Religion Fact and Fiction About Racism and the Rise of the Religious Right

I don't always agree with everything David relates, but he always keeps me thinking critically. I subscribe to his newsletter (and also receive The Morning Dispatch) and usually read its content.

Many of you know that I support right-to-life efforts, but I also wanted to relate some content, including historical observations on racism, from a little bit different perspective. I found this to be a fascinating read. Sorry about the copy-and-paste content, but it wasn't shared by David as a link, rather, an e-mail:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fact and Fiction About Racism and the Rise of the Religious Right


David French
May 24

Let me first lay my bias and experience cards on the table. I’ve been a member of the Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party from the moment I could vote until 2016, when the Republican Party left me behind by crossing multiple red lines in its embrace of Donald Trump. Before I became a full-time writer and journalist, I wasn’t just a Christian conservative voter, I was a pro-life activist and constitutional litigator for pro-life and religious liberty legal organizations.

If there was any American subculture that I knew well, it was American Evangelicalism—especially the most politically engaged branch of the movement—and while I knew it had its flaws (every human movement does), I did not believe that racism was one of them. In fact, I knew it wasn’t. One of the core arguments of the modern pro-life movement is that abortion rights were rooted in part in eugenic racism, in a desire to weed out “undesirable” populations. Pro-life activists are continually pointing and condemning the disproportionate number of abortions in the African American community.

So imagine my surprise when I began to see an increasing amount of argument that, actually, racism taints the rise of the religious right. Critics claim that the modern narrative of conservative Evangelical activism is built on white supremacy. Rather than Roe v. Wade shocking Evangelicals into action, the true catalyzing event was allegedly the 1970s-era IRS attack on so-called “segregation academies”—the whites-only Christian schools that sprang up across the South in response to federal desegregation orders.

According to this narrative, Evangelical leaders mainly supported abortion rights. They jumped into the culture war only when the IRS moved to strip the tax exemptions from racially discriminatory schools. Opposition to integration is the poisonous acorn that grew into the mighty political oak of conservative Christianity. .

Writing this week in GQ, Laura Bassett relied on this very argument to claim that the pro-life movement was “always built on lies.” Parts of her argument were a mess. For example, she initially wrote that George Wallace was a former Republican governor of Alabama and thus attributed his racist arguments in support of abortion the GOP. He was a Democrat, and his claim that black women were “breeding children like a cash crop” advances the pro-life anti-racist narrative. That’s exactly the hate it stands against.

So, what is the truth here? Does the pro-life movement have racist roots? The short answer is “not really.” The longer answer is complicated. As my colleague and our Dispatch Podcast host Sarah Isgur is fond of saying, “Let’s dive right in.”

One of the most comprehensive arguments for the racist roots of the religious right rests comes from the work of Dartmouth professor Randall Balmer. Indeed, he points to some historical facts that would shock the conscience of many younger Evangelicals—especially younger Southern Evangelicals.

First, it’s true that major Protestant denominations largely supported abortion rights when Roe was decided, including the Southern Baptist Convention. Here’s Ballmer:

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.

He continues:

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.

The true catalyst for Evangelical engagement, Ballmer argues, was a different case entirely—a federal district court case called Green v. Connally. In Green, the court held that “racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

It was at this moment that Paul Weyrich, one of the founding fathers of modern religious conservatism, believed he found the issue that could wake the sleeping giant of American Evangelicalism. Weyrich had a theory about the potential strength of the “moral majority,” but he couldn’t find an issue to catalyze the movement. Again, here’s Ballmer:

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.

But then, “When ‘the Internal Revenue Service tried to deny tax exemption to private schools,’ Weyrich said in an interview with Conservative Digest, that ‘more than any single act brought the fundamentalists and evangelicals into the political process.’”

IRS actions against Christian schools enraged Jerry Falwell (he operated Lynchburg Christian School) and racially discriminatory Bob Jones University. Evangelicals sent 125,000 letters of protest to the IRS objecting to proposed regulations that would require segregation academies to admit a certain number of minority students.

Make no mistake, this is a deeply troubling narrative. But let’s keep going. It turns out that while the attack on segregation academies undeniably motivated some people, it could not transform American politics. Not even close.

Ballmer clearly notes that outright racism could not, in fact, create a mass movement. In his words, he says that Falwell and Weyrich were “savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge.”

So what was the issue that could mobilize the masses? I’ll give you a hint—it wasn’t defending segregation academies. It was abortion. Again, here’s Ballmer:

By the late 1970s, many Americans—not just Roman Catholics—were beginning to feel uneasy about the spike in legal abortions following the 1973 Roe decision. The 1978 Senate races demonstrated to Weyrich and others that abortion might motivate conservatives where it hadn’t in the past.

In short, the times were changing. Arguments that didn’t work in the past were working now. Ballmer smartly points to a key film series from Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop called Whatever Happened to the Human Race? It was produced in 1979, but it circulated in Evangelical America for years afterward. I saw it in Sunday school during high school, and it made a profound impact on me.

A young conservative Christian growing up in 1980s America heard nothing about segregation academies. Indeed, when the Reagan administration ultimately led the final legal charge to strip tax exemptions from Bob Jones University—culminating in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision in 1983 holding that the Free Exercise Clause could not protect the university from IRS action against race discrimination—the decision barely raised an eyebrow. The defense of segregation academies ended not with a bang, but a whimper. The defense of life, however, roared on.

Moreover, let’s take a second look at the Baptist flip-flop on abortion. It’s critical to note that the 1960s and 1970s were a time of enormous confusion, upheaval, and anguish in American Protestant Christianity. The largest denominations were liberalizing theologically at an astonishing rate—and the liberalizing leaders turned out to be dramatically out of step with the masses of men and women in the pews.

The Protestant Mainline, once the dominant Protestant faction of Christian America, has been bleeding members since the early 1970s at a startling rate. By some measures, the rate of decline is so great that membership could reach near-zero within the next quarter-century:



But which denomination zigged conservative while its Mainline brothers zagged progressive? The Southern Baptist Convention. Books have been written about the “conservative takeover” of the SBC, but it’s clear that the Roe-era SBC underwent a fundamental transformation.

While the Mainline denominations shrank, the SBC enjoyed a period of remarkable growth—from roughly 11 million members in the mid-1960s, to a peaking above 16 million in the mid-2000s. Membership has since declined to slightly less than 15 million presently, but these numbers indicate rapid seismic shifts in American religious membership and belief. In short, a lot more was going on between 1970 and 1980 than a sudden interest in preserving southern segregation academies. Millions of Christians were leaving their traditional spiritual homes in search of new churches. At the same time, abortion was on the rise. If you think that the “spike” in legal abortions wasn’t that dramatic—look at the raw numbers, from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute:



So, no, the pro-life movement wasn’t “built on a lie.” It’s not the mighty political oak born from a racist acorn. It’s ultimately the product of the combination of seismic religious and cultural changes and patient religious and political argument.

To make this claim about pro-life activism isn’t to absolve white American Evangelicalism of any racist taint. But the sins of the past don’t center around abortion. They don’t even center around religious liberty (despite the defense of segregation academies in the 1970s.)

Ultimately, the great sin of white southern Evangelicalism is that for generations its faith did not transcend and displace its culture. Instead, all too often that faith was placed in service of the very culture it should have transformed. For more than 100 years, if you were going to draw a Venn diagram of white Southern supporters of Jim Crow and white southern fundamentalists and Evangelicals, you would see an extraordinarily high degree of overlap.

I emphasize the South not because racism is limited to the South but because no other region of the country so saw such concentration of racism and Protestant religiosity. It’s here (I live in Tennessee) where racism and religion were so thoroughly mixed, and it’s here where you’ll still find the seat of American Evangelical electoral power.

But the Evangelical South—which followed the pro-life lead of the Catholic Midwest and Northeast—is not pro-life because it was racist. Racism is no longer a factor in its support for religious liberty. Battles over segregation academies are largely looked upon with regret and shame. Rather it became more overtly pro-life as it (slowly and imperfectly) started to shed its racist past.

That racist past still matters, however. It provides one answer to the long-standing question, “Why don’t culturally conservative white and black churches unite on social issues?” Especially in the South, there’s quite simply too long of a history of bigotry and prejudice—or indifference to bigotry and prejudice—to quickly reform a united church. Bygones can’t be bygones, at least not yet.

The consequences of centuries of subjugation are too profound. Millions of black Americans live with them every day. It’s difficult to form political coalitions across lines so starkly drawn, and it’s hard to erase those lines when for centuries they were etched in steel and blood.

 

Heh, Oh, well...I see I could have posted this. Anyhoo..

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/fact-and-fiction-about-racism-and

 

As mentioned, I posted this opinion piece because it lent a different (and historic) perspective on these matters. To be honest, though, there's still a lot of good ol' boy Christianity in the South. The Bible belt can run very wide, albeit veneer deep. There's still plenty of give me that old time religion and if it was good for mommy and daddy, then it's good enough for me mantras down here. My wife and I run from a different cloth. We're not into religious systems and/or organizations so much as we're committed in our personal relationship with Jesus. There's a lot of "religiosity" in this world.

That said, we have great disdain for racism and concern for abortion, alike. Again, though, I find it fascinating to see where various groups, associations, and individuals land on such.

 

Have you ever been to an allnight singin'? They're big in Alabama.

 

Still the influence of the Scots Irish, very protective of their religion, in the south. And it doesnt matter if you are a dem or repub.

 

As a Jew, I listen to people on both the right and the far left and they scare me. But more In the right wing scare me and more due to higher numbers andbeing more militant . I think that most people on the right and the left aren’t racist, at least aren’t a scary violent type of racist. But, many of the leaders on the right use dog whistles and intentionally tread very close to the full-racist line. The result has been a greater amount of people on the right who scare the living shit out of me.

I’m not the same leftist as others, I am very unsure about abortion and the ethical lines that get crossed. I don’t care about abortion at day one but am horrified by it far down the road. I can’t easily draw a line where it goes from OK to wrong. But I know I don’t trust the government to be the arbiters on the the topic. I’m d rather leave it in the grey area of the women and their medical professionals to weigh the individual consequences. For good or bad.

but this has crap to do with the right showing increased bigotry towards peoples of color or non-Christian religions. I am scared. We should not be saying there are good people on both sides of racist protests chanting “Jews will. Not replace us” or when protesters march on Michigan with Swastikas, confederate flags and nooses. You need to stand up and say this is not right! You need to say this goes to far and you can’t follow any leader that resorts to such divisive, racist rhetoric.

regardless of how racism came to be, how abortion became legal or who you have supported in the past, you need to realize the disgusting mess of racists the right wing has put into power, and regardless of any excuse you could make, you need to say “No”!

 

Nothing wrong whatsoever with the practice of one's religion so long as it doesn't trample on the rights of others. That's one reason why our church keeps politics out of the pulpit. We preach the Christian morality in each one of us and the Christian moral as taught by Christ to care for the disadvantaged. Christ even said that caring for the disadvantaged was a sure way to win his heart. That's what I believe in.

 

Nope, never have. What are those?

 

I really enjoyed reading your post and get where you're coming from. As I've mentioned many times in here before, I have complete disdain for racism....of ANY kind! As a Jew, historically, your ancestors know more about this than probably anybody. It is interesting, though, that there was even racism of a sort in Jesus' time. The Jews had disdain for the "half-breed" Samaritans. But, anyway, I digress.

I get your stance on abortion. I just happen to have more of a hard line than most on the matter. My push isn't necessarily for legal actions against it, so much as I'm for a President who will push for more early-on education regarding the physical, emotional, sociological, and spiritual ramifications of the procedure. Oh, and, yes, late-term abortions are sick. Where IS that right/wrong switch located in the course of a pregnancy??

Hey, on a different note, how do you feel about the US Embassy being moved to Jerusalem - effectively, honoring Jerusalem as the "true" capitol of Israel?

 

Interesting. What's your take on them in this context?

 

You'd have to research them yourself yo get the whole history of the Ulster Scots and how the migrated here in 18 & 19 century, as they were fighting both the Brits and indigenous Irish for the ability to practice their Protestant religion.
For centuries they fought for existence in Scotland and Ireland and eventually migrated here in big numbers for free land and the ability to practice their religion. They had ingrained within them a hard core survialist character and when they got here they homesteaded through out the Appalachian mountains and the SE region. They were known to be extremely tough fighters and resilient people. Historians say that if it weren't for the Scots Irish we would not have gained our independence from the British. They were the mountain men of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. They were the Hatfields & McCoys and those that we refer to as hillbillies in the south. Many to this day live in poverty stricken communities. They were very religious Protestant but could drink and fight with the best. They were both dem & repub's and many became American Leaders, A. Jackson, U Grant, James Polk, Grover Cleveland, McKinley, Ted Roosevelt, H. Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Willy Clinton, Patton, Al Gore, McCain, Sam Houston, Stonewall Jackson, Alec Baldwin, Merle Haggard, John Wayne...all descendants of Ulster Scots.
There are several documentaries on The Scot Irish.

 

I don’t believe you are racist ABM. I never have. Your stances have not been dog whistles pretending one thing and saying another. You are very clear in your ethical stances. This is why I find it so difficult to accept that you support someone who is so mean, so divisive, and so racist as the President.
In Germany, Hitler and his party were able to take control with only 40% support because all the opposition were broken into too small of groups, and in that 40%, many supporters were just supporting on economic grounds, not believing what such racist talk could lead Germany to become.

It’s just not acceptable to support such hatred to push forward an agenda in which you believe. The old saying, lie down with dogs, get up with flees.

im not going to try and convince you to leave your Christian ideals behind, I’m just asking you to ask yourself what really are Christian ideals. To rip off a tee-shirt slogan, WWJD. Really, what would he do?

a couple years ago I married a Christian woman, she’s not affiliated with any church anymore because of how corrupt most of their doctrines have become. She was a Holy Roller for years, knows the Bible forward and backward and still has a very important personal relationship with Jesus. She is horrified looking at the Facebook pages of many of her past church members and how vile and hate filled their views have grown. Much of it is antithetical to WWJD.

personally I don’t believe Jesus was the son of god. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see how much wisdom is in his words. I recommend that if you actually do believe that Jesus is the son of god, you shed away all the filters and perspectives man has introduced to you about the Christian perspective and instead just reread Jesus’s own words and use your own brain and soul to figure out what is important. I think you will come to different conclusions. If I’m wrong, then I guess I’m just wrong.

good luck, I hope you revisit Jesus more directly.

as far as Jerusalem, I’m not honestly sure. I need more education on the matter. Gut instinct says it’s a bad idea, but I need more contemplation and knowledge.


EDIT: made quite a few spelling and grammar changes, I typed while doing farm duties and made a lot of mistakes. The content stayed the same.

 

Thank you, I will. I believe Woodrow Wilson was a Scot-Irish

BTW, any correlations here?

 

And B Obama...his mother was Scot Irish and he talks about how resilient and tough they are on occasion.

 

Thank you for all of your responses. Much appreciated. Like your wife, my wife and I are all about our personal relationship with Christ....and not organized religion, as it were. Christ did tell Peter that the church will always be with us....but He didn't tell him how it all works. We believe that the body of Christ as a whole is the church. Not simply some building down the street with a steeple on it.

 

He was, many more than I listed. Im not Scot Irish but have 60% Irish in me.

 

Not exactly certain why I'm sharing this video here....but it seemed to fit. What an incredibly different way of looking at this song....

 

It's a church service where they sing religious songs all night long.

 

Oh. Nope, never been. Thanks for sharing that, though.