Exactly. ... But, I would add that, like the stars and bars, the "Star of David" has it's origins in Masonry as well. Something to be considered by those with any real interest in symbols.
Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Exactly. ... But, I would add that, like the stars and bars, the "Star of David" has it's origins in Masonry as well. Something to be considered by those with any real interest in symbols.
Because whether or not he had a Confederate flag or not is not what made him a murderer, or racist against blacks.
He has a Confederate flag. He is a murderer and a racist against blacks.
I have a Confederate flag. I am not a murderer and a racist against blacks.
One (the flag) has zero to do with the other (murder and racist against blacks).
That would be like saying "That dog with the collar is mean, therefore all dogs with collars are mean".
The collar has nothing to do with it!!!!!!!! So why would any sane person start yelling to get rid of the collars???
drbrumley
Well-known member
You gonna answer her point?
And no sane person would go around claiming that anyone that has a flag with the Star of David must be a Mason or a supporter of Masons.
Too many folks just like to over-dramatize any tiny little crack they think they have found, while the real issue gets second fiddle.
You've contributed nothing to this thread. At least the anti-semites, neo-Confeds, and swastika apologists are brazen and blunt.
What are you, anyway?
Here's a link to the whole thing:
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
And yes, I'm from TEXAS. And TEXAS became a Confederate State.
And now, just as then, there are TEXANs that oppose and TEXANs that do not oppose the servitude of the blacks (could probably say the same about every state of the North and South).
And now, just as then, we both (TEXANs that oppose and TEXANs that do not oppose the servitude of the blacks) have the same state flag.
Oh, and again ..... it ain't about a flag.
The head of the Atlanta branch has spoken of it. I don't expect it will have much traction. There's a world of difference between flying a symbol of that miserable war over a seat of government and what amounts to a museum of sorts, that sustains itself by contributions and through fees (the gentleman having mistakenly noted the source of its upkeep as being tax dollars).
drbrumley
Well-known member
So that's a no?
Perhaps with a little dynamite they could re-shape the figures to resemble Spike Lee, Michael Jackson and Sammy Davis?
That would help reduce the amount of editing all the brochures and signs would need.
What world would that be?
Another difference in this instance, say, from what's going on in Memphis, is that the community isn't sponsoring an objection/effort. I don't see it coming to much, but it will be interesting to see how far some people try to push the issue.
Again, for those who missed it, you could take every Confederate monument and toss them into the sea and I'll only feel sorry for the ocean, but it has to be a local issue, aside from the grounds of a state capital.
That would be kinda funny!
opcorn:
Yup, that's the one.
I think it's more of a .....
I'm gonna have to start calling that teddy bear "Ted".
I had no idea that Stone Mountain wasn't completed until 1972!
I wrote: So why not examine the symbol he associated his racist rage with and its role in our society?
That's exactly what it's like. And that's why it has no place over a seat of government. Though if someone wants to paint their house to look like one it's their business.
I didn't say it made him anything. I said he associated what he was with it and why not examine the symbol and its role in our society?
Why do you have it? If you want to push state's rights you don't need its dead weight. If you want to celebrate Southern culture there are any number of ways to do it without that odious bit of cloth.
Well, no. There's a history of violence and inhumanity, of racism and dehumanization associated with that flag. The flag itself was born of a violent effort to perpetuate a moral evil. To say it's just a piece of cloth is to invite "Why use it?" To suggest that as more than a piece of cloth it has value, outside of use as a cautionary tale, is to deny its actual history.
No, it would be like saying, "That flag was made to represent a stab at a new nation formed in defense of a human evil and then resurrected by those opposing giving the descendants of its victims the rights they were entitled to."
That's exactly what it's like. And that's why it has no place over a seat of government. Though if someone wants to paint their house to look like one it's their business.