The Chestonian principle:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. - G.K. Chesterton
When deciding about removing flags, monuments, statues, etc. I think it is wise to first consider the Chestonian principle - by the community that "owns" the statue/monument.
Quick thought: I don't think many people in America would object to Russian citizens toppling statues of Lenin when the Soviet Union collapsed.
A local (county, university, town, state) population should decide why they honored X (substitute the name of any Confederate General, flag, monument, public figure) on their public grounds in the first place. If they decide that this person/symbol no longer represents their values or the community and want to remove it, then they have that right.
However, outsiders like Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or myself should have no demands in the matter.
A member of Congress from California has no standing in agitating for the removal of Robert E. Lee from any venue but from Federal property or in her own local district on public land (as a private citizen in the latter case.)
In this era of so-called "self-identification", isn't it ironic that local communities are being pressured to conform their identity to political correctness?
The argument that Confederate Generals are traitors and should not be honored is misleading. The issue of the legality of succession was decided by the War Between the States. Before the Civil War, various states (including Northern states) had discussed succession and not considered it a treasonous proposition, but an option. It is not the equivalent of putting up a statue of John Wilkes Booth or Benedict Arnold!
On the other hand, those who say we are trying to change history when we remove monuments, are also wrong. We are only re-evaluating who we honor from our history.
There is much complexity to these issues which also depend on the type of monument and its venue.
For example, a memorial for soldiers who died in the Civil War is not so much a statement on the war itself (as the Vietnam Memorial is not) as a remembrance of family and friends who died. After all while most of the Confederate officers may have owned slaves, many, if not most, non-officer soldiers did not.
The Confederate flag may have a different legacy. It is a powerful symbol that many have used has a symbol of white supremacy both recently and also when they began to be raised on Southern states capital buildings in the 1960's. There would seem to be much more justification for their removals.
Individual Confederate Generals/Officers monuments may sometimes lay somewhere in-between the two examples noted above. Many of these men may have been honored for attributes other than, or in addition to, their leadership roles in the Confederacy.
However, in each case the local community should make thoughtful decisions.
We need to pray for peace in this country (an in our own souls.)
On this Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary .... Oremus pro invicem!
I haven't read poetry in years, but decided to reacquaint myself. After the Courtship, I think I might try "Song of Hiawatha."
I have been reading this interview (God or Nothing, Ignatius Press) with Cardinal Sarah off and on for a few months now. I am finally getting close to the finish.
As always he writes very well. His writing is always a delight to read. However, at times (in Out of the Ashes) he seemed to have so much to say that he didn't know how to say it briefly, so uses examples that don't clearly cover the problem.
It has been a long time (December 13) since my last post-but much has happened!
This book contains no math - quite a feat for a book about Physics. It is hard for me tell (because I already understand the content) how easily this book would be understood by the layman.
A local (county, university, town, state) population should decide why they honored X (substitute the name of any Confederate General, flag, monument, public figure) on their public grounds in the first place. If they decide that this person/symbol no longer represents their values or the community and want to remove it, then they have that right.
One of my favorite genres to listen to in my travels are westerns. They have enough adventure to keep me awake, but generally not too stressful. You know the outcome. Zane Grey, Max Brand, Louis L'Amour - these are the mainstays.
I am presently reading God or Nothing an interview with Cardinal Sarah. Cardinal Sarah contends (I am paraphrasing) that Christianity is not a set of (moral) norms, but an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ. Moral laws are more of a consequence than a prerequisite of Christianity. In other words, the encounter with the Son of Man calls us to follow him, which then makes us want to live a certain way. This seems (to me) very Augustinian, if the premise above is true.
