The ‘But Christians Aren’t Racist’ Argument

Two of the Republican presidential candidates, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal, were asked in the last few days about the comparison between the same-sex marriage ruling and the virtually identical ruling overturning state laws against interracial marriage in 1967. Both offered the same terrible argument in response. First Jindal:

Todd noted that people — including President Harry Truman — used the Bible as the rationale for their opposition to interracial marriage in the 1950s and ’60s, and asked if he was comfortable making a similar argument in regards to same-sex marriage. “I think it’s offensive to try and equate the two,” Jindal replied, noting that race relations are better in America and “I’ve said we’ve got to stop viewing ourselves as hyphenated Americans.” He added:

I think viewing people by the color of their skin is one of the dumbest ways to view people — I’ve written that, I’ve said that — so I think it’s offensive to equate evangelical Christians, Catholics, others that view marriage as between a man and a woman as being racist. We’re not being racist; we love our fellow man, we think we’re all equal under God’s eyes, we simply believe that marriage — we don’t believe we should change the definition of marriage simply because of opinion polls, or because of a court that, quite simply, isn’t looking at the Constitution.

Ted Cruz makes the same argument in more detail and plainer language:

She followed up by asking whether Cruz would have opposed the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia striking down bans on interracial marriage.

“Of course not,” Cruz said. “We fought a bloody civil war over the original sin of our country, which was slavery. Slavery was grotesque and immoral and some 600,000 Americans spilled their blood on American soil and lost their lives to expunge it. We passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, to ensure everyone has equal rights regardless of race. And that was honoring the promise of the Constitution.”

This is not a response, it’s an attempt to avoid responding by changing the subject. It doesn’t matter whether most Christians today believe that interracial marriage is sinful and therefore ought to be banned, it matters whether most Christians 50 years ago, when the earlier ruling came down, believed that. And the answer is yes. They used the Bible — specifically the Hamitic theory of race — to justify their support for “traditional marriage,” by which they meant marriage only between those of the same race. The law had banned such marriages in this country for hundreds of years.

Nearly every argument that Ted Cruz uses against Friday’s ruling was used by the Christian right of that day against the ruling in Loving v Virginia. The same cries of “judicial activism,” the same pearl-clutching over “nine unelected judges” overturning the “will of the people,” the same claims that requiring government officials to sanction what they considered to be a sinful marriage was a violation of their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” indeed the same laws passed to exempt clerks from having to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples in order to protect their “religious liberty.”

If anyone really thinks that Ted Cruz, or Antonin Scalia, or almost any other conservative making those arguments today would have made different arguments 48 years ago against Loving, they’re living in a fantasy world.

"What the Judges who sentence people to longer in jail for having darker skin are ..."

Black Men Get Longer Prison Sentences
"Psssst HpO, we got it the first time. Is there a point that you personally ..."

Trump’s Blatant Hypocrisy on Sexual Harassment
""Conscience" and "convenience" do share a lot of the same letters. They're so easy to ..."

Another Hail Mary Pass Considered on ..."
"Three weeks to the election as of this coming Tuesday."

Another Hail Mary Pass Considered on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/using.reason usingreason

    They are right they are not racists, they are just general run off the mill bigots. And assholes. And liars.

  • gshelley

    Someone should ask them what they think of the religious freedom of people not to issue mixed marriage licences to mixed race couples.

    though we already know for Jindal, he thinks they don’t have such freedom and they shouldn’t have it as we saw back in 2009

    http://wonkette.com/589849/bobby-jindal-didnt-mind-stomping-on-freedom-when-judge-blocked-interracial-marriage

    “I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press… “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

    “This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. … Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license,” the Republican governor said.

    Anyone interviewing them should push them on it, not let them off with the “christians aren’t racist” or “that was clearly unconstitutional argument” Force them to either agree that any religious belief should be acceptable for not performing part of the job, or admit they’d like to apply some sort of test to any religious claim to decide if they felt it was theologically sound.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Interracial marriage has never been an issue with any mainstream Christian creed. There were individuals who used strained reasoning (like Kennedy’s) to draw out of the Bible something that looked like an argument against interracial marriage, but that has never been accepted by any genuine Christian denomination. The Christian scriptures and creeds are quite clear–“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    The Civil Rights Movement was a Christian movement–organized out of churches, led by pastors and supported by major Christian denominations.

    Compare the idiosyncratic and bigoted invocation of the Bible by a few (progressive Democrat) racists with the mainstream and bigoted invocation of Darwinism by (progressive Democrat) racists for a century and a half–all manner of racial hate was justified by Darwinian theory. Darwin himself asserted “scientifically” that Africans were closer to the apes than Europeans were.

    Yet oddly you invariably deny the obvious link between Darwinism and racism, but tout the non-existent link between Christianity and opposition to interracial marriage.

    Anti-miscegenation laws were hateful aspects of Democrat policy for a century and a half. It is disgusting irony that these Democrats’ descendants try to pin their own hateful policies on the people (Republicans and genuine Christians) who fought so hard to overcome Democrat racism.

  • http://umlud.blogspot.com umlud

    Being multiracial, I had joined two mixed-race Facebook groups a few years back. It has been interesting to read the comments from multiracial people (and people in mixed-race marriages) against the SCOTUS decision on SSM, based on Biblical grounds. And when some members asked why one of these groups was officially supporting the decision, it was as if they couldn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) that there is a direct parallel between Loving v. Virginia in 1967 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Indeed, there were so many comments on those pages that boil down to:

    Critic: “I cannot support this group, because you are supporting what the Bible teaches to be immoral and an abomination.”

    Response: “Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage was deemed to be against Biblical teachings, because it was immoral and an abomination.”

    Critic: “I am a Christian, and I don’t believe that God would make what I am/the relationship with my spouse immoral or an abomination.”

    Response: “… So you oppose same sex marriage based on the Bible, but reject what the Bible says about interracial marriage?”

    Critic: “The Bible teaches about love! But same-sex marriage is an abomination, because that’s what the Bible says.”

    Response: “… *headdesk*”

  • dingojack

    Interracial marriage has never been an issue with any mainstream Christian creed. There were individuals who used strained reasoning (like Kennedy’s) to draw out of the Bible something that looked like an argument against interracial marriage, but that has never been accepted by any genuine Christian denomination.

    CITATIONS REQUIRED!

    Dingo

  • http://umlud.blogspot.com umlud

    Anti-miscegenation laws were hateful aspects of Democrat policy for a century and a half. It is disgusting irony that these Democrats’ descendants try to pin their own hateful policies on the people (Republicans and genuine Christians) who fought so hard to overcome Democrat racism.

    Anti-miscegenation laws were actual laws affecting actual people. It doesn’t matter that they were set up by the Democratic party of the pre-Civil Rights era.

    The disgusting irony is that people who make comments like yours completely fail to see that the Dixiecrats became the core constituent of the Republican Party post-Civil Rights Act.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    The assumption that being a Christian automatically makes you a good/moral person has bugged me for a very long time. It’s also what makes Christians particularly vulnerable to affinity scams.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @umlid #6

    Oh, he does see it. He just doesn’t want to accept it because then he’d lose his favorite excuse for bashing non-Republicans.

    I think that he’s unwilling to accept that the parties swapped positions in the early 60s because he’s incapable of changing himself.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    … I think it’s offensive to equate evangelical Christians, Catholics, others that view marriage as between a man and a woman as being racist.

    What a delightful non sequitur. No one said that being against same sex marriage makes you a racist, Bobby. And as Ed points out, being a non-racist today doesn’t mean you or your forebears weren’t racists circa 1960.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Dingo:

    [“Interracial marriage has never been an issue with any mainstream Christian creed….

    CITATIONS REQUIRED!]

    Other way around, asshole. You show me the evidence: which Christian denominations (Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc) included anti-miscegenation in their formal creeds?

    Citations required.

  • raven

    The ‘But Christians Aren’t Racist’ Argument

    Most of the US Protestant churches split over slavery, with the Southern ones supporting slavery and supporting the South during the Slavery War.

    That is where the Southern Baptists got their start and they opposed integration and interracial marriage as well.

    With some justification. Slavery is all throught the bible including the New Testament. Jesus as god even gives instructions on how to beat your slaves.

  • gshelley

    As far as I can tell, the idea that Darwin claimed Africans were closer to apes the to Europeans is totally made up, much like everything else DukeDog lies about.

    though in this case it might be true that it was not official creed of any mainstream denomination. Why he thinks that relevant is a mystery, though if I was too hazard a guess based on previous experience he thinks that if he can muddy the waters enough he can get away with his bigotry.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @ArtK:

    [The assumption that being a Christian automatically makes you a good/moral person has bugged me for a very long time.]

    It’s bugged you for a long time because you’re a fool, Al. Being anything doesn’t make you a good person–and Christians are the first to admit that.

    There are lots of atheists and muslims etc who are better people than lots of Christians. Christianity is valuable as truth, and it does help make us better people, but individuals vary, a lot.

    Christianity isn’t a

  • Damien McLeod

    Religious people are mentally-ill, treat them gently and lock them for the good of the species. Especially Mr Jindal.

    Oh, and for goodness sake don’t let them around children, teaching religion to children is the worst form of child abuse.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “Christianity isn’t a …” neat program for personal betterment. It’s a relationship with Christ and an assertion about truth.

  • dingojack

    Nope – YOU made the extraordinary claim Lil DookieYOU produce the evidence to back the claim up…

    quick as you like!

    Dingo

  • raven

    … I think it’s offensive to equate evangelical Christians, Catholics, others that view marriage as between a man and a woman as being racist.

    Chulhu, Jindal is dumb.

    I find it offensive that Jindal just torched a strawperson!!! No one said that.

  • Doug Little

    Hey buddy where’s Obama’s time machine?

    Just over there, you wanna give it a spin?

    Sure, let me just set the dial here for 30 years in the future, they might actually have hover boards by then.

    Clank, Clinkity Clunk, Whooooosh.

    Cool I’m here lets just turn on the old TV here to see whats up.

    …Same sex marriage has never been an issue with any mainstream Christian creed. There were individuals who used strained reasoning to draw out of the Bible something that looked like an argument against same sex marriage, but that has never been accepted by any genuine Christian denomination.

    Hmmmmm interesting.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Raven:

    [That is where the Southern Baptists got their start and they opposed integration and interracial marriage as well.]

    Show me the creeds. Citations required. I’m not interested in the meanderings of some racist Democrat progressives who happen to be Christian–I want the specific evidence that support for slavery was creedal. You are pinning it to Christianity–I want to see your evidence. The Bible references slaves and slavery, invariably to insist upon humane treatment in what was a universal institution.

    I know of no Christian creed that advocates slavery or racism.

    It may exist, but I am unaware of it. Show me your citations.

  • scienceavenger

    Hey Dukedog, the Democratic party’s presidential candidate hasn’t won a majority of the old Confederate states since 1976. Do try to keep up.

  • Doc Bill

    The only candidate more self-unaware than Trump is the Alfred E. Newman/Gunga Din impersonator, Jindal.

    Hilariously, Jindal said we have to stop referring to ourselves as hyphenated Americans when he has often referred to himself as an Indian-American as recently as a week ago! The guy’s a total moron.

  • kenn

    “My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.” — Frank Zappa

  • k_machine

    Slavery was grotesque and immoral and some 600,000 Americans spilled their blood on American soil and lost their lives to expunge it.

    Well, technically, ~260,000 of that number actually died fighting to preserve slavery.

  • daved

    From the Wikipedia article on the Southern Baptist Convention:

    In 1995, the Convention voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.

  • http://umlud.blogspot.com umlud

    … and to build on scienceavenger @20, Obama could have won in 2008 and 2012 even without any Electoral College votes from the vast redness of much of the South. Thus, even back in 2008 we could start to see the growing political unimportance of the old South.

    (And, unless Dukedog doesn’t realize it, “Red” – while also being used to denote Communists – is used in modern-day US political parlance to indicate a majority Republican district/State.)

    Also, people can go and read Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers to see the religious jusitifications made by Christians to ban interracial marriages starting back in the mid-1600s and continuing through to 1967.

  • ‘smee

    Dukedog is a dumbfuck.

    People change allegiance based on policy. All of the racist dixiecrats gleefully fled the democratIC party after the VRA and joined the republican party who welcomed them with open arms. A little thing called “the Southern Strategy”. Hell, even I heard of it and i grew up and was educated in Europe! It was led by some guy called Nixon, a Republican President, I believe.

    The current Republican party is the party of racism. One only has to look at their policies. Their continued demand to simply say, by dictat, that we live in a “post racial society” is merely an attempt to avoid recognizing the formal and actual institutional racism that their policies promote and promulgate.

    SO fuck off, you evil little man.

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    Hey, Dogshit!!!!! There are no such fucking things as god or christs or any of the other fucking shit you rave about. Fuck YHWH the wind god up the ass sideways with a rusty chainsaw! What do I care what the boogeyman invented by some primitive tribe of flea-bitten sand-crawlers 4000 years ago has to say about anything? Oh, yeah, he can’t say anything because he DOESN”T FUCKING EXIST!!!!!!

    And fuck you with the same chainsaw, while we’re at it it!!!!!

  • scienceavenger

    racist Democrat progressives

    You know you’ve got nothing to say worth hearing when you have to redefine words to do it.

  • ‘smee

    This is a PSA: Dukedog aka Egnorator aka fuckwit extraordinaire is a vile racist fuck.

    Thank you for your attention, and now back to our regular programming.

  • frankgturner

    What difference does it make if a religious group as a whole takes up an official position regarding something? I am interested in what the individuals do which is obviously influenced by their beliefs as a group, but can exist independent of it.

    .

    I don’t really care if the Southern Baptists or Jewish people living in my neighborhood have an official stance regarding slavery or racism, I care of they as individuals “agree” with it.

    .

    However, as long as we are on the topic (pardon Duke Dog’s deluded little world),

    Ku Klux Klan – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    You can denounce them as non Xtian but they consider themselves Xtian and take up an official racist position which members like Dylan Roof appear to agree with.

  • John Pieret

    A poll released this week [2011] shows that 46% percent of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. That staggering number is accompanied by only 40% who believe that adults should be free to marry who they want.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/08/mississippi-polling-roughly-half-of-polled-republican-in-mississippi-believe-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal/

  • sharonb

    I suggest we call the dog out on his prevarivations. Democrats and Republicans have changed since the Southern Strategy, but what hasn’t changed is liberal vs conservatives. Conservatives championed slavery in the 1800s, segregation in the last century, and are the ones who have persecuted glbt people for millenia. Conservatives! His little meritricious wordplay with Democrat / Republican labels just is an attempt to avoid the shame associated with the real regressive of history – conservatives! Specifically social conservatives.

  • mudskipper

    Dukedog may be or may not be a dumbfuck, but he is surely disingenuous.

    Christian creeds are all about theology. Issues like interracial marriage–or just marriage itself–usually do not come up in them because that’s not what the creeds are about. Christian sects may hold strict views on the morality of certain behaviors, without those views ever being made explicit in their creeds.

    So, yeah, you’d have a hard time finding racist statements in a sect’s creed, even while the sect’s pastors are thundering about the immorality of interracial marriage from the pulpit.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    I’m new to Duke. However, I’m now convinced that Duke is just a simple liar. It has been explained to him repeatedly over the last few months (and apparently last few decades) that the Dixiecrats swapped parties, that Darwin was not a racist, that Darwin actually disputed the existence of race as a valid and significant biological classification, etc. He knows this. He’s just a liar.

  • dmcclean

    Who cares what is and isn’t “creedal”, that’s a total red herring. Christianity, like any religion, is defined primarily by its practitioners and not by certain documents issued by a central authority. Indeed, many religions have no such central authority or documents.

    There’s no dispute that many Christians used religious arguments and quotations from scripture to support “anti-miscegenation” laws. And that’s what Ed said in the OP. Egnor is trying to moving the goalpost to “creedal” statements for two reasons: (1) he knows he can’t counter Ed’s point as written, and (2) he knows that whatever evidence someone was to waste their time finding he could easily dismiss as not “creedal” for one of a billion reasons, since there are thousands of sects and hundreds of thousands of viewpoints on who constitutes a central authority that can issue something “creedal”.

  • Hoosier X

    So, yeah, you’d have a hard time finding racist statements in a sect’s creed …

    Not if you looked.

  • Doug Little

    dmcclean @35,

    So a massive No True Scotsman facially then? Oh Egnor you’ve done it again.

  • scienceavenger

    @34 He’s an ID propoent, it comes with the territory.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Duke (#13) “Christianity isn’t a”

    Give Duke some credit. He sure knows how to build suspense!!

  • theDukedog7 .

    [All of the racist dixiecrats gleefully fled the democratIC party after the VRA and joined the republican party who welcomed them with open arms.]

    A lie. The Dixiecrats were about 25 in number in the Democrat convention in 1948. All but 3 remained Democrats for the remainder of their lives.

    The hardline Democrat segregationists remained Democrats. Republicans were the anti-segregation party, and were hated by the Dixiecrat types. In fact, the primary complaint of the Dixiecrats is that the Democrats were beginning to adopt Republican policies on race.

    The South turned Republican in the mid 1990’s, mainly as a result of immigration of middle and upper middle class families from the north who weren’t Democrats or racists (but i repeat myself).

  • dhall

    I don’t know how to say this cleverly, or subtly, but maybe not rising to the bait . . ?

  • Synfandel

    @32 sharonb nailed it.

  • JustaTech

    theDukeDog7: As a matter of creed, until recently persons of color were not allowed in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and therefore marriages between blacks and whites were not allowed in the Mormon temples.

    So, there’s your data.

    Can we discuss your total lack of knowledge of history of any of the USA?

  • JustaTech

    dhall @41: You’re right, and chances are good that we all know it.

    It’s not that he wants to argue, or even that he’s irrational. We have a couple of regulars here who can be pretty impassioned and not-totally-rational on a few specific subjects. But they have useful and interesting commentary the rest of the time.

    This one is getting repetitive. Shall we put him in the back on the discount rack, like another can of beans?

  • dhall

    #44 JustaTech – Please! Like the old cliche, it’s gotten to the point where it’s like trying to teach a pig to sing.

  • Doug Little

    Please! Like the old cliche, it’s gotten to the point where it’s like trying to teach a pig to sing

    What? Dammit now what am I gonna do with my weekends?

  • dhall

    #46 – Doug Little – yeah, there is that . . .

  • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, These verbal jackboots were made for walking

    @Dukedog

    There’s a hell of a lot more to doctrine than creed alone–in fact, most Christian denominations subscribe to one or both of the same two creeds (Nicene and Apostles’). And yet there are dozens of mainstream Christian denominations, not to mention the fringe ones. How is that? You’re being disingenuous.

  • abb3w

    @3, theDukedog7

    Interracial marriage has never been an issue with any mainstream Christian creed.

    First, “mainstream” is legally irrelevant to legal protection.

    Second, it looks like you’re trying to hide behind the semantic distinction of “creed” rather than “sect”; however, the problem is at the latter. There’s considerable resources buried in libraries, but some few traces also are on-line; see, for instance, the passing mention in the 1932 Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention on page 92, which appears to clearly indicate that the institutional policy of the SBC churches was in opposition to miscegenation and interracial marriage. (If you want, you can also pick nits to exclude the SBC, since they are “evangelical” rather than “mainstream” Protestant; but since you identify as a Catholic, that would look really silly.)

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 ”The hardline Democrat segregationists remained Democrats.”

    Meanwhile Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms fled to the Republican party, to get away from all that racism.

     

    gshelley ”As far as I can tell, the idea that Darwin claimed Africans were closer to apes the to Europeans is totally made up, much like everything else DukeDog lies about.”

    Africans are closer to apes. They’re both in Africa. You can’t get much closer than that.

     

    John Pieret ”A poll released this week [2011] shows that 46% percent of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. That staggering number is accompanied by only 40% who believe that adults should be free to marry who they want.”

    That so-called “poll” is was misleading, as the question was “Do you think it should be legal for Obama to rape our white daughters?”. Plus, if that doesn’t convince you, the so-called “Republicans” were really the real racists, the blacks and other Democrats.

  • oldskoolnyc

    He seems to have climbed back into his cave but please, DFTT!

  • sharonb

    Conservatives are and always have been the racists, dog. Suck it.

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: The South turned Republican in the mid 1990’s, mainly as a result of immigration of middle and upper middle class families from the north who weren’t Democrats or racists (but i repeat myself).

    Dude, you are so full of shit its a wonder your eyes don’t turn brown. As anyone who lives in the south knows, its hardly overrun with ex-yankees. The southern (often racist) Democrats slowly changed over to being Republican for several decades starting in the 60’s, many as a reaction to LBJ and the Democrats pushing legislation favoring blacks. I note with interest in 1988 one David Duke making the change. I can’t wait to hear your ignorant bleatings about how he wasn’t a racist.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    dukedawg # 19,

    “The Bible references slaves and slavery, invariably to insist upon humane treatment in what was a universal institution.”

    The Bible says if a slave owner beats the ever-loving shit out of his slave and the slave and he dies the next day, the slave owner is in trouble.

    But if the slave owner beats the ever-loving shit out of his slave and he hangs on for two or three days, no harm, no foul.

    That’s some real teaching on humane treatment. Please tell us more about your humane and benevolent god-monster.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Dukedog is engaging in a standard wingnut troll tactic of denying the existence of the Southern Strategy in order to pretend the massive shift in party registration that occurred in the South. You can see trolls engaging in this dishonest tactic just about anywhere on the Internet.

    Fifty years ago, it was virtually impossible to get elected as a republican in much of the Deep South. Today, it’s virtually impossible to get elected in those same places as a democrat. That shift didn’t occur because the South suddenly became less racist, but because the GOP became more appealing to racists.

  • Alverant

    We passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, to ensure everyone has equal rights regardless of race. And that was honoring the promise of the Constitution.

    Congrats Cruz, you just admitted last week decision was the correct one!

  • mudskipper

    About Darwin and Africans being halfway between apes and humans—here’s a nice picture:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism#/media/File:Races_and_skulls.png

    Looks pretty damning, doesn’t? Except that it is from a book published two years before Darwin’s Origin of the Species. The authors were Christians who based their form of scientific racism on the creation account in Bible. They were quite well received in their time.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    deny the obvious link between Darwinism and racism

    Because racism totes didn’t exist before Darwin?

    Of course there were dumbass people who tried to adopt Darwin to justify the racism they already felt; to bolster their assumptions. But that’s older than Darwin, too.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @unenlightened liberal:

    [It has been explained to him repeatedly over the last few months (and apparently last few decades) that the Dixiecrats swapped parties,]

    No they didn’t. only 3 of the 25 dixiecrats at the 1948 convention switched to repub, and that was after they ceased being segregationists. The republicans were the anti-segregation, anti-lynching pro civil rights party since 1860. Dixiecrat segregationists hated them, and virtually none switched parties.

    Southerners who liked segregation and who were angry with the civil rights acts of the mid-60’s switched their support to George Wallace in 68 and 72. Wallace was a democrat and remained a democrat, like his supporters did.

    Nixon had a long honorable history of strong support for civil rights. He was Eisenhower’s point man on the civil rights legislation in the 1950’s. When he became president, one of his first tasks was to desegregate southern schools. When he assumed office in 1969, 80% of black southern kids still attended segregated schools. This was more than a decade after Brown, and was because of democrat racists and their supporters in the democrat party. Neither kennedy nor johnson-faux-“heros” of civil rights, did anything to desegregate southern schools, because they were controlled by their segregationist southern democrat comrades.

    Within 2 years of becoming president, Nixon desegregated southern schools. 80% of black kids went to integrated schools by 1971. Some “southern strategy”, huh asshole?

    Nixon started Affirmative Action (the Philadelphia Plan), because the greatest obstacle to integration in the early 1970’s were white Democrat labor unions who excluded blacks. Nixon put an end to that exclusion, and, as with the southern school Democrat scum, he threatened them with federal prison if they did not integrate. Some “southern strategy”, huh asshole.

    Nixon markedly increased federal spending on civil rights protections and programs to ensure integration was taking place rapidly. Some “southern strategy”, huh asshole?

    One real irony is that many of the senate bigwigs who persecuted Nixon in watergate (e.g. Sam Ervin, Fritz Hollings) were southern segregationist Democrats who, one wonders, may have been settling a score with Nixon for making their kids go to school with ‘niggras’.

    The south remained pretty solid Democrat for many years, especially at the local level, and only became majority republican in 1996. The main reason for the republican switch is the decrease of race as a factor in southern politics and the influx of tens of millions of citizens who migrated to the sunbelt from the frostbelt who weren’t traditional racist Democrats.

    The “southern strategy” is a lie, concocted by Democrat scum to evade their very personal responsibility for their white supremacist organization. Nixon was a pioneer in civil rights, and obviously was antagonizing (to say the least) the southern Democrat racist vote, not courting it.

  • Al Dente

    The “southern strategy” is a lie

    Now you’re reduced to plain and simple lying. A University of Michigan website says:

    Political analyst and Nixon campaigner Kevin Phillips, analysing 1948-1968 voting trends, viewed these rebellious Southern voters as ripe for Republican picking. In The Emerging Republican Majority (Arlington House, 1969), he correctly predicted that the Republican party would shift its national base to the South by appealing to whites’ disaffection with liberal democratic racial and welfare policies. President Nixon shrewdly played this “Southern strategy” by promoting affirmative action in employment, a “wedge” issue that later Republicans would exploit to split the Democratic coalition of white working class and black voters. (See John Skrentny, The Ironies of Affirmative Action (U Chicago Press, 1996)). This strategy soon produced the racial party alignments that prevail today.

    Democrats had picked up votes in the South due to the re-enfranchisement of blacks via the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This is observable in the low Republican (hence high Democratic) turnout in areas with large black populations–the Southern Black Belt and urban North. However, Democrats lost more white votes than they gained black votes–not only in the South, but in white Northern suburbs. Thomas and Mary Edsall, in Chain Reaction (W.W. Norton, 1991), argue that Republican success in the Northern suburbs showed that opposition to government programs that benefit blacks appealed to Northern whites, who, identifying crime and welfare dependency with blacks, were receptive to coded Republican messages (“welfare queens,” “special interests,” “quotas”) appealing to antiblack racial antipathies.

    Seems like academia disagrees with you, along with the rest of humanity.

    Egnor, for some reason you think the regulars here rode into town on the turnip cart yesterday. We’re nowhere near as stupid or ignorant as you think we are. So stop lying to us.

  • Al Dente

    No they didn’t. only 3 of the 25 dixiecrats at the 1948 convention switched to repub, and that was after they ceased being segregationists.

    Strom Thurmond switched to Republican and never stopped being a segregationist. Try again, this time without pulling bullshit out of your rectum.

  • Trebuchet

    How about a list of those 25 specific Dixiecrats, Dr. Egnor? How many of them actually stayed active in politics? Also note that the Dixiecrat movement of 1948 was specifically a response to the Democratic party not endorsing segregation strongly enough. 1948, not 1964.

    Also note that the Christians involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s were mostly Democrats. The Republican nominee for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Al Moron:

    [Republican party would shift its national base to the South by appealing to whites’ disaffection with liberal democratic racial and welfare policies.]

    Aside from being racists, Democrats were also progressives, which means that they had stupid counterproductive policies that expanded the power of government and limited freedom (segregation was the archetypical liberal progressive policy–government control of the details of daily life–where you work, eat, drink, go to the bathroom). Many white southerners who were becoming disillusioned with idiot Democrat progressivism (and disillusioned with Democrat racism) began to shift to the Republicans. Again, this was accelerated by the influx of middle class Northerners from the frostbelt who had no history of loyalty to the white supremicists Democrats. The older southern voters tended to stay democrat and stay racist.

    [President Nixon shrewdly played this “Southern strategy” by promoting affirmative action in employment, a “wedge” issue that later Republicans would exploit to split the Democratic coalition of white working class and black voters. ]

    Riiiiight. That dastardly Nixon craftily started Affirmative Action to split up white voters, who would resent the policy he started and…. support him. (?!) Good theory, ace.

    And I suppose Nixon was also courting white racists by integrating southern schools astonishingly quickly–in 18 months in 1970-71. That crafty Tricky Dick figured that white Democrat southern racists would be so enraged by Nixon’s integration of schools that they would…. support Nixon en masse (!!!)

    What a profound insight into Nixonian Republican perfidy!

    And Strom Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he became a member of the anti-segregation party–the Republicans.

    You really are an asshole, Al.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    Here ya go, Doggy. The Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest denomination in the U.S. As raven and others point out, it was indeed founded on slavery and white supremacy. Read it and learn something.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Divisions_over_slavery

  • Lady Mondegreen

    The Klan’s (possible) role in the (undeniable) party shift:

    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/10/7372495/ku-klux-klan-republican

  • msm16

    I kind of wonder how Dukedog can function in the world; how the hell doesn’t he drown in the shower every morning? I mean this racism is implicit, 90%+ of African-Americans vote Democratic. So you either accept that, as fully human and rational individuals, they vote what is in there best interest, or they aren’t and are led astray by some democrat pied piper. If the Republicans are still the party of Lincoln as you claim, then why DON’T African Americans vote Republican?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    msm16 “I kind of wonder how Dukedog can function in the world; how the hell doesn’t he drown in the shower every morning? I mean this racism is implicit, 90%+ of African-Americans vote Democratic. “

    Since the Democrat party is the party of racism and Urban Americans (*wink wink*) vote for the Democrat party, Urban Americans (*wink wink*) are the real racists.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, you Liberal Democrats, let me simplify this so that even you can understand history:

    Like the rest of you Democrats, LBJ was a racist for not signing the Southern Manifesto and for supporting the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while like us Republicans, Strom Thurmond was not a racist for initiating the Southern Manifesto and for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

  • wildbill

    FYI, Nixon was caught on tape using racial slurs for African-Americans (you can guess which word he used), as well as for other groups.

  • llewelly

    (segregation was the archetypical liberal progressive policy–government control of the details of daily life–where you work, eat, drink, go to the bathroom).

    Hm. Michael Egnor, could you let us know what your position on whether trans people ought to be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice is?

  • Trebuchet

    I kind of wonder how Dukedog can function in the world; how the hell doesn’t he drown in the shower every morning?

    What’s really horrifying is that he operates on the brains of small children, without a functioning one of his own.

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    Dear fucking shit, that’s the most idiotic farrago of nonsense I’ve ever see written down. You can deny history all you want, but Nixon rode the Southern Strategy into te White House. It doesn’t matter if he agreed with the southerner’s racism or not—he wanted their votes and he got them. They switched parties and here we are today, with the GOP as racism and anti-science central.

    Hey Dogshit, Why doesn’t YHWH the Wind God strike me with lightning for saying, “Fuck you up the ass with a rusty chainsaw, sideways”? Because he doesn’t exist, that’s why.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Trebuchet “What’s really horrifying is that he operates on the brains of small children, without a functioning one of his own.”

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. Aside from the single obvious possibility, I fail to see where one could possibly keep a functioning small child’s brain.

  • StevoR

    Hey DukesDogsShit – you’re totally wrong about US history as even this Aussie knows very well, But that aside, what do you think of the vile bigotry and racism expressed by conservative Republicans and Teabaggers towards President Obama almost all day every day right now?

    See for instance : http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/proof-republicans-racists-comes-president-obama/

  • Owlmirror

    @theDukedog7:

    And Strom Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he became a member of the anti-segregation party–the Republicans.

    Why do you keep lying about such easily checkable points? Do you really hate truth so much?

    [In] an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond said, “I don’t have anything to apologize for,” and “I don’t have any regrets.” Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, “Yes, I do.”

  • theignored

    For theDukeDog:

    An example of a creationist eugenicist:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html

    The “Hamite” theory of races:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html

    Quote:

    From Morris’s The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:

    The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be ‘servants of servants,’ that is ‘servants extraordinary!’ Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham’s family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham’s descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth’s ‘colored’ races,–yellow, red, brown, and black–essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians–are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

    The Hamites have been the great ‘servants’ of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade–money, banks, postal systems, etc.–were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the ‘servants’ of mankind in a most amazing way.

    Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

  • theignored

    Now, some “Pre-darwinian blood purity”:

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm#blood

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    [The assumption that being a Christian automatically makes you a good/moral person has bugged me for a very long time.]

    It’s bugged you for a long time because you’re a fool, Al.

    High praise indeed from the Master of Fools. Thank you, doctor.

    And don’t call me Shirley… or Al.

  • theignored

    About christianity and slavery?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130122043445/http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/slavery.htm

    About that bible verse? “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.”? Yeah. That’s apparently not meant for the earth but for heaven. Because there are a lot of bible verses that support slavery:

    Ephesians 6:5

    Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

    Colossians 3:22

    Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

    1 Timothy 6:1

    Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

    Titus 2:9-10

    Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

    1 Peter 2:18

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

  • Aaron Logan

    That the second time today I’ve seen a republican call slavery America’s Original Sin. Truly, Cruz has a dizzying intellect. I can’t begin to imagine his thoughts on the treatment of First Nations peoples in what the TRC in Canada has acknowledged as genocide.

  • Hoosier X

    Dukedog is going to be one fat troll tomorrow.

    So be careful of overfeeding, everyone!

    It reminds me of when I was a kid and my friend Brent had a pet guinea pig, and Brent’s family went away for the weekend and Brent left a whole head of lettuce for the guinea pig. And when they came back, the guinea pig was as big as a bowling ball because it had eaten the whole head of lettuce AND DIED!

    A word of warning! We don’t want a dead guinea pig tomorrow!

  • Nomad

    the mainstream and bigoted invocation of Darwinism by (progressive Democrat) racists for a century and a half–all manner of racial hate was justified by Darwinian theory

    Okay, I believe it’s Egnor now.

    I’m a little amused that, according to his logic, he seems to have proven that Christianity has only recently become opposed to LGBT rights. The Southern Baptists only added homosexuality to their BF&M statement in 1998. Since Egnor values earlier positions over later ones, it seems that to him, Southern Baptists aren’t truly opposed to same sex marriage at all, and their current obsession with it is merely an aberration of their longer history.

  • dan4

    @59″….the senate bigwigs who persecuted Nixon in watergate…”

    I’m not sure which is more ridiculous, the bizarre revisionist notion that Nixon was “persecuted” in Watergate, or Egnorance’s ignorance about basic rules of capitalization.

  • theignored
  • dingojack

    Hey Lil Dookie what did SENIOR REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST (for both Nixon and Ray-gun) LEE ATWATER have to say about his party’s use of the blatantly racist ‘Southern Strategy’ to outpoll the Democratic Party in the South?

    Still contend it’s all a big fib?

    Dingo

  • Doug Little

    And again Egnore gets his ass handed to him.

  • gshelley

    The Bible references slaves and slavery, invariably to insist upon humane treatment in what was a universal institution.

    Either Dukedog has not read the bible or doesn’t know invariably means

    Or perhaps more likely just doesn’t care if what he is saying is true or not

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog: Aside from being racists, Democrats were also progressives, which means that they had stupid counterproductive policies that expanded the power of government and limited freedom (segregation was the archetypical liberal progressive policy–government control of the details of daily life…

    This just might be the most delusional thing I’ve read all week. “Words have no meaning” indeed. Or perhaps I’m-rubber-you’re-glue gone wild?

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @scienceavenger

    He rivals Humpty Dumpty in his ability to redefine words.

    It’s astounding how impervious to reality he is. I’m very grateful that I don’t live near him and that my kids don’t need a neurosurgeon. Somebody that rigid in their thinking is dangerous in a field where things can easily go wrong. “Oopos, I didn’t expect that vessel to be there!”

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    @Dukedog:

    The Christian scriptures and creeds are quite clear–“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Ahem. You omitted the part with very interesting implications for marriage. I’ve italicized for your convenience.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  • Nick Gotts

    The South turned Republican in the mid 1990’s, mainly as a result of immigration of middle and upper middle class families from the north who weren’t Democrats or racists (but i repeat myself). – Michael Egnor, racist liar@40

    Alternatively…

    Many white southerners who were becoming disillusioned with idiot Democrat progressivism (and disillusioned with Democrat racism) began to shift to the Republicans. – Michael Egnor, racist liar@63

    You might do better to stick to one lie, Egnor. But lies they both are. While white southerners have switched from Democrat to Republican in massive numbers – far more than could possibly be accounted for by immigration from the north – black southerners have shifted in the opposite direction. Here’s Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips:

    The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

    And Reagan strategist Lee Atwater:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, “forced busing”, “states’ rights”, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

    Tell me, Egnor, is it Democratic governors of Democratic-voting states who have been flying the Confederate flag, long-time symbol of white racism, beloved of the KKK, until some of them were finally embarrassed by the Charleston terrorist attack? I’ll help you out: no, it isn’t. Is it Democratic politicians who have been scrambling to disassociate themselves from the racist hate group, the Council of Conservative Citizens after Dylann Roof cited it as his inspiration for those terrorist murders? Again, no, it isn’t. Has the “birther” campaign, which has spent years attacking a black President’s eligibility for office on flagrantly spurious grounds, been a grassroots Democrat campaign aimed at a Republican President? I’ll take an optimistic view of your intelligence, and gamble that you might just be able to work that one out for yourself.

  • abb3w

    @63, theDukedog7

    And Strom Thurmond stopped being a segregationist when he became a member of the anti-segregation party–the Republicans.

    Strom Thurmond switched from the Democratic to the Republican party in 1964; however, he still objected to the ruling in 1969 Alexander v Holmes County BoE ordering immediate school desegregation — which appears to falsify your assertion.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Hey, Dogshit!!!!! There are no such fucking things as god or christs or any of the other fucking shit you rave about. Fuck YHWH the wind god up the ass sideways with a rusty chainsaw! ”

    When I read something like that, it makes me smile and if there was GOD, it would prolly make him cry.

    I was just castigated at another blog for treating a piece-of-shit on the plain brown brogan of humanity like a piece-of-shit. It is nice to know that tolerance is not considered a virtue when dealing with assholes like Dukedog’sdick.