Possible Mississippi flag change underway (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

Heathen

add me on COD @cautiousmink
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
625
Reaction score
646
Age
31
Location
Utah
Offline

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.”
.

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.
 
Last edited:

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
1,567
Offline
Again, how is it controversial in to the vast majority of the people in the US? And for the purposes of this topic, why should it not be considered by MS to put on the State flag?

If you find it controversial on a personal level (I.e. you don't like it)... then say that... because based on the overwhelming US majority that would not find it controversial (believers) or burn their money because it's in plain sight on every single bit of US currency... there is no controversy.

If you don't like it, say that... or say that there is a fringe group of "heathens" (your word not mine)... that doesn't care for it. (LOL)

But don't call it controversial... because it's not controversial to nearly the entire population of the US.
Are you looking for a serious discussion or are you just wanting to engage in a bunch of nonsense that does nothing to foster a rational dialogue?
 

Infoman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
232
Reaction score
176
Location
Ya mama house
Offline
The issue isn't really an active 'controversy' I'd say, but I would actually bet that removing the phrase from money and all would actually get a decent amount of support in opinion polling (maybe 30ish % give or take). Could be wrong but I honestly don't think it would be as low as 5 to 15%.

It's probably a little bit controversial in nature though just being the fact that this would be the first time a state flag contains the phrase so it's an expansion of the use of it.

And yes, personally I would remove the phrase from money and all of that and not put it on a flag.
Fair enough. I could see where it might stir some news cycle attention (call that potentially controversial if you'd like)... I'm not sure very many people in the US would consider the phrase or the use of the phrase controversial in itself in almost any form... or at least it certainly wouldn't seem so.
 

Infoman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
232
Reaction score
176
Location
Ya mama house
Offline
Are you looking for a serious discussion or are you just wanting to engage in a bunch of nonsense that does nothing to foster a rational dialogue?
We had a rational discussion, with real dialogue, with real context, and points/counter-points... We understand each other... We don't completely agree.... and that's where we left it.

You should try it sometime... just because someone doesn't agree with you, or asks a sincere or hard question... that doesn't make them irrational... unless you consider any opinion not of your own liking to be.... irrational.
 

Nebaghead

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
713
Reaction score
930
Age
48
Location
Omaha, NE
Offline
Again, how is it controversial in to the vast majority of the people in the US? And for the purposes of this topic, why should it not be considered by MS to put on the State flag?

If you find it controversial on a personal level (I.e. you don't like it)... then say that... because based on the overwhelming US majority that would not find it controversial (believers) or burn their money because it's in plain sight on every single bit of US currency... there is no controversy.

If you don't like it, say that... or say that there is a fringe group of "heathens" (your word not mine)... that doesn't care for it. (LOL)

But don't call it controversial... because it's not controversial to nearly the entire population of the US.
In Judaism it is offensive to write g-d on paper. Jewish People will sometimes put a dash instead of an o. But let’s not act like anyone in MS cares about Jewish people. I remember being forced to pray in Jesus’s name in elementary school in north Mississippi.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
1,567
Offline
We had a rational discussion, with real dialogue, with real context, and points/counter-points... We understand each other... We don't completely agree.... and that's where we left it.

You should try it sometime... just because someone doesn't agree with you, or asks a sincere or hard question... that doesn't make them irrational... unless you consider any opinion not of your own liking to be.... irrational.
The dialogue was fine until you brought up the number of people you estimate to believe in God and the notion of burning money (which nobody on here is even remotely talking about). It's a terrible talking point that always comes up when people criticize In God We Trust.

At no point did either of those posts comes across as a sincere attempt at dialogue.
 

Infoman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
232
Reaction score
176
Location
Ya mama house
Offline
The dialogue was fine until you brought up the number of people you estimate to believe in God and the notion of burning money (which nobody on here is even remotely talking about). It's a terrible talking point that always comes up when people criticize In God We Trust.

At no point did either of those posts comes across as a sincere attempt at dialogue.
I didn't estimate... It's not a talking point (really getting sick of that term being used when someone doesn't agree - or wants to fight about nothing) you can look it up... It is in fact on every piece of US currency... It is our national moto.... all of this is easily GIS'd.... none of that is controversial in nature to the majority of the US citizenry - nor was it an attempt at insincerity.

Our dialogue wasn't about the factual nature of the phrase (that's pretty established) - It was about whether it could be deemed controversial by definition... I was adding context... we didn't completely agree.... but we came to a mutual understanding - again, try it.

If you find it controversial, that's fine as well... IMO, for something to be controversial.... there has to be a large divide of people and an intense disagreement that those people, in fact, do not put their trust in God... or somehow find that phrase to be untrue or offensive... I just don't see it based on how it is - and always has been used in the US.... In fact, it seems just the opposite to me... and I see no controversy in MS using it if they choose to do so.
 
Last edited:

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
771
Reaction score
1,367
Age
45
Location
San Antonio
Offline
I always thought it was really odd to put "In God We Trust" on money. Money isn't often (never) portrayed in a postive light in the bible. That seems like the last thing you'd want to put that phrase on to show some type of devotion to God.

America :facepalm: .
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
1,567
Offline
I didn't estimate... It's not a talking point (really getting sick of that term being used when someone doesn't agree - or wants to fight about nothing)
Every time I have seen the phrase is brought up as being challenged in the courts as it applies to its appearance on US currency, someone in the comments section invariably leaves a snarky, "You don't like it, just burn it or give it all to me har har" type of comment. You may not like having it (accurately) referred to as a talking point, but that doesn't make me wrong.

you can look it up... It is in fact on every piece of US currency... It is our national moto.... all of this is easily GIS'd.... none of that is controversial in nature to the majority of the US citizenry - nor was it an attempt at insincerity.
This was your first post on the matter, emphasis mine:

"When did "In God We Trust" become controversial? Asking for the 85% - 95% or so of the US population (That believes in God in some form or another), the Official motto of the US, and all US printed money? LOL"

Do you genuinely think that this comes across as a sincere attempt at discussion?

Our dialogue wasn't about the factual nature of the phrase (that's pretty established) - It was about whether it could be deemed controversial by definition... I was adding context... we din't completely agree.... but we came to a mutual understanding - again, try it.
I do. I engage with posters on a regular basis, both publicly on the boards and privately through messages. I've had engaging, thoughtful conversation with more than one person that I disagree with politically. Perhaps the issue us with the way you phrase things, as I pointed out above.

If you don't agree that's it's not really controversial, that's fine as well... IMO, for something to be controversial.... there has to be a large divide of people and an intense disagreement that those people, if fact, do not put their trust in God... or somehow find that phrase to be untrue or offensive... I just don't see it based on how it is - and always has been used in the US.... In fact, it seems just the opposite to me... and I see no controversy in MS using it if they choose to do so.
There are approximately 10,000,000 adults that identify as atheist in this country. These people, by definition, do not believe in any gods, therefore put zero trust in them. There are over 3,000,000 Muslims that believe in a god other than the Christian god this motto is describing. That's over 13,000,000 people in this country for whom that motto is untrue.

How many of these people need to say out loud that they find it offensive before it becomes controversial? How many before it becomes so controversial that Mississippi should abandon the plan to put it on the state flag?

Conversely, what about adopting the previous US motto for the flag as a show of unity? Would that not be better than a motto that has the potential to court controversy? That has, in fact, already shown to be controversial?
 

Richard

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
439
Reaction score
995
Location
Soso, MS
Offline
Just a couple of points here. Muslim God, Christian God, same guy. Of the 10 million atheists in America, how many do you figure live in Mississippi? Just a thought. It doesn’t matter to me, because I am of the opinion that it shouldn’t be on the flag. It’s not because I would cater to the wishes of a tiny minority of Mississippians, but rather that I prefer not to use God as a slogan.

Regardless, it’s my opinion that the people who are insisting on using the phrase on the flag are simply trying to appease the segment of Mississippi’s population who don’t want to change the flag at all, but would find a flag with a reference to God acceptable. I thought that the instant I heard about using the slogan.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,200
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
Regardless, it’s my opinion that the people who are insisting on using the phrase on the flag are simply trying to appease the segment of Mississippi’s population who don’t want to change the flag at all, but would find a flag with a reference to God acceptable. I thought that the instant I heard about using the slogan.
you and I think alike in this.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
1,567
Offline
Just a couple of points here. Muslim God, Christian God, same guy. Of the 10 million atheists in America, how many do you figure live in Mississippi? Just a thought. It doesn’t matter to me, because I am of the opinion that it shouldn’t be on the flag. It’s not because I would cater to the wishes of a tiny minority of Mississippians, but rather that I prefer not to use God as a slogan.

Regardless, it’s my opinion that the people who are insisting on using the phrase on the flag are simply trying to appease the segment of Mississippi’s population who don’t want to change the flag at all, but would find a flag with a reference to God acceptable. I thought that the instant I heard about using the slogan.
Same god? Yes. Same faith? No. And it's clear that In God We Trust is a specific appeal to Christianity, not all Abrahamic faiths.

According to Pew research, 4% of Mississippians don't believe in god. That's over 100,000 people. It's not an insignificant number. We are coming at it from different perspectives, but we agree in the end: it has no business being on the state flag.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
948
Reaction score
1,726
Offline
Establishment Clause

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
It doesn't matter if it's controversial or not. It's unconstitutional.

Even if the Supreme Court has said otherwise. It should be heard on appeal.
 

Richard

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
439
Reaction score
995
Location
Soso, MS
Offline
It doesn't matter if it's controversial or not. It's unconstitutional.

Even if the Supreme Court has said otherwise. It should be heard on appeal.
I am not up on the court rulings about In God We Trust, but if the Supreme Court says it is constitutional, it is until it's not. What I mean is that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional, so until they change their minds on an issue, it is settled. Thankfully they do sometimes change their mind. Those who want to see that ruling overturned can continue to challenge it until they hit upon a strategy that resonates with the Court. They can also get laws passed in hopes that those laws will pass constitutional muster.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
6,239
Location
Midwest
Offline
Yes, I just saw that and think it looks really good.
 

Bigdaddysaints

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
64
Reaction score
168
Age
47
Location
Prairieville, La
Offline

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
921
Reaction score
1,112
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
I always thought it was really odd to put "In God We Trust" on money. Money isn't often (never) portrayed in a postive light in the bible. That seems like the last thing you'd want to put that phrase on to show some type of devotion to God.

America :facepalm: .
unless...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom