Possible Mississippi flag change underway (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

Miss. Senate, House both approve resolution to suspend rules, create committee to change flag

The Mississippi House and Senate both voted on Saturday to suspend rules, allowing for a vote to take place to change the current state flag.

www.wlox.com

JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) - The Mississippi House voted on Saturday to suspend rules, allowing for a vote to take place to change the current state flag.
The vote on House Concurrent 79 was approved by a vote of 85-34. The rule must also be passed by the Senate.
HC 78 also includes the creation of a flag committee. The HCR says the new flag cannot contain the Confederate battle emblem and says the flag must include “In God We Trust.”
The goal is to get the new flag design on ballots in November. If the commission’s design doesn’t get majority approval in November, HCR 79 says the commission would design another new flag.
After the vote, the House adjourned until 2 p.m. Sunday.
The suspension of the rules is the first step to changing the state flag. If passed by the Senate with a two-thirds vote, the vote will then move toward removing the flag, which must also be passed by both the House and Senate. Governor Tate Reeves already said if the resolution on a new flag reaches his desk, he will pass it.

As a resident of Mississippi for the first 20 something-odd years of my life, I'm really happy to see this.

I'm actually very shocked Tate Reeves, who from all indication is supportive of the current flag and movement, will sign whatever decision the state hands to him on a flag change/no change. I guess he might realize he could be ending his reelection campaign early.

If it passes the Senate, the flag will essentially be including 'In God we Trust' in the logo, which pretty undeniably IMO violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Here's an excerpt on the ruling in 2004:

Lower courts have upheld use of motto
In Lambeth v. Board of Commissioners of Davidson County (M.D.N.C. 2004), a federal district court in North Carolina determined that the inscription “In God We Trust” on the facade of a government building does not violate the separation of church and state. The following year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision. In 2006 a U.S. judge in the Eastern District of California wrote in Newdow v. Congress of the United States (C.D. Cal. 2006), “The national motto is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto ‘has no theological or ritualistic impact’ and is of a purely secular, ‘patriotic’ and ‘ceremonial character.’ ” The words In God We Trust, he said, constitute in effect “a secular national slogan.”

In God We Trust

Federal courts have consistently upheld "In God We Trust" as a national motto, which when on coins or elsewhere does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

.

I believe one can easily see that the logic behind the phrase having 'no theological impact' and being 'secular' is completely outrageous. Any American knows which particular god that phrase references, and I do expect down the road for this legislation to be deemed unconstitutional. It's one of those common sense items that we know will eventually be corrected, but for now just serves as an irritant. Although it does appease those white residents who aren't outspoken about the confederate flag but don't care if it gets changed either, which seems to be a growing number of people.

Anyway, not to gripe too much. This is HUGE for my home state. Absolutely huge...Today could be a great day in Mississippi history..I'm happy it looks as if tentatively the confederate flag will be coming down.

Awaiting the Senate decision..



Here is the process to remove the State Flag:

1. MS House votes to suspend the rules- DONE
2. MS Senate votes to suspend the rules- PENDING
3. MS House votes on the bill to remove the flag. (Tomorrow at 10AM)
4. MS Senate votes on the bill to remove the flag. (TBA)
5. Governor signs the bill into law.

 

[JimEverett]

Who thinks it was the Southeastern Conference that pushed it over the edge? I do.

 

[zztop]

I think Georgia’s flag is almost like the one the guy from Mobile wants to use.

As someone that didn't know what the flag of Georgia looked like... welp. It's basically the older lesser-known 'The first national flag of the Confederate States" with "in god we trust" on it...

 

[insidejob]

Who thinks it was the Southeastern Conference that pushed it over the edge? I do.

I think it had a lot to do with it for sure. When you've got football players refusing to play while the flag is still flying, that's something that could spread like wildfire and then you've got a national spectacle on your hands.

 

[insidejob]

As someone that didn't know what the flag of Georgia looked like... welp. It's basically the older lesser-known 'The first national flag of the Confederate States" with "in god we trust" on it...

And that's their modern, non-offensive version of the flag. Up until 2001 it was apparently this:

Funny how in the 1950's they decided to add the rebel flag to it isn't it?

 

[Farb]

You mean these six flags:

Perhaps we could replace it with this:

Not only is it current, but it has the added effect of being mostly white, much like the flag the cowards that seceded should be associated with, only with the addition of a giant red X to warn people to stay the hell away from this backwards arse state.

Well, to be accurate, the Republic of Alabama is already accounted on the seal (its the blue one).
Replacing the 3rd national Confederate flag (of cowards and treasonous scum) with the current state flag wouldn't really represent the national governments that Alabama has been under. So I take it that any representation of the treasonous, cowardly, loser flag, regardless of historical context and fact should be taken down or replaced so as not to offend the public?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well, to be accurate, the Republic of Alabama is already accounted on the seal (its the blue one).
Replacing the 3rd national Confederate flag (of cowards and treasonous scum) with the current state flag wouldn't really represent the national governments that Alabama has been under. So I take it that any representation of the treasonous, cowardly, loser flag, regardless of historical context and fact should be taken down or replaced so as not to offend the public?

I am aware of what the blue flag is. You asked how we could ever find a flag to replace it. I found one.

And yes, any representation of confederate flags should be taken down. I don't particularly see a need to fly the flag of people who seceded from this country in order to legally own human beings as property. If you can provide context that somehow makes it okay to display that symbol, I am all ears.

 

[Farb]

The city of 6 flags? Its not honoring anything, its giving a historical depiction on who ruled over the city in its existence.
Granted, I know everyone else doesn't care about Mobile's motto or seal but it is a point worth discussing, I think.

 

[superchuck500]

So any display of a flag that had to do with confederacy should never be displayed?
I ask because Mobile is known as the city of 6 flags. These are the flags that have flown over the city since its inception including the confederate flag.
Pensacola is the city of 5 flags. What flag should be represented in those slots if not a confederate flag, not necessarily the battle flag that everyone is familiar with.

I actually don’t think it’s an issue if it’s a historical display of the flags that have flown there. But if it’s the city’s official flag for current business, it shouldn’t be associated with the confederacy.

 

[JimEverett]

I actually don’t think it’s an issue if it’s a historical display of the flags that have flown there. But if it’s the city’s official flag for current business, it shouldn’t be associated with the confederacy.

It is also particularly distasteful given that Mobile is majority black.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The city of 6 flags? Its not honoring anything, its giving a historical depiction on who ruled over the city in its existence.
Granted, I know everyone else doesn't care about Mobile's motto or seal but it is a point worth discussing, I think.

The city seal only has one flag on it, and it's the U.S. flag.

And if you want a historical depiction of those who ruled over the city, how is the current state flag not appropriate to replace the flag that represents traitors?

 

[Farb]

Do you get points somewhere for always using 'traitor, loser or some other adjective when you type confederate? I know you all think it angers folks but it really just makes you look like you get your thoughts from facebook or something. Same question for 'say it louder for those in the back'. Very cultish.
Anyway, the state flag was adopted in 1895 and the state of Alabama was in the confederacy from 1861 to 1865, so the current state flag is not a historically accurate depiction.

It just seems to me that the fear the of the confederate flag as a historical symbol when even applied in an historical setting, has been lost and the only symbolism remaining for the flag is slavery, despite the historical context.

 

[RebSaint]

It just seems to me that the fear the of the confederate flag as a historical symbol when even applied in an historical setting, has been lost and the only symbolism remaining for the flag is slavery, despite the historical context.

You left out Jim Crow, lynching, and systematic racism, but who's paying attention anyway?

 

[Farb]

You left out Jim Crow, lynching, and systematic racism, but who's paying attention anyway?

So becasue of these horrible things, even in an historical application that traitor flag should never be shown? An example would be on the city of mobile's historical commission seal.
http://www.mobilehd.org/index.html#...ment of the,various civic and public entities.

To be clear, as you well know but other might not, I am not a 'defender of the cause' or whatever. I could actually careless about the confederate flag. I am just trying to determine where the left thinks the line is drawn between history and progress.

 

[RebSaint]

So becasue of these horrible things, even in an historical application that traitor flag should never be shown? An example would be on the city of mobile's historical commission seal.
http://www.mobilehd.org/index.html#...ment of the,various civic and public entities.

To be clear, as you well know but other might not, I am not a 'defender of the cause' or whatever. I could actually careless about the confederate flag. I am just trying to determine where the left thinks the line is drawn between history and progress.

I really don't understand your last question. Are you equating all flags which have been deemed "traitorous" with Confederate iconography? Because if you are, it's a false equivalency.

And how is this issue a "left" or "right" wing issue? A Republican governor, who I assume is "conservative" has stated support for the MS measure.

 

[Ayo]

So becasue of these horrible things, even in an historical application that traitor flag should never be shown?

Shown or flown?

 

[Farb]

Shown or flown?

Shown. To me a big difference.

 

[Farb]

I really don't understand your last question. Are you equating all flags which have been deemed "traitorous" with Confederate iconography? Because if you are, it's a false equivalency.

And how is this issue a "left" or "right" wing issue? A Republican governor, who I assume is "conservative" has stated support for the MS measure.

Just using the new lingo that is so popular these days.

You can pretend and argue that it is isn't a right vs left issue but you can just look at the people discussing different view points in this thread.
I am also a 'conservative' and I support the MS measure. I am talking about is the visual of the confederate flag, does it need to taken from any and all public view or is it allowed in a correct historical setting, such as the mobile historical commission seal that is put on historical homes in Mobile?

It shows what country has raised their flag over Mobile from its founding by the french to current, Murica!

 

[Ayo]

Shown. To me a big difference.

I agree. But I guess I'm not really seeing much objection over the shown, whereas the focus seems to be more on the flown.