The Christian Right Started Over Segregation

The story we always hear about how the Christian right began organizing and became a political force is that it was inspired by Roe v Wade, but Randall Balmer has an article in Politico Magazine that debunks that idea. The real root, he documents, is in the fight to preserve school segregation. The first part of the story:

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

So what is the real story? After the Supreme Court ruled for desegregation in 1954, private schools began launching in huge numbers as a refuge where white families could send their kids and not have to be exposed to icky black people. Those schools tried to register as non-profit charitable organizations, but the Nixon administration refused to grant them that status and the federal courts upheld that decision. And that was the catalyst for the formation of the Christian right, achieved primarily by Paul Weyrich.

Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders, especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”


Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the ire of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale.

There’s a lot more detail in the article. It should also be noted that Jerry Falwell himself was a staunch proponent of segregation until that became politically unpalatable. In one sermon he preached:

The true Negro does not want integration… He realizes his potential is far better among his own race… It will destroy our race eventually… In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife… It boils down to whether we are going to take God’s Word as final.

In another, specifically addressing the ruling in Brown v Board of Education:

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn the line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

He opposed the passage of the Civil Rights Act as well.

"Hey, I'm bummed out. Those two lezzies near the end were gonna lock lips but ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RickR

    Fred Clarke documents a lot of this at Slacktivist. On the “we’ve always been against abortion” issue-

    And of course, the motive behind the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention was to preserve and defend slavery.

  • beergoggles

    Xtians lying through their teeth and it’s not even for Jebus.. say it ain’t so!

  • d.c.wilson

    What’s amazing is that most people today aren’t aware of Falwell’s segregationist past. He did an excellent job of burying it in his later years.

  • EricJohansson

    Jason Sokol also covers a lot of this in his book “There Goes My everything” (about white southern reaction to the civil rights movement), that is the beginning of the anti-public school attitude of white conservatives. It’s not a stretch to say that (besides the private schools Ed mentions) the impetus of the home-schooling movement began (or at least got a huge boost) during the era so that their white kids didn’t have to go to school with those black kids.

  • Michael Heath

    My understanding is somewhat different. My personal observation growing up in the 1960s and 1970s was that segregation certainly animated conservative Christians in areas where they lived with black people, but there was a more over-arching concern. And that concern was that their beliefs and attitudes were making them culturally isolated; as if that’s a bad thing in spite of their preachers claiming they were not of this world. As we already know, there are lots of contradictory beliefs and attitudes amongst conservative Christians. Another threat was their children not becoming one of them.

    In the 1950s and 1960s science was celebrated where conservative Christians are in denial about scientific facts used to manage a developed technological economy. People were increasingly less tolerant of authoritarian attitudes in government and religious institutions. For example, those arguments that demanded devotion to war and cultural conformance.

    From this perspective, social dominators exploited the ignorance and bigotry of conservative Christians to gain power and influence. They still do, the triggers have merely changed. One was antipathy towards long hair on men, that didn’t last long as evangelicals joined the peacock-like 1970s. Recently it was gays, that’s losing momentum. Racism and misogyny still work and should for some time.

    So here we see the author focus on a mere symptom, while ignoring the underlying root causes, which is the increasing inability of conservative Christians to control the culture and indoctrinate their children to adopt their beliefs and bigotries. That in a world where their influence is demonstrably harmful and an increasing threat to the future wellbeing of humanity.

  • lorn

    As I understood it the nation was pretty much willing to let the conservatives and southerners set up their own segregated schools as long as they were not publicly funded or sanctioned by the government. It was this last point, funding and tax deductions, that caused the rift. They wanted to run their own segregated schools and have the taxpayers help fund it.



    So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

    In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

    In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.


    As is the way, it comes down to money.

    And in honor of this truth, The Android Sisters in “Money, Money, Money” (best if you use headphones).,d.cGU