<p>Let's try a reductio ad absurdum argument, just to see if what you say should ALWAYS hold true.</p>
<p>Let's say that the Nazis won WWII and went on to a 1,000 year Reich. In that time, of course, they would have erected many, many statues to their founding fathers, Adolph Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and the like. They would have many architectural monuments of great age, mostly designed by Speer. They would have advanced the science of medicine greatly by experimenting on "sub-humans," so Mengele would also be in their pantheon. And, of course, to great acclaim, they would have stamped out all "non-Aryans" in the Europe that they control.</p>
<p>After 1,000 years, the Reich falls to a more enlightened government. This enlightened government is appalled at the human slaughter and inhuman policies and actions of the Reich over that 1,000 years. They see Adolph Hitler as one of the greatest criminals of all time. Of course, there are a number of people who feel that the statues are old, and part of history, and should remain. In the meantime, Jews, Romanies, and the like are resettling into Europe, and have understandably bad feelings about all the Nazi monuments they see around them.</p>
<p>Would you feel that the statues should come down, or remain? If you feel they should remain, then your position is clear and there's nothing more to talk about. If you feel they should come down, then a discussion might be possible because the question THEN becomes, at what point should statues come down?</p>
<p>Tarhunt: Of course the statues should remain.</p>
<p>Removing the statues wouldnt remove what happened. Removing statues doenst remove history. People dont seem to understand the point of statues.</p>
<p>Whether the statues represent a good or bad point in history they should always remain as a reminder (if its a bad point in history then they should remind us of what not to let happen again). Removing statues will not make everything travel back in time and remove it, it only removes it from the awareness of the people. Out of sight, out of mind, this lack of knowledge and understanding in history will lend itself for history to be repeated.</p>
<p>Take for example the Taliban in Afghansitan 7 years ago. They destroyed ancient Buddhist statues (all of them) that were sitting there for thousands of years. By your example, it would okay for them to do that because it offends their current religious/political beliefs.</p>
<p>You just constructed a straw man argument, putting words in my mouth I didn't say so that you could knock the straw man down. So, let me return the favor.</p>
<p>Clearly, you believe that mass murder on the Nazi scale is perfectly acceptable and should be celebrated in the form of statues.</p>
<p>Tarhunt: First off your statement is a load of B.S.!!</p>
<p>You cant have it both ways. You either keep all statues or you have no statues at all. </p>
<p>There will always be a government that will be different than the one that was in the past. Their views will differ. So who decides which view is right or which view is wrong?! And who decides which statues to keep and which to destroy?? Because each new era brings new ideals and new leaders. So should historical artifacts be destroyed because they, at that one point in time, do not like what happened in the past. Hey why not destroy the Vatican for al the atrocities this "body" did during medevial times??? Hmmmm I think not. </p>
<p>To the Taliban they viewed the buddhist history as one that was against their peoples and way of life. And if the buddhists were to get into power they would view the islamic history as one that was againt their people and way of life. So who's right?!! </p>
<p>Apparently you lack the understanding that removing statues (monuments, or buildings) is a bad thing because the constant reminder to the people of what to avoid is removed. Not to mention the shear fact that humanity should save its historical artifacts for the sake of keeping ancient things (whether they are good or bad reminders).</p>
<p>In your example should humanity not be reminded what atrocities the Nazi's did?</p>
<p>First off, in my book, you have a moral equivalency problem. I believe that most people would find mass murder to be universally abhorent. You seem to feel that mass muder is in the eye of the beholder. We won't be able to agree on that.</p>
<p>Just because I'm curious, would you support putting the statues of Lenin and Stalin back up in Russia, and Sadaam Hussein back up in Iraq?</p>
<p>Janes--I am losing track of this argument and there are good arguments on each side, but I would like to point out that if you can't tell the difference between Taliban and Buddhist teachings, I would like to know where you went to school. I'm all for tolerance but situation ethics can be carried too far.</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry about it. In 10 or 15 more years when hispanics are the majority, they may want to remove the Texas and California flags and tear down the Alamo and the San Jacinto monument because they make them feel uncomfortable :)</p>
<p>Which president won 40% of the popular vote in the 1860 election?</p>
<p>Which president engaged in an illegal war which Congress never declared?</p>
<p>Which president suspended the right of habeus corpus? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court protested saying only Congress had the authority to suspend this right.</p>
<p>Which president signed a proclamation that only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy where the federal government had little legal or real authority? Slaves located in the North where the federal government had legitimate authority were not freed until the passage of the 18th amendment.</p>
<p>Which president believed that after the war blacks should be resettled abroad as blacks could not be assimilated into a white society and actively advocated for a program to return blacks to Africa?</p>
<p>Which president is immortalized as the "Great Emancipator", a champion of black freedom and a supporter of social equality for blacks?</p>
<p>They are all the same man - Abraham Lincoln.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never felt that way in the North, but I must say that when I first moved to a Northern city and the local streets were named "Sherman," "Sheridan," and the like, my skin crawled.
[/quote]
In tons of towns the names of the schools are telling ... down south there are lots of schools named after Robert E Lee, or Stonewall Jackson, or Jefferson Davis ... and up north lots named after Lincoln or Grant. I haven't seen a ton of schools down south named for Grant or for Lee up north.</p>
<p>"It is my impression that rights stop where they infringe on others. Ok someone clarifiy this for me...if I yell racial slurs, burn a cross, paint a nazi symbol, etc. ...is all or some of this illegal?"</p>
<p>Yes, but not because it's offensive to others. Yelling racial slurs, for example, is morally repugnant but not illegal by itself. Symbolic burning and painting may be constitutionally declared illegal for their destructive effects (e.g., vandalism, burning without a permit, etc), but not solely for the destructive message they impart. "Hate crimes" are crimes first, then we may enhance the penalty for that crime if we conclude it was motivated by racial animus, as a deterrent to others (among other reasons). But the First Amendment prevents governments from making pure speech illegal unless it presents a "clear and present danger" to others -- one example of this limited exception would be that you can be convicted of inciting a riot for having yelled "attack the police" to the angry mob you assembled, just before the riot began. </p>
<p>I don't think that Lee's statute presents a clear and present danger to anyone. But it's also not protected First Amendment speech, is it?</p>