It's Starting, We were told it Would

That church is tied to AntiFa. We all know Washington dedicated this country to G-d.

The approach of attacking presidents and statues and flags is a simple divide and conquer approach. Why no one sees that is beyond me!

America has had the least amount of slaves in all North and South America. Yet people want to pull a card to further their agenda. I wish I could but I'm not that type of person.


a reply to: hounddoghowlie

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The issue is not the statues, the issue is why "controversial" is considered a "bad thing." Controversy is good, avoiding controversy is cowardice. Neither Washington nor Lee would have feared controversy.

It's not good when "the controversy" is to remove historical figures which includes our First President as a united nation...

What the left is doing/trying to do is to re-write history. That is never good.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

While acknowledging “friction” over the decision, the church’s leadership said the twin memorials, which are attached to the wall on either side of the altar, are relics of another era and have no business in a church that proclaims its motto as “All are welcome — no exceptions.”

.....except for George Washington and Robert E. Lee I guess.

I forget how it goes "He who forgets his past, is doomed to repeat it", or something like that.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

While acknowledging “friction” over the decision, the church’s leadership said the twin memorials, which are attached to the wall on either side of the altar, are relics of another era and have no business in a church that proclaims its motto as “All are welcome — no exceptions.”

.....except for George Washington and Robert E. Lee I guess.

Or people we disagree with...

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

i agree 100%. in order to know what ones country was in the past, warts and all, is part of the keys to it's future

So yeah! Let’s build monuments to the warts! Listen, most of the confederate monuments, for example, were erected long after the war as a response to the civil rights movement and earlier legislation in the south in the spirit of the civil right movement to come.
Not to honor the past.
And not to help ‘move forward’ through education of the past but rather to obfuscate it.

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: RAY1990

i agree 100%. in order to know what ones country was in the past, warts and all, is part of the keys to it's future

So yeah! Let’s build monuments to the warts! Listen, most of the confederate monuments, for example, were erected long after the war as a response to the civil rights movement and earlier legislation in the south in the spirit of the civil right movement to come.
Not to honor the past.
And not to help ‘move forward’ through education of the past but rather to obfuscate it.

It may be the losers of the last election are behind the trashing of things that made this country be the ONLY reason mass murderous leaders of Communism or the genocidal sister of that, Nazism, rule people like an ISIS Caliphate. Why would we be able to stop tyranny world wide, for a short period anyway? World wide people clamor to live free in America. Why is that?

What you call a wart moving forward may be a victim of political lies to change the US Constitution so we lose our hard earned freedoms.

Let's put this in perspective and be perfectly honest about what is truly being discussed at this church.

The author of the original post has suggested, partially through omission (deliberately? I dunno.) that a *monument* to Washington is being removed. I read the article.

Using the word "monument" without the provision of any other details allows the reader to envision an actual monument, like a statue or some other large appurtenance.

It is a plaque for the love of Mike. A SIGN.

Is this really worth getting all in a tither over? Talk about being overly sensitive. Sheesh. I'd recommend saving your outrage over something far more grand, like adding FDR or Reagan to Mount Rushmore, or renaming the Lincoln Memorial Bank of America's Lincoln Memorial... You know the alteration or bastardization of an actual memorial.

At least this church is trying to get consistent in that they are removing both plaques (Lee and Washington), rather than just Lee's. And at the end of the day....

...it's a damned sign!

a reply to: MrBadExample

George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, buying pew No. 5 when the church first opened in 1773, and attending for more than two decades.

You are aware of that, right? George Washington was a founding member and owned pew 5?

They took sides for political reasons. Yes it is just a plaque and a plaque can do no harm to anyone. Since this is a listed building on the historical registry, it's a bit more than just a church. No matter what they say, this is all about a church entering the realm of politics and clearly saying to it's members who is welcome and who is not, while relegating history to a back room.

How do you suppose a plaque memorializing the history of that building makes anyone unsafe? It does not, could not, so it's a purely political move and I suspect with the goal of getting members not in lockstep to leave. Kind of unchristian don't you think?

Of course I suppose it could be a response to threats and they are hiding they did it out of fear. Fear of reprisal by the radical activists. It's one or the other.

a reply to: MrBadExample

excuse me just where does it say "monument" in the OP article.
here point out the word "monument" to me.

my OP,

when all the protests over memorials started and people wanted this one removed, or that one removed, or this persons day celebration stopped. many people said that it wouldn't be long before they started in on the founders of the U.S. well the first one has been picked and it's our first president.

and what i quoted,from the article

George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, buying pew No. 5 when the church first opened in 1773, and attending for more than two decades.

This week the church announced it was pulling down a memorial to its one-time vestryman and the country’s first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become too controversial and are chasing away would-be parishioners.

and a link to the OP,
My OP

do you notice anything? i sure do, first is "monument" was not used.

second, i used the plural of the word in the article. which was memorial

stop being Ignorant and trying to score liberal sjw brownie points.
i think that maybe even a apology is in order.

a reply to: MrBadExample

like a statue or some other large appurtenance.

and here are images of the memorial



and from the other end of the room,




looks pretty big to me, at least 2x3 foot, big enough that you can see it hanging on the wall.

a reply to: MrBadExample

You know the alteration or bastardization of an actual memorial.

you do realize that christ church is a National Historic Landmark, added in 1970 right.

My point is that we can't be so overly sensitive that when a private entity (a church) decides to remove small signs/plaques that we allow ourselves to become hysterical about it.

And the pictures show quite clearly these are not hard-to-remove statues, monuments or objects whose size suggests permanence. They ARE more sign than they are monument. I'd reserve my outrage.

And as the church is not a publically held enity, they are entitled to do as they wish for whatever reason the elders feel is defensible or necessary. Were this say a park, courthouse, etc debate would be encouraged.

a reply to: MrBadExample

I don't think anyone is saying they don't have the right. The question is was it right. Just saying they have the right is not an opinion on whether it was right or not.

Remember, we are talking one of the founding members who owned a pew in the church and the church deciding to remove evidence of that from view. That is a profound statement is it not?

I think it's taking a political stance and no doubt will make anyone opposed to it's removal uncomfortable and unwelcome. Perhaps it's because the opposition will just quietly go away, while those who did the complaining would likely stage protests and perhaps even cause riots. Cowardice perhaps?

Your argument works both ways. It's just a plaque is right. A historically accurate one in a building recognized as a historical building.

It's more than fair to discuss this.