The Narrow Path Ministries

Paidion wrote:

Dwight wrote:That [Ku Klux Klan, etc. are extreme right wing] is not true. Some of them may call themselves alt-right, the left loves to call them ultra-right, but the truth is that they are all leftists.

Time to get educated, Dwight. You could start by reading the following articles:

Dwight: Didn't you mean re-educated?

Dwight: The first article you cite is by Dara Lind. Some of her other articles are: "Donald Trump is Offering Comfort to Racists and Extremists" and "Joe Arpaio, the Anti-immigrant Sheriff" and "White House Officials are Terrified of What Trump will do on his Own"

Dwight: You want me to get re-educated by this obvious leftist, Dara Lind? I don't think so. I'm gonna pass. Even the titles of her articles are biased. Why would I give any credence to her so-called reports? The real question is - Why do you?

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138246/ ... -right-uva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Dwight: The second article you cite is from wikipedia, about the KKK. For some time now, wikipedia has been known for it's leftist bias. It is beyond amazing that in the whole article, and it is a long article, the word "Democrat" doesn't even appear until many pages down, even though it was founded by Democrats. I don't think I ever saw the word "slavery", even though the KKK's primary mission was to reestablish white supremacy, and therefore, to reinstitute slavery.

Dwight: So, once again, I cannot submit to being re-educated, or let's just call it what it is, indoctrinated by the leftists at wikipedia.

Dwight: The first article you cite is by Dara Lind. Some of her other articles are: "Donald Trump is Offering Comfort to Racists and Extremists" and "Joe Arpaio, the Anti-immigrant Sheriff" and "White House Officials are Terrified of What Trump will do on his Own"

I was going to comment on using a Vox article but you beat me to it, Dwight. They are notoriously left leaning and may not be the best source of balanced information.

Either way, though, whether extreme left or right, the KKK, neo-nazis, and white supremacists are a huge deviation from the norm. They don't accurately represent either side of the political isle.

The second article you cite is from wikipedia, about the KKK. For some time now, wikipedia has been known for it's leftist bias.

Can you source this claim about their left leaning biased? I'm genuinely interested.

All the bad guys are leftists and anything that says otherwise is FAKE NEWS! Oh, the joys of living in Trumpworld...

I love when people say, "The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It was about states' rights." Yup! The southern states wanted the right to do what? Oh yeah, now I remember.

Jasonmodar,

www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Psimmond-

I appreciate your sarcasm and agree to some extent but only from very high ground.

But for many many southerners, like my dirt poor great great grandfather from VA who enlisted about a month after the war started, it had much much more to do with loyalty to the Commonwealth or peer pressure, or both. They had a choice to defend their homes or be overrun.

In a time where there was no social media, lots of illiteracy, and poor flow of info generally in rural areas, I think we should be careful about passing moral judgments on the average confederate soldier. They only knew the south. They had no real means of extensive enlightenment.

TK, good points. I know there were good and bad people on both sides, but it shouldn't be hard for us in 2017 to say the southern cause was immoral and we cannot publicly honor those who fought for the right to own other people. It was a part of our history and belongs in our textbooks and museums but not in our town squares.

Some people say, "What about Auschwitz? It reminds us of the horror." And I agree. For that reason, I would support the preservation of slave cabins and shackles to remind us of the horror without honoring those involved in the oppression.

I agree, but from a purely political standpoint it is amazing to me how the statues were never a significant issue under prior presidents. That fact alone is enough to cast doubt on the true motives of those that are demanding their removal.

There really is no end in sight- even for well known northern names who were complicit in the slave trade.

Where does it stop?

It is not merely a rhetorical question, because there are significant monuments to slaveholders in Washington DC, Mt Rushmore and every town in the the US if we include street names etc.

I don't think the slippery slope argument should fluster us. If they advocated for the oppression of others, we refuse to publicly honor them. Washington had slaves but no one associates his name with slavery.

Yes, there will be some cases that are in the gray area and deserve debate, and we cannot allow this movement to get out of control in the name of political correctness. But, on the other hand, we should not ignore the validity of the arguments just because we suspect the motivations.

Yes, there will be some cases that are in the gray area and deserve debate, and we cannot allow this movement to get out of control in the name of political correctness. But, on the other hand, we should not ignore the validity of the arguments just because we suspect the motivations.s











It's simple, just let each community decide. We do live in an age where it's fashionable to be offended and be outraged over something so instead of giving in to the loudest voices, let communities vote or their representatives vote.

steve7150, if this were Facebook, I'd Like your comment.