Happy Robert E Lee Day

[simplicio]

Your extreme virtue signaling is noted and dismissed.

That last line was not called for. But still, I find your distinctions surprising, and contrary to some of your post in other threads.

The story of the orgies is so bizarre that I find it puzzling that Christians are so easily duped by it.

[seanD]

And King was a serial adulterer even possibly participating in orgies. A fine Christian gentleman deserving honor...

Not saying it's not true, since men are obviously capable of it, but that sounds like something intelligence would invent, kind of like them saying Trump is a nazi and had lowered the flag as code for a nazi salute. It's a fact FBI was out to get King.

[seer]

Not saying it's not true, since men are obviously capable of it, but that sounds like something intelligence would invent, kind of like them saying Trump is a nazi and had lowered the flag as code for a nazi salute. It's a fact FBI was out to get King.

I don't care about the orgies, but there is no question that he was a serial adulterer. Not that I care, I was arguing about Lee and the fact that genuine Christian men can have blind spots and feet of clay.

[shunyadragon]

If were into comparisons Lee committed treason against the United States of America, and King did not.

[seer]

You selectively trashed Martin Luther King apparently whether he deserved a holiday without making specifically comparing King to Lee. Your extreme bias against King is ore than apparent.The question whether King or Lee deserve a commemorative holiday are separate issues.

My previous post still stands concerning whether their sex life determines whether their accomplishments in life are worthy of commemoration.

You idiot, it was simplicio who brought up Lee, and questioned his Christian character. And I said nothing about holidays.

[seer]

If were into comparisons Lee committed treason against the United States of America, and King did not.

Just as Christian men committed treason against the King of England.

[shunyadragon]

You idiot, it was simplicio who brought up Lee, and questioned his Christian character. And I said nothing about holidays.

Concerning whether either should be celebrated on the holiday was the subject of the thread. I consider Lee committed against the United States of America, and King did not..

[JimL]

Today is Robert E Lee Day in some states. Lee is deserving of such recognition because of his record ?

Robert E Lee is not deserving of recognition, he was a traitor to the republic over continuing the institution of slavery. He's responsible for the deaths of more americans than any commander in the history of the U'S.

Today is also MLK Day, MLK is deserving of such recognition because of his record of elevating Christian principles to apply them to the problems facing society, for his unwavering recognition of human dignity, for is tireless work in defending those facing injustice, for his modern interpretation of the faith for the twentieth century.

And he gave his life in the process. Yes he is deserving of recognition.

King associated with communists. The holiday is a black holiday and not one recognizing all Americans. King was a rabble rouser who cost states money and provoked violent reactions wherever he went.

That's just nonsense.

[seer]

Concerning whether either should be celebrated on the holiday was the subject of the thread. I consider Lee committed against the United States of America, and King did not..

So what? That does not mean Lee wasn't a good Christian man as simplicio suggested...

[seer]

Robert E Lee is not deserving of recognition, he was a traitor to the republic over continuing the institution of slavery. He's responsible for the deaths of more americans than any commander in the history of the U'S.

No he didn't, it was the North that attacked the South.

[JimL]

No he didn't, it was the North that attacked the South.

No, actually the war began when General Beaurigard attacked fort Sumter in S.Carolina.

[seer]

No, actually the war began when General Beaurigard attacked fort Sumter in S.Carolina.

Right because the North would not leave after many requests, it was an occupying force. And it was still the North that invaded the South.

[JimL]

Right because the North would not leave after many requests, it was an occupying force. And it was still the North that invaded the South.

The South was not a foreign country, the U.S. can occupy a fort anywhere in the U.S. The South invaded that fort, and thus began the civil war.

[seer]

The South was not a foreign country, the U.S. can occupy a fort anywhere in the U.S. The South invaded that fort, and thus began the civil war.

Jim the South was seceding, they were their own country. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents secession. And the South was just following the principles found in the DoI...

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

But no, the North just had to attack!

[Cow Poke]

It's not known as "The War of Northern Aggression" for nothing!