What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

So it HAS acutaly come to this... (1 Viewer)

It really doesn't bother me as it is an organization deciding to do it on their own.  They are not being forced.

 
The church leaders made the decision to relocate both plaques (one honoring Washington, the other other honoring Robert E. Lee). I don't agree with their decision, but I respect their Constitutional right to do what they did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The church leaders made the decision to relocate both plaques (one honoring Washington, the other other honoring Robert E. Lee). I don't agree with their decision, but I respect their Constitutional right to do what they did.
...and not pay taxes

 
It really doesn't bother me as it is an organization deciding to do it on their own.  They are not being forced.
I guess what bothers me is that they had to even think about it. I mean, now the father of our country makes people feel unsafe, in a church? Because of a plaque?? :loco:

 
I guess what bothers me is that they had to even think about it. I mean, now the father of our country makes people feel unsafe, in a church? Because of a plaque?? :loco:
If white supremacists were raising a stink about potentially removing the Robert E. Lee plaque, then I could see why people might feel unsafe going to that church.

 
If white supremacists were raising a stink about potentially removing the Robert E. Lee plaque, then I could see why people might feel unsafe going to that church.
Not sure what that has to do with the Washington plaque? The article mentioned specifically that people felt unwelcome and unsafe because of that plaque.

 
Not sure what that has to do with the Washington plaque? The article mentioned specifically that people felt unwelcome and unsafe because of that plaque.
Actually the church stated that "the plaques" made some people feel unsafe or unwelcome. Notice the emphasis on plural.

You can read the full explanation from the church here.

The two plaques (Washington & Lee) were erected together, and are considered to be a single work of art.

If you want to infer that some people felt unwelcome strictly by the presence of a George Washington plaque, that's your right. But I suspect that such reasoning is disingenuous. There's no evidence to support that reasoning, and the church certainly never makes such a claim.

Furthermore, if FoxNews had actually bothered to tell the full story, you'd see that the church has NO INTENTION of actually removing EITHER plaque. They're simply moving the plaques out of the worship space. The church intends for both plaques to be "prominently" displayed and fully visible to the public.

 
Actually the church stated that "the plaques" made some people feel unsafe or unwelcome. Notice the emphasis on plural.

You can read the full explanation from the church here.
I was going by the text in the article, which stated:

"Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia will take down a memorial marking the pew where Washington sat with his family, saying it is not acceptable to all worshipers."

 
I was going by the text in the article, which stated:

"Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia will take down a memorial marking the pew where Washington sat with his family, saying it is not acceptable to all worshipers."
It's almost like the author of the article had a clear agenda.

 
Certainly possible. Don't know. Was just responding to his comment and explaining why I commented as I did.
It's not unique to that website or me calling you out- it happens me as well. I will find an article that pushes a button and I post it or tell someone about it. Then, after I research the topic more, I discover that article left out some key details or misstated the situation. 

 
It's not unique to that website or me calling you out- it happens me as well. I will find an article that pushes a button and I post it or tell someone about it. Then, after I research the topic more, I discover that article left out some key details or misstated the situation. 
Oh yes, totally get that. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It does, in fact, bother me if that is the case. Which it sounds like it very well may be.

 
Oh yes, totally get that. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. It does, in fact, bother me if that is the case. Which it sounds like it very well may be.
Before forming an opinion on something, it's always best to get primary source information first.  :thumbup:

 
Before forming an opinion on something, it's always best to get primary source information first.  :thumbup:
Yep and confirm with multiple sources. Teaching history, I always preach this to kids but it is easy to fall for it yourself when you are just casually reading and not doing academic work. I actually might use this example here for a lesson in the future. I am always looking for modern examples of misleading journalism, propaganda, yellow journalism, fake news, etc. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top