There are of course some situations in which secession is necessary, but I am commenting on the great majority of justifications for secession.
Democracy and elections
1. Anyone can support democracy if their faction or party or group is winning the elections. The true test of the support for democracy is when your faction, party or group is losing the elections. Even more so, is when you don't have a reasonable hope of winning the next elections. In America many whose group is losing today are hopeful that tomorrow the public will see reason and there will be electoral victory.
Also, if a great majority is in favor of one party and a minority is in favor of another party, they are outnumbered and they don't have a lot of support. So those who give up on democracy or seek to subvert it are a minority. Or the case may be that if a great many support a new direction opponents will eventually change their opinion.
However, electoral results are rarely, in fact I don't if they are actually ever, geographically uniform. In an election some area, place, region is likely to have voted one way and the rest of the geographical are for the election another.
This is where the idiotic idea of secession comes in. Some will imagine that if they were in a separate polity they can have their own local majority. So they propose secession. Of course this process if repeatedly carried out, would eventually break a nation into a million polities.
Usually it is justified by finding some cultural difference and arguing they are incompatible with the rest. Some small difference is inflated. "They use two pads of butter on their muffins, the horror, we only use one pad of butter on our muffins and these immigrants use margarine, even worse, or some equivalent nonsense."
2. The world is small and getting smaller. It isn't the 18th century where the choices for travel are boats and carriages travelling over bad roads. We have jets, Internet, modern highways, powered ships, telecommunications,etc.
For many reasons the world needs to work together in multinational arrangements, not petty states.
We live in a world of different people. Living with them and they with us is something that needs to be done. Also, expecting that one group or another will be privileged, in particular ourselves is an expectation that is likely sooner or later be unfulfilled.
It isn't necessarily going to be easy at all times, and we will always find others annoying to us and we to them. However that is life, we need to be grown up and not spoiled and not in expectation of privilege.
Secession is for whiners and morons.
Unfortunately there are some people who claimed to be leftists and who propose secession. They are morons. Their proposals should be seen as reactionary as they truly are.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Some considerations about Texas secession, not so fast Texit idiots. UPDATE:
The Texas secessionists think that if they get a 50+% vote then all of Texas secedes.
Some considerations about this.
1. Since the basis for secession is a majority vote then wouldn't each county or city that votes 50+% AGAINST secession automatically be seceded from Texas and remain with the United States? Some might argue that a county voting against secession might be landlocked, but Berlin was landlocked during the Cold War with the Soviets.
Also, since the Texas coast is likely to vote against secession and the border areas with Mexico will likely vote against secession the remaining part of Texas which actually voted for secession is likely to be landlocked itself and be ready to negotiate.
However, a great many areas that secede won't have to be worried about being landlocked.
A great many areas that are likely to vote against secession will be contingent with another state or contingent with another country that voted against secession. The city of Texarkana which has as its purpose being the metropolis for the four corner region is likely to vote against secession.
The coastal areas that vote against secession have the ocean as an outlet.
Also, it would be unwise for Texas secessionists to seize a county that voted against secession, the American government has always been willing to protect its citizens.
2. The whole nature of the American system is not to have an impetuous vote affect the system too much. We have the election of U.S. Senators by one-third every two years over a 6 year cycle.
We require a 3/4th ratification of a constitutional amendment by the states.
To be sent before the states for ratification we have a requirement of a 2/3rds vote in the national legislature by two houses.
We have other super-majority requirements.
The British may have chosen a simple majority of the turn out to be the basis of Brexit. However, we don't have to be idiots like the British conservative government. The requirement should at least be 2/3rds before we just convert a state into a foreign country and at least 50% of eligible voters and without any problem of voter suppression.
The requirements of the Texas constitution for an amendment are probably applicable here also. Surely the Texit people aren't advocating the overthrow of the Texas government. Or are they?
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mhc10
It seems that 2/3rd of both houses of the Texas state legislature have to vote for a constitutional amendment.
These limits in our Texas Constitution and American Constitution are so passions of the moment don't upend society and are wise.
I don't think the Texas secessionists will much care about these things. There strategy is that under one pretext or another they just claim Texas independence. Or dark conspiracy theories about how they lost.
3. Also, as some counties realize that voting against secession was a really bad idea, they certainly could vote again, this time against seceding, and join the United States with the admission proviso that there will be no more secessionist silliness.
In the end a few countries might remain as part of a seceded Texas, land locked and desolate and it might be decided that they could remain so.
UPDATE:
If a part of a county was against secession, and was contingent to the U.S. or another country that voted against secession it certainly should be allowed to join the country remaining in the United States.
Also, any area could just vote to remain if it was a historical neighborhood or identifiable community.
National forests, parks, cemeteries, etc. stay with the United States as well. Also, U.S. property.
Some considerations about this.
1. Since the basis for secession is a majority vote then wouldn't each county or city that votes 50+% AGAINST secession automatically be seceded from Texas and remain with the United States? Some might argue that a county voting against secession might be landlocked, but Berlin was landlocked during the Cold War with the Soviets.
Also, since the Texas coast is likely to vote against secession and the border areas with Mexico will likely vote against secession the remaining part of Texas which actually voted for secession is likely to be landlocked itself and be ready to negotiate.
However, a great many areas that secede won't have to be worried about being landlocked.
A great many areas that are likely to vote against secession will be contingent with another state or contingent with another country that voted against secession. The city of Texarkana which has as its purpose being the metropolis for the four corner region is likely to vote against secession.
The coastal areas that vote against secession have the ocean as an outlet.
Also, it would be unwise for Texas secessionists to seize a county that voted against secession, the American government has always been willing to protect its citizens.
2. The whole nature of the American system is not to have an impetuous vote affect the system too much. We have the election of U.S. Senators by one-third every two years over a 6 year cycle.
We require a 3/4th ratification of a constitutional amendment by the states.
To be sent before the states for ratification we have a requirement of a 2/3rds vote in the national legislature by two houses.
We have other super-majority requirements.
The British may have chosen a simple majority of the turn out to be the basis of Brexit. However, we don't have to be idiots like the British conservative government. The requirement should at least be 2/3rds before we just convert a state into a foreign country and at least 50% of eligible voters and without any problem of voter suppression.
The requirements of the Texas constitution for an amendment are probably applicable here also. Surely the Texit people aren't advocating the overthrow of the Texas government. Or are they?
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mhc10
It seems that 2/3rd of both houses of the Texas state legislature have to vote for a constitutional amendment.
These limits in our Texas Constitution and American Constitution are so passions of the moment don't upend society and are wise.
I don't think the Texas secessionists will much care about these things. There strategy is that under one pretext or another they just claim Texas independence. Or dark conspiracy theories about how they lost.
3. Also, as some counties realize that voting against secession was a really bad idea, they certainly could vote again, this time against seceding, and join the United States with the admission proviso that there will be no more secessionist silliness.
In the end a few countries might remain as part of a seceded Texas, land locked and desolate and it might be decided that they could remain so.
UPDATE:
If a part of a county was against secession, and was contingent to the U.S. or another country that voted against secession it certainly should be allowed to join the country remaining in the United States.
Also, any area could just vote to remain if it was a historical neighborhood or identifiable community.
National forests, parks, cemeteries, etc. stay with the United States as well. Also, U.S. property.
Lew Rockwell Backs Texas Secession as well as Brexit
The Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org head is Lew Rockwell who has a website www.lewrockwell.com.
They have been supporting Brexit, where Britain leaves the European Union. A search at their web page will come up with numerous articles as well as an advance search on Google.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Brexit&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.lewrockwell.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=#hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Brexit+site:www.lewrockwell.com
This is not surprising. Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute support secession any time and any place for any reason.
What is of interest is that Lew Rockwell has come out supporting Texit, which is Texas secession. Also, secession for other American states.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/no_author/texit/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/?d=2016-06-20
Though this is a case of one fringe movement endorsing another it is still a step forward for the Texas secessionists. The Lew Rockwell people have some significant support in Texas. Ron Paul was a U.S. Congressional Representative elected in Texas.
They have been supporting Brexit, where Britain leaves the European Union. A search at their web page will come up with numerous articles as well as an advance search on Google.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Brexit&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=www.lewrockwell.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=#hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=Brexit+site:www.lewrockwell.com
This is not surprising. Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute support secession any time and any place for any reason.
What is of interest is that Lew Rockwell has come out supporting Texit, which is Texas secession. Also, secession for other American states.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/no_author/texit/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/?d=2016-06-20
Though this is a case of one fringe movement endorsing another it is still a step forward for the Texas secessionists. The Lew Rockwell people have some significant support in Texas. Ron Paul was a U.S. Congressional Representative elected in Texas.
Friday, June 24, 2016
A Scarecrow to other nations
The British just voted to leave the European Union with much of the vote for the separation driven by Xenophobia and the fact is that the new economic system has left many behind.
The British pound has taken a steep drop. http://qz.com/715669/the-british-pound-is-getting-crushed/
It could break up the United Kingdom. http://qz.com/715751/could-brexit-spark-the-breakup-of-the-united-kingdom/
There will be negative consequences here. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755
Our local Texan idiots are using Brexit as a model for Texit.
https://www.facebook.com/texasnatmov/
The successful passage of Brexit should serve as a warning here what could happen. An economic that serves elites eventually is going to get opposition.
It will be interesting to see what a heavily populated island with not that many natural resources and long dependent on trading does as an isolationist nation.
It might be that Britain will serve as a warning to other nations what happens when you make these type of choices.
The British pound has taken a steep drop. http://qz.com/715669/the-british-pound-is-getting-crushed/
It could break up the United Kingdom. http://qz.com/715751/could-brexit-spark-the-breakup-of-the-united-kingdom/
There will be negative consequences here. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755
Our local Texan idiots are using Brexit as a model for Texit.
https://www.facebook.com/texasnatmov/
The successful passage of Brexit should serve as a warning here what could happen. An economic that serves elites eventually is going to get opposition.
It will be interesting to see what a heavily populated island with not that many natural resources and long dependent on trading does as an isolationist nation.
It might be that Britain will serve as a warning to other nations what happens when you make these type of choices.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
The South re-discovers its anti-Confederate past. Neo-Confederacy is crumbling.
The movie "Free State of Jones" opens this weekend. This might lead to a popular re-discovery of the South's anti-Confederate past.
This is a news broad cast. "Free State of Winston"
http://wiat.com/2016/06/21/free-state-of-winston-alabama/
The article states:
The neo-Confederates have always tried to assert that being Southern and being pro-Confederate is one and the same. What this new focus of history will show is that being Southern is one thing, being pro-Confederate is another, that is a racist jerk.
It can be imagined in the future when people want to proclaim that they honor their Confederate ancestors others will wonder why when other Southerners resisted the Confederacy. Confederate ancestors will be those who made the wrong choice as Southerners and they made it for slavery. It won't be identical with "Southern heritage" but will be seen as just being pro-Confederate.
There are a lot of regions of the South which didn't support slavery. Hopefully this movie revives interest everywhere in those regions and groups that resisted the Confederacy.
This is a news broad cast. "Free State of Winston"
http://wiat.com/2016/06/21/free-state-of-winston-alabama/
The article states:
Here in the heart of Dixie – secession was favorable for those who had slaves, but what many may not know is that this was far from a war about the north and the south, in fact, it was a war about loyalty to the forefathers of the Union.
The Free State of Winston – a county once divided during the Civil War, but it was more than that.
“A rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight,” said Peter Gossett of the Winston County Archives. “I noticed the similarity in the upcoming movie, that’s what they were talking about, and that’s what happened here.”
The neo-Confederates have always tried to assert that being Southern and being pro-Confederate is one and the same. What this new focus of history will show is that being Southern is one thing, being pro-Confederate is another, that is a racist jerk.
It can be imagined in the future when people want to proclaim that they honor their Confederate ancestors others will wonder why when other Southerners resisted the Confederacy. Confederate ancestors will be those who made the wrong choice as Southerners and they made it for slavery. It won't be identical with "Southern heritage" but will be seen as just being pro-Confederate.
There are a lot of regions of the South which didn't support slavery. Hopefully this movie revives interest everywhere in those regions and groups that resisted the Confederacy.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Quoted in British Tabloid "Daily Mail" about Rick Tyler independent candidate for Congress.
I did a quick Facebook post about Rick Tyler running for Congress in Tennessee with the brief comment, "A clown running for congress in Tennessee."
I had a link to the Google web cache. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aricktylerforcongress.com
I got the link from a "Gawker" article.
So this afternoon my comment was supposed to represent that Facebook was livid according to the "Daily Mail."
I am surprised that this person isn't publicly a member of some neo-Confederate group.
Presidential Elections and secession
Currently it looks like apparent Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump is going to lose the election. He may not even get the nomination. The Republican Party is realizing that besides losing the Presidential election Trump might bring down the Republican party and they could lose both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and lose several governorships.
The effort to just deny Trump the nomination is in progress.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-delegate-revolt-224634
I am sure at this point all the Trump delegates are aware of these efforts and will attend the Republican National Convention in a state of anxiety that this might happen. It could be really tense. I would not be surprised if there is a riot of delegates when the attempt to deny Trump the nomination occurs.
There are two scenarios here.
1. Trump does get the nomination and he loses in the general election and takes down a lot of Republicans with him at the local, state, and federal levels. The Democratic Party is in charge at the federal level and at many more local and state places.
The Trump supporters and the cranky faction of the conservative movement realize that within the American democratic system they have no future and that the political landscape is going to evolve to be more adverse towards their goals.
2. Trump is just denied the nomination and the Republican party crashes in the general election and Trump supporters are totally alienated from the political system.
In general some will look at Trump's ouster and the Democrats superdelegate system and lose faith in the political system. Again the cranky segment of the conservative movement will realize that they have no future in the political system.
In either scenario the cranky conservative faction will be looking for success in what avenues they can find. Secession, creaking a local polity where you are in the majority will be immediately obvious though also seen as facing some challenges. However, when the crankies don't have any options in the system, they will be forced to pursue what options are available.
Texas secession movement will take off. There will be other secession movements.
The polling for secession was fairly substantial among Republicans after the 2012 elections and at that time Republicans controlled the House and Senate and had hopes. After 2016 they won't have hopes.
Secession will become more a real thing in American politics.
Also, I really think that people need to stop quoting Supreme Court decisions against secession as if they mattered. These legal rulings and laws really don't count much in the matter of secession. National identity is a matter of the heart, or as Lincoln referred to the "mystic chords of memory." In modern cultural geography we state that "nations are imagined."
Once a group of people decided to leave by a good margin at some point they have a good chance of leaving. Unless it is a really small place. In the South we have populations that would be inherently against secession so secession once it is realized to be a serious threat will receive a serious opposition from substantial portions of the public and will not be able to go anywhere. There is the prospect of conflict though.
This is the anti-Secession Facebook page for Texas.
https://www.facebook.com/TexansTruetotheUnion/
The effort to just deny Trump the nomination is in progress.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-delegate-revolt-224634
I am sure at this point all the Trump delegates are aware of these efforts and will attend the Republican National Convention in a state of anxiety that this might happen. It could be really tense. I would not be surprised if there is a riot of delegates when the attempt to deny Trump the nomination occurs.
There are two scenarios here.
1. Trump does get the nomination and he loses in the general election and takes down a lot of Republicans with him at the local, state, and federal levels. The Democratic Party is in charge at the federal level and at many more local and state places.
The Trump supporters and the cranky faction of the conservative movement realize that within the American democratic system they have no future and that the political landscape is going to evolve to be more adverse towards their goals.
2. Trump is just denied the nomination and the Republican party crashes in the general election and Trump supporters are totally alienated from the political system.
In general some will look at Trump's ouster and the Democrats superdelegate system and lose faith in the political system. Again the cranky segment of the conservative movement will realize that they have no future in the political system.
In either scenario the cranky conservative faction will be looking for success in what avenues they can find. Secession, creaking a local polity where you are in the majority will be immediately obvious though also seen as facing some challenges. However, when the crankies don't have any options in the system, they will be forced to pursue what options are available.
Texas secession movement will take off. There will be other secession movements.
The polling for secession was fairly substantial among Republicans after the 2012 elections and at that time Republicans controlled the House and Senate and had hopes. After 2016 they won't have hopes.
Secession will become more a real thing in American politics.
Also, I really think that people need to stop quoting Supreme Court decisions against secession as if they mattered. These legal rulings and laws really don't count much in the matter of secession. National identity is a matter of the heart, or as Lincoln referred to the "mystic chords of memory." In modern cultural geography we state that "nations are imagined."
Once a group of people decided to leave by a good margin at some point they have a good chance of leaving. Unless it is a really small place. In the South we have populations that would be inherently against secession so secession once it is realized to be a serious threat will receive a serious opposition from substantial portions of the public and will not be able to go anywhere. There is the prospect of conflict though.
This is the anti-Secession Facebook page for Texas.
https://www.facebook.com/TexansTruetotheUnion/
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Sons of Confederate Veterans launch counter attack against the Southern Baptist Church: UPDATE, UPDATE 2
I have been writing the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention ever since I found out that the Ashley River Baptist church hosted the Sons of Confederate Veterans event at their 2014 national convention.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/11/wrote-president-of-southern-baptist.html#.V2bTnbgrKiM
I wrote the leader of the Southern Baptists in Dallas.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154772192254829&set=a.10152829468284829.1073741826.675344828&type=3&theater
At this page you can read the correspondence with Ronnie Floyd which I copied with the entire Executive Board of the denomination and with leaders of African American Baptist denominations.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/southern-baptist-convention.html
I also wrote the leadership of the Texas SBC. I don't have that online.
The general campaign against hosting neo-Confederate groups is online at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/churches-of-the-confederacy.html.
I can't say definitely that I had an impact. I think that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is trying to move into a future in which Christianity is global and is not centered in the Western world. The SBC can't compel member churches to not host Confederate groups, but they can send a message that will discourage it. I think with my correspondence they had to reflect that sooner or later their hosting of neo-Confederate groups would become news in the United States and then globally. Elsewhere they are competing against other Christian denominations and with other religions. Imagine what their credibility would be in Asian, Africa, Latin America, and in urban minority communities in the Western world if it got out that they were hosting neo-Confederate groups and they had been written about it and they persisted anyways.
With this resolution they have plausible deniability. If some SBC church still hosts a neo-Confederate event, they can start arguing blah blah blah about their organizational structure. I think though that with their resolution any minister would have to realize that some parishioners might raise objections and that also it could lead to real conflict in their church. Regardless of their feelings they will decide that it is a conflict they don't need.
Additionally, either the SBC is hosting neo-Confederate events or they are not, as Christians say, "By ye fruits you will know them." Something like that anyways. I will certainly make any hosting by any church known, and each time a SBC church hosts the neo-Confederates it will be bad publicity. So I think individual SBC churches are not going to want to have any involvements with neo-Confederate groups.
The great thing about this resolution is that it puts other denominations to shame. The United Methodist Church (UMC) with all their hosting of the United Daughters of the Confederacy despite being told what the UDC was about really appear to be total fakes about the issue of racism. I am sure liberal UMC members will come up with excuses and rationalizations but if they do, they will just discredit themselves. Members of other denominations will ask their leadership how come the SBC is ahead of them on this issue. How lame does Bishop McKee's email reply to me seem now!
I am currently writing a book on the neo-Confederate movement orientated towards a popular audience. I am planning on then starting pod castings. Since I am tied up I haven't been able to push the church issue much lately, but I do plan on including in the book the issue in the chapter on enablers.
As I blogged earlier the resolution against displaying the Confederate flag is weak, but it does have a huge symbolic importance. http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/06/southern-baptists-full-of-stuff-and.html#.V2bTcLgrKiM
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Commander-in-Chief Kelly Barrow has responded.
https://www.facebook.com/Sons-of-Confederate-Veterans-Official-149308815083112/
Barrow's response doesn't include an apology for the neo-Confederate attacks on the SBC made by neo-Confederates and their books they have promoted. I made sure the SBC knew how the neo-Confederates were bashing them. I made sure the SBC knew the attack on them by Walter Kennedy in the book "Myths of American Slavery."
Barrow's response is clueless. It doesn't address the issue of the SBC reaching out to a multiracial world. Neo-Confederate have delusions about the Confederacy such that might think it would be somehow acceptable to be a Confederate identified church and still be able to reach out to a multiracial world.
I am sure the SBC is cringing that Barrow is releasing this information to the public.
Members of other denomination are going to be asking their leadership why they don't have such a resolution against the Confederate flag and they will like to think that their resolution would surely be more anti-Confederate than the SBC's. Parishioners will ask why are they hosting a neo-Confederate group.
The SCV does have a church that is scheduled to host one of their events in Dallas during their 2016 convention. The online website for the convention doesn't mention it, but they are scheduling to have an event at a local church. Hopefully that church will re-consider. The church that is hosting the SCV event has to consider that even if they are keeping it secret it might leak out later and then they have not only hosted the event by they have conspired to hold the event.
The neo-Confederates are trying to push the Confederate battle flag as a Christian symbol.
https://confederateshop.com/shop/confederate-flags-matter-the-christian-influence-on-the-flags/
This is the SBC resolution if you missed it:
http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/resolution-7-on-sensitivity-and-unity-regarding-the-confederate-battle-flag
Information on the Sons of Confederate Veterans regarding race.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/526/526_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html
UPDATE:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1207020905977838&id=147175811962358
Barrow is calling for the members to "stand down" because they are going to work behind the scenes with SBC members in the denomination. I think this will be hard to do for many of their members.
I am not so sure Barrow can control the SCV membership. One thing it is going to be fairly apparent soon that working behind the scenes isn't going to happen. The SBC when they voted on this resolution surely knew there would be disgruntled members.
The SBC just can't afford to be associated with the Confederacy. They are in competition with other denominations and with African American denominations and other denominations and religions globally. If they are seen to cave into the SCV they will really really lose credibility with everyone except a fading remnant of angry men.
UPDATE2:
At the Southern Baptist Convention a John Killian spoke out against the resolution against the Confederate battle flag.
https://baptistnews.com/article/southern-baptists-renounce-confederate-flag/
Perhaps because he is involved with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
http://aladivscv.com/April%202016%20Alabama%20Confederate.pdf
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/11/wrote-president-of-southern-baptist.html#.V2bTnbgrKiM
I wrote the leader of the Southern Baptists in Dallas.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154772192254829&set=a.10152829468284829.1073741826.675344828&type=3&theater
At this page you can read the correspondence with Ronnie Floyd which I copied with the entire Executive Board of the denomination and with leaders of African American Baptist denominations.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/southern-baptist-convention.html
I also wrote the leadership of the Texas SBC. I don't have that online.
The general campaign against hosting neo-Confederate groups is online at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/churches-of-the-confederacy.html.
I can't say definitely that I had an impact. I think that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is trying to move into a future in which Christianity is global and is not centered in the Western world. The SBC can't compel member churches to not host Confederate groups, but they can send a message that will discourage it. I think with my correspondence they had to reflect that sooner or later their hosting of neo-Confederate groups would become news in the United States and then globally. Elsewhere they are competing against other Christian denominations and with other religions. Imagine what their credibility would be in Asian, Africa, Latin America, and in urban minority communities in the Western world if it got out that they were hosting neo-Confederate groups and they had been written about it and they persisted anyways.
With this resolution they have plausible deniability. If some SBC church still hosts a neo-Confederate event, they can start arguing blah blah blah about their organizational structure. I think though that with their resolution any minister would have to realize that some parishioners might raise objections and that also it could lead to real conflict in their church. Regardless of their feelings they will decide that it is a conflict they don't need.
Additionally, either the SBC is hosting neo-Confederate events or they are not, as Christians say, "By ye fruits you will know them." Something like that anyways. I will certainly make any hosting by any church known, and each time a SBC church hosts the neo-Confederates it will be bad publicity. So I think individual SBC churches are not going to want to have any involvements with neo-Confederate groups.
The great thing about this resolution is that it puts other denominations to shame. The United Methodist Church (UMC) with all their hosting of the United Daughters of the Confederacy despite being told what the UDC was about really appear to be total fakes about the issue of racism. I am sure liberal UMC members will come up with excuses and rationalizations but if they do, they will just discredit themselves. Members of other denominations will ask their leadership how come the SBC is ahead of them on this issue. How lame does Bishop McKee's email reply to me seem now!
I am currently writing a book on the neo-Confederate movement orientated towards a popular audience. I am planning on then starting pod castings. Since I am tied up I haven't been able to push the church issue much lately, but I do plan on including in the book the issue in the chapter on enablers.
As I blogged earlier the resolution against displaying the Confederate flag is weak, but it does have a huge symbolic importance. http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/06/southern-baptists-full-of-stuff-and.html#.V2bTcLgrKiM
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Commander-in-Chief Kelly Barrow has responded.
https://www.facebook.com/Sons-of-Confederate-Veterans-Official-149308815083112/
Barrow's response doesn't include an apology for the neo-Confederate attacks on the SBC made by neo-Confederates and their books they have promoted. I made sure the SBC knew how the neo-Confederates were bashing them. I made sure the SBC knew the attack on them by Walter Kennedy in the book "Myths of American Slavery."
Barrow's response is clueless. It doesn't address the issue of the SBC reaching out to a multiracial world. Neo-Confederate have delusions about the Confederacy such that might think it would be somehow acceptable to be a Confederate identified church and still be able to reach out to a multiracial world.
I am sure the SBC is cringing that Barrow is releasing this information to the public.
Untold numbers of these SBC churches, over the years, have cultivated great relationships with SCV camps by opening their facilities for regular meetings and special occasions, not to mention the cemeteries owned by SBC churches where the remains of legions of Confederate heroes lie -- these are sites for numerous memorial services.I don't think the SBC wants it broadcast that their member churches are in collusion with neo-Confederate groups.
Members of other denomination are going to be asking their leadership why they don't have such a resolution against the Confederate flag and they will like to think that their resolution would surely be more anti-Confederate than the SBC's. Parishioners will ask why are they hosting a neo-Confederate group.
The SCV does have a church that is scheduled to host one of their events in Dallas during their 2016 convention. The online website for the convention doesn't mention it, but they are scheduling to have an event at a local church. Hopefully that church will re-consider. The church that is hosting the SCV event has to consider that even if they are keeping it secret it might leak out later and then they have not only hosted the event by they have conspired to hold the event.
The neo-Confederates are trying to push the Confederate battle flag as a Christian symbol.
https://confederateshop.com/shop/confederate-flags-matter-the-christian-influence-on-the-flags/
This is the SBC resolution if you missed it:
http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/resolution-7-on-sensitivity-and-unity-regarding-the-confederate-battle-flag
Information on the Sons of Confederate Veterans regarding race.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/526/526_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html
UPDATE:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1207020905977838&id=147175811962358
Barrow is calling for the members to "stand down" because they are going to work behind the scenes with SBC members in the denomination. I think this will be hard to do for many of their members.
I am not so sure Barrow can control the SCV membership. One thing it is going to be fairly apparent soon that working behind the scenes isn't going to happen. The SBC when they voted on this resolution surely knew there would be disgruntled members.
The SBC just can't afford to be associated with the Confederacy. They are in competition with other denominations and with African American denominations and other denominations and religions globally. If they are seen to cave into the SCV they will really really lose credibility with everyone except a fading remnant of angry men.
UPDATE2:
At the Southern Baptist Convention a John Killian spoke out against the resolution against the Confederate battle flag.
https://baptistnews.com/article/southern-baptists-renounce-confederate-flag/
Perhaps because he is involved with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
http://aladivscv.com/April%202016%20Alabama%20Confederate.pdf
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS FULL OF STUFF AND NONSENSE
About the Southern Baptist Resolution, less than it seems
First it is just about the Confederate battle flag. You can fly any number of Confederate flags what don't have the infamous Confederate battle flag pattern.
Also, it doesn't reject the Confederacy. It also doesn't say that the Confederate Battle flag is racist, just that some consider it so.
To quote the resolution:
"WHEREAS, We recognize that the Confederate battle flag is used by some and perceived by many as a symbol of hatred, bigotry, and racism, offending millions of people; and"
Really, it "is used by some and perceived by many as a symbol of hatred, bigotry, and racism, offending millions of people"
The resolution doesn't say it is a symbol of racism, just that others perceive it as such.
Also, it is paternalism. We are concerned about the feelings of African Americans, not the that it might poison white people.
Finally, it isn't a rejection of the Confederacy itself.
It is a stuff and nonsense resolution.The Sons of Confederate Veterans will be outraged, but it is because they want everything and all things to be entirely for the Confederacy.
This is a measure so that the Southern Baptists don't have to face the issues regarding the Confederacy. I suspect that they will continue to host neo-Confederate groups.
http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/resolution-7-on-sensitivity-and-unity-regarding-the-confederate-battle-flag
First it is just about the Confederate battle flag. You can fly any number of Confederate flags what don't have the infamous Confederate battle flag pattern.
Also, it doesn't reject the Confederacy. It also doesn't say that the Confederate Battle flag is racist, just that some consider it so.
To quote the resolution:
"WHEREAS, We recognize that the Confederate battle flag is used by some and perceived by many as a symbol of hatred, bigotry, and racism, offending millions of people; and"
Really, it "is used by some and perceived by many as a symbol of hatred, bigotry, and racism, offending millions of people"
The resolution doesn't say it is a symbol of racism, just that others perceive it as such.
Also, it is paternalism. We are concerned about the feelings of African Americans, not the that it might poison white people.
Finally, it isn't a rejection of the Confederacy itself.
It is a stuff and nonsense resolution.The Sons of Confederate Veterans will be outraged, but it is because they want everything and all things to be entirely for the Confederacy.
This is a measure so that the Southern Baptists don't have to face the issues regarding the Confederacy. I suspect that they will continue to host neo-Confederate groups.
http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/resolution-7-on-sensitivity-and-unity-regarding-the-confederate-battle-flag
Southern Baptist Church condemns Confederate flag, maybe United Methodist Church will get a clue
The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a resolution condemning the Confederate battle flag.
An article announcing the passage of a resolution condemning the Confederate battle flag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/15/southern-baptist-convention-votes-to-condemn-confederate-battle-flag/
A background article on the Southern Baptists considering it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/at-a-historic-meeting-southern-baptists-may-consider-opposing-confederate-flag/
This resolution doesn't preclude them hosting neo-Confederate groups and they might use the resolution as a cover to continue hosting neo-Confederate groups.
Hopefully the United Methodist Church will get a clue and stop being clueless. The UMC likes to think they are all the lastest thing on racism and Christianity with fine sounding phrases, but they accommodate neo-Confederates and can't face the issue of the Confederacy.
I do think this is a huge blow against the neo-Confederates in terms of discrediting the Confederate battle flag. Many Southern Baptists will consider not flying it. It will make persons in the South who continue to fly the Confederate battle flag seem aberrant which will result in others not flying the Confederate flag. Now if you want to fly the Confederate flag you will be really fringe.
It will also surface the racial attitudes of some reactionaries who insist on flying the Confederates flag.
It will also challenge persons who are still into the Confederacy but think they are liberal or something or the progressive cutting edge. They will have to realize that they are just full of nonsense and rationalizations.
It will help me get churches to stop hosting.
An article announcing the passage of a resolution condemning the Confederate battle flag.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/15/southern-baptist-convention-votes-to-condemn-confederate-battle-flag/
A background article on the Southern Baptists considering it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/at-a-historic-meeting-southern-baptists-may-consider-opposing-confederate-flag/
This resolution doesn't preclude them hosting neo-Confederate groups and they might use the resolution as a cover to continue hosting neo-Confederate groups.
Hopefully the United Methodist Church will get a clue and stop being clueless. The UMC likes to think they are all the lastest thing on racism and Christianity with fine sounding phrases, but they accommodate neo-Confederates and can't face the issue of the Confederacy.
I do think this is a huge blow against the neo-Confederates in terms of discrediting the Confederate battle flag. Many Southern Baptists will consider not flying it. It will make persons in the South who continue to fly the Confederate battle flag seem aberrant which will result in others not flying the Confederate flag. Now if you want to fly the Confederate flag you will be really fringe.
It will also surface the racial attitudes of some reactionaries who insist on flying the Confederates flag.
It will also challenge persons who are still into the Confederacy but think they are liberal or something or the progressive cutting edge. They will have to realize that they are just full of nonsense and rationalizations.
It will help me get churches to stop hosting.
Thursday, June 09, 2016
National Cathedral decides to get rid of Confederate flag stain glass, maybe the United Methodist Church will learn from this example and give up the Confederacy.
The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. has decided to get rid of their stain glass Confederate battle flags.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/08/washington-national-cathedral-to-remove-confederate-battle-flags-from-its-windows/?tid=sm_tw
These stain glasses were donated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) in the 20th century, I think in the 1940s or 50s. They considered it one of their prize accomplishments.
This follows after St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, first dis-invited the UDC and then decided to get rid of Confederate memorialization.
This is the story about St. Paul dis-inviting the UDC.
http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2014/nov/07/confederates-hold-service-downtown-church/
This blog posting has a whole host of articles about St. Paul's giving up the Confederacy.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-paul-episcopal-church-moves-to-rid.html#.V1oXN_krKiM
Perhaps this will get the United Methodist Church to give up enabling neo-Confederate groups.
The campaign against churches enabling the Confederacy is documented at:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/churches-of-the-confederacy.html
The Episcopal Church was the leading enabler of neo-Confederate groups, but that seems to be coming to an end.
I am tied up with an important project, but I plan to get back on the topic of churches. The action of removing the Confederate battle flag from the National Cathedral will send a message to all the churches.
There are other churches with Confederate stain glass battle flags such as at the Old Blandford Church in Petersburg, Virginia. Now that stain glass now can be questioned. If one church has gotten rid of a Confederate battle flag, why not another.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/08/washington-national-cathedral-to-remove-confederate-battle-flags-from-its-windows/?tid=sm_tw
These stain glasses were donated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) in the 20th century, I think in the 1940s or 50s. They considered it one of their prize accomplishments.
This follows after St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Virginia, first dis-invited the UDC and then decided to get rid of Confederate memorialization.
This is the story about St. Paul dis-inviting the UDC.
http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2014/nov/07/confederates-hold-service-downtown-church/
This blog posting has a whole host of articles about St. Paul's giving up the Confederacy.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-paul-episcopal-church-moves-to-rid.html#.V1oXN_krKiM
Perhaps this will get the United Methodist Church to give up enabling neo-Confederate groups.
The campaign against churches enabling the Confederacy is documented at:
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/churches-of-the-confederacy.html
The Episcopal Church was the leading enabler of neo-Confederate groups, but that seems to be coming to an end.
I am tied up with an important project, but I plan to get back on the topic of churches. The action of removing the Confederate battle flag from the National Cathedral will send a message to all the churches.
There are other churches with Confederate stain glass battle flags such as at the Old Blandford Church in Petersburg, Virginia. Now that stain glass now can be questioned. If one church has gotten rid of a Confederate battle flag, why not another.
Monday, June 06, 2016
The other trailers for the Free State of Jones movie
Please see the immediately previous posting for the other trailer and more info.
This is the first official trailer.
https://youtu.be/3EMkxEKKSQI
This is the "Freedom" TV Commercial
https://youtu.be/0Wu5-A_3IIQ
This is the "Courage" TV Commercial.
https://youtu.be/oZfPBTnpTS8
This is the first official trailer.
https://youtu.be/3EMkxEKKSQI
This is the "Freedom" TV Commercial
https://youtu.be/0Wu5-A_3IIQ
This is the "Courage" TV Commercial.
https://youtu.be/oZfPBTnpTS8
"Free State of Jones" movie. Opening soon.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-story-behind-free-state-of-jones/
As you might imagine, the person who writes the newtknight.blogspot.com blog is planning to see this movie.
This is the website for the movie. http://stxmovies.com/freestateofjones/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UctBJHH63yU Link to the movie trailer.
Click on the video to make it full screen so you can see it entirely.
As you might imagine, the person who writes the newtknight.blogspot.com blog is planning to see this movie.
This is the website for the movie. http://stxmovies.com/freestateofjones/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UctBJHH63yU Link to the movie trailer.
Click on the video to make it full screen so you can see it entirely.
Lawyers drop Confederate statue case and client in Kentucky, news reports that client had a racist post
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2016/06/06/confederate-statue-lawyers-drop-client/85476442/
Turns out that the heritage is somewhat hateful. Supporters of the Confederate statue said it was "about history and not race." Seems that is flushed down the drain now.
Turns out that the heritage is somewhat hateful. Supporters of the Confederate statue said it was "about history and not race." Seems that is flushed down the drain now.
The lawyers cited a post on his social media account after the May 25 hearing.
In a Facebook post, Corley called African-American University of Louisville professor Ricky Jones “a damn dirty black bastard,” according to a May 27 article in Insider Louisville. The post has since been deleted, but was widely viewed.
Jones, chair of the department of Pan-African Studies, has been a key advocate forremoving the 121-year-old monument, located in a median on Third Street amid the University of Louisville campus.