CONTRIBUTORS
LINKS
Who? Marion D. Lambert
Sphere of influence: Before June 3, only a few neighbors and natural food stores knew the 60-year-old beekeeper and South Tampa resident. But after the Sons of Confederate Veterans member announced his intention to fly a huge Confederate flag at the junction of I-4 and I-75, it seems everyone has an opinion about him. He's attracted the support of fellow Confederate flag devotees and the ire of the Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners, the local NAACP chapter and some nearby business owners. The controversy has alreaady made national news. For better or worse, Lambert's flag, which is nearly the size of a semitruck, will influence how the rest of the state and nation view the Tampa Bay area.
How he makes a difference: Hillsborough County's first experiences with Lambert came in 1994 when he fought county commissioners over their decision to remove the Confederate flag from the county seal. In 2001, after then-governor Jeb Bush removed the Confederate flag from state capitol grounds, Lambert and other Sons of Confederate Veterans initiated their Flags Across Florida project, placing two large Confederate flags in public view over White Springs and Havana in north Florida. In 2004, Lambert purchased a nearly quarter-acre plot of land at the junction of I-4 and I-75 for $7,000 with the idea of putting another flag there. He estimates this flag -- which measures 20 by 30 feet on top of a 139-foot poll -- will go up permanently in July.
CL: Give me the God's honest truth of what will be served by flying this huge Confederate flag?
Lambert: By flying this flag, we're approaching the closed mind and the open mind -- whatever mind drives down that interstate. ... Is he or she going to drive in and check it out and determine what this is? Well, if he or she does, they'll get the picture on the ground, which is the important picture. If they don't, if they just drive on by, it's a lost cause. If the closed mind stays closed, then they lose and we lose, because our object, our goal, our aim has gone amiss. We haven't gained anything. ... The rationale here is simply this flag has to be determined by the politicos, the chambers of commerce, the economic development committees, all of these people that have an interest in the economic growth and development and the profit of this community. They have to determine if this is a hate symbol or a heritage symbol. Now that's the question we have been unable, for the last 20 years, to bring to the forefront of the public debate.
Do you honestly think they will embrace it?
Here are their options. ... They can either accept [the flag] as a hate-filled symbol or a heritage symbol. It's a tough option. ... When I go before the County Commission again, I'm going to present them their options, but I'm going to give them a caveat along with that. If they say, "We gotta live with the flag, let's embrace the heritage symbol," we will work with them. We will work with them every way, shape and form. I will work with them to develop sensitivity training, diversity training, about the flag and what it truly represents. This can be -- if they want to be -- a tourist attraction for Hillsborough County and being part of Dixie. I don't care if everybody here is from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from places north. ... The indigenous Southern people are here and have not been recognized for 20 years and now we're dab-burn gonna be recognized and we're going to be embraced or there's gonna be the dickens to pay for it.
Aren't you basically blackmailing the people who don't want the flag here into accepting this as a symbol of heritage?
Yeah. Yeah. We've been ostracized, marginalized, put off the table for so long. Is it blackmail? I wouldn't use the word "blackmail." You can use the word if you want to, but I would use the word "bargaining chip." We've never bargained with [the county commissioners] before. We never had anything they wanted. But hear me clearly on this: The flag is not coming down either way. Either they accept the flag one way or accept the flag another way. The flag is going up.
History lesson aside, in the present day, the Confederate flag is used by hate groups. That's a fact.
Let me ask you this -- what flag is used more than the Confederate flag? The United States flag. More United States flags were flown by Ku Kluxers, by Neo-Nazis and carried by them all the time. But that symbol hasn't been given to them, whereas society has given this symbol to those groups, even though there is a preponderance of people who say it's not that. ... I'll tell you the truth: I've never seen one KKK-er in my life. Ever. I've never seen one neo-Nazi demonstrate in anything we've done in 20 years. I don't know where they are. What is this -- a phantom? I mean, I know they exist. I know they're out there somewhere. But it's not a major problem for us at all. I don't care what the Southern Poverty Law Center says.
Is there anything the County Commission or the residents of Tampa can do to convince you not to fly the flag?
No! The flag is going to be flown. As long as I have breath in my body and am able to function and articulate. And even if I'm gone, it doesn't make a difference, the flag is going up. The Southern community is just enamored with this project.
COMMENTS
RE: Marion Lambert: "The flag is going up."
Posted by Alex Pickett on 06.24.08 @ 11:02 AM
There is a longer version of this interview at:
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/blurbex/2008/06/09/confederate-flag-dude-hear-me-clearly-on-this-the-flag-is-not-coming-down/
RE: Marion Lambert: "The flag is going up."
Posted by david pierson on 06.19.08 @ 11:10 AM
Buttercup my friend,I am trying to be rationale.If you read any of my past post(they are posted rather slowly)you are either ignoring them or you haven't seen them.In July of 1861(look in the library of Congress)the Crittenden-Johnson resolution was passed unanimously in the Senate and only had 5 or 6 votes against in the House,stating that the North was not fighting to end slavery but to restore the Union.The federals had just taken a beating at First Manassas and were not so high and mighty.As far as the klan and lynchings go,blacks rape,rob,and murder whites by the thousands every year.Just look up the statistics in the federal documents of your local library.Even some newspapers printed the fact that most hate crimes and frauds are committed by blacks against whites,so you lose out there.I realize that you want to hear what you want to hear,but somewhere there is hope that you might consider the other side.The people that support the flag don't support slavery(as most of their ancestor's didn't)but just simply want to honor their ancestors.Why not leave them alone?It seems that if someone wants to display a cross in a bottle of urine,or some pornographic picture,or insult Christian values,they say if you don't like it,don't look at it.Why can't they do the same?
RE: Marion Lambert: "The flag is going up."
Posted by Diamondback Buttercup on 06.18.08 @ 02:53 PM
"Since the ACLU took charge of America and God was removed from our educational facilities just look at how peaceful we are."
yeah, those bastards at the ACLU are just awful. why look at some of the cases those godless heathens are working on;
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted "free speech zones." After receiving the ACLU's letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StPeteLetter.pdf
www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=57665
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school's team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Lit_tp_nak
www.aclu-or.org/site/DocServer/Lit_OSAA_mtgmry_3_07.pdf?docID=1861
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU's client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
www.aclu-wv.org/Newsroom/PressReleases/07_19_07.html
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represents Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs lead her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality.
www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
www.aclu-wi.org/wisconsin/rights_of_women/ 20070201_Pharm_Refusal_amicus_complete.pdf
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-Court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU's advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/egyptiantorture.htm
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was not allowed to consume wine during communion services while staying at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its policy to comply with federal law.
The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.
(This case is also listed in Part II.)
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the First Circuit, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
www.projo.com/news/content/ Preacher_07-31-07_T76IHBQ.34294dd.html
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2007) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia's policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights.
www.aclu-nca.org/boxSub.asp?id=84
(This case is also listed in Part II.)
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement after filing a federal suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of an inmate who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The inmate, Norman Sanders, was denied access to religious services and religious texts including The Book of Mormon.
www.laaclu.org/News/2005/Aug26SandersvCain.htm
The ACLU of Texas (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=391
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) filed a lawsuit defending the right of a Christian who wished to exercise both religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There."
www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html
-there is plenty more, obviously its all leftist lies anyway, im sure.
as for religion in schools as it relates to how peaceful we are-you do realize that it was george bush (a fundamentalist christian) who both created the war in iraq at the same time as his faith-based initiative plan, right? And you also realize that seperation of church and state was put in place founding fathers, not some leftist hollywood liberals, right?
The constitution itself states, from 1787 mind you, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". article 3 of the Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". even the mention of the word "god" in any early articles dont say "the Lord Jesus Christ" or anything even remotely christian specific, as was often preferred by Europeans of the time.
But hey, if you want religion in schools, homeschool or send your kids to a private theological school. Favoring religious ideas or doctrines was not what the US Government was set up for. Doesn't mean you don't have the right to worship (or in this case, educate) as you see fit on your own.