Why the Moral Justice Movement Rejects People Like Me

Because its most prominent leader thinks that only religious people have morals.

I admire Rev. William Barber.  What he's started in North Carolina and is spreading across the country is already a huge achievement and may turn out to be, indeed, the Third Reconstruction.

So I was eager to read his book of that name, to learn about the years-long organizing that led to Moral Mondays and how he drew hundreds of thousands of people to it in what Charlie Pierce calls "the consistently insane state of North Carolina."

Unfortunately, his own words in this book put the lie to his claims of having a truly "fusion" coalition that welcomes and values everyone.

The book jacket's summary describes the movement as uniting "black, white and brown, rich and poor, employed and unemployed, gay and straight, documented and undocumented, religious and secular." (my emphasis.)

But that's not how Barber himself describes it.  Rather, he writes that his coalition "welcomes people of all faiths, as well as those who struggle with faith."

He repeats that sentiment several times in the book, but never once uses the word "secular." Or "humanist." Or "agnostic." And of course never "atheist."

Is he really under the impression that seculars, humanists, agnostics and atheists "struggle with faith?"  Of course not.  He is an intelligent, educated, cosmopolitan man.  He uses "struggle with faith" deliberately and advisedly, to belittle and exclude those of us who do not share his baseless belief in an invisible sky wizard who runs the world.

He even used a prominent atheist to tell a monstrous lie on national television.  In an attempt to "fit in" on Bill Maher's show, he claimed he himself was an atheist because he didn't believe in the "god" of hating poor people, immigrants and "gay folks."

As atheists like to point out, "people of faith" disbelieve in tens of thousands of gods.  We just disbelieve in one more than they do. Barber adding the god of hate to his disbelief list of tens of thousands while keeping babby jeebus doesn't make him an atheist.

Of course there are seculars, humanists, agnostics and atheists in the moral justice movement, even the religious-only one Barber has established in North Carolina.

That's because we of no faith have always been the worker bees of every movement for justice - racial, economic, social, political, sexual, environmental and especially moral.

Because morality is not, never has been and never will be the exclusive province of the religious.

Not that the religious will ever admit that.

So we the moral godless toil anonymously in the movement, unacknowledged at best, disrespected and despised at worst.

Shame on you, Rev. Barber.  Without the moral godless, your movement would have died in the cradle.

Tell the Truth in Treason in Defense of Slavery Month

Sherman should have hanged the motherfuckers. And by motherfuckers, I mean my ancestors, the traitors.

Erik Loomis at LGM:

I know that we here all know that the cause of the Civil War was 1) slavery, 2) slavery, and 3) slavery. But Confederate apologists still love to try and dodge that question through promoting the secondary issues over which slavery caused tension to the forefront. Of course, all you have to do to know the Civil War was about slavery is to read almost anything written by Confederate elites between mid-1860 and April 1865. Heather Cox Richardson on Confederate VP Alexander Stephens:

Once and for all, Stephens was going to explain the difference between the United States and the Confederacy. That difference, he said, was slavery. The American Constitution had a crucial defect at its heart, he said. That defect was that it based the government on the principle that humans were inherently equal. Confederate leaders had fixed that problem. They had constructed a perfect government because they had corrected the Founding Fathers’ error. The “cornerstone” on which the Confederate government rested was racial slavery.

Stephens explained that Thomas Jefferson himself had warned that slavery would ultimately split the Union. But, he said, Jefferson had blundered. Like other statesmen of his era, the Virginia president had believed that slavery was evil, that it was “wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.” The Founding Fathers believed that, while the nation was temporarily stuck with slavery, the institution would not last. In their minds, human equality was an eternal truth, and they assumed that this principle would eventually triumph, somehow, even if they could not themselves see how it would happen. This fundamental principle, Stephens claimed, was wrong, and their error had made them create a dangerously shaky government. It was an error the Confederacy had addressed.

Stephens explained. In contrast to the government the Founding Fathers had created, the Confederacy rested on the “great truth” that

the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The Confederacy, Stephens said, was a pioneer nation, the first ever to make a government that strictly conformed to God’s racial laws. Other nations would certainly follow, for eventually all would have to acknowledge “the truths upon which our system rests.”

The United States of Abraham Lincoln’s era, he said, in contrast, continued to suffer from the errors of the past. Northerners clung to the outdated idea that “the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.” But that foundational principle of human equality was simply wrong. God had made racial inequality an eternal truth. Trying to build a government without slavery flew in the face of “the ordinance of the Creator.”

Stephens was convinced that the United States, with its quaint ideas about human equality, was antiquated, while the Confederacy stood on the side of Providence and progress. Theirs was not a vision of an agrarian world rapidly passing away as western countries modernized, but of the future. Stephens dismissed the naysayers who warned that the “civilized world” would stand against a nation based on racial slavery. “When we stand upon the eternal principles of truth,” he said, “if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”

Why did the South quickly turn to not talking about slavery after 1865? Because, as Richardson points out, the political needs of Reconstruction dictated a rhetorical shift.

When the officers of the Freedmen’s Bureau—as it was dubbed—decided in favor of former slaves about 68% of the time, angry white southerners howled. This was precisely what they had gone to war to prevent, they said. The Freedmen’s Bureau was a federal bureau administered by the military, and its officers were intruding directly into their communities and siding with former slaves. If this wasn’t the overreach of tyrants intending to destroy liberty, what was? With slavery gone, former Confederates turned to the politics of the moment. They harnessed nostalgia for the fallen Confederacy to try to end the power of Republicans in Congress to dictate the terms of Reconstruction.

But in Savannah in March 1861, Alexander Stephens had told a different story. “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution,” he said. And then he clarified: “This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

Good post, as it is still necessary to push these points over and over again with Mississippi announcing Confederate Heritage Month and the like. Personally, I’m ready for a vigorous month of tweeting and blogging about Treason in Defense of Slavery Month.

"The Secret History of Juneteenth"

It's not what you think, although if you think "fucking Texas," you're right.

Just read it.