Charleston Shooting Suspect (Derailed: Confederate Flag Debate)

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah. That is right. It is unjust (as murder of adults is also unjust). When you say "depriving it of the life it was meant to have" - I think you are talking in religious terms. God created the soul and the body. God deems the soul and body to be together. It is therefore wrong because you are interfering with God's plan for it. But if we are not considering God's plan for it - what is wrong with murder? What is wrong with abortion? Nothing - that is generally the point I was attempting to make (I think that if you look at the morality argument for the existence of God - you will see that most Christian apologists seem to make that point in their arguments as well).

Do you or do you not believe in natural law?

[Peace]

How am I on my high horse?

 

Well. You wrote that my concept of murder is terrifying and disgusting, without seeming to have fully considered what I wrote, and why. My concept of murder is the same concept of murder as the Catholic Church (to the extent that it is not I will try to correct myself). I believe that abortion should not be permitted under any circumstance because it breaks what God has commanded to us.

Human beings are not animals.  Morality does not apply toward animals because animals do not have a capacity for it (we call this an intellectual soul).  Humans on the other hand do have the capacity for morality and we therefore are bound to live by it.  This capacity helps us live by things such as justice and truth. Two things which murder is opposed to.  

Yes. I agree.

It is by justice and truth that we know murder is a crime against the dignity mankind holds as being made in the image and likeness of God; but since you want a 'secular sense' reason, which I assume to you means atheistic?, then I will give the answer some atheists have told me as to why they oppose abortion, and that is that they view it as an immoral crime against humanity.  They view it this way because abortion/murder robs another human being of a future like ours.  A future to experience life in all of its fullness (both ups and downs, good and bad).  These atheist dont view these babies as clumps of cells.  They follow the scientific data that shows these are human beings with their own unique DNA which is given to them during conception. Were you unaware that there are atheists who are pro-life?

It was not clear to me why the original poster asserted that abortion was the worst problem facing African Americans. I was unclear whether he looking at it from a secular point of view, a Catholic point of view, or both. Then I looked at his assertion from both points of view and gave my reasons for disagreeing with his assertion.  But that does not mean that I find abortion acceptable.

By secular I meant something along the lines of "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." It seems to be the same thing as what you call "atheistic". I would think that when most people hear the word secular that is what they have in mind.

As for the answer that some atheists give - my impression is that only an extremely small number of atheists are against abortion. I have heard of them and they seem to be exceedingly rare. I don't think that the reason they give is by itself very convincing, either. Why is it an immoral crime against humanity? What makes it immoral if not God? Let's keep it real - if there is no God everything is pointless. There is no reason why I should not kill 100 people. We are all dust in a matter of 50 or 100 years and who cares if someone lives a happy life or is murdered in the womb?  I think that if you see atheism to the heart of it there is nowhere else to go but that conclusion. And many of the serious atheist thinkers like Albert Camus seem to reach that conclusion.

Do you or do you not believe in natural law?

I am not sure. I am not extremely familiar with it. But if you want to define it a bit I can try to answer whether I do or not.

[Socrates]

No, I don't think so. Bo and Luke were not racist, and I am upset that The Dukes of Hazard is being affected by this.

With that said, I openly admit to stereotyping the people who fly confederate flags as being more racist than most, yes.

Also, the point has already been made--it has become a symbol of racism. Would you fly a rainbow flag in front of your home, even though you don't personally believe the rainbow is a symbol of the LGBT movement?

Most people I've known who've flown the flag are just good ol' boys in the Bo and Luke vein. It is mostly just a symbol of Southern pride and heritage. Yeah, some people who fly it are racists, but I certainly don't presume everyone, or even most, of the people using that flag are hateful racists.  There are also conservatives, such as myself, both Southern and Yankee, who like it as a symbol of resistance to unjust federal power and aggression.

It's stupid to demand that only racists fly it, or to insist that it be a symbol of racism or hate.  I'm not about to let either a few hateful psychopaths, or politically correct leftists, dictate what the flag must mean for everyone else.

If you want to say the flag was hijacked, why hand it over to the hijackers without a fight?

And frankly, if people want to "take back" the rainbow flag for some other, non-homosexual, cause, I'm all for it.

 

Ironically, taking down the flag hasn't actually fixed anything, or pacified the left.  The leftist mob always demands more, and is never satisfied.  Now they're pulling Dukes of Hazzard reruns off the air, pulling Civil War-themed strategy games off shelves and digging up the graves of  Confederate generals.  Where does it end?

[veritasluxmea]

When you commit an abortion you're killing an innocent human being.  That is not an opinion, it is a fact.  The intentional killing of an innocent human being, regardless of how productive they are in society or how much society has invested into them, is murder.  Your concept of murder is not only disgusting, it's terrifying.

To be fair, I think peace is just playing the devil's advocate and saying that would be the utilitarian point of view, not the actual truth. And under utilitarian philosophy that would be the "correct" way of looking at it. Part of the reason abortion is so prevalent nowadays. 

Personally I think this whole flag fuss is just since Charleston didn't riot the media needed something else to yak about. Yawn. Displaying the flag is rather tacky but whatever floats your boat, I guess. I respect the fact that people have pride in their southern heritage and consider that flag a part of it. 

[Lilllabettt]

Largely to do with State's rights and greed. Not all slaves were black. Not all slave owners were white. 

The right at stake was a supposed right of individual states to have legal slavery without meddling of the Feds.

People who joined the Confederate army renounced American citizenship, joined a foreign army, and killed loyal American soldiers - all in order to protect their "right" to own other human beings, should they choose.

Why do we have memorials to these people on American soil? At best they were grievously mistaken about the evilness of the cause for which they gave their lives. 

Loyal Americans, think about what this country would be today if the flag of that foreign nation had prevailed against us in war.

Then see if it makes any sense to you that any American should take pride in having it as part of their "heritage."

Edited July 11, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Credo in Deum]

The right at stake was a supposed right of individual states to have legal slavery without meddling of the Feds.

People who joined the Confederate army renounced American citizenship, joined a foreign army, and killed loyal American soldiers - all in order to protect their "right" to own other human beings, should they choose.

Why do we have memorials to these people on American soil? At best they were grievously mistaken about the evilness of the cause for which they gave their lives. 

Loyal Americans, think about what this country would be today if the flag of that foreign nation had prevailed against us in war.

Then see if it makes any sense to you that any American should take pride in having it as part of their "heritage."

From talking with people from the south who like and want to keep the Battle Flag, this is what I've gathered regarding the heritage part.  The heritage the battle flag represents is one of a people who opposed the government when they felt it was no longer working for them but against them.  Regardless of if you agree or disagree with slavery, the civil was a part of our nations history.  It was a time where we see a group of states unite together and form a rebellion against our government which they felt had lost its way and had overreached its authority (sounds like a familiar problem right now).  A government which no longer represented them or the purpose for which it was formed.  This is what they felt and this is what the battle flag was designed to show.  This is why the battle flag was kept in the south while the Confederate Nation flag was not.  This is why it was used on shows like the Dukes of Hazard because Bo and Luke where the rebels against a corrupt government force.

The battle flag is one of the only historical flags we have that shows that there was a time when American citizens mobilized and started a rebellion against the American government.  This is why it is called the rebel flag.  This is why it should be kept. It is a reminder to us Americans that when our government ceases to represent us then we must fight back like our ancestors had done.  It was also a reminder to politicians that if they try to abuse the people, then the people will rise up and they will fight back, so watch what you do and what bills you pass (TPP cough). 

The idea that the battle flag was about racism is, IMO, stupid. It's spirit is about rebellion. To say it's a sign of racism furthermore perpetuates the myth and revisionist history that the Union was filled with only anti-slave states, or that everyone in the union was anti-slavery and fighting to free the slaves.  All of these are false representations of the North.  This can be seen in the writings of the president, the actions of the states in the north and its citizens, and the treatment of black soldiers who fought in the Union army who were segregated from the whites because they were not seen as equals.  Make no mistake, the north was filled with racists.

[Lilllabettt]

What was the rebellion about though? What were they angry about the Feds meddling with?

They thought individual states should have the right to decide for themselves whether it should be legal within their borders to own human beings.

Sure, the North was full of racists who didn't care about ending slavery. "We promise we don't wanna take your slaves" is what they said, and what they meant. And the South was full of racists who didn't believe them. That's why there was a war. 

It was Southern butthurt at the idea that these uppity Feds might one day come and tell them they couldn't have slaves.

That's what made them renounce their citizenship, join a foreign army, and make war against the United States. Mowing down a bunch of loyal American servicemen in the process. And Southerners are proud they have this decision making process in their family tree.

Does anyone here think the states should EVER have had the right to decide if human slavery is legal within their borders?

The Feds were racist and had no intention of stopping slavery pre Civil War. But lets pretend they had been against slavery and DID try to stop slavery. What if they actually had rolled up to the southern states and said " uhhh no you can't buy and sell human beings anywhere in America no more."  Does anyone think that would have been an abuse of federal power???

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

From talking with people from the south who like and want to keep the Battle Flag, this is what I've gathered regarding the heritage part.  The heritage the battle flag represents is one of a people who opposed the government when they felt it was no longer working for them but against them.  Regardless of if you agree or disagree with slavery, the civil was a part of our nations history.  It was a time where we see a group of states unite together and form a rebellion against our government which they felt had lost its way and had overreached its authority (sounds like a familiar problem right now).  A government which no longer represented them or the purpose for which it was formed.  This is what they felt and this is what the battle flag was designed to show.  This is why the battle flag was kept in the south while the Confederate Nation flag was not.  This is why it was used on shows like the Dukes of Hazard because Bo and Luke where the rebels against a corrupt government force.

The battle flag is one of the only historical flags we have that shows that there was a time when American citizens mobilized and started a rebellion against the American government.  This is why it is called the rebel flag.  This is why it should be kept. It is a reminder to us Americans that when our government ceases to represent us then we must fight back like our ancestors had done.  It was also a reminder to politicians that if they try to abuse the people, then the people will rise up and they will fight back, so watch what you do and what bills you pass (TPP cough). 

The idea that the battle flag was about racism is, IMO, stupid. It's spirit is about rebellion. To say it's a sign of racism furthermore perpetuates the myth and revisionist history that the Union was filled with only anti-slave states, or that everyone in the union was anti-slavery and fighting to free the slaves.  All of these are false representations of the North.  This can be seen in the writings of the president, the actions of the states in the north and its citizens, and the treatment of black soldiers who fought in the Union army who were segregated from the whites because they were not seen as equals.  Make no mistake, the north was filled with racists.

You are not one of these folks who believes that the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery are you?

The Nazi flag was not explicitly created to symbolize the killing of Jews. It was more of a sign of ethnic pride. But you can't put the Nazi flag on your porch and say "to me this does not represent the slaughter of millions of Jews, to me it represents pride in my own ethnic group." If you did people would say that is ridiculous. The would call you a racist. Why? Because we know what the Nazis did. We know what people who used that flag to represent themselves did - they killed millions of Jewish people. You can't untie the Nazi flag from acts that were done by the people who flew it. That is not the way the world works.

It is the same with the Confederate Flag. You can make grandiose statements about how to you it represents "a rebellious spirit" all you like. But we know why the Confederate States left the union. We know what the men who flew the Confederate Flag were fighting to protect. They fought to uphold their right to enslave other men. You can't expect African Americans to look at the Confederate Flag and think "Oh. That is not a symbol of racism. It is just a symbol of a rebellious spirit" any more so than you should expect a Jew to look at the Nazi flag and say "Oh. That is just a symbol of ethnic pride."

Perhaps that also applies to the US Flag as others have mentioned - point taken.  You have a right to fly the Confederate Flag if you want. But realize the way that it offends many people. If you do not care about other people's feelings or emotions - that is also your right.

And please - do not even try to pull up a random photo of one black person flying a Confederate Flag. The vast majority find it offensive.

[Didacus]

I saw on the news how the flag is being taken down from public places.

Another victory for the PC people and their dribble-diatribe.

 

Anyone know where I can purchase a Confederate flag on-line? 

[Peace]

I saw on the news how the flag is being taken down from public places.

Another victory for the PC people and their dribble-diatribe.

 

Anyone know where I can purchase a Confederate flag on-line? 

Purchase a Nazi Flag while you are at it.

[Credo in Deum]

What was the rebellion about though? What were they angry about the Feds meddling with?

They thought individual states should have the right to decide for themselves whether it should be legal within their borders to own human beings.

Sure, the North was full of racists who didn't care about ending slavery. "We promise we don't wanna take your slaves" is what they said, and what they meant. And the South was full of racists who didn't believe them. That's why there was a war. 

It was Southern butthurt at the idea that these uppity Feds might one day come and tell them they couldn't have slaves.

That's what made them renounce their citizenship, join a foreign army, and make war against the United States. Mowing down a bunch of loyal American servicemen in the process. And Southerners are proud they have this decision making process in their family tree.

Does anyone here think the states should EVER have had the right to decide if human slavery is legal within their borders?

The Feds were racist and had no intention of stopping slavery pre Civil War. But lets pretend they had been against slavery and DID try to stop slavery. What if they actually had rolled up to the southern states and said " uhhh no you can't buy and sell human beings anywhere in America no more."  Does anyone think that would have been an abuse of federal power???

 

 

 

I personally don't believe it would have been an abuse of power by the Fed, but even Lincoln at that time was unsure of such a position.  He didn't believe even he had the right to tell the states what they could and could not do regarding slavery.  While I don't disagree that slavery was a big part of the civil war and the Souths position, I don't believe it was the only part.  While it started over States Rights AND slavery, it did not end for the sake of slavery and it was not fought by the Union for the sake of ending slavery. It was fought to bring rebel states back under Union control.  

Now if the reasons for removing the battle flag from state grounds were because the confederates lost the war and that our current government considered it a flag of a foriegn nation, then I would have given more support for removing it from government property since it was for reasons which kept intact the truth of the Civil War as a whole.  It would have presented an accurate representation of the Civil War, which was that the war was fought over Union control over Southern States.  This would have shown the truth that not every Northerner was against slavery and not every Southerner was for slavery.   They were against Union Control vs State Control and who knows, maybe even within the southern states there would have been civil wars between southerners themselves to end slavery if the confederates had won the Civil War.  We'll never know.

Regardless I do not believe the battle flag should be banned from being sold or even displayed on private residents or in tv shows and games.  I think Americans should have the right to fly whatever flag they want at their homes for whatever reason.  IMO, its only a matter of time, heck it's probably already here, when the government will view the Vatican Flag as a flag of a traitorus people.  This has been a sentiment that has existed in American politics that Catholics are loyal to the Vatican not to America, but whatever, I digress.

Whats done is done. 

 

[Lilllabettt]

I personally don't believe it would have been an abuse of power by the Fed, but even Lincoln at that time was unsure of such a position.  He didn't believe even he had the right to tell the states what they could and could not do regarding slavery.  

 

Thats because he was a racist and didn't want to end slavery. He thought it would die off naturally, and until then, whatever.

If a federal law told the states they couldn't do partial birth abortion, would that be considered an overstep of federal power? No, not anyway by those people who recognize that abortion is a violation of human rights. (btw, there is a federal partial birth abortion ban.) 

[Peace]

While it started over States Rights AND slavery, it did not end for the sake of slavery and it was not fought by the Union for the sake of ending slavery. It was fought to bring rebel states back under Union control.

Here we go again. OK. Other than slavery - exactly what "state right" was it that the Confederate States were fighting to protect?

Take a look at the secession documents from the Confederate states themselves:

Mississippi:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

South Carolina:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Texas:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

So. Again if the issue was not slavery but "slavery and states rights" - what right other than the right to enslave men were the Southern States fighting for?

To me at least - the "States Rights" argument is a silly pretense. A pretense to justify slavery in the time of the civil war. The Southern States used the same pretense to justify Jim Crow 100 years later.

[Credo in Deum]

Here we go again. OK. Other than slavery - exactly what "state right" was it that the Confederate States were fighting to protect?

Take a look at the secession documents from the Confederate states themselves:

Mississippi:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

South Carolina:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Texas:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

So. Again if the issue was not slavery but "slavery and states rights" - what right other than the right to enslave men were the Southern States fighting for?

To me at least - the "States Rights" argument is a silly pretense. A pretense to justify slavery in the time of the civil war. The Southern States used the same pretense to justify Jim Crow 100 years later.

States Rights in themselves.  Meaning what rights States should have on their own to govern themselves and what the Fed does not have the right to impose on them.  The same debate is going on right now with gay marriage.  Sure while gay marriage is the cause which brought the discussion to the forefront, it is not the only reason for why the discussion will continue. No, what will cause the discussion to continue will be the pandoras box of what the SCOUTS decision represents now in the relationship between Fed and State.  Right now there are those who are against the SCOTUS decision while at the same time being pro gay marriage.  How can this be? Well it's because what they're against is how gay marriage came to be, since it was by a means where the SCOTUS overreached their authority to make it a Fed binding law.  They believe this should have been decided on a state level not a federal one and that the fed overreached its authority by forcing the decision of the matter on the states.  Yet would you call these people anti gay marriage Americans simply because they didn't like how gay marriage came to be legal? 

Believe it or not back in the civil war days there were southerners who didn't approve of slavery, but yet deeply held that a states themselves should have the right to make up their own mind regarding it.  This did not make those southerners pro slavery or racist.  It just made them Americans who believed in  a state governance which differed from what those in the Union believed it should be.  Again believe it or not there were also those in the North who were pro slavery but believed in the Unions right to enact laws on the states and believed the states must fall in line with the fed whether they disagree or not.  

Edited July 11, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

States Rights in themselves.  Meaning what rights States should have on their own to govern themselves and what the Fed does not have the right to impose on them.  The same debate is going on right now with gay marriage.  Sure while gay marriage is the cause which brought the discussion to the forefront, it is not the only reason for why the discussion will continue. No, what will cause the discussion to continue will be the pandoras box of what the SCOUTS decision represents now in the relationship between Fed and State.  Right now there are those who are against the SCOTUS decision while at the same time being pro gay marriage.  How can this be? Well it's because what they're against is how gay marriage came to be, since it was by a means where the SCOTUS overreached their authority to make it a Fed binding law.  They believe this should have been decided on a state level not a federal one and that the fed overreached its authority by forcing the decision of the matter on the states.  Yet would you call these people anti gay marriage Americans simply because they didn't like how gay marriage came to be legal? 

Believe it or not back in the civil war days there were southerners who didn't approve of slavery, but yet deeply held that a states themselves should have the right to make up their own mind regarding it.  This did not make those southerners pro slavery or racist.  It just made them Americans who believed in  a state governance which differed from what those in the Union believed it should be.  Again believe it or not there were also those in the North who were pro slavery but believed in the Unions right to enact laws on the states and believed the states must fall in line with the fed whether they disagree or not.  

Hmm. Well. That is an interesting take on it. I do not see how someone can say "I am against slavery" but "I think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will own slaves." If you say "I think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves" then you are not truly against it. You have given lip service to being against it.

And you would also be morally complicit by taking such a stance, would you not? At least from a Catholic perspective - acting where you should not act is a sin, but also failure to take action where you should act is a sin (it is in the Confiteor at Mass as you may recall). Failure to speak out against slavery (or saying that others should have the right to decide for themselves whether they may have slaves) where you have the ability to do otherwise would seem to be a sin of omission.

It is the same as with abortion - is it not? We cannot simply say "I personally believe that abortion is wrong but I believe that other people should be allowed to have abortions if they believe it is OK." Our Church does not allow us to take such a stance. And taking such a stance would further the cause of pro-choice folks.

So - whether saying "I think that the states should be allowed to decide on the question of slavery" makes someone racist - that I do not know. I think it does make one "pro-slavery". Just not as "pro-slavery" as people who hold slaves themselves.

As for the states rights issue - I suppose that one can take any specific issue and abstract it into a general idea. One can say that abortion is not about the right of a woman to kill a child, but rather it is about the right of a woman to control her own body, and so forth. If you really desire to turn the very real institution of slavery, under which men and women were bought and sold like pieces of property, into an abstract principle of states rights and then assert that this abstract principle was mainly what the Civil War was about, I suppose there is nothing I can say to prevent you from doing so.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Peace
Grammar