What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

Good to see ignorance alive and well in the hinterlands of middle America

I'm sure you're relived to know there are ignorant people just like you everywhere.

 

[Underachievers]

My Confederate Flag had been stored away

for a very long time. Brought that sucker

out yesterday and it now flows freely in the wind.

You should put it on your truck and drive to a black church this morning just to show how badass you are.

Aint no black churches near me homey.This is fun. The moral authority, a gift to comedy that keeps on giving.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

New York City has at least two memorials to Confederates that I can recall, Marlon Sims in Central Park and Ler Avenue in Brooklyn.

 

[Mister CIA]

Good to see ignorance alive and well in the hinterlands of middle America

I hear it's a lot like the hinterlands of middle Long Island.

 

[Koya]

My Confederate Flag had been stored away

for a very long time. Brought that sucker

out yesterday and it now flows freely in the wind.

You should put it on your truck and drive to a black church this morning just to show how badass you are.

Aint no black churches near me homey.This is fun. The moral authority, a gift to comedy that keeps on giving.

The price of freedom includes having to deal with selfish people who dont merely "not care" about how their actions may hurt others, but actually SEEK to throw it in the face of those who SHOULD take legitimate offense to their actions.

Well done, your false pride is obviously far more important than how your actions do harm to others. Ya ####in 'merica.

Im Tired of being shamed by my countrymen, like you. But again, freedom has its price. Ill gladly accept your right to pronounce your own backward, selfish and straight out cruel feelings if that right provides for a court system that reminds us that while your right to speak freely to honor history of exlusion and denial of rights is accepted, the govt itself ahould probably refrain from unbridled use of such a divisive and to some (many) a cruel symbol of an awful past - a past propogated by said gov't.

 

[cstu]

I haven't been keeping up to date with this, but who all, exactly, is "coming after" the flag?

Some in SC trying to get it taken down from the state capitol (sensible, even if the timing seems reactionary).

Apple with the games, but I'm sure they'll backtrack and end up selling a bunch more games with confederate flags in them than they otherwise would've.

Is the eBay and Amazon thing real? I saw some FB whining about it, but I usually don't read those posts/links.

For the rest of the country, I'd assume the sentiment probably remains the same, just with people expressing their opinions more than usual. 95% of the country has no interest in flying or owning one because, you know, doing so makes you look like a racist and/or white trash. The rest is some combination of actual white trash waiting to mount it on their trucks during black biker week at Myrtle Beach and some somewhat sensible folks that really do view it as a wonderful, proud symbol of their beloved South and like it enough to deal with the fact that others will think they are racist white trash for flying it.

It's a lot of hubbub for a flag that the majority of Americans might never have seen again for the rest of their lives.

The rest of the country is sick of seeing people celebrate the worst time in America's history, regardless of their reasons.

 

[Underachievers]

Eeeek.....just saw a piece of cloth coming down the street. Hide the children.

 

[Jayrod]

Eeeek.....just saw a piece of cloth coming down the street. Hide the children.

Trolly troll trolling trollerson.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Eeeek.....just saw a piece of cloth coming down the street. Hide the children.

Your mom's panties?

 

[Politician Spock]

Eeeek.....just saw a piece of cloth coming down the street. Hide the children.

Is this what priests will now experience as they walk down the street?

 

[FUBAR]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[timschochet]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights. But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

 

[General Malaise]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week


Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many — most — of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:28–29). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history — and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

 

[General Tso]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

By far the best thing I ever read in the FFA. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Mohawk]

That essay is well stated! Good job professor Mc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

timschochetPosted 13 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I like James Loewen a lot. His book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent study of American history, though related from a very leftist point of view. I think however, that he misses a key point. He lists the main reasons why South Carolina seceded; and he is correct that the main reason was over slavery. But South Carolina is not the entire South, and it's secession (and that of the lower South states) would have meant very little if not for the decision by Virginia and North Carolina to join them. In fact, if Virginia in particular had not left, the Confederacy would probably have died out in a few months for lack of membership.What caused Virginia to secede is something that Loewen doesn't mention: the call by Abraham Lincoln for troops to put down the rebellion after Fort Sumter. Virginia reacted to the notion that Washington could send the military to subjugate South Carolina. It was very much a states' rights issue. And it stayed one throughout the war. During the Battle of Shiloh, for example, a captured Reb soldier from Mississippi was asked why he was fighting, when it turned out that he didn't own any slaves and detested slavery. He said, "I'm fighting because you're here."

So while Loewen is correct in the motivations of South Carolina, he is not correct that states rights had nothing to do with it. It was a very important concept at the time. It was the reason Robert E. Lee joined up, because he was more loyal to his home state than to the Union. Loewen's analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[njherdfan]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

Except here's the thing: America didn't end when we did all of those awful things. The Confederacy only existed for a distinct 4-year period, and its primary (and sole) purpose was continuing slavery.

 

[Andrew74]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

By far the best thing I ever read in the FFA. Thanks for posting it.

I thought it was quite underwhelming and not really that good.

 

[Stinger Ray]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

timschochet

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I like James Loewen a lot. His book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent study of American history, though related from a very leftist point of view. I think however, that he misses a key point. He lists the main reasons why South Carolina seceded; and he is correct that the main reason was over slavery. But South Carolina is not the entire South, and it's secession (and that of the lower South states) would have meant very little if not for the decision by Virginia and North Carolina to join them. In fact, if Virginia in particular had not left, the Confederacy would probably have died out in a few months for lack of membership.

What caused Virginia to secede is something that Loewen doesn't mention: the call by Abraham Lincoln for troops to put down the rebellion after Fort Sumter. Virginia reacted to the notion that Washington could send the military to subjugate South Carolina. It was very much a states' rights issue. And it stayed one throughout the war. During the Battle of Shiloh, for example, a captured Reb soldier from Mississippi was asked why he was fighting, when it turned out that he didn't own any slaves and detested slavery. He said, "I'm fighting because you're here."

So while Loewen is correct in the motivations of South Carolina, he is not correct that states rights had nothing to do with it. It was a very important concept at the time. It was the reason Robert E. Lee joined up, because he was more loyal to his home state than to the Union. Loewen's analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

Let me guess...Tim contradicting himself again.

 

[Jayrod]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

Nails the flag/slavery angle.ACA isn't healthcare, it's health insurance. Our entire country has had health care since before ACA. Now we have a socialistic system whereby the wealthy pay for the poor's healthcare. Not saying it's wrong, but at least call it what it is.

And the argument about what the Bible says about homosexuality is way off base. That is a tired argument that is false no matter how many times "scholars" repeat it. Not saying gay marriage is an issue that Christians need to fight, but again, call it like it is.

 

[Underachievers]

Ughhh.....what a day. After that cloth came down the street, we obviously headed for the basement (after locking the doors of course). The kids were all crying after all the horrible things they have heard about cloth the past few days. Being the loving father that I am, I reassured them that cloth is actually harmless and the only reason we came to the basement is to protect us from the cloth chasers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week


Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many — most — of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:28–29). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history — and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

I think Cstu somewhere actually posted the actual Mississippi Declaration. I think that's all you have to look at.

But it might be worth looking at the full extent of that clause and what followed:

• "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
• There is a long series of probably about 6-8 historical instances where the South feels guarantees to it were breached, starting with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and running through the Kansas-Nebraska Act of around 1850.
• It concludes: "Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

In 2014, the relative value of $4,000,000,000.00 from 1861 ranges from $84,300,000,000.00 to $15,000,000,000,000.00.

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

I have never been under the impression that the prospect of abolition in the South was real, the North seemed perfectly content to expand the country, make promises of the expansion of slavery, and haul in the profits, so maybe the above was paranoia, but it didn't sound like it.

 

[timschochet]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

timschochet

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I like James Loewen a lot. His book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent study of American history, though related from a very leftist point of view. I think however, that he misses a key point. He lists the main reasons why South Carolina seceded; and he is correct that the main reason was over slavery. But South Carolina is not the entire South, and it's secession (and that of the lower South states) would have meant very little if not for the decision by Virginia and North Carolina to join them. In fact, if Virginia in particular had not left, the Confederacy would probably have died out in a few months for lack of membership.

What caused Virginia to secede is something that Loewen doesn't mention: the call by Abraham Lincoln for troops to put down the rebellion after Fort Sumter. Virginia reacted to the notion that Washington could send the military to subjugate South Carolina. It was very much a states' rights issue. And it stayed one throughout the war. During the Battle of Shiloh, for example, a captured Reb soldier from Mississippi was asked why he was fighting, when it turned out that he didn't own any slaves and detested slavery. He said, "I'm fighting because you're here."

So while Loewen is correct in the motivations of South Carolina, he is not correct that states rights had nothing to do with it. It was a very important concept at the time. It was the reason Robert E. Lee joined up, because he was more loyal to his home state than to the Union. Loewen's analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

That is true. Since I wrote that, however, I've come to learn of a lot of inconsistencies about the South's position and I am now more skeptical of the states' rights claim. I still though, believe that what I wrote was correct in that many southerners saw the war in terms of defending against northern invasion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nearly 30 million people live in slavery worldwide, with most of them in Asia and Africa, according to a report released Thursday.

The Walk Free Foundation's ranking incorporates factors that include the traditional definition of slavery — owning another person — as well as things such as child marriage and human trafficking.

Here are the highlights of the report:

— India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, Thailand, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar and Bangladesh together account for more than three-quarters of the total estimate.

— The West African nation of Mauritania tops the list. It has the highest estimated proportion of enslaved people in the world. The report says there are between 140,000 and 160,000 people enslaved in Mauritania. That's out of a population of just 3.8 million.

— India has the most slaves (between 13.3 million and 14.7 million people), followed by China (2.8 million to 3.1 million) and Pakistan (2 million to 2.2 million).

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/10/17/236212198/india-china-top-list-of-nations-with-most-slaves

ISIS states its justification for the enslavement of womenIn a new publication, ISIS justifies its kidnapping of women as sex slaves citing Islamic theology, an interpretation that is rejected by the Muslim world at large as a perversion of Islam.

"One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday.

The title of the article sums up the ISIS point of view: "The revival (of) slavery before the Hour," referring to Judgment Day.

The fourth edition of the group's English-language digital magazine called "Dabiq" said that female members of the Yazidi sect, an ethnically Kurdish minority living mostly in Iraq, may legitimately be captured and forcibly made concubines or sexual slaves.

...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html

What are we doing about slavery today?

 

[timschochet]

Not ####### enough, that's for sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not ####### enough, that's for sure.

Zero by the look of it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

why does the south need a seperate flag from the one that we had BEFORE the civil war when we were one nation under god?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

why does the south need a seperate flag from the one that we had BEFORE the civil war when we were one nation under god?

That concept is from the Pledge of Allegiance, which did not exist at the time.

At the time it was "these" United States, as in plural. It's important because the idea of supremacy of the federal government had not been established, in fact the idea of whether it was "one Nation" at all was an old debate unresolved from the Revolutionary War. After the CW it was "the" United States.

 

[Stinger Ray]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

timschochet

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I like James Loewen a lot. His book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent study of American history, though related from a very leftist point of view. I think however, that he misses a key point. He lists the main reasons why South Carolina seceded; and he is correct that the main reason was over slavery. But South Carolina is not the entire South, and it's secession (and that of the lower South states) would have meant very little if not for the decision by Virginia and North Carolina to join them. In fact, if Virginia in particular had not left, the Confederacy would probably have died out in a few months for lack of membership.

What caused Virginia to secede is something that Loewen doesn't mention: the call by Abraham Lincoln for troops to put down the rebellion after Fort Sumter. Virginia reacted to the notion that Washington could send the military to subjugate South Carolina. It was very much a states' rights issue. And it stayed one throughout the war. During the Battle of Shiloh, for example, a captured Reb soldier from Mississippi was asked why he was fighting, when it turned out that he didn't own any slaves and detested slavery. He said, "I'm fighting because you're here."

So while Loewen is correct in the motivations of South Carolina, he is not correct that states rights had nothing to do with it. It was a very important concept at the time. It was the reason Robert E. Lee joined up, because he was more loyal to his home state than to the Union. Loewen's analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

That is true. Since I wrote that, however, I've come to learn of a lot of inconsistencies about the South's position and I am now more skeptical of the states' rights claim. I still though, believe that what I wrote was correct in that many southerners saw the war in terms of defending against northern invasion.

What happened to your promise of staying in your own thread?

 

[General Tso]

You could interpret the American flag to be a symbol of oppression, bigotry, imperialism, and the destroyer of native culture. Or you can view it as a symbol of freedom.

Similarly, the Confederate flag is either a symbol of slavery or state rights.

if the person waving the flag or flying it at his house is acting like we want others to act, there shouldn't be a problem.

The Confederate flag has little to do with states rights.But regardless, I don't see why people keep confusing the issue by discussing what individuals do. The question remains whether or not the Confederate Battle flag should be flown over a state Capitol or public building. I haven't read a compelling reason as to why it should.

timschochet

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:00 PM

I like James Loewen a lot. His book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent study of American history, though related from a very leftist point of view. I think however, that he misses a key point. He lists the main reasons why South Carolina seceded; and he is correct that the main reason was over slavery. But South Carolina is not the entire South, and it's secession (and that of the lower South states) would have meant very little if not for the decision by Virginia and North Carolina to join them. In fact, if Virginia in particular had not left, the Confederacy would probably have died out in a few months for lack of membership.

What caused Virginia to secede is something that Loewen doesn't mention: the call by Abraham Lincoln for troops to put down the rebellion after Fort Sumter. Virginia reacted to the notion that Washington could send the military to subjugate South Carolina. It was very much a states' rights issue. And it stayed one throughout the war. During the Battle of Shiloh, for example, a captured Reb soldier from Mississippi was asked why he was fighting, when it turned out that he didn't own any slaves and detested slavery. He said, "I'm fighting because you're here."

So while Loewen is correct in the motivations of South Carolina, he is not correct that states rights had nothing to do with it. It was a very important concept at the time. It was the reason Robert E. Lee joined up, because he was more loyal to his home state than to the Union. Loewen's analysis doesn't tell the whole story.

That is true. Since I wrote that, however, I've come to learn of a lot of inconsistencies about the South's position and I am now more skeptical of the states' rights claim. I still though, believe that what I wrote was correct in that many southerners saw the war in terms of defending against northern invasion.

What happened to your promise of staying in your own thread?

He can go wherever he wants. Lay off the guy already.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I have never been under the impression that the prospect of abolition in the South was real, the North seemed perfectly content to expand the country, make promises of the expansion of slavery, and haul in the profits, so maybe the above was paranoia, but it didn't sound like it.

Wasn't slavery viewed as an impediment to the innovation, commerce, and economic growth of the north and much of the west? The south was going to have their "peculiar institution" stripped away from them because it got in the way, or at least limited profits for the other regions. Which is why they tried to get out while they still could.

Is this wrong?

 

[Mjolnirs]

At the time it was "these" United States, as in plural. It's important because the idea of supremacy of the federal government had not been established, in fact the idea of whether it was "one Nation" at all was an old debate unresolved from the Revolutionary War. After the CW it was "the" United States.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well you can start with the war with Mexico bringing Texas in (and at tge time potentially other vast areas), the La purchase in bringing in a vast territory where slavery was legal, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act where there was at least the potential for KS and later other areas like Itah on a similar plebiscite.basis, all potentially expanding slavery. They had a deal, the Compromise of 1820, but then kept abrogating it. If the North though slavery was bad for their economy they werent acting like it The North was definitely making money off slavery - banks, insurers, shipping, manufacturing, retail, export. - However reality is slavery did not expand to KS, but think about the future value of griculture in KS. Think about how much was at stake. But I'm not sure that amounts to the South withering away or facing abolition in their area.

I guess my question is if you look at the MS Declaration, they seemed to think that abolition was coming South at some point - was that ever true?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Vote coming up in congress shortly banning all white males from shaving their head.

Let's not go nuts here. Balding middle-aged guys like me need a way to take control of the situation. Our next best option is the comb-over, and nobody wants that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week


Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many — most — of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:28–29). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history — and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

This fellow should have stopped at the bolded part. It was spot on. I get that that's the part you wanted to emphasize, and it's effective.

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

The ending on homosexuality is similarly awful. After a while, you just roll your eyes and stop reading when people go back to the shellfish thing. When people cite that, along with the passages from Leviticus, it tells me that they're just not bothering to try to understand where socially conservative Christians are coming from. Christians of good will can disagree on this issue, but not for the reasons the author states.

Edit: More generally, there's something kind of creepy about lumping all of these issues together as if they're part and parcel of some something broader, especially when they're all hot-button topics.

 

[Soonerman]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week


Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many — most — of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:28–29). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history — and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

This fellow should have stopped at the bolded part. It was spot on. I get that that's the part you wanted to emphasize, and it's effective.

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

The ending on homosexuality is similarly awful. After a while, you just roll your eyes and stop reading when people go back to the shellfish thing. When people cite that, along with the passages from Leviticus, it tells me that they're just not bothering to try to understand where socially conservative Christians are coming from. Christians of good will can disagree on this issue, but not for the reasons the author states.

Edit: More generally, there's something kind of creepy about lumping all of these issues together as if they're part and parcel of some something broader, especially when they're all hot-button topics.

The bolded is not true. There was a plan brought forward in the 90's by a few liberal/moderate Republicans that somewhat resembled ACA, but it never had anything close to majority conservative support, and certainly not any libertarian support that I remember. And it was disowned long before Obama came along.

 

[Soonerman]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

Nails the flag/slavery angle.ACA isn't healthcare, it's health insurance. Our entire country has had health care since before ACA. Now we have a socialistic system whereby the wealthy pay for the poor's healthcare. Not saying it's wrong, but at least call it what it is.

And the argument about what the Bible says about homosexuality is way off base. That is a tired argument that is false no matter how many times "scholars" repeat it. Not saying gay marriage is an issue that Christians need to fight, but again, call it like it is.

How is this guy chair of the history department. As regards the history of religion, he is pretty clueless.

 

[cstu]

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

Yeah, a guy who upset money-changing tables would never get political...

 

[renesauz]

I haven't been keeping up to date with this, but who all, exactly, is "coming after" the flag?

Some in SC trying to get it taken down from the state capitol (sensible, even if the timing seems reactionary).

Apple with the games, but I'm sure they'll backtrack and end up selling a bunch more games with confederate flags in them than they otherwise would've.

Is the eBay and Amazon thing real? I saw some FB whining about it, but I usually don't read those posts/links.

For the rest of the country, I'd assume the sentiment probably remains the same, just with people expressing their opinions more than usual. 95% of the country has no interest in flying or owning one because, you know, doing so makes you look like a racist and/or white trash. The rest is some combination of actual white trash waiting to mount it on their trucks during black biker week at Myrtle Beach and some somewhat sensible folks that really do view it as a wonderful, proud symbol of their beloved South and like it enough to deal with the fact that others will think they are racist white trash for flying it.

It's a lot of hubbub for a flag that the majority of Americans might never have seen again for the rest of their lives.

There's been an uptick in grassroots attempts to take down war memorials. That's been a relatively large news item here in Hampton Roads Virginia re. a memorial not 2 miles from my home.

 

[Jayrod]

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

Yeah, a guy who upset money-changing tables would never get political...

He flipped over the tables to drive the greed and cheating out of the temple area, where people were supposed to be worshipping and praying. Not a political statement, but another teaching moment on matters of the heart.

 

[renesauz]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week


Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many — most — of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:28–29). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history — and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

This fellow should have stopped at the bolded part. It was spot on. I get that that's the part you wanted to emphasize, and it's effective.

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

The ending on homosexuality is similarly awful. After a while, you just roll your eyes and stop reading when people go back to the shellfish thing. When people cite that, along with the passages from Leviticus, it tells me that they're just not bothering to try to understand where socially conservative Christians are coming from. Christians of good will can disagree on this issue, but not for the reasons the author states.

Edit: More generally, there's something kind of creepy about lumping all of these issues together as if they're part and parcel of some something broader, especially when they're all hot-button topics.

I disagree re. the homosexuality issue, although he could have expanded and written it better. The truth is that Jesus himself really did say nothing (in the New Testament) about it, and the words of Paul have long been debated as to how/if they apply to homosexuals in general. The Leviticus verses really are the only clear/unopen to interpretation verses in the scriptures, and there they really are buried inside a hundred other laws that modern Christians ignore or don't recognize as applicable today/to non-Hebrews.

Strict interpretations concluding homosexuality is wrong are understandable, but the vehemance with which many Christians fight it is very disturbing, because that is most decidedly NOT what Jesus would do, IMHO.

 

[General Malaise]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

Nails the flag/slavery angle.ACA isn't healthcare, it's health insurance. Our entire country has had health care since before ACA. Now we have a socialistic system whereby the wealthy pay for the poor's healthcare. Not saying it's wrong, but at least call it what it is.

And the argument about what the Bible says about homosexuality is way off base. That is a tired argument that is false no matter how many times "scholars" repeat it. Not saying gay marriage is an issue that Christians need to fight, but again, call it like it is.

How is this guy chair of the history department. As regards the history of religion, he is pretty clueless.

You can look him up if you like. His book on The Great Depression is highly acclaimed and I'm sure he is anything but clueless. Link to anything you've ever accomplished?

 

[General Malaise]

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

Yeah, a guy who upset money-changing tables would never get political...

He flipped over the tables to drive the greed and cheating out of the temple area, where people were supposed to be worshipping and praying. Not a political statement, but another teaching moment on matters of the heart.

And you know this from all the eye witness accounts and day of reporting?

 

[General Malaise]

My history professor at Millsaps wrote this today for the Clarion Ledger, Jackson, MS newspaper. I think it's spot on and fantastic writing. I'm sure confederate flag guy, anti gay guy and Peens will disagree...

WWJD over issues of last week

Last week was a tumultuous one for our state, as the long-held positions of many Mississippians on three issues were seriously challenged. Change is difficult, but the time has come to examine those positions and embrace new views on the Confederate battle flag, the Affordable Care Act and same-sex relationships.

A majority of people in Mississippi identify themselves as Christians. Let us, then, ask on these three questions: "What would Jesus do?"

As Republican governors in such sister states as South Carolina and Alabama have moved in the wake of the horror in Charleston to remove the Confederate flag, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Mississippi resist, once again singling out Mississippi in a bad way.

It is long past time for the argument that the "Lost Cause" was about something other than preserving slavery to be totally rejected. We often hear about the "intent of the Founders" when constitutional questions arise. Let us look at the intent of the founders of Mississippi's secession from the Union. The first reason stated in the 1861 "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" is:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." Note the word "thoroughly."

Case closed. Of course that does not mean that many most of those who fought with valor on the Confederate side saw themselves as fighting for slavery. They were persuaded to fight and die for the interests of slaveholders by talk of "states' rights." But make no mistake: the only "right" that led to secession and the terrible war that followed was the "right" to own other people. Ancestors who fought in the war can and should be honored without honoring the evil cause for which they were induced to fight.

The war was not about states' rights; it was about states' wrongs, and the flag has been used for the past six decades to support such other states' wrongs as segregation. It has flown over lynchings and murders. Keeping it as part of our state flag, particularly when its association with these wrongs has become much more widely recognized, would be to proclaim to the world that Mississippi stands alone in still favoring these wrongs. It should be clear what Jesus would do on this issue.

As for the Affordable Care Act, can anyone seriously contend that denying healthcare those who are ill is what Jesus would do? People oppose "Obamacare" only because it is associated with President Obama. Far from being "socialism," it is an essentially Republican program that provides coverage through private insurance companies. What would Jesus do? He would shout at Governor Bryant: "Accept Medicaid expansion for the good of the working poor and the entire state!"

Finally, there is the question of rights for homosexuals. Many Christians are in opposition. Mike Huckabee tweeted that "Jesus wept" at the announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

Perhaps someone can point me to a passage in the Gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality. The fact is that He is not recorded as ever having mentioned it, though the practice was widespread in the ancient world. What people usually point to as the "Christian" teaching on the subject is two lines from Leviticus that say that a man lying "with a male as with a woman" is an abomination.

But to how many other among the 613 laws of the Torah do most Christians pay any heed? Eating pork or shellfish is also classified as an "abomination." Slavery is endorsed. The punishment for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must buy her from her father and marry her. (Deut 22:2829). Does anyone think that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is what Jesus would do?

There are numerous other outlandish and outrageous laws in the early books of the Bible that almost no one follows. It must be recognized that these are the man-made laws of an ancient society, not the laws of God. Picking one of those laws and claiming that it represents the teaching of Jesus on a topic He never discussed is absurd.

It is time for us to get on the right side of history and stop erroneously using Jesus as a reason not to do so.

Robert S. McElvaine is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters and chair of the Department of History at Millsaps College in Jackson.

This fellow should have stopped at the bolded part. It was spot on. I get that that's the part you wanted to emphasize, and it's effective.

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

The ending on homosexuality is similarly awful. After a while, you just roll your eyes and stop reading when people go back to the shellfish thing. When people cite that, along with the passages from Leviticus, it tells me that they're just not bothering to try to understand where socially conservative Christians are coming from. Christians of good will can disagree on this issue, but not for the reasons the author states.

Edit: More generally, there's something kind of creepy about lumping all of these issues together as if they're part and parcel of some something broader, especially when they're all hot-button topics.

I disagree re. the homosexuality issue, although he could have expanded and written it better. The truth is that Jesus himself really did say nothing (in the New Testament) about it, and the words of Paul have long been debated as to how/if they apply to homosexuals in general. The Leviticus verses really are the only clear/unopen to interpretation verses in the scriptures, and there they really are buried inside a hundred other laws that modern Christians ignore or don't recognize as applicable today/to non-Hebrews.Strict interpretations concluding homosexuality is wrong are understandable, but the vehemance with which many Christians fight it is very disturbing, because that is most decidedly NOT what Jesus would do, IMHO.

Although I think his published article was flawless.

 

[Chappy]

Without question, even if the flag flyer doesn't realize it or mean it as such, the Confederate flag represents hate, inequality, slavery and racism.

Damn things should never be flown anywhere.

Born and raised in NJ.

 

[GilbertGrape]

When I was a child, I had a bath towel with the Confederate Flag on it. I was also given Confederate money to play with. This did not make me a racist.

I also had a bath towel with the "Hey Kool-Aid" guy on it. This made me join the junior clan.

Seriously, I miss both of them. Although they'd be too small now.

 

[renesauz]

When I was a child, I had a bath towel with the Confederate Flag on it. I was also given Confederate money to play with. This did not make me a racist.

I also had a bath towel with the "Hey Kool-Aid" guy on it. This made me join the junior clan.

Seriously, I miss both of them. Although they'd be too small now.

I don't think even the most liberal person would suggest that everybody with a confederate flag is a racist, but some would suggest that anyone fighting hard to keep that flag flying anywhere other than a memorial/museum might be being intentionally obtuse and/or insensitive/ignorant

 

[cstu]

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

Yeah, a guy who upset money-changing tables would never get political...

He flipped over the tables to drive the greed and cheating out of the temple area, where people were supposed to be worshipping and praying.Not a political statement, but another teaching moment on matters of the heart.

You serious, Clark?

 

[jon_mx]

The ACA part is terrible. I am pro-ACA, and I agree completely that it's essentially a Republican/libertarian idea than Republicans/libertarians now disown because a Democrat co-opted it. I'm ticked off at people on "my side" for that. But playing the WWJD angle here is stupid. It is inconceivable to anybody who has spent any serious time studying Christianity that Jesus would get caught up in the wonkery of health care policymaking. That's just preposterous.

Yeah, a guy who upset money-changing tables would never get political...

He flipped over the tables to drive the greed and cheating out of the temple area, where people were supposed to be worshipping and praying.Not a political statement, but another teaching moment on matters of the heart.

You serious, Clark?

Any suggestion that Jesus would give a crap about politics is extremely ignorant. Jesus cares about saving souls and the kingdom of heaven.

 

[msommer]

My Confederate Flag had been stored away for a very long time. Brought that sucker out yesterday and it now flows freely in the wind.

Great to know that the self-identifying thing works