I'd prefer adding a display to the statue,
one which educates with context.
I would hope that happens in many cases.
Context is important.
However, I'm personally not a fan of courthouse lawns being used for such purposes.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'd prefer adding a display to the statue,
one which educates with context.
Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom
Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom
I'd prefer they plant hostas, blanket flowers or coneflowers.I would hope that happens in many cases.
Context is important.
However, I'm personally not a fan of courthouse lawns being used for such purposes.
I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.Are you saying you don't think blowing up abortion clinics is violent? Or are you suggesting that pulling down a statue is violent?
It should be remembered; not just honoured.History must be destroyed if it offends anyone.
After all, we don't want anyone triggered by being reminded of our past.
We should also remove the Washington Monuments (DC & Baltimore), the
Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, & the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial.
Those memorialized did terrible things which should be forgotten.
Sounds good to me.It should be remembered; not just honoured.
If your argument is that they shouldn't have done it because it's illegal vandalism, then it should be prosecuted like vandalism: i.e. with all the vigour of a typical investigation into a petty crime, much lower on the police priority list than major theft or violent crime.Eta~ The perps need to be brought to justice and anybody who helps obstruct justice is an accessory.
I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.
That is not acceptable behavior no matter what the motivation.
Tom
Do y'all also support Muslims destroying cultural artifacts that they disapprove of?
I don't.
Tom
I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.
That is not acceptable behavior no matter what the motivation.
Tom
Eta~ The perps need to be brought to justice and anybody who helps obstruct justice is an accessory.
If Mein Kampf was stapled to the front of the court house door, I might think it a bad sign were I a Jewish defendant. And no, I'm not suggesting that is the same as this. I am merely suggesting that removing all context from any discussions is cheap and of no utility.
In the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, many of us who participated in such things as sit-ins pled nolo contendere, i.e., we acknowledged our actions as civil disobedience and accepted the consequences.If your argument is that they shouldn't have done it because it's illegal vandalism, then it should be prosecuted like vandalism: i.e. with all the vigour of a typical investigation into a petty crime, much lower on the police priority list than major theft or violent crime.
It would be terrorism. Pulling down a statue is not terrorism.Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom
You argument is a false equivalence. Pulling down the statue is not the same as blowing up a clinic. They pulled down the statue with the police motioning them. This is not the same as blowing up Buddha statues or torching private businesses. You are hyperbolizing it because you want the issue to be seen as more than it actually is.
You're both missing the similarity.False equivalence - Muslims who engage in iconoclasm do so simply because the targets of their acts are un-Islamic i.e. it's xenophobia and there is no reason behind the destruction. These protesters, on the other hand, tore down a statue dedicated to honouring (arguably glorifying) the memory of men who fought a war to ensure people could own other people. A statue that resided on government property. What does that say about how the government views its citizens?
America seems unique in its desire to glorify the losers of a civil war.
The downside from all this is this statue being torn down will only give the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville more ammo to claim that 'violent communists are destroying our culture'.
We're still talking about using violence to make an ideological statement.The rationale behind the destruction of Buddha statues is rooted in theological primacy, and the eradication of freedom of thought and speech. Whilst it might be possible to suggest that the removal of ANY statue therefore constitutes the eradication of freedom of thought and speech, I personally don't see it.
I'm merely suggesting that if everyone decided it was ok to destroy what they find offensive, there might not be much left. There was no discussion here, just folks destroying something they felt was offensive.
You're both missing the similarity.
Things need not be equivalent in order to have something in common.
Whether toppling a statue of Jefferson Davis or blowing up one of Buddha,
the acts are sanitizing a very public record of people's thoughts. Now,
if local gov had removed & preserved the statues, this would at least be
a reversible decision.
I was unclear.Actually I'm not.
Aye, beware backlashes.I realise there are similarities between the Taliban dynamiting a Buddha statue and these guys pulling down this statue but, frankly, the comparison's similarities end with the act. Understanding motive is just as, if not more, crucial to determining why something was done.
I suspect this was also partly a backlash against the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville.