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

[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.

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.

Agreed on the first, I wouldn't serve in the military if I thought our nation stood for the negative aspects. Just saying there are other perspectives.

 

[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.

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?

And yet he has no idea about the dietary laws of Judaism and how they relate to Christianity.

Oh, and nice defense of his knowledge of religion with praise for a book he wrote about the Great Depression. He may be the world's foremost authority on something, but it isn't Christianity.

 

[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.

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

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

 

[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.

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.

Ok, I guess we're going to do this. Again. The words of Paul on homosexuality have not been long since debated. Only recently have they been debated and that by people with an agenda. He clearly speaks of homosexuality and that it is sin.

As far as Jesus words, he uses the phrase we interpret as "sexual immorality" which is an all encompassing term known to include homosexuality.

And as for the awful, uninformed, tired argument about how we don't follow all of the OT laws, like shellfish, etc., Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. And what did Jesus do? He became the ultimate sacrifice for sin and purification. Therefore, we don't need to adhere to OT laws about ceremonial cleansing and eating unclean foods and making sacrifices for sin.

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

 

[Jayrod]

With all that said, I agree that actively fighting gay marriage is not what Christians should be doing.

Instituting laws that enforce Christian behavior in a non-Christian nation does no good. We should be focusing first on our own morality and loving others as Jesus commanded.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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?

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

You mean those documents written to proclaim the Good News of the coming of God's kingdom to replace the Roman Empire written roughly concurrent to Rome destroying any hope of Jerusalem's sovereignty? Written to proclaim that the mankind's true leader was an executed political subversive?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

But 25 shekels is still in play, correct?

 

[jon_mx]

With all that said, I agree that actively fighting gay marriage is not what Christians should be doing.

Instituting laws that enforce Christian behavior in a non-Christian nation does no good. We should be focusing first on our own morality and loving others as Jesus commanded.

It always baffled me why so many Christians focus on the sin of homosexuality. I guess it is one that is easiest for most to keep, so they elevate it to some kind of super-sin that must be condemned and cast out. But sin is sin, and everyone sins.

 

[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.

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

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

You mean those documents written to proclaim the Good News of the coming of God's kingdom to replace the Roman Empire written roughly concurrent to Rome destroying any hope of Jerusalem's sovereignty? Written to proclaim that the mankind's true leader was an executed political subversive?

No, I mean those documents written to record and spread the life and gospel of Jesus and establish an everlasting kingdom worldwide that has no political aspirations, only Spiritual ones.

 

[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.

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

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

You mean those documents written to proclaim the Good News of the coming of God's kingdom to replace the Roman Empire written roughly concurrent to Rome destroying any hope of Jerusalem's sovereignty? Written to proclaim that the mankind's true leader was an executed political subversive?

God's kingdom had nothing to do with replacing the Roman Empire.

 

[Jayrod]

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

But 25 shekels is still in play, correct?

No, we don't use shekels anymore, we use US dollars.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

Why not simply fly a flag that proclaims States Rights,one with no design invoking the Confederacy?

 

[msommer]

Confederate flag to the Torah, to the New Testament to homosexuality and shekels.

Hadn't seen that one coming...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So yesterday I'm driving through what is a pretty old, mixed neighborhood and I see a house with a flag. It has a white field and in it is a large image of an automatic weapon, and above it is written, "Come And Take It." Also, friend of mine was out at the boat launch yesterday and he said there was a gathering of guys with trucks and motorcycles proudly displaying their confederate flags. - Meanwhile, the local paper the Picayune, once the bastion of white upper class, ran on the front Sunday paper a top bannered Op-Ed calling for the Lee statue and the few other 3-4 CW monuments we have to come down. And the same paper in the front Sports page had a wonderful piece reminding everyone that 'hey don't forget the Tigers in LSU Tigers has Civil War connotations.' Of course everything in that paper now is digital and it's all done to manufacture controversy and clicks. We have probably a year of strife over this issue to look forward to now.

 

[3C's]

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.

A little sidebar on that topic. http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6-scriptures-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

But 25 shekels is still in play, correct?

No, we don't use shekels anymore, we use US dollars.

But God's eternal sexual morality laws remain even if the currency changes, correct? Oh and I think I'm mixing up passages and this one is fifty shekels. Ops.

 

[Jayrod]

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

But 25 shekels is still in play, correct?

No, we don't use shekels anymore, we use US dollars.

But God's eternal sexual morality laws remain even if the currency changes, correct? Oh and I think I'm mixing up passages and this one is fifty shekels. Ops.

Rambling rants won't change anything, BFS. It is what it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but this isn't the grey area you want it to be.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As soon as someone asks about eating shellfish, it's obvious they haven't even done any basic research themselves on the topic, but just regurgitate something they read on the Internet.

But 25 shekels is still in play, correct?

No, we don't use shekels anymore, we use US dollars.

But God's eternal sexual morality laws remain even if the currency changes, correct? Oh and I think I'm mixing up passages and this one is fifty shekels. Ops.

Rambling rants won't change anything, BFS. It is what it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but this isn't the grey area you want it to be.

So fifty shekels converted to modern currency still applies? It is what it is?

 

[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.

Why not simply fly a flag that proclaims States Rights,one with no design invoking the Confederacy?

You know, that's a good idea.

Someone should develop a flag that somehow has symbols for just the 50 states. Another idea could be a flag that reflects that it was just the 13 individual colonies that joined together for independence. You know, something that completely leaves out any single one symbol for the federal government altogether.

 

[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.

Why not simply fly a flag that proclaims States Rights,one with no design invoking the Confederacy?

You know, that's a good idea.

Someone should develop a flag that somehow has symbols for just the 50 states. Another idea could be a flag that reflects that it was just the 13 individual colonies that joined together for independence. You know, something that completely leaves out any single one symbol for the federal government altogether.

Interesting. Maybe combine both?

Nah, that wouldn't work.

 

[matttyl]

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.

In fairness, the flag in question isn't flying over either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As for Tim's question about what individuals do, it's actually the subject of this thread - see the OP.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

Why not simply fly a flag that proclaims States Rights,one with no design invoking the Confederacy?

You know, that's a good idea.

Someone should develop a flag that somehow has symbols for just the 50 states. Another idea could be a flag that reflects that it was just the 13 individual colonies that joined together for independence. You know, something that completely leaves out any single one symbol for the federal government altogether.

I really don't think people today understand how little power the federal government was suppose to have over everyday life of people back then and what a radical change in philosophy the civil war had in how we were governed. It was a power grab which has been rapidly expanding into every imaginable area ever since.

 

[matttyl]

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

What about inside their own homes? And again, the flag in question today is in fact flying over a memorial, isn't it?

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Fixed. We were just one nation until 1954. Then we were under God.

Assuming we were one nation before the pledge was written.

 

[matttyl]

So yesterday I'm driving through what is a pretty old, mixed neighborhood and I see a house with a flag. It has a white field and in it is a large image of an automatic weapon, and above it is written, "Come And Take It." Also, friend of mine was out at the boat launch yesterday and he said there was a gathering of guys with trucks and motorcycles proudly displaying their confederate flags. - Meanwhile, the local paper the Picayune, once the bastion of white upper class, ran on the front Sunday paper a top bannered Op-Ed calling for the Lee statue and the few other 3-4 CW monuments we have to come down. And the same paper in the front Sports page had a wonderful piece reminding everyone that 'hey don't forget the Tigers in LSU Tigers has Civil War connotations.' Of course everything in that paper now is digital and it's all done to manufacture controversy and clicks. We have probably a year of strife over this issue to look forward to now.

Derivative of this flag, the Gonzales flag. Yet another example of how symbols can change over time, either for good or bad.

 

[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?

And yet he has no idea about the dietary laws of Judaism and how they relate to Christianity.

Oh, and nice defense of his knowledge of religion with praise for a book he wrote about the Great Depression. He may be the world's foremost authority on something, but it isn't Christianity.

You asked me how he was chair of the history department. I assure you, he is qualified.

And I like how you take issue with the dietary laws of Judaism, but neglect his points about slavery or rape. Is he just making this stuff up or no, he's correct, that's what the bible says....

 

[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?

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

Written several years after the death of Jesus....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So help what is the tie-in between the ACA, JC, and whether people should be allowed to fly the confederate flag in their front yard again?

 

[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.

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

Huh? I know this from the gospel stories which are the only records of the events.

Written several years after the death of Jesus....

It is hard to believe that no one videotaped.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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...

Yaknow, the "For The Love of God Don't Elect Hilary Clinton" thread would probably be perfect for this secular example of JC opposing corruption in a modern US context.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Loser flag.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Loser flag.

Any thoughts on this?

http://mostateparks.com/park/confederate-memorial-state-historic-site

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So help what is the tie-in between the ACA, JC, and whether people should be allowed to fly the confederate flag in their front yard again?

The timing of two Supreme Court decisions coinciding with a current event. Nothing more than a temporal tie-in.

 

[matttyl]

Sorry if already posted.....

The Gettysburg battlefield has pulled the flag (and flag items) from it's bookstore.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Loser flag.

Any thoughts on this?

http://mostateparks.com/park/confederate-memorial-state-historic-site

Yes, that's on the loser side of the State where the losers name their cities after loser generals.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sorry if already posted.....

The Gettysburg battlefield has pulled the flag (and flag items) from it's bookstore.

Had to laugh last night, flipping channels came across the American History Channel. It had a show called "Civil War: Blood on the Battlefields". The show itself was good, interesting, but of course the logo for the show during the buffer was what else but a US flag juxtaposed with a confederate flag. - Oh no! How could this happen?

It also occurs to me that Civil War recreations are so common across the country, and they nearly all have accurate reproductions of flags and weaponry and they try to recreate events of the CW battles. Can this be allowed to continue?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Loser flag.

Any thoughts on this?

http://mostateparks.com/park/confederate-memorial-state-historic-site

Yes, that's on the loser side of the State where the losers name their cities after loser generals.

Is this the side with St. Louis or the other side?

http://explorestlouis.com/visit-explore/discover/itineraries/civil-war-history-in-st-louis/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2518560931_86b583ba1e.jpg

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/fullsizerender11.jpg?w=300&h=225

 

[Doug B]

Meanwhile, the local paper the Picayune, once the bastion of white upper class, ran on the front Sunday paper a top bannered Op-Ed calling for the Lee statue and the few other 3-4 CW monuments we have to come down. And the same paper in the front Sports page had a wonderful piece reminding everyone that 'hey don't forget the Tigers in LSU Tigers has Civil War connotations.' Of course everything in that paper now is digital and it's all done to manufacture controversy and clicks. We have probably a year of strife over this issue to look forward to now.

Coming from them, there's a strong whiff of artificial me-too-ism. Where was the Picayune on this topic a month ago?

At least Mitch Landrieu (for the house: he's N.O.'s mayor) admitted that he drove past Lee Circle all his life without noticing the statue. The paper acts like they've been calling for the statue's removal since it went up in 1884, Rather, they have sat on the sidelines for many decades.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Loser flag.

Any thoughts on this?

http://mostateparks.com/park/confederate-memorial-state-historic-site

Yes, that's on the loser side of the State where the losers name their cities after loser generals.

Is this the side with St. Louis or the other side?

http://explorestlouis.com/visit-explore/discover/itineraries/civil-war-history-in-st-louis/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2518560931_86b583ba1e.jpg

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/fullsizerender11.jpg?w=300&h=225

Remembering the past and flying a loser flag is different, rube.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Meanwhile, the local paper the Picayune, once the bastion of white upper class, ran on the front Sunday paper a top bannered Op-Ed calling for the Lee statue and the few other 3-4 CW monuments we have to come down. And the same paper in the front Sports page had a wonderful piece reminding everyone that 'hey don't forget the Tigers in LSU Tigers has Civil War connotations.' Of course everything in that paper now is digital and it's all done to manufacture controversy and clicks. We have probably a year of strife over this issue to look forward to now.

Coming from them, there's a strong whiff of artificial me-too-ism. Where was the Picayune on this topic a month ago?

At least Mitch Landrieu (for the house: he's N.O.'s mayor) admitted that he drove past Lee Circle all his life without noticing the statue. The paper acts like they've been calling for the statue's removal since it went up in 1884, Rather, they have sat on the sidelines for many decades.

On the sidelines? I guarantee you when that thing went up they were in the front row cheering and blowing vuvuzelas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Loser flag.

Any thoughts on this?

http://mostateparks.com/park/confederate-memorial-state-historic-site

Yes, that's on the loser side of the State where the losers name their cities after loser generals.

Is this the side with St. Louis or the other side?

http://explorestlouis.com/visit-explore/discover/itineraries/civil-war-history-in-st-louis/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2518560931_86b583ba1e.jpg

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/fullsizerender11.jpg?w=300&h=225

Remembering the past and flying a loser flag is different, rube.

Oh. It is? Fascinating.

 

[Henry Ford]

Woman who is having 15 minutes of fame for claiming the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism happens to be the daughter-in-law of the national director of the KKK and wife of the guy who tried to adopt an Arkansas highway for the KKK.

Link.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Woman who is having 15 minutes of fame for claiming the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism happens to be the daughter-in-law of the national director of the KKK and wife of the guy who tried to adopt a Missouri highway for the KKK.

Link.

People are stupid

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Woman who is having 15 minutes of fame for claiming the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism happens to be the daughter-in-law of the national director of the KKK and wife of the guy who tried to adopt a Missouri highway for the KKK.

Link.

co-owner of the store, once tried to adopt a highway in Arkansas on behalf of the...

That highway was in Arkansas, you know the state which reconfirmed its confederate heritage with a star in its flag in 1987.

 

[Henry Ford]

Woman who is having 15 minutes of fame for claiming the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism happens to be the daughter-in-law of the national director of the KKK and wife of the guy who tried to adopt a Missouri highway for the KKK.

Link.

co-owner of the store, once tried to adopt a highway in Arkansas on behalf of the...

That highway was in Arkansas, you know the state which reconfirmed its confederate heritage with a star in its flag in 1987.

My bad. Fixed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anna Robb said in one hour Thursday, more than 300 orders came in. This time last week, she estimates they were getting about a dozen orders in a day.

This is called burying the lede.

 

[msommer]

Sorry if already posted.....

The Gettysburg battlefield has pulled the flag (and flag items) from it's bookstore.

Had to laugh last night, flipping channels came across the American History Channel. It had a show called "Civil War: Blood on the Battlefields". The show itself was good, interesting, but of course the logo for the show during the buffer was what else but a US flag juxtaposed with a confederate flag. - Oh no! How could this happen?

It also occurs to me that Civil War recreations are so common across the country, and they nearly all have accurate reproductions of flags and weaponry and they try to recreate events of the CW battles. Can this be allowed to continue?

As long as the actors in the grey acknowledge the heritage of the flag (and attempt atrocities on the field) I'm ok with it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sorry if already posted.....

The Gettysburg battlefield has pulled the flag (and flag items) from it's bookstore.

Had to laugh last night, flipping channels came across the American History Channel. It had a show called "Civil War: Blood on the Battlefields". The show itself was good, interesting, but of course the logo for the show during the buffer was what else but a US flag juxtaposed with a confederate flag. - Oh no! How could this happen?

It also occurs to me that Civil War recreations are so common across the country, and they nearly all have accurate reproductions of flags and weaponry and they try to recreate events of the CW battles. Can this be allowed to continue?

As long as the actors in the grey acknowledge the heritage of the flag (and attempt atrocities on the field) I'm ok with it.

"Right, let's see some atrocities out there today, boys! Let's win this one for the Souff!"

 

[Doug B]

Anna Robb said in one hour Thursday, more than 300 orders came in. This time last week, she estimates they were getting about a dozen orders in a day.

This is called burying the lede.

SID2006, I'd seen a similar report about a "flag store" on Magazine Street (for the house: in Uptown N.O.). Huge run on Confederate flags and paraphernalia.