A Long, Silent Conversation

I couldn’t help but enjoy the delicious irony of the situation. There I was a student of at least two languages other than English … who could barely manage a conversation in just her native tongue. But considering how long I’d been one of the game, it’s really a wonder why my social skills aren’t worse.

When most people engage in small talk – they have something to talk about. With my co-workers, it’s usually something – or nothing at all. But they’re pretty much on the same page and they swiftly shift subjects with smooth transition. That’s not really the case with me, I have to process what’s been said and evaluate my options – anything I say can be taken in any number of directions and I never want to divulge too much information.

I always remember that episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, the one where a genial host has invited the crew of the Enterprise down to the planet where he’s the Federation Ambassador while they have some down-time, completely unaware that the aliens who are hosting them have some plans of their own about what to do with their own spaceship. It’s made abundantly clear that everyone hates the host and finds him really annoying. So Data is told that if he wants to master small talk, he would do well to keep an eye on him. He does and copies him perfectly – learning how to talk about nothing at all. Later on, when the ruse is revealed, the aliens kill the annoying ambassador. Lesson: small talk gets you killed.

Half of the time, I wondered what I was going to say – eventually I realized I had silently rehearsed an entire conversation – the only thing I knew about the guy was that he was into music. I thought about asking: “What kind of music do you like most?” “Which genre is underappreciated?” “Can you think of a song that would be epic if it were written for a different genre?” Things like that – but … I didn’t say a word.

Most of the time when I work, I have little to say. I dread it when somebody asks me a direct question about myself because I hardly know what to answer. I think that’s partially because I’ve been so successful at being a whole other person sometimes. There’s the me that people meet, kind and friendly, they just like me – kind of a surface level reflection. But there’s the deeper me that’s harder to draw out, one that likes to keep something up my sleeve. This is the me that I don’t let people get to know easily and the me that has more interesting answers but might prove a bit intimidating in a sense.

Perhaps it’s all those years that Christianity drilled into me humility and dying to self that’s also a factor. You see, being able to talk about your accomplishments, how you can speak Spanish and read Portuguese can be understood to be prideful. You see, everything about you is supposed to point everyone you meet toward God – the less you can say about yourself, the more you can say about God. Or it was some idea that if we had to say anything, it should be important things that are necessary. Idle chatter just wasn’t becoming.

But small talk isn’t idle chatter, it’s creating an opening to turn an acquaintance into a friend, to make guests more comfortable in a strange environment, and it’s how you build relationships and trust. The church should put a particular emphasis on encouraging conversation rather than quashing it – and even though certain Bible verses say that some shouldn’t speak, we should question just how much that applies in a world where words have more impact now than ever before.

It’s not that I don’t have anything to say – it’s just that I don’t always know how to say it quite right.

Dim Light

“As a scientist,” My friend the German wrote me, “I’m very worried about how far behind America has fallen. What do you think?”

I love questions like this because it really lets me connect the dots. So let’s start with “the beginning”.

As a Christian, I know very few kids who grew up in the church and got involved in the sciences; particularly the branches that do the heavy-lifting in the theoretical realms. I know that the German grew up as a Lutheran and that the Chemistry teacher at my old school was a Southern Baptist as he attended my church. We got to watch Kent Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism Seminar (popular in the 1990s-2000s) where he explains that there are lies in school textbooks and sometimes the science that they teach is just plain wrong. So while students should do their best; when it comes to science they shouldn’t believe everything they’re taught particularly about the Theory of Evolution. But even though I had a weakness at the math involved, I loved the sciences and took just about every class I could. Always in the back of my mind was the idea that I should learn everything I could, but I didn’t have to believe anything that I didn’t want to believe.

Meanwhile, our politicians were lost in debate. The question was whether or not climate change was a hoax. They used science to support both positions, the facts and figures indicate that yes the climate is change, but no it’s not changing any more or any worse than it always has. This debate dragged on for years – each trying to use their own science to discredit the other sides’ science or call it out as flawed in some way.

Ken Ham  of Answers in Genesis (1990s-now) became the next big Christian name to take up the banner of creationism. He built the Creation Museum and had Bill Nye come and debate him there. After that, Ham built the Ark Encounter. If Christians used to be hostile to science, then this was nothing more than a declaration of war. Museums, after all, are buildings of science – like the Kirpatrick Center I visited as a kid – where you could play and learn about science hands-on. Now that Creationism had it’s own museums, it became harder to know the line where faith and science were drawn; ultimately though, in the way that they were built, science was a after-thought and faith and evangelism was the primary goal of the building.

So Christianity taught me that science is dumb and wrong and faith is smart and right because God, who knows all true science from the false science, tells us everything we need to know in the pages of the Bible. Faith opted me out from any responsibility to science. But how can be otherwise when the institution that speaks on behalf of God has you watch videos telling you from a young age that science is wrong?

In the most recent election, Christians came out in full force behind the Republican candidate who spouted Christian ideals but also had the same animosity to science. Now that Christians are becoming increasingly powerful again, their anti-science stance is also gaining influence. Our politicians are still keen to use science to support their side and attack their opponent’s science. That’s why Christian kids don’t grow up to be scientists.

History tells us of a dark age when faith held back scientific progress with the full authority of God. We’re not that bad, but I’d say we’re in a dim age because we like the science that is the kind that agrees with God: “water will always boil at the boiling point and will always freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.” But we don’t like the science that tells us that the water came from Hydrogen and Oxygen combining and falling on the molten rocks of our extremely young earth and starting the water cycle.

So think about this, Christian kids in the 90s, 00s, 10s were taught that science and faith are incompatible. The eldest batch of them – if they’ve obeyed their Bible right, are parents who should have begun teaching their kids that science and faith are incompatible. We have yet to see what sort of damage this teaching will do generationally – at least, in this modern age. One thing is for sure, eventually religion will go too far and we will seek brighter lights; but things might have to get much darker.

Oikos

Elements of an Ancient Greek House (Oikos)

In general, the Romans borrowed and improved upon Greek concepts, so it should come as no surprise that there are similarities between both the Roman Domus and the Greek Oikos. In Greek use, the word “Oikos” could be referring to the house, the family, and/or the family’s property; so they are sometimes confused.

Entrance – outside of the entrance of the house, there was usually a sculpture called a herm. It was a representation of Hermes – while famous for being the god of messengers, he also was a god of good luck and fertility. It leads into the Courtyard.

Courtyard – most rooms lead into the Courtyard. It would often contain an altar dedicated to Hestia, the goddess of the hearth, architecture, and the right ordering of domesticity, the family, the home, and the state. Altars to Hephaestus, the god of blacksmiths, craftsmen, artisans, sculptors, metals, metallurgy, fire, and volcanoes were also quite popular. There was usually a well in the Courtyard. When the weather was nice, women would sometimes do their spinning and weaving in the Courtyard.

Store Room – the equivalent of pantry; there were large jars called amphorae and pithoi in which the goods were stored.

Work Room – this room was dedicated to the production of crafts and goods that the household would sell; slaves did most of the work.

Andron – these rooms were almost exclusively set aside for the use of the men of the family, not unlike our man cave. It would be the most elaborately furnished room in the house.t Men entertained their male guests, friends and business partners alike. Drinking parties called symposia were held here. The only women who were permitted to enter were slaves who were serving the men or specially hired female entertainers.

Gynaikon – these rooms were almost exclusively set aside for the use of the women of the family, here they would spin and weave, entertain their friends and female relatives, as well as look after their children. If a visiting male friend were to force his way into this area of the house, it would be a grave insult that would incur a stiff punishment because it was dishonorable. The Andron and Gynaikon were located as far apart as possible.

Slave’s Rooms – sparsely decorated and with little furniture, these were conveniently located. The rooms of male slaves were near the men’s quarters and the rooms of female slaves were near the women’s quarters.

Kitchen – the kitchens had a central hearth; everyday cooking was done in basic pots. The finest cooking ware and dishes were used when serving special guests.

Bathroom – water was collected from the well and then heated over the fire for typical bathroom usage. They also had clay pots for more typical bathroom usage.

Bedrooms – they were more elaborately furnished than the slave’s rooms; the beds were similar to the couches in the Andron, they also had wooden chests used to store clothing and other personal items.

Cultural Expectations in a Greek House

1.) Gender segregation was a reality of every-day life; there were certain rooms in the house that certain people couldn’t enter because of their gender. In general, women were stashed away in the private rooms that were deepest in the house and furthest away from the more public spaces of the house.

2.) A man was the kyrios (lord, master, “head”) of his household. He was responsible for the well-being of his wife, children, and any unmarried female relatives. It was his duty to arrange marriages for his female relatives, provide for their dowries, and represent them in court as the family lawyer. He was the master of the household slaves. He would also conduct business on behalf of the whole family. Another one of his duties was to be the priest of the family and give offerings on the household altars to the deities.

3.) Women could conduct business within certain limits and hold a limited amount of property. Women rarely left the house (they had to get their husband’s permission first), but were always accompanied by their male slaves when they did. Girls were rarely formally educated, rather they remained at home and learned domestic skills. They were never invited to dinners held by the kyrios; rather they held their own women-only dinners instead.

4.) Region to region, there was some variation, for example, in Sparta the men lived in the barracks, leaving the women at home. When the men went off to war, the women were left to run things, so they had more freedoms than was typical for other regions.

5.) Boys were raised in the Gynaikon until they were about six or seven years old, then they began to receive formal education. When children were considered fully grown, they offered their toys on altars to the gods and goddesses as a thanks offering for having lived long enough to grow up.

(There’s more to be said on cultural elements, and I’ll add them over time as I learn them.)

Domus

Elements of an Ancient Roman House (Domus)

While is is true that Roman houses varied according to type and status, there were important cultural considerations in a typical upper-class Roman house. There were areas that were technically “public”, and areas that were very much “private.” The essence of a Roman house was designed based on social order. While some rooms were common to most houses, there were less important rooms that were included / excluded according to the master’s taste.

Entrance Hall (Vestibulum) – a combination between a porch and a waiting room which blocks the rest of the house from view, it reduces heat loss and is a good spot to leave one’s outer wear. It also represents an element of security for the rest of the house. It is a part of the Ostium and it leads to the atrium.

Tabernae (Shop Fronts) – These were shop fronts that lined the street, they were let out to tenants.

Ostium (Janua / Fores) – refers to the entrance of the house, it sometimes held a small room (cella) for the porter / janitor / ostiarius as well as the dog that guarded the house.

Atrium – the most important part of the house; it is the open, central court from which the other enclosed rooms lead off. There was usually a drain pool in the middle of the room that would will up a cistern below it (an impluvium that caught rainwater that fell through the compluvium – a hole in the roof). Guests and dependents (clients) were usually met here; for this reason it was usually the most lavishly furnished room in the house. It provided both light and ventiliation. It also contained the little chapel to the ancestral spirits (lararium), the household safe (arca) and sometimes a bust of the master of the house.The atrium was the public part of the house.

Fauces – hallways.

Tablinum – between the Atrium and the Peristyle/Peristylium was the office where the dominus (master of the house) would receive his clients for the morning salutatio. Roughly in the center of the house, it served as a command station as the head of the social authority as the paterfamilias (father of the family.) It contained the family records and archives.

Peristylium – an open courtyard within the house, it was similar to the Atrium but was larger and contained a piscina (pool). It might contain flowers, shrubs, flowers, benches, sculptures, and even fish ponds. There were usually columns supporting the porches. The Peristyle was the private portion of the house and was off-limits to business guests.

Triclinium – the Roman dining room. It featured a low square table with three couches on the sides (klinai). A slave known as a tricliniarcha was responsible for overseeing slaves of inferior ranks to keep the room clean, keep it in order, and attend to the guests dining needs. This room was off of the Peristyle.

Alae – Open rooms on each side of the atrium, ancestral death masks (imagines) were among the things displayed here.

Cubiculum – Bedrooms. A mosaic on the floor often indicated where the bed should be placed. There were separate rooms used for daytime and others for nighttime. These were off of the Atrium.

Balineum – a bathing chamber which contains the bath.

Bibliotheca – a personal library, it eventually became fashionable for even unlearned men to have large libraries just so they seemed to be more intelligent.

Coenacula – the rooms in the upper story of a multi-level house.

Solaria – A terrace on the top of the house where Romans would bask in the sunlight. Some of them featured artificial gardens with fruit trees and fish ponds.

Pinacotheca – An art gallery that was also used to display statues.

Culina – Kitchen. Slaves prepared food for their masters and guests in this dark and smoke-filled room (it didn’t have a chimney.) It was off of the Peristyle.

Posticum – The back door used for discrete exits, as well as the servants entrance.

Exedra – Normally a public feature, a place to gather for debates, it’s a semi-circular area in a room for the purpose of holding a conversation, it was usually outdoors in the Peristyle.

Cultural Expectations in a Roman House

1.) It was considered improper to enter a house without giving notice to anyone already inside. Spartans would shout, Athenians and other nations would use the knocker, others would rap the door with the knuckles or with a stick.

2.) Every morning the Salutatio was expected: clients would wait even before daybreak in the vestibule until the doors of the atrium were opened. He remained there until the patron appeared and the nomenclator announced the name of the dependent who brought his morning greeting. The callers were divided into various groups, according to their rank and intimacy; even men of good position were not exempt on account of status, but could be found among the callers. Some clients would be invited to accompany the patron wherever he might be going that day. Others would receive their dole (a wicker basket with a portion of food in lieu of being invited to attend the meal with their patron.) Then they would hurry off to another house to be similarly rewarded.

3.) Guests dining in the triclinium leaned on their left elbows, leaving their right arms free. Usually three, sometimes four guests shared the same couch. The head of man would be near the best of the man who lay behind him, so he would be said to lie on the bosom of the other. Because of this, each person was considered as below (status-wise) him to whose breast his own head approached. So when facing the triclinium and standing on the empty side, the head of the table and the seat of honor would be the one nearest you on your right hand side (as there’s no one to lean on); whereas the places of least honor would be the one nearest you on your left hand side (as there is someone to lean on). While Greek and Jewish cultures also adapted to the use of tricliniums, their configurations of honorable seats also differed.

4.) Houses were built on the social order, rules about being the head the household (dominus / paterfamilias / oikodespotes) were by design and Roman Tradition as well as part of Roman Law. With it came certain expectations and roles for various members of the family. The head of the household was the priest of the family cult and therefore lead the spiritual lives of the family, he was the C.E.O. of the family business and therefore controlled all business aspects, he was the lawyer of the family and represented them in all legal matters, he was the political representative of the family and therefore spoke on their behalf concerning politics, he was the master of the family and controlled all the slaves, he was the patriarch of the family and made decisions over his extended relatives, and he was the patron who had clients who depended upon him as their benefactor.

(There’s more to be said on cultural elements, and I’ll add them over time as I learn them.)

On Conscience

But, conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

We are a guilt/innocence society. We depend our conscience, our inner sense to confirm whether or not we are wrong or right. When our consciences are clear, then we know that we are innocent. When we feel guilty, then our conscience eats away at us. Usually it takes confession and forgiveness for the burden of guilt to be removed. But when it comes down to it – we trust our conscience to guide us into the right course of action and the right set of beliefs.
My friends often tell me that you can be certain that you’re doing the right thing when you feel blessed, happy, affirmed, and even joyful. They would tell me to trust my conscience when it says to do something. But when I don’t feel my conscience telling me to do something – then I must disobey my conscience when it would have me disobey scripture. It makes me wonder – how I can be sure my conscience is right just because Scripture happens to agree with it?
Think back to the era of slavery – this institution didn’t exist apart from Scripture and Christians, but in part through it and because of it. In a documentary I’ve watched over the past week, Frederick Douglass recalls: “I have said my master found religious sanction for his cruelty. As an example, I will state one of many facts going to prove the charge. I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of Scripture–“He that knoweth his master’s will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.“” That’s Luke 12:47.
It was the realization that slavery was a violation of their conscience that drove the Abolitionists to those very same scriptures to assert the equality of all people and call for the freedom that had been so very long denied. Again, it was conscience that was the heartbeat of the Civil Rights era that put two sets of Christians against each other using the Bible as the dividing line. “Obey authorities!” Said one. “We’re all one in Christ!” Said the other.
So too, our consciences are moving in us to take stands on issues such as women in ministry and LGBT inclusion. Our consciences are guiding us in our beliefs – and it’s very much an individual thing. All of us have come to decide on an individual basis who or what God is to us, how we ought to worship Him/Her/It, what God would have us do is not necessarily the same exact conclusion a brother or sister in the faith will draw and we’re okay with that whereas in the past there used to an idea of a “one true, right way” and there was no limit to the heartbreak because of disagreements and violence that resulted from the imposition of that standard upon others.
The problems arise when one group decides that their conscience ought to be the standard that all consciences must obey, going against their own standards and bowing to ideas that are not necessarily their own. Worship is a personal thing, it cannot be made into an exercise of conformity and retain a sense of personal relationship; rather, it betrays it’s own nature to make it a ‘one size fits all’ approach. When we are told that we cannot trust our conscience, then that means that we cannot be certain our senses of right and wrong are right or wrong. Now i know most at this point would say: “Good! God is our objective standard of morality! There’s no truth in morality being subjective – then you would have people reaching opposite conclusions and you know that one or both of them are wrong. But with an objective standard of morality, then you know that God is never wrong!” The problem lies not in God being an objective standard, but that the people who interpret and apply Scripture are very much subject to their own whims and desires – that’s evident in how we have historically used the Bible to support both sides in all sorts of conflicts. And since the Bible can never be wrong, then both sides must be correct. The only thing that can decide for us which way to go is our conscience – it will either rage with a burning zeal for the truth of the Scriptures or beat with a ceaseless and tireless love for others in that living out of the Spirit of the Word sort of way.
Sometimes it’s not enough to be “not wrong” – in it’s day and age, pro-slavery advocates were not wrong, Scriptures did affirm slavery, sanction it’s limits, and instructed the masters and slaves how to interact. But they weren’t exactly right – slavery in the Bible never really was the same sort of slavery in the World. The instructions God gave to the Israelites weren’t the ones the Romans had decided to follow when they were in power. Slavery in the American South (and the rest of the world, for that matter) looked nothing like what God had asked the Israelites to do. Even today slavery hasn’t been erased from the face of our planet, in far too many lawless regions it thrives in one form or another. We can look to Scriptures – but ultimately it’ll be on our consciences to provoke us into action and wake us up from inaction – on this and all other matters of conscience.

 

We’ll have to ask ourselves on all things: “Is it right?”

Unbelievably Complicated

Looking through my papers awhile back, I discovered a small file folder. It was from my Pastor’s Class. It was when I was just a kid, everyone in my grade spent a few weeks in a class where the pastor explained our denomination, our beliefs, and best of all – we got to eat Mazzio’s pizza once a week for the month the class lasted.

One of the things she explained to me was the concept of a creed, a written belief system. We were given a blank page and encouraged to read the bible and write down what we believed. She told me that the best creeds were always something very personal.

Later, I had fall into another denomination. This one had it’s creed already written – a “message” where it explained a concept and backed it up with Bible verses. There was this unspoken rule: “if you want to be one of us, you must believe as we believe.” So I tried my best to follow the message. After all, people older and wiser than me obeyed it unquestionably, how could they be wrong? In all my time in that denomination – I knew that the message existed, but it was never explained to me. It was never personal to me.

As it turns out, parts of the message seemed to be all wrong. We had questions that the message couldn’t answer. So we quit denominations altogether. It was a breath of fresh air to be the one who got to decide what I wanted to believe and who knew why I happened to believe it. I now know that not everything biblical is good, and not everything good is in the Bible. I think I can say that after seeing what sort of damage had done being required to believe something that I didn’t believe in and quite possibly wasn’t meant to believe at all.

So a few weeks ago, a customer was telling me about her church and she invited me to attend. I told her that I had issues with most churches in the area and that I wasn’t quite ready to give it a try, but thanks for the offer. It was when she said the denomination of her church that my heart sank. It was the one that obeyed the message. Not only that, but the internet indicated that they had been preaching a sermon series on the contents of the message. They were preaching what they believed about the Bible based on what they say the Bible says.

Now I don’t know what my original creed would have said, but I think as I’ve matured, my beliefs have changed. Some of it from seeing how people act based on their beliefs can make them unreasonable, judgmental, and unforgiving to those who aren’t like them and don’t believe as they do. I don’t want to be like that. We rarely think about it the other way around: about what sort of person we want to be and what we will need to believe in order to become that sort of person.

I know that I can’t obey the message because it isn’t a personal belief system to me – it’s not something that speaks who what I believe – and to be honest, much of it doesn’t seem to apply at the moment. What I do believe is just so different from the message that I find myself asking if it’s even worth trying churches because so few tolerate differences. You don’t really see Sunday School classes where a Unitarian and trinitarian can engage in a discussion without calling each other a heretic. Where arminians and Calvinists sit at the table with people who have no clue what that means and not try to convert everyone else to their own way of thinking. Unity becomes about being the same, not about accepting diversity. It can take a lot out of you to hold to different ideas in a church where everyone else is on the same page and constantly trying to turn you from the error of your ways.

So here I am looking at a blank piece of paper, thinking about my personal creed and I have no idea where to begin. I’ve seen many of the ancient ones – the Apostles and the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed – I’ve seen some of the new ones, the message, various belief statements or visions … but none of them speak to me. The truth is, after so many mixed messages, I’m not sure what to believe anymore. I can’t help but think how complicated we’ve made it all.

Paul once wrote to a struggling church – this is what he said:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.” – 1 Cor. 15:3-11

It would seem then, that which is most central to Christianity is Christ, his life, his teachings, and his death and Resurrection. But when it comes to the -isms and -tions of Christianity … it’s a lot of difficult concepts. Far much more confusing that it needs to be or was for the early church. It’s the secondary teachings that seem to be most problematic; particularly when what you consider to be less important that Christ is, to another, equally important as Christ. When something is equally important as Christ, questioning how important it is means you’re also questioning the importance of Christ; and quite possibly denying the importance of Christ when you deny the importance of the thing that is equally as important as Christ. That’s where I feel trapped by these non-personal creeds and why I think churches often fail to accept differences. By believing something different, we are in essence denying a founding principle of their common beliefs. We can go to those other churches that believe (wrongly) as we do because we have no place among them unless we believe (rightly) as they do. I don’t know what I do believe, but beliefs shouldn’t be so complicated. They should help you to become a better person, challenge you to stop a few bad habits, help you help others and not harm others in the process.

Symbols of Heritage

In these parts, it’s not uncommon to see a prominently displayed southern flag just about everywhere – from people’s clothing, to the decals on their trucks. I was thinking about how the Southern Baptists recently took up the question about whether or not to affirm the symbol of Southern pride and heritage or the symbol of slavery and one of the darkest chapters in Southern history.

Now me, I don’t have that strong of an affiliation with it. I grew up in one of those states that was removed from the conflict. I then lived in a northern state and moved to a southern one – if only barely. My family history tells me that on one side of my family – the question divided two brothers, one fought for the north, the other the south. On the other side, they were neutral until some members of the family were imprisoned and upon being traded back he rallied everyone to sign up for the north and fight against the south; or so the story goes – the evidence is a little difficult to come by. We didn’t really have a big plantation or a stake in the economic prosperity that slavery provided it’s masters at the expense of the slaves.

The way I see it, it’s the cross to bear of pro-heritage folk to always have the anti-slavery being the dark side of the same symbol. The south without slavery wouldn’t have gone to war, wouldn’t have tried to separate itself into a whole other country, and wouldn’t have been symbolized by it’s own flag. You can’t have one without the other. So you’ll have little choice but to say: “I’m not racist but I affirm my Southern heritage” every single time you hold up the banner, you bear that cross. If you want to affirm your southern heritage without having a racist dark-side, you’d have to choose another symbol. But what else is there that unites southern heritage?

Notice that Northerners, Midwesterners, and Westerners don’t have such a flag of their heritage to rally behind. There’s nothing symbolic about where they’re from that ties in so many different states over such vast regions. I’ll let proponents of the southern flag explain to me why it’s necessary when none of the other regions seem to need one.