Democrats drop Jefferson and Jackson like a bowling ball because of their slavery ways

Political correctness has progressed from silliness, to annoying, to downright stupidity. From CTPost.com:

Under pressure from the NAACP, the [Connecticut] state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.

Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were wrong to think they could own black people. We see that clearly now, but these men were men of their generation. We honor them, not because of their actions in regards to slavery, but for their many other accomplishments in the founding of this nation. To remove their namesake because they did not think and act like people in the 21^st century is absurd. What’s next? Should we throw away the Declaration of Independence since Jefferson the slaveholder wrote that too?

In the future, when America comes to see that abortion is a moral tragedy, and the practice is outlawed, will we remove the names of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton from everything their names are attached to as well? Will we fail to honor them for whatever good they were honored for, just because they could not see as clearly as future generations will see? No. We honor the people of the past for the good they did, not for their flaws. To remove their names from monuments or anything else due to their flaws is wrongheaded and petty.

jasondulle Says:

August 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm

The Take Away and Frank Adamick, your comments have nothing to do with this post. Per my commenting policy, I am removing them. Please stick to the topic at hand guys. Thanks!

LikeLike

SonofMan Says:

August 11, 2015 at 9:54 am

Jason:
Then it looks like you have a Blank Blog to me using your politically correct commenting policy, whatever that means, other than censorship. So yours is the only comment to yourself about your own topic that nobody but Frank and I commented on anyway, so you prefer a blank page that nobody offers anything to the conversation?.

I cannot comment on Frank’s post but what I spoke to was the process of political correctness (THE TOPIC) since biblical times.

“This is a current example of how revisionist historians re-write history, change or delete unwanted information” ……………………This refers directly to your posting.

“Persons in positions of power re-write, revise, knock out or include the “politically correct” to meet the generational expediency of the times and not necessarily for the preservation of truth and historical accuracy.” ………………A direct comment on your topic of political correctness.

(Political correctness revises history) “It exposes one to carefully consider the possible flaws of Absolute Certainty that one may espouse and defend erroneously because of the revisionist’s subjective chisel, reed, quill and pen.” …………………..A direct reference to the moral of the story, to be cautious of post political correctness when reading anything.

And as for the biblical examples of political correctness I offered in between the obvious references noted above, are you actually saying they are extraneous to a blog entitled “Theosophical Ruminations”?…………..I don’t think so!

By deleting the posts Jason you simply did exactly what you criticize the political correctness ‘gone-too-far’ is all about “from silliness, to annoying, to downright stupidity” and not only that, by deleting the posts commenting on the topic, nobody else can agree or disagree with you. WHY? ….”Persons in positions of power re-write, revise, knock out or include the “politically correct” to meet the generational expediency of the times and not necessarily for the preservation of truth and historical accuracy.”

I refer you to the bottom line in your own topic “To remove their (posts) from monuments, (blogs) or anything else due to (perceived) flaws is wrongheaded and petty.

Thanks

Bob Mason Says:

August 11, 2015 at 3:16 pm

Have to go with Jason on this one. You guys get way off topic, way too often.

August 11, 2015 at 6:21 pm

Bob Mason:
Obviously you support the idea of inclusion otherwise how can you support censorship without it ?

Frank Adamick Says:

August 11, 2015 at 10:01 pm

Jason,

Seeing that you’ve categorized this post under “Odds & Ends” the rational for why my comments would be classified as irrelevant, off topic or “have nothing to do with this post” has me in doubt. Where may posters to this blog find your “commenting policy”? Nevertheless, now that another topic has been introduced I’ll weigh in resolutely:

Censorship never serves a reliable trustworthy purpose. By its very nature; i.e., arbitrary, capricious, opaque, mutable even protean it deters straightforward good-faith communication thus stifling genuine, free & open exchange of ideas. It engenders ignorance while suppressing contrary points of view. Moreover, it enables the execution of ulterior motives resulting in exclusion of ideas & opinions that could otherwise offer beneficial difference from established conventions or personal biases thereby thwarting progress; thus making censorship counterproductive in the extreme. Indeed aforementioned President Jefferson lived in vehement opposition to it.

– Frank

September 1, 2015 at 2:19 am

Frank, “odds and ends” means this doesn’t fit nicely into one of the categories I have created for filing my posts. It doesn’t mean that there is no topic to the post. If a comment is not related to the topic at hand, it will be deleted. I have a commenting policy. It’s not censorship. This is my blog and my rules apply here. And my rule is that comments need to stick to the topic and people should not use the comments section as a bully pulpit or a place to discuss some other topic. People who just want to post their own random thoughts should start their own blog. But if they want to contribute to the discussion on someone else’s blog, then their comments should contribute to the topic at hand. I think this is a reasonable request.

Jason

September 2, 2015 at 5:25 am

Thanks for clarifying your rationale. I agree with you that your request is reasonable and in keeping with that request I offer the following post to your blog concerning President Jefferson and his views & experience on Politics & Government: Freedom of the Press —

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1600.htm

If you judge these to be “random thoughts” or think they don’t “contribute to the discussion” of course you’re free to exercise your decision to delete them.

Thinking to Believe