You Want Bible Justification for Beliefs? Segregationists Had Them
Southern white Christians were skilled at making the religious case for segregation. Perhaps they made a better case than Christian integrationists.
Segregationists didn't just toss out one sentence from the Bible here and there. They started with the broad arching message. Why, they asked, would God have put the races on different continents if he wanted them to produce mixed race children? Not only did he put them on different continents, he dumped oceans and mountains in between the races. It's self evident God did not want interracial marriage. How could a real Christian believe otherwise?
The Biblical endorsement of segregation is so extensive I can't cover it all. Here are a few.
In Genesis Adam and Eve's son Cain killed in brother Abel. Cain had to be segregated. A mark was placed on him so he could be identifies and kept apart from others. The story was about about black people.
The New Testament talks of the day when Jesus will return. All nations will be gathered before him, "and he shall separate them one from another." If that doesn't endorse segregation what does?
Paul in his letter to Timothy explained that women will be under submission to men. That means, segregationists said, God did not intend for all humans to be equal. The equality element in the Civil Rights movement was contrary to Biblical teaching.
Paul of the Bible was a big help to segregationists. Especially they liked Acts 17:26, God "hath made of one blood all the nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." That single verse was repeated in many segregationist publications.
Of course, integration Christians pointed to the first part of the passage, all men were of one blood. Segregation preachers pounced on that, "You are taking a phrase of Paul out of context. Putting properly into context it must include Paul's insistence there were to be boundaries." What else could "bounds of their habitation" mean except boundaries?
Segregationists were opposed to both interracial marriage and a predicted requirement black people would be forced into white churches. Worshipping with black people was a plague equal to interracial marriage. In an often repeated sermon in South Carolina a well known segregationist preacher reviewed integrationist clergy and summed up what they were saying, "I cannot concur in their conclusions. I am baffled to understand their refusal to face many self-evident facts. I am stunned at their urging mixed membership in our churches."
As J. Russell Hawkins wrote in his book, ",The Bible Told Them So," racial integration ran counter to everything they had observed in their lives and heard from the pulpit.
The Bible has something for everyone.
I checked back to see that no one was commenting. So, here goes.
ReplyDeleteJon wrote, "Southern white Christians were skilled at making the religious case for segregation. Perhaps they made a better case than Christian integrationists."
Answer. Yes, SOME did. Many did not as they were not in favor of segregation. The same can be said of atheists, agnostics and Jews. Black people were not without their bigots, either.
Jon wrote, "In Genesis Adam and Eve's son Cain killed in brother Abel. Cain had to be segregated. A mark was placed on him so he could be identifies and kept apart from others. The story was about about black people."
Answer. If the story was about black people, you are making atheists look stupid, really stupid. Assuming Cain and Abel were biological offspring of Adam and Eve, ...
I keep my carrots segregated from my peas on my dinner plate. They are forbidden from mixing with the potatoes. To this day, the majority of America segregates boys and girls locker rooms.
You would be much better off just stating the obvious. There was discrimination and racial hatred which, by and large, the USA has overcome. You obviously want to make everything a religious issue.
Hitler's mother was a Catholic and his father was a 'freethinker', i.e. an anti-theist. He had to be forced to participate in any Catholic practice while a youth. He was kicked out of Catholic grade school. Archbishop Fulton Sheen argued that if Hitler had been given a better chance at a Catholic education and a more supportive father, we might have avoided Nazi Germany altogether. No one will know.
I don't care if you keep up your hatred of Christians and Christianity. I have given you enough of my time. If the Holy Spirit wants you in Heaven, He will keep working on you. You have heard the Gospel. You have chosen your path.
No one on this blog is mistaking you for an objective person. But if you didn't wade into stupid arguments and untrue recitation of facts, you might be taken more seriously.
Sorry about the delay in posting this. I finally got my computer running.
DeleteThat segregation was based on religious beliefs is not my opinion. It has been documented be hoard of written materials. To this group of white Christians, millions by number, being in favor of integration meant one was not a Christian.
And the number of atheists who hated Blacks and loved segregation was just as prevalent. As Peter Kellogg wrote, in his journal article entitled, "Civil Rights Consciousness in the 1940s", published in 1979, "When the twentieth century began, most white Americans, including most progressive reformers, were openly racist."
DeleteRemember two things. The first Republican president in US history was Abraham Lincoln, who ran partly on a platform of abolition of slavery. The clinging to the racism in the South was the work of Democrat governors and their constituents. I give you George Wallace and Orval Faubus.
To say there has been evolution of ideas, attitudes and beliefs among any groups of people is an obvious statement. Upon the resurrection of Christ, there were 2 distinct groups of Christians who didn't always get along; the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Yet, progress has been made and problems have been solved.
I started looking at the Des Moines obituaries. Never thought a sick or broken PC was the reason. Sometimes retreats can be times to make changes.
DeleteMatt--"Yet, progress has been made and problems have been solved."
DeleteIn some ways I agree with that statement. In other ways it doesn't seem to be true. The segregationists started out not wanting to be never inferior people, black people. When they found that was unattractive to the general public they brought up their longstanding religious argument. "We have nothing against the Negro, its just that my religion does not allow marriage between the races."
That is the identical strategy of the anti gay groups, "I have nothing against gay people, it just my religion that prevents me from making a wedding cake."
The minds of the anti black and anti gay people are identical. Take the prejudice they have and hide it behind religion.
When one believes in private interpretation of the Bible, anything can happen. Clearly, mainstream Christianity, about 99.n% of Christianity believes in the equality of the races before God.
DeleteHowever, sexual morality is quite a different area than race. While homosexuality and transgenderism is what you might want to focus on, the greater sins are in the heterosexual slice of humanity, e.g. prostitution, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, lack of chastity even within marriage, etc. To say that is unjust discrimination is to dismiss solid religious teaching based on the teachings of Christ. Christ never taught racism but he did define sexual morality quite clearly.
My theory is that once something is established, it is difficult to change it. Slavery was justified in the minds of many people for different reasons, e.g. (1) religion, (2) 'caring' for an inferior race, (3) continuing an established practice, (4) economic necessity (can I compete if I free my slaves but my neighbor does not), (5) fear of change, (6) etc.
DeleteTake a look at college athletics from last year to this year as an example - poor or otherwise. Last year, college athletes could not earn money from their athletic endeavors. In fact, they could lose their scholarships if they broke the rules. This year, the sophomore quarterback at a Big 5 school will make $1,000,000 off of his name, image and likeness (NIL) endorsements, etc. Last year, he was a slave to they universities who made tremendous amounts of money under their system. This year, college athletes will outstrip deans and VPs in terms of making money. But not the wrestlers or the gymnasts, just the major sports figures. Not the guards and tackles, but the QBs, running backs and receivers. Male athletes will make far more than female athletes and the NCAA can't do anything about it.
You said, "The minds of the anti black and anti gay people are identical. Take the prejudice they have and hide it behind religion." This is quackery. It is an insult to Black people and any person of color. Being Black and being a homosexual are entirely different things. It is not prejudicial to oppose homosexuality. If so, then is it prejudicial to oppose pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, sodomy. etc.? Can there be no religious or moral objections to any manner, form or practice of sexual activity? Incest prejudicial?
You can hide behind atheism just any person can hide behind unreasoned thought.
Under the First Amendment, I can't be forced to say or write something against my free will. I can't be forced to say anal sex is moral. I can't be forced to support homosexual unions. I can't be forced to bake a care or create a sign that says the same thing. One is either for the First Amendment (free speech, assembly and religion) or for one of the tenets of fascism and communism.
Matt 6:09 "One is either for the First Amendment..(or against it )
DeleteYou are good at slippery arguments, changing the subject from one you don't like because you cannot defend it to something entirely different. When I, or another rational person, expresses distaste for laws based on bigotry you shift to being in favor of free speech. Saying "I hate black people or gay people" or expressing the view interracial marriage or gay marriage is a moral issue is entirely a different matter then passing legislation against either.
Every issue you or I think is not moral is not automatically required to be put into law. I understand. You, or the other hand want gay marriage and abortion prohibited by law. That is entire different than having and expressing opinions about either.
Matt 4:14 "99.n% of Christians.." believe interracial marriage is ok.
DeleteUsing the percentage to declare correctness of belief would not have worked in the state studied in the book I'm reading, South Carolina. The author poured through records, votes by congregations and state religious associations. On the basis of those expressions the Bible condemned mixed race marriage. The same majority believed children going to integrated schools or churches would marry other races. While the real reason they believed such nonsense we cannot know, it was expressed as a religious belief. It was orthodox Christianity to them.
Today we see exactly the same thing among some Christians. Abortion is a "Christian" issue. Those like Biden who don't want it to be illegal are not actually "Christians" in this view. The same with gay marriage. This is not different from segregation. It is identical.
What you regard as slippery is nothing more than honesty.
DeleteCatholics don't hate racists, bigots, etc. We hate the sin because Christ hates the sin. We love the sinner because Christ loves the sinner. I sin. God does not hate me. My children sin. I don't hate them.
Abortion should be criminalized as abortion kills a human being. There should be a law protecting all people from murder, manslaughter, etc. Your irrational view, unfounded in science, is that an unborn person is not a person, that a beating heart 5 minutes from birth is a fiction, etc. "Marriage" is reserved for heterosexual couples. One can argue, and the Church does, that some so-called civil marriages are nothing more than business relationships. Homosexuals, by and large (not all) have wanted to co-opt the word marriage for some time. The fake argument surrounding, 'who are you to tell me who I can love?!' is a fiction. The words marriage and racism have virtually no meaning in today's society.
Regardless of what either of us thinks, laws are enacted which reflect people's personal beliefs; religious or atheist. Religious reasoning for laws is not only constitutional, it is a feature of a just and moral society. No one is standing in your way to advocate for free-thinking, communism and the messages of BLM or Antifa. Your problem is that you want to force conformity among word, deed and thought. Communism is what you preach. No, thanks.
"Abortion should be criminalized as abortion kills a human being."
DeleteThere you go with your slippery arguments again. That destroying one fertilized cell is murder needs to be qualified to say, "...my religion teaches me it is a human being." Instead you waltz by religion and pretend it is a secular view. Try as you and your ilk does to waltz by religious justification for anti abortion and anti gay marriage it remains there staring you in the face. I know you struggle with this fact--just as well say it, you want your particular (and peculiar) religious views codified into law. The rest of us prefer to not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLife begins at conception. Simple biological facts seem to be foreign to you. From conception to 0:01 before birth to 0:01 after birth to natural death. You like to speak about fertilized eggs because you don't like to speak about 0:01 before birth. And you call me slippery? Isn't it time you argued like a grown-up?
DeleteThe "rest of us" ... do you have a mouse in your pocket? Your views are far afield of mainstream thought. Ask any second grader.
Matt--"..because you you don't like to speak about 0:01 before birth."
DeleteIt is not true I don't like to speak about late abortions. The Roe decision dealt with the last three months before birth. Reading about late abortions one learns there are all matter of issues and complications. Best to leave religion out of it and let human beings like doctors and women figure out the best solution to these complex circumstances.
tsm re: religious people are called upon to oppose injustice, abortion is harm to the innocent.
DeleteI can understand a deeply anti abortion person like yourself cannot understand the harm done to the woman of laws prohibiting abortion. Just like religious people could not understand harm done to black people by slavery and segregation. Black people were lessors. Today, women are lessors. Back then, white people were God's favorites and needed the protection laws provided. Today, fetuses are God's favorites and laws are needed to prevent lessors, women, from protecting their lives. There is no secular
research from legitimate science telling us the fetus is a human being. Religion is used now against women the same way it was used against black people.
You may be correct the religion is called to oppose injustice. It is not to pass laws in the self interest of some parts of religion.
I spent lot of time in the Deep South over the last decade, primarily in rural areas of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. One thing I learned while I was there is that just about everyone I met seemed to be a great person. There were just certain things that they didn't talk about because the wounds were so old and so deep that no possible good could ever come from those conversations.
DeleteI get the same feeling from the abortion argument. I have empathy for the "life begins at conception" argument. The problem is, I don't view abortion to be the problem. Abortion is a symptom of a problem that is as old as humankind: Unwanted pregnancy.
Debating abortion is counter-productive. How do we solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, as it seems pretty obvious at this point that "abstinence" has never worked?
Vaccinations, best to leave the patients and doctors decide. The left never truly thinks were too smart.
ReplyDeleteThe unvaccinated are the people society needs to be protected from.
DeleteHow about the people with VD, AIDS, other communicable diseases, etc.?
DeleteThose are the folks who need the most protection. Thankfully, they are not the folks we have to convince. Most folks who are immuno-compromised have a very solid understanding of why they need vaccines more than average folks, and most immuno-compromised folks I know were among the first to get the vaccine. That said, immuno-compromised individuals as well as individuals who have specific allergies have a medically approved path for vaccination exemption, and I consider that aspect of the process to be a default part of any conversation about vaccinations (in other words, this was resolved decades ago).
DeleteWe're also talking about a number that is significantly lower than 1% of the American population.
In Clear Lake, on my way to Muscatine. Soccer.
ReplyDeleteMatt--Familiar places. As a child I went to Clear Lake, the lake not the town. My wife is from a town of Wapello, 30 miles south of Muscatine. We've been to Muscatine at lot. If they are for sale, try a Muscatine Mellon. Unique favor and texture.
Delete