put it? . . . sounds like you're trying to inflame and outrage ...

no not up set more embarrassed .. and just pointing it out or Information as you put it


you were so passionate about history you wrote " It may be that you're naïve to the subtle ways that history can be erased. Interpreting the narrative in ways that denigrate it or makes it out to be a lie destroys it's validity."

And as expected you have issues the with removal of Statues and plaques but no issues with revisionist view of that same history . why is that?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

no not up set more embarrassed .. and just pointing it out or Information as you put it

So the information that John posted as subject of this thread was, according to you "written to inflame and outrage .. thats it." Not to inform, but only to inflame and cause outrage? And according to you, shockingly, all "right wing" sites printing it to rally the base? But you're post, your information was not meant to outrage and inflame? And, oh, "shocking" (you're term), that Progressive sites are pooh-pooing the article in order to rally their base? I guess for you, information from the Progressive left is unbiased, non-agenda driven, calm information. No passion, no deceit, no motivation to rally some base, just informative facts . . . "that's it." You're pretense, or self deception, that you're even handed is quite often very obvious.


you were so passionate about history you wrote " It may be that you're naïve (my use of "naïve was a retort to you saying I was not naïve to believe that the report was "about" information) to the subtle ways that history can be erased. Interpreting the narrative in ways that denigrate it or makes it out to be a lie destroys it's validity."

And as expected you have issues the with removal of Statues and plaques but no issues with revisionist view of that same history . why is that?

You quoted Kelly as saying"lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war," and retorted to the quote by asking "not slavery??"

Did he actually say the Civil War was not about slavery?

It was about slavery AND the inability to compromise on that subject, among others. Lincoln was willing to compromise to the extent that slavery would remain in the states that had it, but would be banned from any new states that joined the Union. The slave owning states could not accept that. Could not compromise on that basis. Lincoln could not compromise unless that basis was imposed.

You quoted Kelly as saying "I will tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country." and threw in your jab "(sprinkle in states rights)."

By most accounts, Lee was an honorable man. He had principles and was willing to fight, and die, to defend those principles. Merriam-Webster's definition of "honor" aptly applies to him.You may not agree with all of his principles, but that does not make you any more honorable than him.

I disagree with Kelly on one point, Lee did not give up his country to fight for his state. Lee gave up the Union to fight for his country.

Virginia was his country. The belief was still strong at that time, especially in the South, that the states were sovereign. That was the definition of a political entity called a "State." The Union was a confederation of the several sovereign States. That's why it was called the United States, not the State of America. So in actuality, Lee gave up the Union to fight for his country--that states rights thing you mentioned.

What would you do as the ranking officer of a unit under UN command if the U.S. wanted to pull out of the U.N., and the other nations would not let it do so under threat of war? What if you strongly believed in the Union of Nations, but the President of the US, was willing to fight to get out of the UN? Would you stay with the UN forces or "rebel" and join US forces to fight the UN? Where does the honor lay between those choices.

Lee had to make that choice. Lincoln asked him to head the Union Army. He could not do that in order to fight against his State, his country, and resigned his commission. And Lee was a strong believer in the Union. And he believed slavery was immoral, and that it would eventually come to an end, peacefully (but that's another long story). He had to make what was for him a moral, honorable choice.

Then you said "And you guys are upset over a private church removing Jim Crow era plaque to Robert e lee and re locating it .. saying its removing History"

The "upset" (which you claim to not be, even though you seem to be protesting about our opinions too much) was about the removal of the Washington plaque, not the Lee. And it wasn't truly being upset (you like to throw in emotional barbs which you claim yourself to be free of), we were commenting on this appearing to be another cave-in to the process of changing history. You, of course, see none of that. For you, the ongoing process of history (it is constantly happening and being portrayed, you know) will not change past history, won't rewrite it, won't relegate old versions into its dust-bins--even though that is what constantly happens.

Finally, you ask "But the POTUS Chief of Staff spewing debunked version of the civil war is ok?Does this concern anyone ?"

How versions are debunked depends on who's doing it. What Washington and Lee did in their time was not debunked then. Much of it, over time, was (here we go) rewritten and analyzed through the lens of later times and later moral positions and understanding or belief in the nature and rights of states. Even the Constitution has been greatly rewritten--not in text, but in the willful changing in the meaning of the text (that "interpretation" stuff you like so much).

Versions are not spewed, as you characterize them, unless, of course, your aim is to disparage them, erase them, put them in museums with notations that make them laughable, and hopefully put to bed and be forgotten.

I don't have a quarrel with a, as you say, a private church or private entity of any kind redecorating its house. But if I see something as a sign of the times, an influence that has force to change perspectives and beliefs in a direction that I think is wrong, I will occasionally comment on that. You seem to have a problem with that, and have a need to protest against it. Not that you're upset or anything.

And I don't see evidence that Kelly lied, as you said he did. Nor that Lee was not honorable, which you implied as being part of Kelly's lying when he said that Lee was an honorable man.

Are you concerned about that?

[wdmso]

keep circling those wagons .... Kelly said what he said like Trump often does... And thanks for telling us what he meant ...to say

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

keep circling those wagons ....

Does that mean you're the Indians . . .

Kelly said what he said like Trump often does... And thanks for telling us what he meant ...to say

WTF are you trying to say with this edition of your stream of consciousness? I didn't tell you, or us, what he meant. I told you what I meant. And that demonstrated that he didn't lie, as you claimed, when he said what the Civil War was about, and that Kelly was right in saying that Lee was an honorable man in spite of your implication that he wasn't. I didn't accuse you of being a liar, although, by your standard for lying, you did.

And this crap that you keep harping on about Trump not being able to speak coherently . . . jeez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black . . . So many of your posts are so unintelligible that I wonder where you get the chutzpa to criticize Trump and constantly make a big deal about it. I read your mangled, incoherent posts time and again without commenting on their illegibility, and I accept that it's the way you write, and I go ahead and interpret them the best I can. I don't disparage you the way you do Trump, but I don't think you've got a leg to stand on criticizing him for the way he speaks.

[Sea Dangles]

That's not fair,
Perhaps English is his second language.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device