(September 12, 2017 at 11:08 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(September 12, 2017 at 11:04 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Also a good point. If the city itself doesn't want it, then it's for the best and in that case, there's no point in me trying to argue otherwise. I am legitimately surprised this point has been buried underneath all the rhetoric.
The problem comes when certain state legislatures have laws saying that no city can change/remove war monuments, a law which some states do have.
Once again, there's something fundamentally insane about the fact that this is hardly even mentioned in the debates. I have a problem with dismissing a great general because of his very dodgy views and a lack of understanding of historical nuance on the part of the beholder, but I see no reason a state should force a city to keep a statue it doesn't want.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.