The Confederate Flag And Our Stunted Spiritual Growth

Over the time I have been writing these posts, I have often received comments from readers that said something to the effect that “I understand some of my perceptions color my ‘reality.’ But some don’t. How else can I explain how many, many others perceive as I do?” Those of you who have read me for a while will remember the several times I have discussed “race consciousness.” “Race” in this context refers to the human race – not ethnicity or skin color. Race consciousness is a learned set of beliefs that do, in fact, determine how we as a human race interpret what our physical eyes see.

The current controversy concerning the Confederate flag provides a great example of this. The flag’s history, quite misunderstood and reinvented, has defined our perceptions of it. History, as stated over and over, has repeated that reinvention by saying it is all about the South’s heritage, honor and ancestry. Actual history tells a different story – one that we are hesitant to talk about.

Actual history tells us the story of how the flag has become a symbol of rebellion. Initially, against the federal government over slavery and the firm belief that people of color are inherently inferior to white people of European descent. This rebellion led to the Civil War and the flag was the battle flag of General R. E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. That flag then became a symbol of the rebellion against the equality of the races (1880 – 1950) that led to the Jim Crow laws in the south legalizing segregation.  Finally, in 1948 it became a symbol against the forced end to Jim Crow – especially school integration, equal use of facilities (bathrooms, water fountains, front doors, restaurants, etc.) and voting rights.

This latest rebellion began when State Senator Strom Thurmond (SC) used the flag as he ran for president under a segregation platform in opposition to Harry Truman’s desegregation of the military following World War Two. It was raised again in opposition to the 1954 Supreme Court decision that declared “separate but equal” schools to be unconstitutional. This decision also was seen as the beginning of the dismantling of all Jim Crow laws in the South. This was the time (1950s) when southern states began flying the flag on their State Houses and monuments. This theme of rebellion against government was quickly cast as a State’s Right issue when it was all about protecting the belief in white supremacy (or colored inferiority). This issue of the equality of African –American citizens has been picked up by all forms of white supremacy and/or quasi-military groups as well as by bigoted lone wolfs – all of whom still preach the gospel of the inferiority of people of color.

This discussion seems to be very complicated because we are used to sweeping very unpleasant issues under the rug and pretending they don’t exist. I heard one black law professor at Georgetown (DC) University Law School tell a caller, who had stated the flag honored her ancestors, many of whom died in the Civil War, the following: [This is my paraphrase of his statement] “If your ancestors had prevailed, I would not be a professor of law at a major university. I would still be considered property. My wife and children would still be considered property – perhaps your property – to use or dispose of as you determined necessary. So, I do not honor your ancestors.”

An ugly truth.

The history of the Confederate flag – the battle flag of Robert E. Lee – is an ugly history. It’s a symbol of rebellion and a symbol of the belief in white supremacy. So, we generally do not like to talk about it – except to spin its history to sound more palatable: Honor; Ancestry; Heritage; State Rights. To believe that reinvented history stunts our personal growth.

Since we don’t like to look ugliness in the face, we turn our heads and in that silence of politeness this reinvented history of the flag is all we’ve heard for the past 60+ years. That’s three generations. And that’s enough time for us to all begin actually believing this reinvented history as fact – when it isn’t.

This is how “race consciousness” begins. This is how it spreads. This is what it can look like.  This is why understanding the truth of history, sharing it, and speaking it becomes exceptionally important. Societal growth as well as our personal spiritual growth depends on the truth, as best we can define it. Without it our spiritual growth is stunted.

The South fought the Union for the right of states to continue treating people of color as property. They lost. They tried to maintain the right of states to legalize segregation. They lost. They are still trying to enforce “tradition” that favors the concepts of white supremacy. They are losing that fight as well.

Although these messages are mostly for me, thanks for listening. As always – feel free to forward this message to your friends, family, and those accompanying you on your spiritual journey.

Don

#4 June 2015

Copyright 2015

Freedom of Religion Doesn’t Mean What Some Want It to Mean

It is absolutely no coincidence that freedom of (and from) religion is the very first of the agreed-to 10 Constitutional Amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights.

In the mid-19^th Century Alexis de Toqueville (1805-1859), a French historian and philosopher, toured the United States to see for himself how our fledgling democratic republic was working. The results of his observations appeared in his signature work, Democracy in America, published in 1835 (Vol. 1) and 1840 (Vol. 2).

One of his significant contributions was his observation concerning the impending opportunity of “…the majority raising formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion,” if, in fact, the democratic process spilled over from America’s arena of politics to the arena of everyday social life. This idea of de Toqueville’s led, later, Lord Acton (British Historian, 1834-1902) to coin the famous phrase: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority….” 

In his opinion de Toqueville saw the very detrimental possibility in our society that voting on political/legal/economic policies would morph into similar “voting” on social/cultural/personal values as some form of un-official national policy. His complete observation was: “In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers [someone may write or think] what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” Remember, this was 180 years ago.

Watching some of the debates for the GOP presidential nomination and hearing some of the commentaries (both conservative – FOX – and progressive – MSNBC), I am struck by how much the religious views of our candidates play in the nomination/election process. It’s as if voters want to hear how religious and spiritual our elected (or nominated) officials say they are. How utterly inappropriate this is, according to our Constitution. As stated by Phillip E. Johnson (American Educator, 1940 -) “The restriction of religion to private life therefore does not … threaten the vital interests of the majority religion, if there is one, and it protects minority religions from the tyranny of the majority.”

This raises, for me, the question: Why is the opinion (to use de Toqueville’s term) of religion so critically important in an election cycle?

My initial answer? Fear and Ignorance. To assuage their fear and the world their fear thinks it sees, folks perceive their religious “world view” as paramount in their decision-making. They have to find something that will provide them with a certainty of faith. They have found that certainty – not in their personal transformation and acceptance in the Kingdom of God – but in the literal words of the Bible. Any verse anywhere in the Bible is the Word of God, and if verses contradict each other, then that’s an illustration of the mystery of God.

I discussed this issue in my book (pages 345-46) under the heading of “Recognizing the Dangers of Bibliolatry.”

“There is always a tension between the faith itself and our attempt to communicate it in a rational language at a given historical period. A relatively static authoritarianism, either of the Roman Catholic type or fundamentalist/evangelical type, so confuses the authority of the Church, the Bible, and the faith of the people that the tension, which is between God, as we understand God, and our human understanding, is removed. Without that tension the doors are opened to idolatry – in this case a blind worship of the Bible itself – or Bibliolatry.”

As Karen Armstrong pointed out in her book, The History of God, fundamentalists cannot conceive that I experience and think about God differently than they, which may be different from that Abraham experienced as a middle Bronze Age nomad or as Paul experienced as a first-century Jewish Roman citizen.

Back to an election cycle: It seems fearful religious conservatives have extended that belief-form (everybody everywhere thinks of God in the same way) to apply the Founding Fathers. Surely, Franklin, Jefferson and Paine, all of whom referred to “God,” must believe as we biblical literalists believe. The problem is they didn’t. They were essentially Deists. God was the prime (or first) mover. The Creator. God didn’t interfere in personal lives and liberty. Jefferson’s Bible had been all crossed-out except for those passages, especially parables, which began “Jesus said....“

When biblical literalists use a quote from Isaiah or Deuteronomy to justify their actions/beliefs they are denying the message of Jesus the Christ. He said He was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. His was the new message from God. The Gospel. The Good News – the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. He gave us three commandments to follow, replacing the Ten Commandments of the Israelites.

But religious conservatives cling to the Old Testament and its Ten Commandments. It’s simpler. It’s easier. But it’s incorrect, and it’s a grave error when it’s used as a litmus test for politicians.

To elevate the Bible in ways that overshadow the Gospel of the Lord is a supreme sacrilege. To pursue a political end of enacting legislative laws to ensure the apparent “sanctity” of the United States so God will once again bless us above all other nations is an act of unbelievable un-love in the name of the God of love.

Thanks for listening and, as always, feel free to share this message with my blessings.

Don

#2 March, 2012