Robert E. Lee statue to be moved in Virginia

Also my original point was that you don't need statues to remember history.
to this day in Germany it is illegal to publicly display a swastika and no one has forgotten the Holocaust

Correction: The American participation in the international slave trade ended when Lee was one year old. I was wrong.

Then put up monuments to the victim's instead of tribute to the perpetrators

Excellent point.

White privilege is when almost every historical monument in America looks like you and having no empathy for people of color who find monuments to slave owners offencive

https://www.nycgovparks.org/art-and...f-black-history-monuments-around-the-u-s.html https://www.bet.com/news/national/p...f-black-history-monuments-around-the-u-s.html

Okay but it has nothing to do with my argument
if you're trying to say that secular people are inherently lawless then I'm going to need to see some data to back that claim

Your looking at it as though there may be an government/nation that we could form/mold into something but there is the beast and there is God. It is no coincidence that from Rome till now Rome divided into nations. It is no coincidence that the nation you speak of rose after those nations and the three nations of the others France,England and Spain are the three powers that ruled from Rome till those thirteen small colonies took away their power. Just be patient the nation that received the deadly wound has been set back up and is allied with it. Just don't be distracted by the tv,,,look at it from the Scriptures.

And I guess we're just going to completely ignore the whole graven images thing right?

Well no there are graven images discussed in Scripture and we are well aware of how they are spoken of(the law,whose image was on the coin,image of the beast ect.).. The Jews during the revolt were offended by the images on the Romans coins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish_Revolt_coinage and printed their own.

There are graven images that are offensive to almost everyone. There are the US bills with images of Pyramids,Roman numerals and even the thirteen stars are arranged in the Star of David. We have football teams named "Redskins",Chiefs.Vikings and others. The Cross is offensive to the people who are not Christian and so some will want those removed will they not?

There is the British flag and it is offensive to Irish and many others. There is the red white and blue flag that represented at first the original thirteen colonies and it is offensive to the American Indians and it is the root of slavery in the United States of America. There is the word "America" which is an continent and not any individual nation,that is Canada.Mexico and all the way to the tip of Peru are Americans in that they were born and dwell in South,Central or North America shall we force the USA to stop using America to refer to it's nation because it is offensive to all other Americans?

If we begin to remove images that are offensive to everyone then yes but then we should not be bias in that approach we should do away with the Heisman trophy and not offend those who don't like football. We should not sell plastic model airplanes of ww2 Japanese,German or Italian planes nor their tanks or warships. Then it would be appropriate to not sell any of the allied forces toys anymore either?

What about the statues and buildings I showed you a few post back shall we go one after the other and remove the images of the Black American hero's if they offend others? Should we go street by street and change Grant road Lee Boulevard and MLK to something else? There is an graven image on US 59 in Huntsville of Sam Houston I think is offensive to Mexico.

We the whole world seem to forget the offense we might have on another with our graven images and though it might seem as if I disagree with you about it I do not. I think that especially as Christians we should beware of our idols https://biblehub.com/1_john/5-21.htm and not have set any of them up in the first place.

That said though I ask, seeing there are all these graven images that understandably could be seen offensive to someone and that the world set them up anyway what rules will we follow? Will we only remove this one or will we be non-bias and on request remove all the others? As for me though not any of the images mean anything to me except the Lords and so knowing that he is about to remove them all at his coming it seems as if none will succeed in removing them until he does. If he said these things would be clean dissolved then surly we will not remove them before he comes so can we remove them before he does? I know some might argue that I should not even see an Cross or the symbol of a fish denoting Christ but I have to admit I enjoy seeing it when I am looking for mine own brothers and sisters. If the other images don't mean anything to us in the first place why not let them ponder what they mean until the Lord removes them?

I'm confused. Are you supporting monuments to victims or ridding the country of monuments altogether?

How about we just put up a plaque that says
This happened, it was bad don't do it again

1. Why are statues necessarily idols?
2. Because history is more complex than a Marxian victim vs. oppressor narrative. Some people had vices worth denouncing and virtues worth celebrating. The statue is there because they were significant, not necessarily perfect. Their example has a lesson to teach. Now there may be times a statue is worth removing, but statues are like fences- they are erected and maintained for a reason and it's best to thoroughly contemplate that reason before their removal. What we see today in this rash of statue-toppling isn't reasoned. It's an emotivistic brand of self-righteousness.

Found this from Snopes:

9 'Facts' About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know

www.snopes.com/fact-check/facts-about-slavery
Aug 17, 2016 ·

• The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important.
• North Carolina’s largest slave holder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison. False. William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina (not North Carolina).
• American Indians owned thousands of black slaves. True. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016
• In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves. Approximately true, according to historian R. Halliburton Jr.: There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830.
• Many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate. Somewhat true. There were exceptions, but generally speaking — especially after 1750, by which time slave codes had been entered into the law books in most of the American colonies — black slaves were not legally permitted to own property or businesses.
• Brutal black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years. True, in the sense that the phenomenon of human beings enslaving other human beings goes back thousands of years, but not just among blacks, and not just in Africa.

See all full list on snopes.com

Irrelevant and non sequitur

Are those still presently alive victims from things that happened a couple hundred years ago? After awhile, remaining a victim becomes a choice.

Actually, very relevant in regards to the social injustice movement.

deliberately missing the point. If you're going to put up monuments to human Rights atrocities then honor the victims instead of the perpetrators
Yeah imagine I robbed a bank and told the judge
Yeah but other people have robbed banks to so you should totally not put me in jail today