I grew up in the south and attended both Catholic and public schools in the 1960's. In public school, the Confederacy and its leaders were portrayed sympathetically and often viewed as heroes because they were conflicted, did not want to necessarily break with the Union but believed in states rights over federal control.
When they seceded from the Union they did so knowing it would mean war similar to our founding fathers who knew seceding from England would mean the same. They did so. The Confederate States lost; the Americans won the Revolutionary war.
Were all who had slaves racists? Maybe, but they were conditioned by the times and what was permitted.
Jesus Christ never condemned slavery and often used the image of slavery in parables and never in a condemning way. The Church tolerated slavery for centuries although the golden rule would have applied to slaves as to anyone else in our moral teachings.
As it concerns southern history, I am uncomfortable with wiping out the great figures of the Confederacy, people like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and a few others and I don't believe monuments to the Confederate dead should be removed or the statues of southern war heroes.
However, the leftist progressives will stop at nothing to shame those who have sympathy for what these historical characters stood for given the context of their times and were willing to die for their southern heritage. but leftist progressives want to erase these confederate icons from the annals of history and without nuance.
They would like to do so for any American president who owned slaves too, quite a few in fact, with Thomas Jefferson fathering children with one or two of his slaves
But if they will do it to Confederate war heroes, they will also do it to famous presidents of the union and they will ultimately do it to Jesus Christ.
This is how liberal, progressive leftists work.
50 comments:
Holy crap, this is an awful post. Slavery was always evil and everyone knew it. True, Jesus Christ never condemned selling human beings, torturing them, forcibly separating them from their spouses and children, etc., not to mention capturing them and then packing them into those damned slave ships in the first place. No one who has experienced the mercy of God would enslave human beings, nor stand by idly while human beings are enslaved (or, segregated, or discriminated against, or shot unarmed by the police). The American South is redeemable, but the CSA is not. I suggest you resign your pastorate and take a sabbatical to learn about racial injustice.
Your so-called "Southern war heroes" waged war against the United States of America with the intention of dissolving the Union, perpetuating slavery, and maintaining a way of life built on keeping men and women enslaved.
Statues of "Southern war heroes" were, in many cases, erected as a sign of opposition to insuring the rights of African-American citizens. As Mayor Mitch Landrieu said, "These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for."
No one wants to "wipe out" the great figures of the Confederacy. As Landrieu also said, "There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it."
No one would defend the erection of statues of Hitler or Goebbels in the town squares and parks by saying we should not want to erase these Nazi icons from the annals of history and without nuance.
I am not bothered by the memorial to the Confederate dead that stands in the middle of Forsyth Park in Savannah and I suspect you are not either. But, then, neither of us have ancestors who were enslaved and neither of us suffered under Jim Crow. You and I never had to walk through egg-throwing, name-calling people who did not want us in "their" schools and stores. You and I never had to face some absurd literacy test to vote or pay an impossible poll tax in order to do so.
Again, Landrieu's words, "The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered."
As for the so-called "alt-right" folks who marched in Charlottesville, "The youngsters in the alt-right cult imagine they have lost, or imagine they are in danger of losing, well, something. Their's is a ill-defined angst that looks for a boogey man behind every column, under every bed, in many seats in the House and the Senate. Someone is going to take something that they think is theirs. A gun. A vote. A job. A memory, real or fantastical. The truth is, they have no idea how good they have it, and they have no idea how much they owe what they have to others.
Seeking a scapegoat is as old as humankind. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent. Hitler blamed the Jews. Trump supporters blame Hillary. Today's immature alt-righters desperately need to find someone to blame. It may be Jews or gays, it may be Democrats or RINO's, it may be "liberals" or academics. Someone, somewhere HAS to be responsible for their feelings of disillusionment, their imagined losses.
They are overwhelmed by the current epidemic of chronic dissatisfaction. They have chosen to live with a desire for getting their way in everything. Why do we have road rage? Someone got in my way. Why do we have rape? Someone said no. Why do we have bullying? Someone looed, sounded, smelled, laughed in a way they didn't like.
Alt-right agitators have lost the ability to empathize with others, if they ever had it to begin with. Given much, they now want it all. They are stuck in the ever-broadening illusion of discovering what children should learn by age 5 - You Don't Always Get What You Want. And that in being "denied" what we want, we learn to be grateful for what we have and, further, we learn that what we have is a tremendous gift.
The 'blame culture' is not the prerogative of the extreme Right. In Britain it tends to be more associated with the 'progressive' Left, although it is spreading through society like a cancer, especially if there is a whiff of compensation in the air.
Robert E Lee was an outstanding officer who served the United States well, was opposed to secession and joined the Confederacy out of loyalty to his native Virginia; unlike his Union opponents Grant and Sherman he was a gentleman and a man of honour. He deserves his statue (and his stained glass window in Washington's National Cathedral).
There is a tendency to romanticize the Southern cause, but it is the PC Left which wants to rewrite history. Tony Blair 'apologized' for the slave trade, without mentioning the inconvenient truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy acting virtually on its own.
In 2015 a small but noisy student group campaigned for the removal of Cecil Rhodes's statue from Oriel College, Oxford, using the familiar 'racist' card. The college authorities wavered, until it emerged that they were likely to lose millions in legacies and donations. In January last year they ruled that Rhodes should stay.
After the Civil War Lee worked for reconciliation until his death in 1870. We had our own Civil War in the 1640s. An equestrian statue of Charles I stands in Whitehall, close to the site of his execution in 1649, and in nearby Parliament Square there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell.
Father Kavanaugh,
We White Southerners have been getting what we want for so long that we think White privilege is a gift from God and White heritage is a constitutional right. Anyone who challenges us gets shot by our police or run over by one of our cars. We need to fall at the feet of our victims and beg for mercy.
What aspect(s) of rebellion against the Union is the PC left attempting to re-write, John?
Whatever the merits of remembrances of the CSA, comparing any of them to Hitler and Goebbels is obscene, profoundly ignorant and incompetent.
No outcry from progressives in the Church about commemorating Martin Luther, a virulently anti Semite who caused a major break in the Church which led to religious strife and death.
Martin, I did not compare CSA to Hitler and Goebbels. The comparison is between HONORING CSA and HONORING Nazis.
Learn to read and to comprehend.
So are we to judge the Catholic Church now because it did not withdraw from the Confederate states? I read somewhere a while back (I wish I could remember where) that
up until the 1850's, there were more Catholics in the South than in the North.
Just maybe, if not for the presence of the Church(and other religious denominations), things might have been worse.
Many Protestant denominations were split by the Civil War according to northern and southern branches to this very day. This was not so of the Catholic Church.
I have no idea why the Son of God used slave and master imagery in so many of his parables and held up as a model of virtue a slave who was faithful to his master. Perhaps the point beyond the negative stereotypes is more important. Perhaps Jesus in His humanity did not see a need to change the social culture of his day and its economy. Who knows?
But liberal progressives, if they are to be logical, would know Jesus, the Son of God, off his divine pedestal if they get the chance, because in effect our Lord condoned slavery by using parables about it to make a point about Christians being slave to God and faith to the Master's commandments or suffer the consequences if we aren't!
But my point is, that none of us lived during the time of Jesus, or the time of slavery in this country and very few of us (and I remember it clearly) remember the segregated south. I road city buses where the blacks had to sit at the back, my mother and her friend were castigated by a bus driver who stopped his bus in Atlanta in 1958 and came up to them and I was there, and told them not to talk to the "N" who was behind them, who happened to be the maid of my mother's friend and we positioned ourselves to be at the back of the white section on the bus and the maid at the front of the "Negro" section so they could talk!
It saw that as a 4 year old as wrong then as I do now--but it was the times. Good people doing hateful things.
That bus driver may have undergone a conversion with the subsequent civil rights movement. If he did, should he be condemned today for something of his youth in a culture that promoted these kinds of things even though he changed later?
'The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery'.
It's this sort of tendentious opinion which makes historians want to tear their hair out. One might say Napoleon Bonaparte was 'on the wrong side of history' since he was eventually defeated. History doesn't take sides.
Nor did the Confederacy's war aims involve invading the North and enslaving its citizens, as is strongly implied in the second sentence.
I'm not going to downplay the importance of slavery as an issue in the Civil War; it goes a long way to explain why the Confederacy was unable to find European allies who might have secured its independence, just as France, Spain and Holland secured the independence of the original United States eighty years previously.
However, to suggest that it was the only issue is a gross distortion. 'PC history' consists of leaving out inconvenient facts and making sweeping generalizations. Nor is it the preserve of the supposed victims; a lot of it is down to breast-beating and guilt-tripping by self-indulgent liberals like Double Diamond above.
The most extreme example of this that I have ever encountered was an article in the Guardian newspaper from a woman who was raped by a black intruder; she partly justified his act by saying that if left with a choice she would not have had sex with him, and that this was a form of violence against him which could have had (unconscious) racial overtones. She avoided getting pregnant but did catch venereal disease.
Anyway, I'm off on holiday so Fr K will be able to rant with impunity for the next week or so.
I never suggested that slavery was the only issue here. To suggest that I suggested it is a gross distortion.
History doesn't take sides. We do.
If you believe that slavery, dissolution of the union, and maintenance of a way of life based on slavery are desirable, then the CSA was on the right side.
I reject these; therefore I say the CSA was on the wrong side of history
Enjoy your vacation.
Two of the most racist and segregated cities in the United States are in the north -Chicago and Boston.FYI, African-Americans are leaving Chicago in droves and heading to, drum roll please, the South.
John Nolan, have a wonderful holiday.
TJM, I think this to be true. I was briefly in Cape Cod and tried to get on a beach only to find out it was a private beach! Interesting, no? In South Carolina and most coastal areas of the south, the beach is public domain!
Biblical slavery,and the slavery in Africa were not the same as slavery in the southern USA. For African slavery, it was a temporary form where the slave had the opportunity to escape and return home. The captor had no intention of keeping the slave. In biblical or Roman slavery there were paths to becoming a freeperson. I also recall that slaves in the Roman empire could accumulate substantial wealth, own property, and were protected by rights. Their battle often was one of status, and that might have been why Jesus referred to them. That is not the same as the slavery of the southern USA which was brutal and inescapable and deadly. While the modern slave trade did last almost 400 years(1501-1865), it started to meet a resistance within 150 years of its beginning: In 1652 Rhode Island passes laws restricting slavery and forbidding enslavement for more than 10 years. I strongly suspect the resistance to slavery was the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rhode Island is a predominately Catholic state.
Actually in the south there was a path out of slavery to the status of a Freeman. In fact, in Augusta, one of the oldest Black Baptist Churches in the USA was founded by freed slaved during slavery.
Also, after the south lost the Civil War, many slaves willingly were retained by their former masters to continuing working and having lodging. I have no idea of the conditions for this, but this is a fact also.
Catholic slave owners, as in my former parish in Augusta, saw to it that their slaves were baptized Catholics as our baptismal registry there indicates. While they were not allowed to sit with their masters, (although I am not certain of this, especially trusted slaves that cared for the in firmed) they were allowed in the choir loft and came to the Communion railing to receive Holy Communion and were afforded the other sacraments of the Church.
To say that anyone, anything, or event is on a 'side' of history is to participate in the bigotry one claims to protest. The white people are offended by by the sophomoric , and racist, attacks on their ancestors. It is a soviet expunging of history and social terrorism to bully them into acquiescence. This drives them into a reactionary defense and erroneous exhalation of those ancestors. This makes things worse and I am not sure but that is what the goal of this event is. I am also not certain that this event was actually produced by the very people that are against it.
I doubt the success of any evangelist who attempts to pursued a group to destroy homages to their recently pagan ancestors. It is a direct sign of disrespect and contempt for the people and exactly the same contempt shown for the class of people held in slavery.
This is a very complex subject and we need to deal with it successfully to survive as a society. However, if one finds himself becoming irrational during the discussion then silent prayer is the best participation. Otherwise you become a tool of the people vested in the continued discord.
To stir this pot further, I do not think that Christ did not condemn slavery because it was a social convention of his time. He didn't shy from controversy on the pain of Death. Rather I think He understood the difference in being a slave and a prisoner. A willing slave to the right Master is elevated beyond imagination. Ecce ancilla Domini, fiat mihi verbum tuum.
Father Kavanaugh:
Martin, I did not compare CSA to Hitler and Goebbels. The comparison is between HONORING CSA and HONORING Nazis.
Learn to read and to comprehend.
What a weaselly, dishonest answer.
Anonymous@10:08 AM
"I also recall that slaves in the Roman empire could accumulate substantial wealth, own property, and were protected by rights. Their battle often was one of status..."
Not so fast.
From "Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome" By Professor Keith Bradley
Slavery could be very cruel in the Roman Empire, and revolts severely punished.
Professional slave-catchers were hired to hunt down runaways.
Some slaves were treated well, true -
but there were few restraints on their owners' powers, and physical punishment and sexual abuse were common.
Owners thought of their slaves as enemies.
Slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals.
Runaway slaves
The Romans hired professional slave-catchers to hunt down runaways, and offering rewards for their capture.
Around the necks of slaves who were recovered they also attached iron collars, giving instructions on what to do with the slaves who wore them if they happened to escape again.
Those who fought against Rome knew that they could be sent to the slave-market if taken as a prisoner-of-war.
They are often said to have killed themselves rather than face the prospect of enslavement - indicating the horrors involved in slavery.
Images of the vanquished committing suicide are still visible on the Column of Trajan in Rome.
Anonymous TJM said...
"Two of the most racist and segregated cities in the United States are in the north -Chicago and Boston.FYI, African-Americans are leaving Chicago in droves and heading to, drum roll please, the South."
Ironically, African Americans leaving the North made possible the election of Donald Trump. This group (whose members vote 90% Democrat) explains in part why Mr Trump carried Michigan and Wisconsin, since their departure from the North is depleting the Democrat voting base up there.
Democrat policies and philosophies contributed in large part to the social and societal pathology in large areas of Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore.
I believe we are missing the reasoning behind the antifa and progressives hatred of the south and it's history, it is a reminder of "states rights" Yes the war was about slavery, however it was also about the states rights to make it's own laws and to secede, before the civil war the common response to where are you from was not "America" it was your state, in my case Ohio. The Constitution as written states that we are a union of independent states not one single America, do you realize that the British signed separate treaties with each state not just one with the USA.
What Lincoln started Wilson put in the coffin and FDR buried.
Also consider the south at the time. The plantation owners net worth was in slaves, to just free them they were broke bankrupt in most cases. Almost all debts were to northern companies. they had nothing to lose, win and keep their slaves or lose and have nothing. Do you realize a plan was proposed to Lincoln by a southern delegation to reimburse the slave owners for the value of their slaves in exchange for their freedom. Don't remember the numbers however it was less than one fourth the final cost of the war and would not have cost how many lives and torn the nation apart.
I am not posting this to stand up for slavery but to point out how mis educated most are today. our schools are run bu progressives for progressive to obtain a progressive outcome.
If you want an entertaining look at the conundrum see
https://youtu.be/IeuaTpH6Ck0
look beyound the music an it is factual, the north was up to it's money bags in it
Martin, my comment was neither weaselly nor dishonest.
Other than the fact that CSA generals and Nazi generals were leaders during war, I don't think they have much more in common. So there's no reason I would compare Lee to Hitler or Jackson to Goebbels.
The comparison was between a desire to HONOR CSA leaders and a desire to HONOR Nazi leaders. There's the comparison.
Does an African-American find d a statue of Lee offensive? Yes, and rightly so. Does a Jew find a statue of Hitler inappropriate, to put it mildly? Yes, and rightly so.
As much as it is wrong to offer sanitized, cultish reverence to the Nazi leaders, we should, I believe, have the same aversion to offering sanitized, cultish reverence to CSA leaders.
rcg - "A willing slave to the right Master is elevated beyond imagination." I would ask, is a willing slave still a slave?
Absolutely, FrK. Are you siding with Old Scratch?
Below is a partial list of colleges and universities founded specifically for the education of ex-slaves.
(These are known today as Historically Black colleges)
Notice the date of their founding in relation to the signing of the Emancipation proclamation in 1863.
Also notice that they are all in the South. This implies that there were slaves who were at least allowed by their masters to learn to read and write, if not more.
Perhaps someone who has researched this can give us more info.
School Founded
Alabama State University 1867
Virginia Union University Richmond Virginia 1865
Bowie State University Bowie Maryland 1865
Clark Atlanta University Atlanta Georgia 1865
Edward Waters College Jacksonville Florida 1866
Fayetteville State University Fayetteville North Carolina 1867
Fisk University Nashville Tennessee 1866
Hampton University Hampton Virginia 1868
Shaw University Raleigh North Carolina 1865
Howard University Washington District of Columbia 1867
Johnson C. Smith University Charlotte North Carolina 1867
Morehouse College Atlanta Georgia 1867
Morgan State University Baltimore Maryland 1867
Rust College Holly Springs Mississippi 1866
Talladega College Talladega County Alabama 1867
Alcorn State University Lorman Mississippi 1871
Below is one that was founded during the Civil War:
LeMoyne-Owen College Memphis Tennessee 1862
As a Catholic I find photos of Abortion King, Obama, offensive. So we should sanatize them while we're at it and stop showing him any deference !
Fr Kavanaugh:
Your response is like someone who says, oh, I didn't compare apples and oranges; I simply compared eating apples and oranges!
It's a ridiculous splitting of hairs. The fact is, you did compare the heroes of the Confederacy to Hitler and Goebbels, and now you're trying to weasel out of it.
Just own up to it.
Martin, there is a world of difference between comparing/contrasting apples and oranges and comparing eating apples and oranges.
If you think there is no difference, try biting into the orange without peeling it and you will learn the difference quickly. Or try separating an apple into it's natural sections...
(Add to this the small but significant fact that two of my great-grandfathers fought for the South in the Late Great Unpleasantness. One, my maternal great-grandfather, was a slave owner in Charleston, SC. Neither they nor the generals who led them were anything like Nazis, and I never suggested such.)
Bee here:
Fr. Kavanaugh said: " We need to fall at the feet of our victims and beg for mercy."
Gee, now THAT is something I'd like to see from Fr. Kavanaugh, especially towards the victims of his tart remarks.
God bless,
Bee
I found this post, by a Catholic priest, painful and embarrassing.
Popes began condemning slavery in 1435. Most Americans opposed slavery long before the Civil War and most American states prohibited slavery by that time.
So slaveholders and their defenders were not shaped by their time. Quite the opposite. They were the equivalent of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights over the church's opposition. Would you defend them by saying they are just "shaped by their time"?
Also offensive is the Gone With the Wind book and movie (you post a scene above) that depicts Scarlett's family as both devout Rosary-reciting Catholics and slaveholders. Again, that's the moral equivalent of backing abortion. Disgusting!
And yes, obviously, criticizing Confederate leaders is exactly like attacking Jesus Christ (sarcasm).
What's in the water at Richmond Hill, Father??????
So everything from the south disgusts you including southerners be they clergy or laity. And southern art in her books, poetry, Hollywood movies and the like you want eradicated!
Did you write your sentiments to northeast museums who displayed a crucifix in urine, vile excremental thrown on images of Our Lady and other such actual trash which is the promotion of bigotry towards Catholics and conservative Protestants but cloaked under the banner of art
What is in your martini?
Daniel, non believers criticize the historical Jesus for his positive slave imagery and yes they seek to dethrone our Lord and His Church over it and His teachings on marriage and sexuality which they see as bigotry and exclusionary!
I did not say everything in the South disgusts me. That is an odd comment.
And "what about the crucifix in urine" is hardly a Catholic response to a huge moral issue that destroyed millions of lives.
Obviously, you're not thinking clearly on this topic.
You're responding to my comments with trivia and misdirection, rather than addressing the immorality -- as stated by the church -- of slavery and those who support it.
While Jesus mentioned slavery, I don't recall where he defended it or urged folks to fight a war to defend it. Perhaps you can cite a reference on that.
Bee,
You knocked it out of the park! Kudos.
During southern slavery many bishops and not a few rectories has slave laboerers, in other words they owned slaves. The complete condemnation of slavery is relatively modern, and yes on target. But the Church as with the recent condemnation of the death penalty, which is a good example of the Church as a Johnny come lately on social issues, but needed nonetheless even centuries ago,
Father Kavanaugh:
You didn't "contrast" honoring Confederate heroes to honoring Hitler and Goebbels, you compared them -- that is, you posed an equivalency.
And I repeat: that is obscene, profoundly ignorant and incompetent.
Further, all this equivocating and hair-splitting on your part is just embarrassing.
Although Pope Pius IX never signed an actual statement supporting the Confederacy, he responded to a letter written by Jefferson Davis on 23 September 1863 with a letter to Davis written 3 December 1863. Pius's "letter to Jefferson Davis was accompanied by an autographed picture of the pope"[9] in which the Pope addressed the Confederate President as "the "Honorable President of the Confederate States of America".[10][11] This simple courtesy, though it had no legal effect, has been seized upon by some to claim that it showed that the Pope recognized (at least on a personal level) the Confederate States of America to be an actual country (and separate from the United States).[12][13] In fact, no diplomatic relations or recognitions were extended in either direction. But this letter caused Congress to, in 1867, explicitly ban diplomatic ties with the Vatican.[14]
Charles Chiniquy vowed that that letter caused great distress to the president.[15] Robert E. Lee, pointing to his own portrait of Pius IX, told a visitor after the war that he was "the only sovereign... in Europe who recognized our poor Confederacy".[16]
The letter was delivered to the Pope by Davis's commmissioner to Belgium, Ambrose Dudley Mann. During his visit with the Pope, Mann discussed the successful recruitment efforts by the Union who were recruiting thousands of soldiers from Ireland and Belgium, both Catholic countries. According to Clement Eaton, "Mann persuaded the Pope to discourage this enlistment of Catholics in Europe." [12]
Above from Wikipedia
Of course no one is complaining about the Catholic Church celebrating a man of history and from Germany who was an avowed anti Semite who wrote volumes against the Jews (which might well be a part of the rank and file German acquiescence to the Holocaust at their back doors. Forget about Martin Luther seceding from the true Church and the religious strife and countless deaths this caused!
I don't follow the connection between Martin Luther & the slavery issue, but his writings on Jews were truly vile. You are correct.
And the Congressional ban on diplomatic ties with the Vatican, I am guessing, are part and parcel of the rampant anti-Catholicism in the US at the time, which of course was closely connected to anti-Irish & -Italian bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment. Catholics were the Muslims of the 19th Century.
Martin Luther Is About Nationalism, Not About Religion
The Lutheran schism was the first manifestation of German nationalism according to the historian Maria Elvira Roca Barela writing in the leftwing Spanish daily El PaÃs (July 23). Roca states that interpreting Luther as a religious phenomenon does not help to understand him. For her "Luther was the great defender of the oligarchies, the religious guarantor of a late feudalism that kept Germany in backwardness and poverty."
Roca notices Luther's hatred for the non-German world, among them Jews, and recalls that the Kristallnacht on 9-10 November 1938 during which Jewish property was destroyed in Germany, was explicitly connected to the 450 birthday of Martin Luther.
Nevertheless the big assumption of the Luther jubilee is that Protestant Germany is morally superior to the non-Protestant world according to Roca.
Picture: Martin Luther, #newsNwicigkmsq
My above comment is from an on line newspaper.
Martin - You won't accept it, but I did not compare CSA leaders and Nazi leaders. I compared honoring them. I did not propose an equivalency between CSA leaders and Nazi leaders, I proposed an equivalency between HONORING CSA leaders and HONORING Nazi leaders.
Daniel part of my post is that progressives are trying to eradicate southern history rightly or wrongly by say that since people back then weren't as morally superior as we are today given modern sensibilities, we should remove any images of southern figures who fall short of today's moral perfection. I think Pope Francis said something about those who think they are perfect.
My comment about Martin Luther is playing this same game, because from my morally superior perspective, Martin Luther is a dispicable historical figure who should not be celebrated today. Martin Luther should be treated as Robert E Lee in Charlottesville!
The Progressives have aligned themselves with ISIS, destroying history rather than learning from it. They condemn their own intellectual foundations with the same hammers they use on thoughts they don't like. They oppose thoughts but attack people for having them. And yes, this extends from the same suppression that removed altar rails and prayers. They want everything to fit in the right bundle. FrAJM, what is the Italian for 'bundle'?
Well...as another example of lawlessness on the Left, what looked like a crowd of white liberals toppled a Confederate statue in Durham, NC (home of Duke University, which probably tells you a lot). No arrests---I guess it is OK to deface and destroy things ones does not like. if you are on the Left. Here in Atlanta a few nights ago, some idiots defaced a "peace statue" which they thought was a Confederate one, and----no arrests. (This was after demonstrators blocked the streets, without a permit of course, and went on a march asking to "end white supremacy"---whatever that means.) I was too young to recall it, but like we are going back to the bad old days of the late 1960s and early 1970s with Leftist lawlessness.
The evil left will not be satisfied until Mount Vernon and Monticello are destroyed
"White supremacy - - whatever that means..."
There are none so blind (and privileged and "entitled") as those who will not see.
Post a Comment