PaulS

This is not a lucid comparison at all. This video is about the destruction of religious icons and religions by other cultures. These acts are intended as harm and aggression toward those religions. What I am talking about is the real life hero worship of actual people who for a large part of your society, were effectively evil. Again, because it is the most succinct example, towns demonstrating the heroic General Lee are saying to black people - we don't care that he wanted to keep you enslaved! For what reason other than white supremacy is their value in displaying memorials of General Lee? It's wrong and society should be mature enough to consider redressing such in this modern and progressive age. In my opinion. Maybe this might help you understand a little better: https://time.com/5849184/confederate-statues-removed/

I think it is a worthy discussion. I certainly don't instantly dispel it because it's not a homogeneous view of all black Americans (not even sure where one draws the statistics to determine how many black people feel this way or not - I just see that a lot do). If there is significant concern being raised by black people that such monuments are a kick in the guts to them then I think as compassionate individuals, we should consider removing these tributes to white supremacy or providing the other view simultaneously. If we need a monument to General Lee for instance, then alongside we should note that he was also fighting hard to cruelly keep black people oppressed as slaves. Again, if the South had won, Lee would be directly responsible for the continuation of slavery - and that's a memorial some would say blacks should just deal with? In my own corner of the world there is discussion amount renaming the area. I live it what is called the Peel Region, named after a white colonialist, Sire Thomas Peel, who apart from pushing the indigenous people out of the land he was claiming for whites, he also committed acts of mass murder of the indigenous. Today indigenous Australians say it is offensive to live in an area named after a perpetrator of mass murder against their people. They have proposed renaming the area 'Bindjareb',which is what the original owners called the area. I fully support such a change. I think to do so shows compassion and recognition that the way their ancestors were treated was wrong. It's just a respect thing really. Don't get distracted by the anarchists and miscreants who do want to cause harm just for harm's sake - these people should be prosecuted for wanton vandalism of course, but I also see it as part of a greater problem that your President has contributed to . There is more to this story and they (and your President) are detracting from the real message that people are crying out to have redressed.

Nobody is saying that all black Americans hold such a view (hence why I questioned what it may mean to certain people). I think even you would have to concede that many, i.e. a lot of black Americans, do hold this view, as has been made evident over the last several weeks of protests, interviews, and news articles. So do you just ignore the issue because it's not a homogeneous opinion held by all black Americans, or do you discuss it because it is an issue for many? I don't think ignoring it will make it go away.

Putting aside the distraction of people who are just being vandals or who maybe are anarchists, and considering those who are trying to raise a legitimate grievance for discussion (I know that is happening in Australia presently without the violence and rioting/damage that the US seems to be suffering), I don't know if it is about simply taking 'them' all down but rather maturely addressing both sides of the story. Here we have plaques, memorials and regions named after white colonialists who caused much harm to indigenous Australians, including murder and genocide. I can see similarities when it comes to the historical oppression of black Americans, particularly around slavery. I think it is time that we, at the very least, accompany such monuments with the other side of the story too - the atrocities and cruelties that these 'heroes' inflicted on black people. I think it is certainly worth the discussion.

Agreed, so should we try and discuss, like mature adults, what it may mean to people who wish certain elements of culture to be 'cancelled' or be addressed in a more balanced fashion e.g. memorials in the names of people who have typically caused harm to blacks in history? If for instance the South had won the American civil war, then blacks may still be in slavery to this day. So what does a statue commemorating General Lee for instance say to black Americans? And what does it say to black Americans when white Americans argue that such monuments are essential?

I know political/societal opinions can be just as divisive as religious ones, but let's see if we can discuss this one fairly amicably. The term 'cancel culture' is getting thrown around fairly freely in a disparaging way by those opposed to people protesting about the existence of memorials to those who may be considered "yesterday's heroes" to those who were either racist or at least indifferent to racism, but there is an element of it I thought we could discuss. Is the removal of statues, memorials and other uses such as "naming rights", commemorating people who have played a major part in the historical repression, segregation and overall discrimination of black people (and by that term I mean African Americans in the US as well as indigenous Australians here in Oz) something whose time has come and should be considered for removal? Whilst some of these historical figures mean something to many white people, they also mean something very dark and bad to black people. In the interests of healing and bringing our people together more, is it time to shine a light on this issue and maybe rectify it?

Today I am limping around with killer back pain after a few hours of sailing yesterday. I swear I am getting too old for this!

Hi CoExist, Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy participating here! Cheers Paul

I guess how you see truth is a little different to how I do. Yes, the Gregorian calendar is based upon (with a little error) the date of Jesus' birth. So if I agree Jesus lived, and had a calendar developed after him, why can't I use that date system? I don't have to believe in God to acknowledge we operate off a calendar that was developed after the life of a man. Most atheists and other non-Christians I know do acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus, so use of such a calendar is pretty normal in my view. I mean, I'm guessing you don't believe in the Roman Gods named Mars, Venus or Jupiter, but that doesn't mean you don't believe in the existence of these planets in our galaxy does it? Anyway, thanks for clarifying your understanding.

Jenson has not been perfectly polite Burl. His posts have been insulting and rude. The one I have hidden from another thread was demeaning to women and rude to Thormas. This one here is softer but it is still rude to call people false and mindless because you don't agree with them. It's in the context of all of Jenson's recent posts, as I made clear, that I have provided this first and final warning. I don't have any difficulty with people who take Jesus and the bible seriously. I take both seriously myself, just not the way some Christians tell me I should.

I don't understand your point about calendars Piriripi. One doesn't need to believe in God to go along with a societal norm such as using the Gregorian Calendar. It just makes life easier for all if we work to something we agree on, such as dates.

Jenson, Please regard this as a first and final warning about being rude in your recent posts across the Forum. It can be difficult to manage a subject when we vehemently disagree with others, but calling people names is unacceptable here, even when we address them as a group rather than specific individuals. If you are interested in genuine, good-will discussion here, I encourage you to politely invite others to address your questions rather than insult or attack. If you cannot do so you will be suspended or banned from participating here. Peace and goodwill Paul (As Administrator)

I try to forgive others I try to turn the other cheek I try to take the plank out of my own eye I try to love my neighbor I try to treat others as I would like to be treated Peace & goodwill, Jenson.

This thread might help you with some answers - there are many different voices, opinions, and beliefs that fall under the general umbrella of Progressive Christianity. I hope it helps you with your understanding.

Jenson/JoWillie, Your post to Thormas is in breach of the Forum guidelines as it is rude and offensive (both to women and to Thormas) and I have subsequently removed it from this thread. Please ensure your posts are in accordance with the Forum guidelines, or do not participate here. The Forum is a safe place for all to discuss their views and opinions, even when we disagree. Paul (As Administrator).

It's also highly unlikely that with all the checks in place for evidence and the court process with appeals etc that somebody could be jailed for murder whilst actually being entirely innocent, but it happens. Suing is a lengthy, costly process, not available to many. It is also very difficult to fight against government lawyers who have bottomless resources. Not to mention that the whole point of the protest and message is long dead and buried by the time a court hearing comes around. You think it was lawful, I don't. As I said, some bodies to appear to be taking legal action so I wonder if we will ever get to revisit this discussion and see who was right. We? That's a pretty big call, especially in light of the counter-protests we see such as people kneeling on white men's necks etc. It seems those people might not quite get the message yet. Look, you've judged it your way, and I've judged it mine. I think Trump is doing your nation a disservice and I think this DC protest is just one example of his inability to bring your nation together and heal rather than continue to divide, distract and wedge. Yes, Trump did take a stroll to make a statement against the backdrop of damage (that had occurred the night before) to a historical church. But why pick that time, when protesters aren't in breach of any other law? Why deliberately stir up the trouble other than to hope it makes you look like the 'law and order' President? It was, in my opinion, just another Trump stunt that divides and wedges your people. I can only say that if he was my President, I would want more and better from him. If you don't, that's your right. Look, it's your country, and you're welcome to it. I just don't see it the same way as you, and it would seem much of your own country might agree with me. But this is democracy in action I guess.

I am not saying that every day people should question police instructions. I am saying that on this day, people standing there knew they were not breaking the law. They knew they were not in breach of the curfew. They knew that the government had no genuine authority to tell them to stop expressing their First Amendment right. So they stood their ground in protest. I don't blame the police for following the instructions your government provided them. The blame rest with your government fir issuing those instructions in the first place and the matter is only worsened when we learn the only reason for those instructions was to allow Trump to walk to a Church for a photo op. For me, I think that is a disgusting display of what leadership is about, but maybe that's just me. The only red herring here is pretending that Trump's tweets don't matter. He is utilizing distraction and wedging 101. Again, I don't blame the police and I doubt the officer intended for the old man's fall to play out the way it did (interestingly enough, two of the police officers have now been arrested and charged with assault in the 2nd degree - where is Trump's tweet of support for the old guy? Maybe I should blame the police too - after all, the law is the law). But again, does your President react with empathy and understanding for his 'ally', a peaceful protester, or does he spark innuendo and rumor and distraction in an effort to play to his base rather than bring your nation together? Sounds more dictator-like than Presidential in my opinion, but if that's the sort of government you are happy with, well it's your country.

I think you're making a large assumption that the fellow wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation. I'm not sure your across the facts of the four charges to make that assessment and I can say with certainty, that police do sometimes arrest people in error only later to drop the charges because of lack of evidence. Like I said, lawful instructions need to actually be lawful. Your First Amendment rights grant people the right to peacefully protest, which these people were, but in this instance their First Amendment rights were trampled on by their ally, because your president wanted to make a show and walk to that Church to hold aloft a bible. It is being reported that the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups are suing Donald Trump, William Barr and other federal officials over the assault on peaceful protesters, so maybe we'll see whether it was a legal or illegal instruction. Who is the 'we' that gets the message? The Black Lives Matter movement and focus on police brutality/killing of black people is just one element of the overall frustration being expressed here. Yes, there are lots and lots of positive things concerning better policing but thee people are expressing their frustration that not enough is happening, which is why people like George Floyd are still getting killed. The issue here that I have been pointing to is the inability of your President to bring the nation together and drive any sort of healing. Instead, he continues to divide because that is the only political strategy he seems to understand. If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you. It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll. It was a pathetic power-play on his part and I think you will find it has backfired. Yes, he will continue to garner support from his base for these actions, but I doubt he will have won any hearts from those who otherwise politically sit on the fence. In fact, I personally think he is going to end up on the wrong side of history in this instance because of his inability to approach the matter in any other way than his Presidency has displayed thus far. Just my two bobs worth.

There's a little bit of truth to this I think.

Nothing wrong with being a life long protester - some would say thank God we have people so passionate and prepared to make sacrifices to better the lives of others. Four times charged but never convicted means innocent does it not? You're still innocent unless proven guilty in the US aren't you? I don't disagree that curfews can be lawful. But the curfew wasn't in place in DC at the time the police were ordered to attack the crowd. So not sure what the point of legitimizing curfews is here. One thing that I do think about when people quote strict adherence to laws though, is where would we be today is Rosa Parks didn't break the law, if Nelson Mandela remained apartheid compliant, if Martin Luther King never wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” while in prison for protesting against the treatment of the black community in Alabama, if Gandhi never went to prison for civil disobedience and sedition after a protest march turned violent, etc etc. Nobody wants to encourage the breaking of laws, but it seems some of our major turning points in history have actually been when existing man-made laws have been broken, resulting in these unjust laws being removed and society leaping forward in a monumental change. It would seem to me that we have to acknowledge (perhaps uncomfortably) that sometimes breaking the law is actually the higher thing to do, don't you think?

I too have seen much of the DC protest footage, including that taken by an Australian news crew who were on the scene when the police attacked (they too were bashed with riot shields and batons because they were on the footpath in that area). Everybody that the police could get to was attacked and pushed back. That was the police's job and I don't blame them. They were following their orders. They are in between a rock and a hard place themselves, but that is what they are there to do in response to their leadership. But the people who give the instructions need to be accountable in my opinion and I don't think they acted in a manner respectful of peaceful protesters, as the majority of these were. Yes, the protesters you are referring to refused to leave even though they were told to do so. I disagree that the instruction was lawful as the curfew had not been implemented and the people were committing no offences such as violence and damage that had occurred elsewhere at different times. It was a bad decision from Barr, Trump or whoever pushed that button, in my opinion. It was unnecessary in this situation and I believe it was only done as a stunt to help promote Trump's 'tough guy' image. Why forget what Trump said about the old man? The whole point about what I have been talking about is how Trump behaves and acts. I don't care about whether the old guy is now portrayed as a saint or an evildoer. My whole point is that Trump, who has no details about the man, decides to call him an ANTIFA provocateur and makes up some crazy stuff about him trying to block out radio comms. The point is your President continues to drive wedges and distraction and misinformation to suit his agenda. It should be called out - always. I'm not debating the multifaceted issues that concern the current protests - there is a lot I agree with and much I disagree with from many different angles. I am just talking about the, how I see it, inadequate and even harmful contributions your President is making during his term as President. If you don't see any reason to speak out against Trump then fair enough - it is a democracy. I would just say that you get the leadership you deserve when people turn a blind eye to inadequacies, injustices, and manipulations committed by that leadership. Of course it is a red herring that what happened to George Floyd would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs - so I'm not sure why you need to mention it. But to me the point is that whilst we are largely responsible for ourselves when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness and that we may well be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives when we do, I still want a police force that can respond appropriately without killing the person for a minor offence. Your country does seem to suffer more violence than any other western country and I think that is essentially what these peaceful protesters are saying they are sick of. They are saying something needs to change.

Not just that the old guy was an ANTIFA provocateur, but further that he was was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment! According to trump, the frail old man fell harder than he was pushed! Apparently it could be a set up! Those dastardly old people are planning to overthrow the government I tell you! No empathy, no respect for alternate opinion, no regard for non-Trumpers.

For me, the reason it should make a difference to you whether there was a curfew or not, is that I wouldn't want to live under a regime that decides willy nilly when it will use force against its citizens and when it won't. There were hundreds if not thousands of innocent people legitimately protesting and obeying the law (i.e. not in breach of any curfew), yet because of the previous actions of some others, your government decided to attack everybody, whollus bollus. I understand that elsewhere and at other times there were laws broken, but to act against a peaceful protest in such a fashion smacks of dictatorial standards more akin with communist Russia or China. I think a healthy skepticism is right for questioning the reasons of authority. With great power comes great responsibility and to me, your government let down many of its own citizens that day - the very ones that Trump said he was an ally of - peaceful protesters. We will have to beg to differ on whether it was a lawful instruction or not to disperse protesters prior to any curfew being implemented.

I am referring to your opinion that it was an okay thing for the police to be instructed to do (i.e. attack the protesters). Your previous posts seem to argue that the action of clearing the protesters out, before the curfew was due, was an acceptable and appropriate action for the authorities. I am saying that it is not, in my opinion, for the reasons that the law wasn't being broken, the curfew wasn't in effect, and the police effectively had no legitimate reason to take to the crowd. Do you think that using the police to drive the protesters back, using batons/teargas/rubber bullets, before the curfew was in effect, was an acceptable way to police?

Likewise Here maybe we differ - you are welcome to give that officer the benefit of the doubt, I probably would too in most situations, but this was a known situation with a known purpose (to protest and make a point) and known rules around curfew. These protesters are obviously trying to make a point, so if one is going to 'safeguard the people' and take the high moral ground (i.e. we have a right to protect our President from unruly protesters) then those people need to be squeaky clean and make decisions based on the rules and not simply their view that they want to enforce at the time. Anything else simply diminishes their authority. It's also not very smart because it just feeds this view of an abuse of power. You find that a totally acceptable way to police - I don't. I think it is an abuse of power and an abuse of the men and women who have sworn to 'uphold the law'. I don't think the people were being foolish not to move on as they weren't breaking any laws and they were not causing any harm - they were peacefully, although loudly, making their protest heard. You might even argue that they weren't going to be bullied by authorities prepared to abuse their power. They were standing up for what the believe, totally within the legal constraints in place. Yes, there are all sorts of views, as there are all sorts of protesters. We can agree there are a range of participants in general across your nation right now - genuine peaceful protesters that want to be heard, antagonists and anarchists from both the right and the left, and those that couldn't give a damn but are happy to loot and burn. I'd like to think that the land of the free and the home of the brave is filled primarily with the former. In any event, they shouldn't all be put into the same box and treated by the authority in DC as though they are. Like I insinuated before, you start encouraging authority to step outside the law for 'good' reasons but not strictly in accordance with the rules, and you begin to open a pandora's box for abuse of power. In any event, hopefully your President will eventually start to say some things and make some moves that actually try and heal your nation and bring it together for good. I have to say though, all I see at the moment is division, and the associated frustration voicing itself.