Unfortunate reality of racism

Even as our nation is as close as ever to electing our first non-white male president, racism is still a reality and a sin that must be erased by our culture and by our churches. This fact of life has been brought up in two recent incidents in the Upstate of South Carolina.

Reporters from several local news stations were on location detailing the arrest of one man in the murder of his grandfather. The family of the victim and killer were apparently not happy with the presence of the news media. They verbally berated all the reports who came through and began to yell racial slurs at the reporter and videographer (both black) of one of the stations. Eventually it erupted into a fight.

To go along with that story from Union, SC, we have this story from Laurens, SC. A black church owns a building which is being used as a store to sell racist materials and promote the KKK. As of now, they cannot remove them from the building because the original agreement gives the leaser the right to stay their until his death.

Is SC an inherently racist state? I don't believe so. Most of the people I know (both black, white and other ethnic backgrounds) are perfectly okay with everyone else and really hold no racist attitudes, but unfortunately there are many who still hold to to the overtly racist traditions of the past and some who have hidden "polite" racism.

I'm not sure which I find more disgusted and unChristlike - the guy who can never refer to someone of another race except using a slur, the one who would never say something like that but only makes little side comments or people like me who don't stand up and say something enough. Too often I let it slide with just a sigh or a grunt, content to let racists be racists and morons be morons, but that's not enough. That's the lesson from Gentleman's Agreement.

In the climax of the movie, when Phil Green (played by Gregory Peck) was asked by his fiancee if he though she was anti-semitic, he responds:

No, I don't. But I've come to see lots of nice people who hate it and deplore it and protest their own innocence, then help it along and wonder why it grows. People who would never beat up a Jew. People who think anti-Semitism is far away in some dark place with low-class morons. That's the biggest discovery I've made. The good people. The nice people.

Too true.

Comments

[Cineaste]

"Is SC an inherently racist state? I don't believe so."

I like that you are speaking out about this Aaron. It's the right thing to do. I think the answer to the question of SC being a racist state is, yes. Why else would they elect Strom Thurmond for 50 years? This is a sad commentary on society because it shows that racism is alive and well in the south. Look at the race divide in the democratic election in Mississippi:

The post-primary story from the pundisphere was all about the stark racial disparity in the vote, and it was stark indeed, with exit polls showing 91 percent of African Americans going for Obama and 72 percent of whites for Senator Hillary Clinton. But there were other ways to read the Mississippi results, as the Free Press blog points out. For one thing, the strong white vote for Clinton was skewed, as Ladd points out, by Republicans turning out to vote for the New York Senator; 13 percent of the primary voters identified as GOPers, and nearly 80 percent of them went for Clinton. And while older people voted for Clinton, the future looks interesting for Mississippi Democrats; 72 percent of voters under 30 went for Obama, considerably more than the 60 percent overall. - The View from Jackson

The bright spot in this, if there is one, is that it seems the younger generation is much more progressive in their social attitudes about race. Barack Obama's mother was a white woman from Kansas. Maybe people should start thinking of Barack as a white man instead of a black man, or better yet, don't think about skin color at all and just focus on the content of his character.

[Louis]

It's nice that there are southerners who speak out against the evil and stupidity of racism. Now, if they would do the same with the anti-gay prejudice inherent in their culture and religion, we could really celebrate.

[Aaron]

Why else would they elect Strom Thurmond for 50 years?

Because he was having black children? ;) Sorry that is nothing to joke about.

The truth is that Strom made a turnaround in his racist attitude, as far as you could see. There is also the fact that SC is a conservative state (became a GOP state) and the only people that ran against him were liberal - that won't cut it in SC.

Now, if they would do the same with the anti-gay prejudice inherent in their culture and religion, we could really celebrate.

I thought that might come up. While we may disagree on what constitutes "anti-gay prejudices," I will agree with your general statement. Just as it is evil and stupid to hate someone because of their race, it is evil and stupid to hate someone because of their sexual orientation. The church should do more to combat that sin as well.

[Aaron]

Oh, I forgot:

...don't think about skin color at all

I hope to see that become a reality. It's going to take both sides for that to happen. Not just eradication of inherit racism, but also the removal of the "race card" from the deck of political cards.

If it comforts you any Cineaste, I am rejecting Obama based solely on the contents of his character or at least the contents of his policy proposals. But, part of me would like to see Obama elected just to screw over racists and to remove one more complaint from racial panderers (the two sides that keep racism an issue in America).

[Cineaste]

"There is also the fact that SC is a conservative state (became a GOP state) and the only people that ran against him were liberal - that won't cut it in SC."

No, I don't think this explanation cuts it. The reason is, the numbers in SC were similar to the numbers in Mississippi. Even the democrats in SC voted along racial lines, both blacks and whites.

The truth is that Strom made a turnaround in his racist attitude...

The truth is, that's all show because he was a politician. Show me any quote from him where he renounced statements like:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Like MS, SC is a racist state as wells as, a conservative red state. The proof is in the voting numbers.

[Aaron]

The reason is, the numbers in SC were similar to the numbers in Mississippi. Even the democrats in SC voted along racial lines, both blacks and whites.

Does that make Democrats racist? As a Southern, I think it's more complicated that you make it out to be. You want to tie it with the fact that the state votes GOP overall, but you are looking at Democratic voters. Those specifics speak more toward Democrats than Republicans. I happen to think there are racists on both sides (of every color), but that they do not represent a large a number in the South as many think.

Show me any quote from him where he renounced statements like:

Maybe not a quote, but I can show you people (minorities) with whom he worked later that say he was different then.

But to be sure that is a horrible quote, but in a sense he was (and is) right. There are no troops than can force someone to stop being racist. I think that was one of the brilliant things about the Civil Rights Movement. They knew force could not change a persons heart.

But I don't want to get into defending Thurmond, especially many of the horrific things he said (and did).

[Cineaste]

Does that make Democrats racist?

It's evident that they voted along racial lines. That means race was a factor. Don't you agree that race was a factor? This goes for both parties in SC. Think of it this way, there's no way I can make this argument for the democrats in Vermont since the voters are 99% white but they chose Obama with 60%. Here is what we can conclude: SC, MS, AL, vote along racial lines. Vermont, Maine, etc, don't.

Regarding Strom: Everyone knows you can't force someone to believe something else if they don't want to. The thing that makes Thurmond's quote explosive is the use of the "N" word. He never took it back.

"I can show you people (minorities) with whom he worked later that say he was different then."

He's a politician. He believes that as much as McCain believes Hagee.

[Louis]

This is the type of thing I was referencing. Oklahoma's a part of the South, right?

I also contend that the on-going effort to deprive gays of equal treatment under the law constitutes evil and stupid prejudice. Unfortunately, it always seems to be Christians who are at the forefront of this type of thing. This is one reason I can't understand gay people who want to be Christians.

[seeker]

Well, you're right about one thing - gays aren't more dangerous than Islamopaths, but then again, neither are Christians, and you've made that argument, so who are you to talk?

But the acceptance of homosexuality as normative may have disastrous results for our culture as serious as the Islamification, just in the other direction - Islamism is the extreme of legalism, while acceptance and approval of sexual deviance is liscence. Both are bad for society, just in the opposite way.

[Louis]

The current culture needs to be shaken up and destroyed. Only then can we build something new which is freer of the corruption, stupidity, hypocrisy, incompetence, and sheer absurdity which marks it now.

Its ironic that you accuse Islam of the "extreme of legalism" while you yourself display that very trait. The difference between Islam and your brand of xianity is one of degree, not of kind. When fundamentalist religion becomes normative, culture then becomes intolerably absolutist - a worse outcome than that which you decry.

Christianity, Islam - what difference is there between the two for gay people? I see little, if any. The only thing that protects me from religious persecution is the secular state and secular cultural values. For that reason, I choose reason over faith, Athens over Jersulem, Socrates over Christ.

[Cineaste]

"The difference between Islam and your brand of xianity is one of degree, not of kind."

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm compelled to say, AMEN.

Naturally, I disagree with your assessment.

But I would also say that the difference between your brand of secularism and totalitarian communism may also be described as one of degree, not kind.

[Louis]

An absurd and uninformed comment. If anything, totalitarian communism and fundamentalist religion have more in common with each other than either has to secularism.

[seeker]

Actually, historically, you are entirely mistaken. Most totalitarian governments in history, the most murderous, have been socialist, atheist, anti-religionist (like the American brand of secularism that misunderstands what separation of Church and state really means) and darwinian in ideology.

In fact, as I mentioned in Everyone's a Fascist - Unless you Know History, you can depend on educated historical hack like Hedges, or you can actually look at history yourself and see that it is liberals who have been enamored with socialism and communism (until they saw the fruits of such endeavors).

I think your allegation that Christianity and Islam are of the same cloth is absurd and uninformed. So there.

[Louis]

Actually, I'm not mistaken, either entirely or partly. Totalitarian movements, like fundamentalist religions, rely on anti-intellectualism and a perverted kind of faith to survive and flourish. In fact, absolutist atheistic governments and movements are crypto-religions, sporting most of the hallmarks of absolutist religious movements: total faith in a guiding ideology/theology, unquestioning obedience to authority, anti-intellectualism, the crushing of individual initiative and freedom, harsh penalties for heresy, repression of sexuality, etc. Just compare the Stalinist and Maoist crackdowns on dissidents with the R.C. church's Inquisition and the screed you posted from Luther. Atheist, theist...it doesn't matter: they are merely the forms which the cancer of totalitarianism puts on, the masks the absolute rulers show their public. What matters is power. A true secularism remains neutral in the face of competing religious and philosophical claims, and establishes the rules and forms by which all can live in freedom. It seeks to establish its rule, however shakily, on reason and the rule of law. Thus, faith can flourish, but cannot metastasize into the destructive force we now see in much of the Islamic world and once held sway in the West.

This is why I argue for reason over faith. Don't be confused however, for I also think there is a place for faith - but on the personal and private level. Faith obviously has a place in human life, but it must take second place to reason. Remember, faith can also take the form of irrational fanaticism in whatever form the power-hungry find most efficacious.

btw: Christianity and Islam are both monotheisms which stem from the same rotten root. There are certainly forms of both religions, as well as individuals, which resist the will to power and the desire to dominate and control others, but overall, both are authoritarian movements which have sought to squelch individual freedoms in the name of some overriding and unevidenced supernatural authority. For the most part, they are anti-rational, and have a long history of suppressing free inquiry and science and persecuting anyone who dares dissent. Faith, by its very nature, abhors freedom of thought and skeptical inquiry, both hallmarks of reason: it is authoritarian and must be kept on a short leash. So there.

[Cineaste]

I agree with Louis. Both his reasoning and his prose outshine your arguments. But Seeker, I also have to point out something that's really annoying. You keep referencing old posts you wrote as if they're a legitimate source. They're not. It's like saying, I like chocolate and to prove it, here is my post entitled: "I like chocolate."

[seeker]

Secularism is no saintly ideology

I see. While I agree that religious organizations that denigrate reason can use it to suppress dissent, this does not mean that putting reason behind faith is a bad thing - if your faith is in something reliable, and you allow reasoned dissent (or dissent in general).

The atheist crypto-religions are a type of secularism run amok. The totalitarian urge does not belong only to certain ideologies, but to all, including secularism, because the common factor is mankind.

I believe that xianity gets special pleading when it comes to faith in the public sphere, and the founders gave it such. All (revealed) faiths are not alike, even though the uninformed like to think so in order to condemn them in blanket fashion.

And don't think that secularism is not anti-religion. As you so eloquently expressed, secularism only allows for benign religion that stays in the closet of personal application, and doesn't venture out into the public square. Having no working concept of the relationship between faith and reason, and easily falling into a slippery slope panic when it reads such 'screeds' as the writings of Luther, or even less obnoxious and threatening writers who put reason in subjection to faith in the scriptures, it reacts forcefully and vociferously against the 'encroachment' of faith or biblical principles into public life and policy.

Thank God the American founders were not modern secularists - even Jefferson was not an extremist of this sort, and I think he would be ahsamed at how modern secular progressives twist such phrases as "wall of separation."

Better choice of words

But perhaps using such forceful and hyperbolic language as Luther's is unwise in light of the modern penchant to think in extreme, feraful terms. Perhaps those like myself need to not only choose gentle, non-threatening words when describing how we see the interaction of faith and reason, but we should go to greater lengths to explain our positions, the safeguards that are in place to prevent our positions from sliding to the feared extremes, and the link between our beliefs and our practices.

The latter is important because fearful people see our disagreement with leftist moral and policy positions, and immediately think that we want to go on a military pogrom with all who disagree.

Why do they think this way, fearmongering and panic aside?
- First, they believe the anti-Catholic enligntenment historians who exaggerate the sins of the Catholic church (though they are legion).
- Second, they believe and perpetuate the myth that religion has been in opposition to science (despite the fact that Christianity almost single-handedly gave birth to modern science)
- Third, they ignore the clear ideological and historical links between atheism, darwinism, anti-religionism, and hyper secularism and historical tyranny, even going to the point of blaming these foibles on xianity
- Fourth, in zealous group think and extremism, they have abandoned the ability to discern key differences between their opponents, and group them into one monolith, attributing to all the worst characteristics of the most heinous of their opponents (like being unable to grasp the very real differences between Islam and Xianity, seeing only the similarities and missing the forest for the trees).

You see, no xian pogrom is on the horizon, and the ones of history weren't even really xian, but political or ethnic.

I understand why you would want to put reason above all, but I really think that when you hear someone say we should put faith in the xian scriptures above reason, you make all sorts of leaps of logic to thinking that such a view runs roughshod over reason, and leads to all sorts of heinous implementations. These leaps are a gross misunderstanding which I will have to work harder to disperse.

What I've already explained

I've already explained how I think a Christian approach to public policy requires that one rely on public reason, common ethic, and not appeals to religious authority.

I've already explained that a xian approach to public policy regarding questionable moral matters should not be one of either of the extremes of criminalization or support, but of neutrality, or if something stronger is needed, labeling or regulation.

I've already explained that, while I do not support the extreme secular position you outline, I do think there is a biblical separation between church and state, specifically, in power structures. But not in ideas.

I've already explained that the xian position regarding abortion is not totalitarian, it is protecting the weak persons from the strong. I have even articulated a 'christian' position that allows for ESC research and abortion in the first 4 weeks of gestation.

I think all of these attest to the difference between xianity and Islam, the reasoned and reasonable nature of the Christian views of government, and the relationship between faith and reason, and between position and implementation in a way that preserves the rights of the governed.

But people on a crusade to demonize religion, or anyone who disagrees with their moral stances hear none of this. They only see one color when they look at their opponents. Awful.

[Aaron]

SC, MS, AL, vote along racial lines. Vermont, Maine, etc, don't.

One group of those states actually has minorities in them. The other group doesn't (on any real statistical level). So it's hard to compare the two when you are dealing with completely different voting blocks. The states where there is a high population of minorities, those minorities voted in a high percentage for Obama. The white vote was split much more equally. Take my state of SC (Edwards was still in the race at this point):

Black voters
Obama - 78% Clinton - 19% Edwards - 2%

White voters
Obama - 24% Clinton - 36% Edwards - 40%

What does these stats mean? I'm not saying race doesn't play a factor. It most certainly does, but I'm not sure how you attribute racism to anyone (much less white Southerners) looking at these numbers (or those from any other state). Even when you see whites voting overwhelmingly for Clinton and blacks voting overwhelmingly for Obama that does not require them to be racist per se. It may be, but you can't extrapolate the thoughts of people from merely looking at who they voted for. Choosing a candidate is about much more than race, isn't that something you have argued for?

As to our regular debate about who's more like communists and fascists - Christians or atheists, I would like to say neither and both. Part of what Louis said is right and part of what seeker said is right. See? I'm such a moderate. ;)

Louis is right that a predominate factor in all of these cases is power. Human beings are corrupted by power. (Thanks for making the case for humans being fallen Louis.) That has been and will always be the case. Those that come from a Christian background can be seduced by it as easily as those from an atheists perspective.

Seeker is right in that communism and such were based on atheistic philosophy. The fact that it became pseudo-state worship does not negate the philosophical underpinnings of the government system were rooted in atheism. It also is yet another reminder that human beings were created to worship (thanks again for illustrating that point as well Louis). If we do not worship God, we will worship something - be it the state or reason. Something will become our god.

Christianity, Islam - what difference is there between the two for gay people? I see little, if any.

That is an absurd statement that only illustrates the point that you have yet to live under Islamic law. If you did, you would be dead. That's a big difference. As of now, you are still living in this great theocratic state governed by the Rev. Bush McChimpyHitler (did I get that right, Cineaste?). Do you think it is perfect here for you? Of course not. I'm not debating that, but not perfect is a long way from being as bad as dead.

Don't be confused however, for I also think there is a place for faith - but on the personal and private level.

So in your version of a free society, I as a Christian would be allowed to keep my faith as long as I shut up about it and never really used it in my life. You and secularism would have complete control of the culture and marketplace of ideas and I would be allowed to worship at home as long as I never really rock the boat. Kind of like a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

This is one reason I can't understand gay people who want to be Christians.

Because they have found more value in Christ than in anything else - be it their sexual orientation or anything else in life. They deal with it in different ways. Some believe that Christ can lead them to heterosexual lifestyles and they live that way. Others believe they are gay, but in order to obey Christ they must remain celibate. Still others believe that one can be both gay and Christian and still please God. But for all of them, I believe they would say that their relationship with Jesus is more important and more valuable than any other relationship ever could be.

[Cineaste]

Bush McChimpyHitler (did I get that right, Cineaste?)

No, you got that wrong. I never compared Bush to Hitler. That's your addition, not mine, I want to make that clear to anyone reading this. "McChimpy" on the other hand, ya, I can certainly see that.

[Aaron]

I know. It was just a little joke.

[Louis]

As a fearful extremist, I am unqualified to comment further.

I'm glad you see that the shoe fits ;)

[Louis]

F*ck you!

[Louis]

For Aaron:

Another reason for gays to hate and distrust christianism.

[Benjamin9]

Cin, do not use names like McChimpy, right Seeker?

Compare and contrast the fist fight in the video with this:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20794

[Benjamin9]

Louis,

now that you have joined me as a fearful extremist, you are only a step away from being a nazi !!!

[seeker]

ROFL Ben, now that is funny.

[Benjamin9]

:)

[Louis]

Which is why name-calling and put-downs only inhibit communication and understanding, a realization I've been trying to put into action here. Of course, that's a fool's errand.

[Benjamin9]

OK, but its not gonna be much fun. I will be the first to pledge not to use name calling any more .... but, I still claim nazi pharisee as mine.

[seeker]

Again, I think that the term I used, 'fearful extremist' was not directed at anyone in particular, but at those who hold certain positions or ideas. As such, I meant it as an accurate descriptor, not a name, despite the negative connotations of both words.

It is hard to make accurate descriptions of positions when certain accurate words are verboten because they are politically incorrect, have negative connotations, or can be used pejoratively.

I mean, you can call me a pale-skinned person, and even if I take offense at that, you would be factually correct. However, if you called me a *cracker*, well, that can only be seen as namecalling.

BTW, I heard a good joke the other day. Since I am anglo and my wife is Mexican, our kids are ... wait for it ... wet crackers. LOL.