Virginia's Long Saga of Being on the Wrong Side of History

The image above was shared on Facebook by one of my daughters and it prompted to ponder Virginia's sometimes illustrious but more often embarrassing history.  Living in Virginia it is difficult not to be aware of the brilliance and intelligence of Virginia's leaders in the early days of the Commonwealth and America.  By the same token, it is difficult to not be aware of the fact that since those early days of the United States of America, Virginia has generally been on the wrong side of history.  Not once, but time and time again.  The intellectual brilliance and Enlightenment inspired minds of Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and other of their time pretty much died out with them.   Yes, Virginia produced brilliant military commanders during the Civil War - or War Between the States as it is sometimes referred to in Virginia but rather than liberty and freedom, especially religious freedom, here's a short list of what Virginia has backed since Thomas Jefferson's death:  support for slavery, segregation, separate but equal, Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, bans on gay marriage (Virginia's anti-gay marriage amendment is nearly identical to the one just adopted in North Carolina) and most recently, a war on the health care decision rights of women.  And not coincidentally, typically the Bible was cited as justification and the main proponents of bigotry were the "godly Christian" folk.

Virginia has much of which it should be deeply ashamed.  Unfortunately, the Republican Party of Virginia - and its Christianist puppet masters at The Family Foundation - continue to look to the worse elements of Virginia's history in plotting their course.  The concepts - such as freedom of religion for ALL - and brilliance of the nations founders are instead thrown on the dung heap.   One would think that the infamy associated with Loving v. Virginia alone would make Virginians open their eyes.  But such is not the case with the Virginia GOP or the hate merchants at The Family Foundation. I hope that future generations will view these individuals and organizations with the horror and disgust that they so rightly deserve.

I'm nothing short of deeply embarrassed to be a Virginian.  I cannot in good conscience recommend the state to anyone and, as I've noted before, were circumstances different, I'd leave in a heart beat and shake the dust from my shoes.

How Religion Promotes Slavery - and Other Horrors

The Christianist far right loves to cite the supposedly inerrant Bible to justify their virulent anti-gay rhetoric. But, as noted many times before on this blog, Bible inerrancy if faithfully applied rules out selectively choosing from "column A and column B" as in a Chinese restaurant and leaves its proponents with the whole nasty ball of wax. It's a proposition of take or leave the entirety of the Bible's supposed dictates or be in truth nothing less than a fraudulent hypocrite. Sadly, most of the Christianists and the leadership of the Catholic Church fall into the lying hypocrite category. CNN's Religion blog looks at how religion and the Bible in particular supports and justifies slavery (why is it any surprise the many white Christianists are racists?). Here are some article excerpts:

Which revered religious figure - Moses, Jesus, or the Prophet Mohammad - spoke out boldly and unambiguously against slavery? Answer: None of them.

One of these men owned slaves, another created laws to regulate - but not ban – slavery. The third’s chief spokesman even ordered slaves to obey their masters, religious scholars say.

Most modern people of faith see slavery as a great evil. Though the three great Western religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – disagree on many matters, most of their contemporary followers condemn slavery. Yet there was a time when Jews, Christians and Muslims routinely cited the words and deeds of their founders to justify human bondage, scholars say. At times, religion was deployed more to promote the spread of slavery than to prevent it.

It’s been said that great religious figures transcend history. They rise above the peculiar customs of their day to show a new path forward. It’s a matter of debate if Moses, Jesus and the Prophet Mohammad did that with slavery. All three seemed to either ignore or tolerate some forms of slavery, some scholars say.

The parables of Jesus, for example, were full of references to slaves. Terms like “servants” or “stewards” are what we would call slaves today. Yet Jesus doesn’t seem to make any moral judgments about slavery in his parables, Crossan says.

Jesus’ apparent silence on slavery and Paul’s ambiguous statements on the issue had dreadful historical consequences. It helped ensure that slavery would survive well into the 19th century in the U.S., some scholars say.

American Christians who owned slaves had a simple but powerful defense in the run-up to the Civil War. The Old and New Testament sanctioned slavery and, since the Bible is infallible, slavery is part of God’s order, says Mark Noll, author “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.”

“The defenders of slavery said Jesus condemned quite a few things that were standard in the Old Testament,” Noll says. “He condemned polygamy, violence, easy divorce, but he never condemned slavery.”

It is perhaps more than a little ironic that today's Christianists - many of whom are descendents of the slave owners of yesteryear - cite that Jesus never condemned slavery yet totally ignore the fact that Jesus never condemned homosexuality whatsoever. Indeed, same New Testament passages - e.g., the centurion and his lover who Jesus healed - seem to indicate that Jesus was kind to same sex lovers and recognized their faith first and foremost rather than the gender of who they slept with.

Virginia Again Gains Negative News Coverage Over Flawed Textbook

UPDATE: The negative national publicity apparently is causing Virginia to belatedly look at its flawed textbook approval process. Years ago I served on the standards of learning committee for social studies/history and it drove me crazy that non-historians and non-history majors had input on subjects on which they knew nothing. Some things have not changed. The Virginian Pilot has more coverage here.
*

The folks in Richmond - i.e., Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli and their appointees - just do not seem to be to keep Virginia out of the news. Once again the state is being depicted as backward and racist in its worship and rewriting of of the history of the Civil War. These guys are the veritable gang that can't shoot straight. Now, the media is having a field day over a 4th grade history text book, Our Virginia, by a non-historian that would have readers believe that there were thousands of black soldiers that fought for the Confederacy. It's not true, but when do the Christianists and far right elements ever worry about actual facts and accurate history. To them, school curriculum is to be warped and shaped into propaganda vehicles to push their own causes and distorted beliefs. In this case, the myth being pushed is that the Civil War was not principally over slavery and that even blacks supported the slave owning society. Among media outlets covering the revisionist history story are the Washington Post, the Virginian Pilot and Salon - and none of the coverage is positive. Here are highlights from the Post which launched the coverage:
*
In its short lesson on the roles that whites, African Americans and Indians played in the Civil War, "Our Virginia" says, "Thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson."
*
Historians from across the country, however, said the sentence about Confederate soldiers was wrong or, at the least, overdrawn. They expressed concerns not only over its accuracy but over the implications of publishing an assertion so closely linked to revisionist Confederate history.
*
"It's more than just an arcane, off-the-wall problem," said David Blight, a professor at Yale University. "This isn't just about the legitimacy of the Confederacy, it's about the legitimacy of the emancipation itself."
*
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson of Princeton University said, "These Confederate heritage groups have been making this claim for years as a way of purging their cause of its association with slavery."
*
The book also survived the Education Department's vetting and was ruled "accurate and unbiased" by a committee of content specialists and teachers. Five Ponds Press has published 14 books that are used in the Virginia public school system, all of them written by Masoff.
*
As a history major, I have to shudder and wonder about what types of loonies are being appointed to the State Board of Education by Taliban Bob. No doubt all of the vetting of appointees has been turned over to the Christofascsists and closet racists at The Family Foundation.

Anti-Gay Fundamentalist Christian Hypocrisy - Do They Embrace the Bible As Justification for Slavery Too?

The Boyfriend and I are watching the PBS special "God in America" and one thing that has struck me so far in Part Two that looks at the Civil War period is the parallels between the Southern Christian argument in support of slavery and the current Christianist whining that the Bible requires anti-gay prejudice and bigotry. Somehow, society for the most part - Tony Perkins and similar Christianists and professional Christians possibly excepted - has moved on and jettisoned the excuse that the Bible supported slavery. Yet the same type of rants that the Bible is "inerrant" and must be applied" literally" once used to justify slavery are still in active daily use by homophobes like Maggie Gallagher. One could even argue that the Christianists and similar "godly Christians" who cling to a few Bible passages in the Bible - Leviticus in particular - to condemn gays are in many ways the successors of the pro-slavery Christians.

*

To restate this point, just as the homophobes of today cling to the Bible to justify their bigotry and prejudice so too did the pro-slavery elements in Christian Churches. In fact, there are MANY MORE passages in the Bible that support slavery than there are in the Bible purportedly condemning homosexuality. Don't believe me? A sampling is set out below. So the next time a Christianist or other self-congratulatory professional Christian condemns gays based on the Bible, demand that they state their position on slavery. (Ditto in respect to Barack Obama who places his personal religious sensibilities above the U. S. Constitution.) If, as these individuals claim, the Bible is inerrant and must be applied literally, to be intellectually honest and consistent, they MUST say that they support slavery. If the Bible is inerrant and to be applied literally, they have no choice according to their own statements but to hold true to the literal words of the Bible. If these people do embrace slavery based on the Bible, then they have conceded the falsity of their claims that the Bible requires the condemnation of homosexuality.

*

Here are the Bible passages in support of slavery, first from the OLD TESTAMENT (NOTE: It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees):
*
Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
*
Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
*
Deuteronomy 5:21: "Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
*
Beating and Killing Slaves: Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:
*
Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
*
Exodus 21:26-27: "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
*
Emancipation of Slaves: Slaves in ancient Israel were automatically emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish. However, if the slave owner "gave" the slave a wife, the owner could keep the wife and any children as his property.
*
Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
*
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
*
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
*
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)
*
Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."
*
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."
*
And the NEW TESTAMENT is not a great deal better from an anti-slavery perspective:
*
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
*
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
*
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
*
1 Timothy 6:1-3: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"
*
1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
*
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
*
Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

*

It is time to turn the Bible against our enemies. They seek to brandish it like a club against gays, yet their own arguments lead to the unavoidable conclusion that they are either liars and hypocrites or closet racists and segregationist. The do NOT get to have it both ways.

Supreme Court of Virginia to Hear Episcopal Church Dispute

Litigation has been raging for several years now as homophobic break away Episcopal parishes have sought to abscond with church properties utilizing an 1860's vintage statute that was enacted to permit pro-slavery Baptist churches to seize properties from the anti-slavery national church. It is a sad commentary that one would use a statute conceived by racists and those who supported continuing to own other humans as chattel, but that is the reality in the far right break away Episcopal parishes seeking to align themselves with reactionary bishops in Africa, at least one (Archbishop Peter Akinola) of who has been potentially implicated in the massacre of 600 Muslim women and children. In my view, it takes perversion of the Gospel message to a whole new obscene level. WTVR-TV in Richmond has coverage on the issue which will place the Supreme Court in a position of determining whether or not Virginia will appear as a reactionary backward state or not. Here are some highlights:
*
Today the Virginia Supreme Court will hear arguments in what amounts to a civil war in the Episcopal Church, the oldest church in the nation. The property custody battle between the Episcopal Church Diocese and numerous churches that have split over moral issues isn't a battle between the north and the south, but between the left and the right. The split began several years ago, when the democratic church body voted to ordain on openly gay bishop.

*
Bishop Johnston said with most of the retreating churches, the property was paid for or renovated by the Episcopal Church. Bishop Binns agreed that was case with some of the churches, but others had their own deeds or had paid for much of the improvements to the buildings and properties. Negotiations over those custody questions failed, and the case wound up in Fairfax Circuit Court last year.
*
The rebelling churches successfully argued that the Virginia Division Statute - http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/57-9.HTM - gave the state the right arbitrate this kind of church property dispute. That statute came about at the end of the Civil War. But the Episcopal Church Diocese argues that antiquated law has no current Constitutional basis. What's more, they believe, the Constitution says the state has no right to interfere in church business. Both sides will argue that the right to religious freedom means they should win. "This is a watershed moment," Bishop Johnston said.

McDonnell's Confederate History Month Proclamation - Is He Tone Defeaf?

I will admit that I am a Civil War buff and have nothing against recognizing Virginia's history. Indeed, on my mother's side of the family from New Orleans, I have my own Confederate ancestors, one of whom was in a Union prison camp. But only a month after he and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli generated worldwide negative press for Virginia on the state's support of discrimination against its LGBT citizens, was it a good idea to potentially give the appearance that the state is racist and anti-black too? Truthfully, I'm not sure what Bob McDonnell was thinking other than seeking to pander to the far right elements in the shrinking Republican Party of Virginia base who long for the days when, as one former classmate described the mindset, "men were men, women knew their place, and as for blacks, every white man could own one." No, it wasn't George Allen, although I can imagine him saying that too and, unlike this other classmate, it would not be a joke. Virginia has many pressing problems and stirring up more racial unrest and images of state supported discrimination does nothing to address them. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, reviving a controversy that had been dormant for eight years, has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in Virginia, a move that angered civil rights leaders Tuesday but that political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base.
*
The two previous Democratic governors had refused to issue the mostly symbolic proclamation honoring the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. McDonnell (R) revived a practice started by Republican governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had included in his proclamation.
*
McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states.
*
The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation.
*
The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War."
*
The Virginia NAACP and the state's Legislative Black Caucus called the proclamation an insult to a large segment of the state's population, particularly because it never acknowledges slavery.

"Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed," said Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D-Norfolk), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. "Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."

McCain's Black Relatives Are Supporting Obama

What with his campaign hopefully about to take a fatal nose dive (with Sarah Barracuda leading the way), I could almost feel sorry for John McCain. I said almost. Instead I am finding some degree of amusement in the fact that with all his other troubles, McCain now finds that he has his own racial issue of sorts cropping up. Some of his black relatives tracing back to the days the McCains were slave owners and slave traders have gone public about (i) his distance from them - haughtiness even - and (ii) their intent to vote for Barack Obama rather than their relative. Obviously, the white supremacist elements in the GOP being stirred up by Bible Spice Palin will likely NOT be too happy to learn that McCain has black relatives, much less that they are apparently "uppity" and not supporting the GOP ticket. Here are some highlights from the South Florida Times:

*

In the rural Teoc community of Carroll County, Mississippi, where the ancestors of Sen. John McCain owned enslaved Africans on a plantation, black, white and mixed-race family members unite every two years for their Coming Home Reunion, on the land where the plantation operated.

*

They are either descendants of the McCain family slaves, or of children the McCains fathered with their slaves. White and black members of the McCain family have met on the plantation several times over the last 15 years, but one invited guest has been conspicuously absent: Sen. John Sidney McCain.

*

Why he hasn’t come is anybody’s guess,” said Charles McCain Jr., 60, a distant cousin of John McCain who is black. “I think the best I can come up with, is that he doesn’t have time, or he has just distanced himself, or it doesn’t mean that much to him.” Other relatives are not as generous. Lillie McCain, 56, another distant cousin of John McCain who is black, said the Republican presidential nominee is trying to hide his past, and refuses to accept the family’s history.“After hearing him in 2000 claim his family never owned slaves, I sent him an email,” she recalled. “I told him no matter how much he denies it, it will not make it untrue, and he should accept this and embrace it.” She said the senator never responded to her email.

*

[S]everal of John McCain’s black and white relatives are supporting his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama. “I am absolutely supporting Obama, and it’s not because he’s black. It’s because he is the best person at this time in our history,” said Lillie McCain, a professor of psychology at Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan.“

*

We simply need to look at the economy, and McCain’s campaign does not take us there,” said Joyce McCain, Lillie’s sister, a retired engineering manager with General Motors who lives in Grand Blanc, Michigan. “He is my cousin, but we are in dire times right now and people are hurting. Sen. Obama is clearly the best choice to be president.’’

*

The reunion’s website, teocfamilyreunion.ning.com, (My Note: if you have a Ning account you can log in) has pictures, postings and other information about the family gatherings. While Sen. McCain’s brother, Joe, and many of his other white relatives attend the reunions, family members say Sen. McCain has never acknowledged them, or even responded to their invitations. After the reporter sent questions in writing, and made repeated follow-up phone calls, neither Sen. McCain nor anyone else from the campaign responded.

*

Based on information obtained by the South Florida Times, the senator has numerous black and mixed-raced relatives who were born on, or in, the area of the McCain plantation. The mixed races in the family can be traced back to the rural Teoc community of Carroll County, Miss., where his family owned slaves. Sen. John McCain’s great, great grandfather, William Alexander McCain (1812-1863), fought for the Confederacy and owned a 2,000-acre plantation named Waverly in Teoc. The family dealt in the slave trade, and, according to official records, held at least 52 slaves on the family’s plantation. The enslaved Africans were likely used as servants, for labor, and for breeding more slaves.