[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Cult Watch Title: Confederate monuments are the real ‘Lost Cause’ Confederate-era war memorials and monuments to the traitors who fought against the Union to uphold slavery have no place on public land. You know, property paid for and maintained by taxpayers. Every day they remain standing is a celebration of racism and an affront to core American values. That’s why I applaud what’s happening in New Orleans right now.
After public hearings, a city council vote and court battles, the Crescent City has finally begun the process of removing four monuments. On Monday, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, D, announced the removal of the Battle of Liberty Place Monument, an obelisk honoring hate. Death threats were made against the contractor. David Duke, that paragon of tolerance, took to Twitter to decry the company “willing to take shekels to tear down priceless New Orleans & American history.” The work is considered so dangerous that the people involved in the removal hid their identities and wore flak jackets while under the protection of police.
“First statue erected to honor members of white supremacist organization who killed New Orleans’ racially integrated police force,” reads the top line of the press release from Landrieu’s office. Landrieu was even more blunt when I talked to him on Wednesday about removing Confederate memorials.
“They were put up during a very narrow point of time, four years of our formal 300-year history, as though they reflect the whole history of the city of New Orleans,” Landrieu told me. “In effect, they were put up by people, the same group of people called the ‘Cult of the Lost Cause.’ And the Lost Cause was the cause of the white supremacy in the South. Those monuments don’t reflect who we ever have been.”
Private funds were used to pay for the monument removals. And Landrieu is keeping the list of donors anonymous. His decision is understandable. "It has been a challenge to make sure that we're able to make sure that the people that are engaged in this are safe and that our police officers are safe as well," he said.
The three other monuments slated for removal are the Robert E. Lee statue at Lee Circle; the Jefferson Davis statue on Jefferson Davis Parkway; and the General Beauregard equestrian statue at the entrance to City Park.
“As a matter of who was Robert E Lee, he never stepped foot in the city of New Orleans,” Landrieu said, pointing out that Union soldiers actually camped at Lee Circle. “This monument was not put up to represent, to revere Robert E Lee, it was put there to represent the cause that he fought for, which in our opinion, was not what New Orleans has ever represented.”
Noting that the Lee statue is “on the most prominent space” in his city, Landrieu put the monument’s location into perspective. “It would be like putting King George where the Washington Memorial is or Robert E. Lee where Lincoln is,” he said with a chuckle. “That’s what was done in the city of New Orleans, and that’s just wrong. It’s not an appropriate historical reflection of where the people of New Orleans have ever been.”
Landrieu says these monuments need to be put in their “proper context.” But he hasn’t focused yet on what that might look like because of the work to remove them in the first place. “If there are some smart people around the country that revere these monuments, if they want to come forward with a plan and the money and the strategy to do that, we’ll be more than happy to talk,” Landrieu offered. He mentioned Washington and Lee University and the Jefferson Davis Society in Mississippi as possible homes for the discarded memorials. “They could put them in context. That’s different from telling the people of the city of New Orleans that they have to keep them on property owned by the people of the city of New Orleans. The people of the city of New Orleans have spoken. And now, we have a right to do with our property the way we want.”
To play devil’s advocate, I asked the Crescent City mayor what he would say to those protesters who argue that these monuments are part of their heritage. Landrieu got to the heart of the matter. “You can’t change history. Taking down a monument doesn’t change history,” he said. “Here is the truth: The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history. Denying humanity to our fellow American citizens, engaging in a Civil War that killed 600,000 people. We ought to be able to look back on that . . . and say, ‘You know what, the Confederacy was wrong.’ And our cities ought to reflect the values of the places that [those monuments are] in.”
New Orleans is still rebuilding after being almost completely destroyed “when the levees broke” during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. “We’re building the city back. We’re not building it back the way it was. We’re building it back the way it should have been if we’d gotten it right the first time,” the city’s 61st mayor told me. And then Landrieu compellingly connected the memorial removals to the overarching effort to rebuild the city.
“As a matter of growth . . . the city of New Orleans is small for a reason, and Atlanta and Houston are big for a reason,” he explained. “Demographic trends in the country and in the world show that people are moving back to inclusive cities. They want culture. They want diversity. They want richness. So the future of New Orleans depends on us being open, not closed. And being welcoming, not exclusive.”
“Those monuments are exclusionary, they’re not inclusionary. They’re not reflective of everybody,” he said, arguing that those memorials tell “a very, very different story” to children about their future in New Orleans. And his concern for the harm those monuments cause goes well beyond the hit to youthful self-esteem. “The attitude that maintains them is the same attitude that’s gonna cause New Orleans to die.”
That won’t happen as long Landrieu and the people of New Orleans stare down the likes of Duke and others who have taken up permanent mental residence in the 19th century. Poster Comment: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited) Some of these monuments belong in private museums (if they want them). Others, like the Lee monument, are more suited to public museums. They don't need to be destroyed (like statues of Lenin and Stalin were after the USSR fell). But they also don't need to occupy the most prominent places in the public parks and around legislatures and city halls either. The Confederacy is long gone and buried. These monuments and those hideous Confederate battle banners (even if contained in a state flag) need to finally go away. Mostly because they're tacky and crude.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1) These monuments and those hideous Confederate battle banners (even if contained in a state flag) need to finally go away. Mostly because they're tacky and crude. These monuments need to go away from public land because of what they were erected to stand for. Their dismantling also stands for something: the defeat of the people who put them up, and in particular the defeat of the ideology of those people.
#3. To: Willie Green (#0) Confederate monuments are the real ‘Lost Cause’ True,they are going to be replaced with statues of Trayvon Dindonuffin,Bathouse Barry,Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton,De Rev-Rund Wright,and Snoop Dog. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #4. To: Tooconservative (#1) These monuments and those hideous Confederate battle banners (even if contained in a state flag) need to finally go away Yeah,who needs all those disgusting displays of individualism,freedom of choice,and self-reliance? If you honestly believe that Mr Lincoln's War was about slavery you are a freaking retard. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #5. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#4) Yeah,who needs all those disgusting displays of individualism,freedom of choice,and self-reliance? And all those slaves in the South who were legally three-fifths of a person (for the purpose of allotting extra seats in the House to slave states), where was the slave's freedom of choice or self-reliance or individualism? You can't call a slave three-fifths of a person to get more political influence and still consider them purely property. The Three-Fifths Clause was always an inherent contradiction in the Constitution.
#6. To: sneakypete, Willie Green (#3) (Edited) True,they are going to be replaced with statues of Trayvon Dindonuffin,Bathouse Barry,Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton,De Rev-Rund Wright,and Snoop Dog. I'd prefer we just don't replace them at all. Nearly all of these public monuments are ghastly. They're crappy little tourist traps and places to drag schoolchildren for field trips. If it was left to me, I'd probably keep the Iwo Jima memorial, the public-funded WW II memorial, the Washington monument and a handful of others (but not the Lincoln memorial). The rest I'd slate for destruction as a blight on property values. And I'd move the graves at Arlington and return the land to its rightful owners, the Lee family. These monuments are hideously ugly and are designed to inculcate submissiveness and statism in the general population. That is their true purpose.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6) And I'd move the graves at Arlington and return the land to its rightful owners, the Lee family.
#8. To: sneakypete (#3) " they are going to be replaced with statues of Trayvon Dindonuffin,Bathouse Barry,Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton,De Rev-Rund Wright,and Snoop Dog " Oh gee. I can hardly wait. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur #9. To: Tooconservative (#5) And all those slaves in the South who were legally three-fifths of a person (for the purpose of allotting extra seats in the House to slave states), where was the slave's freedom of choice or self-reliance or individualism? Pretty selective historical recall there,bubba. Why no mention of the slaves in the North? Is it because of your ignorance of history,or just a bias against the south? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #10. To: Tooconservative (#6) Nearly all of these public monuments are ghastly. They're crappy little tourist traps and places to drag schoolchildren for field trips. Yeah,no need to bother little minds with the sacrifices of their ancestors,and the fact that they thought freedom was something worth fighting for,right? If it was left to me, I'd probably keep the Iwo Jima memorial, the public-funded WW II memorial, the Washington monument and a handful of others (but not the Lincoln memorial). The rest I'd slate for destruction as a blight on property values. Have you lost your mind? They have INCREASED property values. Haven't you heard? All those "Crappy little tourists and their children" enjoy visiting them,and like every other tourist attraction they increase the values of the property near them,
And I'd move the graves at Arlington and return the land to its rightful owners, the Lee family. That's just bizarre. What sort of brain fart did it take to come up with that? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #11. To: sneakypete (#10) Yeah,no need to bother little minds with the sacrifices of their ancestors,and the fact that they thought freedom was something worth fighting for,right? I have yet to meet a person who served who claimed it was for the freedom of their distant descendants. This is a propaganda line, mostly promoted by Hollyweird and political scumbags. In real life, such sentiments simply do not exist. They're entirely mythical. People fight for the country for many reasons but this is not one of them.
Have you lost your mind? They have INCREASED property values. Haven't you heard? All those "Crappy little tourists and their children" enjoy visiting them,and like every other tourist attraction they increase the values of the property near them, The increase in property values is because we have violated the premise of the District's original purpose, namely that of a legislative and executive center for a small federal government. Land values in the District have risen as it became the seat of a vastly oversized and unconstitutional seat of government, the home of a world empire.
That's just bizarre. What sort of brain fart did it take to come up with that? The land was stolen from the Lee family and, by refusing the tax payment on it, they seized it. Later attempts at making a settlement with a descendant does not alter the fact that Arlington is a stolen property and always has been. We bury our soldiers on stolen land, mostly so their bodies can be used to form a part of our national tourist trap in the District.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
The land was stolen from the Lee family and, by refusing the tax payment on it, they seized it. Later attempts at making a settlement with a descendant does not alter the fact that Arlington is a stolen property and always has been. Yes and no. It was no longer stolen property after the Lee family sold it to the Federal government. The original burial of soldiers on the stolen land was to make the land uninhabitable for the rightful owners. - - - - - - - - - -
The most hallowed land in America is the former Custis-Lee estate, the ancestral home of Martha Dandridge Custis Lee and Robert E. Lee, where the former Custis-Lee mansion remains as a national monument under the National Park Service. The estate was purchased from the Custis-Lee family descendants in 1883.
#13. To: sneakypete (#9) The presence of slavery anywhere in the United States, and its legal toleration, made the United States an evil nation until it was abolished. But the secession and warfare waged by a part of the nation to preserve that evil institution makes that part of the nation's history in that period, and in the stubborn, perverse and evil segregation period that followed afterwards, gave that portion of the nation a particularly dark blemish.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13) The presence of slavery anywhere in the United States, and its legal toleration, made the United States an evil nation until it was abolished. It wasn't just in the US, but existed in much of the world, if not most of it. Europeans likely did not capture African negros. They likely bought them from African tribes that had captured neighboring hostile tribes, or otherwise decided on some basis to forfeit the freedom of whomever they deemed warrented it. I'd think it far more equitable for european traders to buy slaves rather than bring a small army to capture them themselves. Slavery was already dying in the US at the outbreak of the CW. The importation of slaves had long since been discontinued as a matter of law, and I think it was in the Confederate Constitution. Economically and politically slavery would have ended in time without any civil war. (But I think we already had this conversation, didn't we?)
But the secession and warfare waged by a part of the nation to preserve that evil institution makes that part of the nation's history in that period, and in the stubborn, perverse and evil segregation period that followed afterwards, gave that portion of the nation a particularly dark blemish. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of moral blemishes on the USA, and one need not look back 150 years to see it. One need only open his eyes to present day America.
#15. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#12) Nice summary but you went far beyond my knowledge of the theft of the Lee-Custis estate.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#11) Yeah,no need to bother little minds with the sacrifices of their ancestors,and the fact that they thought freedom was something worth fighting for,right? You probably don't get out much,in that case. *I* am one of those people,and have personally known hundreds of others.
The increase in property values is because we have violated the premise of the District's original purpose, namely that of a legislative and executive center for a small federal government. Land values in the District have risen as it became the seat of a vastly oversized and unconstitutional seat of government, the home of a world empire. That's just bizarre. What sort of brain fart did it take to come up with that? Are you a professional fool,or do you just do this for a hobby? You have to be completely clueless to not understand that properties and businesses close to tourist attractions get a HUGE boost in value because of it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #17. To: Vicomte13 (#13) The presence of slavery anywhere in the United States, and its legal toleration, made the United States an evil nation until it was abolished. HorseHillary! There is not a nation in the pre-20th century world that didn't have slavery at one time or another,including Vatican City. But the secession and warfare waged by a part of the nation to preserve that evil institution ..... T Once again you have your head up your ass. Most likely due to being miseducated due to political correctness. Mr.Lincoln's War had NOTHING to do with slavery,according to no lesser authority than Mr.Lincoln himself. In FACT,Mr.Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did NOT apply to slaves being held in the North,so it didn't free ONE SINGLE SLAVE. It's purpose was to encourage the slaves in the south to revolt and start murdering their masters so that Confederate officers would desert and go home to protect their families. BTW,the VERY FIRST SLAVE CREATED IN THE NEW WORLD was by a resident of Jamestown,and HE WAS BLACK HIMSELF. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #18. To: sneakypete (#16) *I* am one of those people,and have personally known hundreds of others. I didn't know you had any kids. But I suppose soldiers stormed the beach at Normandy, just dreaming of the day their grandson can join the Army to get his sex change and become a lesbian. Sure, that's it. I just don't believe people think that far ahead. They fight for other reasons, not that.
#19. To: sneakypete (#17) In FACT,Mr.Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did NOT apply to slaves being held in the North,so it didn't free ONE SINGLE SLAVE. It's purpose was to encourage the slaves in the south to revolt and start murdering their masters so that Confederate officers would desert and go home to protect their families. I would say Lincoln did it to raise the fear of a slave revolt so the Confederates had to spend more resources and men for a home guard. And, by that measure, it did work well. The South did devote men and resources because of it. You are right that Lincoln was entirely phony and had no intention of freeing those Northern slaves. Because he could have done that just as easily. But he didn't.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#14) The importation of slaves had long since been discontinued as a matter of law, and I think it was in the Confederate Constitution. Don't think it. Read it. It's posted on-line. While you're at it, read the declarations of secession of the various states. Once you do, you will realize that the South seceded over slavery and said so at the time. It is only afterwards that apologists try to pretend it was not so.
#21. To: sneakypete (#17) There is not a nation in the pre-20th century world that didn't have slavery at one time or another,including Vatican City. And they were all evil on account of that. (I can think of one that didn't.)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21) Interesting. Which one?
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20) Don't think it. Read it. It's posted on-line. While you're at it, read the declarations of secession of the various states. I think you owe me a beer on this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
Though Article I Section 9(1) of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations the Confederate Constitution permits the C.S. to import slaves from the United States and specifies the "African race" as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808.[29]
Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.[14]
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#21) (Edited) What is more evil slavery or murder. If it is murder remember you would prefer a murderer for President over a pro life christian. Your reason is inconsistent with good morals as your reason is the Republicans don't steal enough and give to others. So if the entire south was evil as you say, wouldn't that make you evil also?
#25. To: Tooconservative (#18) But I suppose soldiers stormed the beach at Normandy, just dreaming of the day their grandson can join the Army to get his sex change and become a lesbian. Sure, that's it. Ok,so you have a chip on your shoulder because you are a coward,and jealous of your betters. I think we all get that by now. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #26. To: Tooconservative (#19) You are right that Lincoln was entirely phony and had no intention of freeing those Northern slaves. Lincoln wasn't a phony. He was straightforward about why he started the war. It was the shitheads that wrote the history books that turned him into a phony. They had to lie in order to justify their un-Constitutional actions,including the outright theft of private property by the carpetbaggers. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #27. To: A K A Stone (#24) What is more evil slavery or murder. Murder is the ultimate evil. Even a slave has hope of being freed or freeing himself,but death is the end of everything. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #28. To: sneakypete (#25) (Edited) Ok,so you have a chip on your shoulder because you are a coward,and jealous of your betters. Why so? You certainly didn't serve in WW II or the earlier wars we actually won either. Or are you hoping for a burial at Arlington so you can be a part of the big tourist trap personally?
#29. To: sneakypete (#27) Murder is the ultimate evil. Even a slave has hope of being freed or freeing himself,but death is the end of everything. People forget that the "freeing" of the slaves amounted to confining many of them in concentration camps under Union army control. They were leased out as labor to their former masters. These concentration camps for the former slaves were very short on food and breeding grounds for traditional diseases like smallpox and malaria and cholera, all the usual diseases. By the estimates of some historians, the death toll of former slaves in these camps (men, women, children) was in the range of 3-4 million. Whether the figures are that high is still an open question but there is little doubt that many Northerners fervently hoped that those ex-slaves would just die off (without their former white masters to take care of them). There are letters of the era that talk about how wonderful it would be if they would just die out, the same way the Indians died off so sharply from coming into contact with the diseases carried by the Europeans. During the era of expansion as the states started moving west, the Indians died off in huge numbers this way. It was estimated that when white settlers came to America, there were 19-20 million Indians. Around 1900, they were down to less than 2 million. Lincoln wanted to deport the ex-slaves to Hispaniola or back to Africa. A lot of other Northerners just wanted them dead, just like the vast majority of Indians.
#30. To: sneakypete (#27) but death is the end of everything. Actually, that's not true either.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#28) Why so? You certainly didn't serve in WW II or the earlier wars we actually won either. More proof you are an idiot. The US military won by any accepted standard,but our communist politicians made sure we got out before the north collapsed. They even went so far as to shut down all financial and material aid to SVN,including food,gasoline,diesel and jet fuel,ammunition,and helicopter parts to further hinder the SVN efforts,while not saying a word in complaint about all the aid given to the NVN by Russia and China. BUT......,if YOU had been there in 1965,I am sure the war would have ended by 1966. The only thing worse than a wannabe is a pompous neverwas. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #32. To: Pinguinite (#30) but death is the end of everything. Really? Prove it. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #33. To: sneakypete (#32) Prove their isn't.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Prove their isn't. I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making the wild claims. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #35. To: sneakypete (#31) The US military won by any accepted standard,but our communist politicians made sure we got out before the north collapsed. You're an utter fool if you think Vietnam was worth the blood and treasure expended on it. History has already rendered its verdict, much as it will on the invasion of Iraq or the Arab Spring nonsense. No wonder you're so defensive about it when you're dancing on the graves of all those killed and injured in Vietnam, all so the North Vietnamese could put the country through decades of harsh Communist oppression. And you're still trying to pretend there was some kind of grand victory there. "We won, we won, we won!" What a total weak-minded dumbass.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#35) You're an utter fool if you think Vietnam was worth the blood and treasure expended on it. Where did I say that? I said that by any military standard we shredded them. We lost fewer than 50k military members due to combat losses,and the NVN lost more than a million. I forget the actual figure given now,and it might be 2 million. No wonder you're so defensive about it when you're dancing on the graves of all those killed and injured in Vietnam, all so the North Vietnamese could put the country through decades of harsh Communist oppression. And THAT was why we were there? Are you REALLY that clueless? What a total weak-minded dumbass. One of us is,anyhow. Gee,I wonder if it is the one that was actually there,or the one who was miseducated? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #37. To: sneakypete (#36) (Edited) What wuz I thinking? Of course Vietnam was the greatest military victory in American history. ‹/sarcasm› I suppose the packs of Viet vets still sit around at the VFW, trying to pretend there was anything worthwhile about the entire fiasco or blubbering about their silly Wall memorial in the District of Criminals. Mostly, I think they're just reminiscing about when they were young and strong and life seemed to hold more unlimited options for them. Just some old folks rocking on the porch about the Good Ol' Days when they were young. The fate of the people of Vietnam and whether America had any vital national security interest there seem entirely beside the point when we hear these kinds of sentimental discussions by elderly people.
#38. To: sneakypete (#34)
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making the wild claims. Ah, but you did. I concede I made a claim, but so did you. You claimed "death is the end of everything". Or is the qualification of "wild" what makes my claim necessary to prove, such that my claim, because you deemed it "wild" obligates it to proof, while your claim, not being deemed wild, requires to proof at all? It's not necessary for me to prove it, and even if I did so, it would impress no one. People believe what they wish, proof to the contrary or not.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#35) (Edited) "We won, we won, we won!" McNamara stated with a poorly concealed sense of personal triumph, "We lost." I have his comments on disk. That's what he, with the help of two immature intimidated presidents, intended us to do. Go over and get mauled.
#40. To: Tooconservative (#37) The fate of the people of Vietnam and whether America had any vital national security interest there seem entirely beside the point when we hear these kinds of sentimental discussions by elderly people. They ARE beside the point,you fucking cretin! The issue being discussed was military victory,not your fantasies. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #41. To: Pinguinite (#38) You claimed "death is the end of everything". And you said I was wrong. The burden of proof is on you. People believe what they wish, proof to the contrary or not. On that we agree. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #42. To: sneakypete (#41) And you said I was wrong. The burden of proof is on you. Oh, come on, sneaky. You made a claim. I responded to it, so now I have to prove something you said that I disagreed with, and you don't have to prove anything? Okay in that case, I'll withdraw my response. And I'll now claim that our existence continues beyond death. Are you going to disagree with that? Then prove it. So there. I successfully avoided, using your rules, the need to prove anything. If you don't want to prove that death this the end of everything, that's fine. I know you can't do it anyway. The good news is I'm right and you are immortal. You can thank me later.
#43. To: sneakypete (#34) (Edited) No you don't have to prove anything. Because you cannot prove that life ends when we die. That is an assumption. Sometimes like many atheists you claim to be agnostic. But we here all know you take the position of an atheist. A position you dogmatic ally defend. You are free to think that. It doesn't affect anyone when you get it wrong. That is why you don't have to prove anything.
#44. To: Pinguinite (#42) Oh, come on, sneaky. You made a claim. I responded to it, so now I have to prove something you said that I disagreed with, and you don't have to prove anything? Come on,yourself. You are expecting me to prove a negative? Why not ask me to prove that life doesn't exist on any other planet,while you are at it? And I'll now claim that our existence continues beyond death. Are you going to disagree with that? Then prove it. I suppose you think that's clever? Go ahead,trot your God out for a public appearance and prove he's real. What's the matter,ashamed of him? If you don't want to prove that death this the end of everything, that's fine. It IS the death of everything from the personal POV of everyone who dies. It changes nothing for those still living. They are free to continue to believe whatever superstitious claptrap that eases their fears and makes them happy. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #45. To: A K A Stone (#43) No you don't have to prove anything. Because you cannot prove that life ends when we die. That is an assumption. True,but a SAFE assumption given that no one in the known history of the world has ever came back from the dead,including some Jewish guy named Jesus. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #46. To: sneakypete (#44) Come on,yourself. You are expecting me to prove a negative? I didn't expect that proving life ended was proving a negative.
I suppose you think that's clever? As a matter of fact, I thought it very clever. Yes. hehe
Go ahead,trot your God out for a public appearance and prove he's real. What's the matter,ashamed of him? I don't believe what most people here believe. There's no need to prove anything. What you believe doesn't change your fate. God is not so petty, in my book.
It IS the death of everything from the personal POV of everyone who dies. Only the POV of the physical body, which is only a small portion of what defines us. The faulty assumption made by just about everyone is that our biochemical bodies define all or almost all of what we are. But it only defines a very minor portion.
It changes nothing for those still living. They are free to continue to believe whatever superstitious claptrap that eases their fears and makes them happy. Or unhappy, as the case may be.
#47. To: Pinguinite (#46) Only the POV of the physical body, which is only a small portion of what defines us. The faulty assumption made by just about everyone is that our biochemical bodies define all or almost all of what we are. But it only defines a very minor portion. Did your unicorn tell you that? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #48. To: sneakypete (#47) (Edited) Did your unicorn tell you that? It's my conclusion based on the result of years of observation, reason and facts, and perhaps most of all, open mindedness. And I will only discuss it with those who are similarly open minded, which obviously does not include you at this time. (No offense. Most of us, including myself, are not open minded about most things most of the time, truth be told. That is normal human nature). I do try to remain open minded on the subject for anyone with differing views, but it's quite rare to find anyone willing to seriously discuss it. Best to you, Pete.
#49. To: Pinguinite (#48) And I will only discuss it with those who are similarly open minded, which obviously does not include you at this time. (No offense. No offense taken. I understand it is a waste of time on both of our parts to argue which of our OPINIONS are "THE definitive answer" to this question that can never be proven either way. I was and am just staking out the ground for my opposing opinion so there IS an opposing opinion on record. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|