Can Anything Good Come Out of Mississippi?

What's Wrong with Mississippi

Mississippi has had a lot of problems since its inception, not the least of which was its sordid support of slavery. We've come quite a long way since the Civil Rights era but, due to conservative religious saturation and natural human bigotry (we like to call that "tradition"), we still have a whole lot of work to do. Since it is now a public death wish to be known to be a racist, people have taken refuge in the next brand of socially-accepted bigotry...anti-gay intolerance.

SB2681 and Its Real Meaning

This bill was hailed as a "religious freedom" bill but its real intent was to give Mississippi business owners the power to discriminate in their dealings. The bill was pretty much DOA but a quick slap by the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention reminded our legislators that religion runs Mississippi - not the law.

The law takes place on July 1 and allows people to discriminate against anyone or anything for any "sincerely held" religious reason. When I say "any religious reason," I mean any:

"Exercise of religion" includes, but is not limited to, the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

So the reason doesn't have to pertain to a particular religious doctrine or belief. It can be any peripheral idea you've pulled out of your ass or any other non-religious belief you hold and slap a "religion" label on it.

Who is the arbiter of what belief is "sincerely held?" The court, by default, will become the decider of what is legitimate religious belief and what is not. So much for religious freedom. The law forces the state to define religion - not stay out of it.

What Is Mississippi's Response?

Many of us Mississippians did not support this bill and we are actively standing against it now, sometimes at great personal risk to our family, friendships, and business interests. 
The beginning of our campaign to fight back was to make this sticker available to those who were against the bill and let people see the very real opposition.

We want people to see that it's ok to fight against the radical, conservative religious agenda. It's ok to publicly say, "I'm not going to discriminate against anybody." We wanted to challenge people to stand up to the bigots in our state whether they are at home or at church. We are trying to be powerful agents for change in this state and this is our FIRST step, not our last. We are strongly encouraged by the fact that the AFA has called this sticker a "bullying campaign" because a) it's obviously untrue, and b) it shows we've got them scared.

Is It Good Enough?

I'd hope that people around the country would rally to our cause and encourage us in the fight but, sadly, that's not always the case. When the AFA's comment was covered on Pharyngula, a couple of commenters made the following statements:

1. @5: It’s worse than that. These stickers aren’t calling for a repeal of the “bigotry is allowed” law — they’re just saying that this store chooses not to avail themselves of their God-given right to be bigots. That the bigots take this as bullying of *them*…….defies all attempts at explanation, however desperate.


2. These non-discrimination signs aren’t even very welcoming. They’re basically saying, “Even though we’re not legally required to recognize your humanity, we’ll take your money.” Fuck that whole state off.

Because Mississippi has allowed the AFA and their ilk to define our state image and speak on our behalf for so long, I can understand why these people feel this way. I sympathize strongly with their weariness at our intolerance and willful ignorance. But I feel I must speak up on behalf of the many Mississippians who don't share those views and have been working tirelessly to try to change this state. Our work here is difficult and it's not always very rewarding. Often we see no personal benefit except to know that we are doing what is right.

We do want this law repealed but we can't start the big legal work on that until it takes effect. As for being welcoming, I suppose we could have made signs that said, "Get Your Cute Gay Ass in Here and Spend Some Money!" but that wouldn't have helped our cause much.

Friends, we need your support badly. Instead of looking for fault in what we do, encourage us and help us do it better. This whole state isn't just conservative, religious nutjobs. There are a lot of decent, caring folks here of all stripes and we're working to find our voice.

What Good Is Coming Out of Mississippi?

We are rising up slowly but surely. We are working to pull our state kicking and screaming into the 21st century. We are struggling to liberate our family and friends from the toxicity of the SBC's rule. We are working to change minds and open hearts (figuratively, mind you).

We successfully fought against the 2012 Personhood bill and we'll likely fight that again this year. The struggle is over once you're done reading the article but it continues daily for those of us who live in these trenches.

We're not going to stop until we accomplish our goals. Support us.

The Price of Faith

 

A Baptist church recently returned from a mission trip to Africa and, unfortunately, they brought something deadly back with them: hemorrhagic fever.

This is a very serious, often fatal disease. Think Ebola and you're on the right track. Risk factors for the illness include prior infection, being white, female, or young. There is no cure.

Science-based treatment was able to alleviate the symptoms and give these people a greater chance of survival. Fortunately, every victim survived but they can never go back to Africa lest they run the risk of dying next time. It's a tragic story.

But what's also interesting is the idea that these people went to Africa to do something they thought was good and their god gave them no protection. Faith was no shield. Belief made no difference. They were just as subject to the harsh whims of nature as anyone else - nay, moreso!

Perhaps some would say that "God had a plan" for them. I think it's painfully obvious that nature had a plan: survive. Yahweh didn't send mosquitoes to infect his missionaries so he could test their faith. Mosquitoes did what mosquitoes do and the rest is all science. There's no great purpose to their suffering. There's no great plan to be fulfilled. There is just human misery and death.

At this point, the only thing I can hope is that these people will continue to recover and suffer no long-term effects from this illness. And I also hope that they will choose not to go back to Africa and put themselves at risk for their silent god. Let these people have a long and happy life with their families and if Yahweh wants to tell the rest of the world about his plan of salvation, well, let him do it himself.

A Better Understanding of Church and State Separation Is Needed

A lot of people do not fully understand the reasoning behind the church and state violation cases that have made the news as of late. Jumping to the "I'm being persecuted!" claim has made it even harder to talk to people about this subject. There are facts at hand that have been established long before these violations have come to light. That being said, I think a little bit of history is needed to educate both the religious and non-religious.

Did you know that the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state was first used by Roger Williams back in the mid 1600s. He and his wife arrived in the "new world" (Boston) at the beginning of 1631.

"His search for the true church eventually carried him out of Congregationalism, the Baptists, and any visible church. From 1639 forward, he waited for Christ to send a new apostle to reestablish the church, and he saw himself as a "witness" to Christianity until that time came."

He strongly believed that "everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion" and thus the church and state must be separated in all aspects. Later in 1802, Thomas Jefferson would use the phrase "wall of separation" that echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

"In the spring of 1636, Williams and a number of his followers from Salem began a settlement on land that Williams had bought from Massasoit, only to be told by Plymouth that he was still within their land grant. They warned that they might be forced to extradite him to Massachusetts and invited him to cross the Seekonk River to territory beyond any charter. The outcasts rowed over to Narragansett territory, and having secured land from Canonicus and Miantonomi, chief sachems of the Narragansetts, Williams established a settlement with twelve 'loving friends.' He called it 'Providence' because he felt that God's Providence had brought him there. (He would later name his third child, the first born in his new settlement, "Providence" as well.) He said that his settlement was to be a haven for those 'distressed of conscience,' and it soon attracted quite a collection of dissenters and otherwise-minded individuals."

Something most people didn't know or have forgotten is the establishment or creation of the town of Providence. It was created and became a safe haven for various people regardless of their religious views. It was their "like-mindedness" that drew them together. Now the significance of Roger Williams and Providence, RI, in religious history is about to be revealed:

"Williams had himself baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in late 1638. Thus was constituted a church which still survives as the First Baptist Church in America. A few years later, John Clarke, Williams’ compatriot in the cause of religious freedom in the New World, established a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island. Roger Williams and John Clarke are variously credited as being the founder of the Baptist faith in America."

It's a really good read and we strongly suggest it - you won't learn about him in public schools and probably not in most religious schools outside of baptist ones. I didn't even know about him until Tweenky and Jessica had mentioned him recently. I hated history class in school and I blame 50% of that on the way it was being taught and/or presented, the other 50% was me not being interested since I was taught that "the world was going to end soon" or "we are in the last days". After looking back at the history of most religions, I have found that every couple of generations you see them saying something about being in the last days.

Just want to start off with a couple examples and then the feedback or backlash I've noticed from said examples:

One of the main examples that is continuously being brought up here in the South is "prayer in schools." This isn't just something that happens in the South either as we have all probably heard about events in Cranston, RI. Here in the South most of the school games are preceded by a prayer over the P.A. system or at graduation ceremonies.

The problem is not the prayer that is being said (although it is usually exclusively from one denomination) at the school games or ceremonies. Prayer that is lead by teachers, school faculty or even a local priest, preacher, bishop, or father is in itself an endorsement by the school. That is the violation and what makes it unconstitutional regardless of how long they have been doing it. The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled government-sponsored prayer in the public schools unconstitutional in 1962. Ala,s most southern states have held onto their prayers in school thinking that, "We'll do it until we are told or made to stop," as one school principal said at a faculty meeting in Tishomingo County, Mississippi.

Is the bible belt and other places really that thick in thinking they can just do as they please when it comes to our school systems and, most importantly, our children? Indoctrination at a young age is a must for most these religions - get them young and it's harder to lose them. They become entrenched with the constant reminder of being a sinner or threatened with going to hell.

The other example that seems to make headlines every year is the nativity scene "on public/governement property." This was seen last year all over the country with only a few places getting air time on the news. Athens, Texas, was a huge one that got most the publicity. Rick Perry may have had something to do with that, not sure. This was a case in point of an obvious church and state separation violation.

This whole thing was not about the nativity scene but rather its location on the grounds of the government building. Had they just moved it across the street or down the block to a private property location there wouldn't have been an issue. But it was a long standing tradition and had been there for over 50 years. That just means it has been in violation of the law for the last 49 years.

The backlash from all this was a feeding of the faux news trolls and their so called "Christian persecution". They used it to further claim a persecution on Christians by saying they were trying to "take Christ out of Christmas". No one ever said it had to be taken down and never shown again; they just wanted it moved off public property. Simple, right?

So with that I leave you with the following facts available for everyone to look up and read for themselves:

The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state.
(Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) pp 303-4)

The decision of Everson followed in 1947, the first incorporating the Establishment Clause.
(Larson, Edward John (2003). Trial and error: the American controversy over creation and evolution (3, revised ed.).)

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause)

Like any other case that goes before the court, once ruled on they can set a precedent.

The issue at hand is not the fact that this was a religious prayer but that it was displayed on public school property. It is a matter of location, every citizen can display this prayer on their private property to show how religious they are if need be or wear a T-Shirt. That is your private property. If the government were to pass a law that controls what you can and cannot wear or display on your private property, then you will see people unite from all faiths and non-faiths alike.

Again it is a matter of location, the precedent has been set and will continue to be upheld as long as we have the 1st and 14th amendments intact.

We applaud and thank you, Jessica, and the many others religious and non-religious people over the years that have stood up for church and state separation.