Martin Luther King’s Ultimate Victory

As we remember the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. today, we can celebrate the vast changes that our country has undergone in the years since his murder in Memphis in 1968. Despite racial incidents in recent years, such as the 2017 Charlottesville riots and the several race riots under President Obama, many of us who are under the age of 50 really have very little concept of just how far America has come in just a few short decades.

I realize that many Americans still feel that the United States is filled with racism and bigotry but that it has merely been driven underground. I don’t mean to disregard their experience and concerns, but driving racism underground is progress in a country where racism used to not only be above ground but institutionalized as both African slavery and later as Jim Crow laws.

On the other hand, many white Americans, myself included, not only are not aware of what many minority members go through on a daily basis, we cannot fully comprehend how they feel when racism rears its ugly head. Many conservatives scoff at the idea of modern racism, but when Republican stalwarts like Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) say that racism still exists, it is harder to ignore.

As a child of the early 70s, I just missed the civil rights era. As a native Georgian, I was closer to the struggle for racial equality in terms of geography than in time. I grew up about 20 miles from the bridge on Ga. Hwy. 172 that crosses over the Broad River near Athens where one of the most infamous incidents of the civil rights struggle occurred. Later, as a college student at the University of Georgia, I would drive across the bridge and past the historical marker that memorialized the murder of Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn, a decorated black veteran of WWII who made the mistake of driving past a trio of Klansmen in Athens.

Seven years before I was born, the racists followed the car driven by Penn and two other army officers, catching up to them about 20 miles outside of Athens. The Klansmen fired shotguns into Penn’s car and it careened into a bridge abutment. One of the blasts killed Lt. Col. Penn. After the colonel’s murderers were arrested, an all-white jury in Madison County found them not guilty. In the first case of its kind, Penn’s murderers were retried under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on federal charges of violating Penn’s civil rights by murdering him. Two were found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

What a difference a decade makes. When I started elementary school, I went to a rural school where over the half the class was black. I didn’t know until a long time afterward that if I had been a few years older I would have been in a segregated classroom of white kids. I remember my black schoolmates from those days fondly. Black and white got along well. We didn’t know that we shouldn’t.

But things weren’t totally colorblind. The races usually remained separate outside of school. I remember being taught that we should be friendly and respectful to people of other races, but that we shouldn’t date or marry them because of cultural differences.

In my job as a pilot, I’ve had the opportunity to travel the country and visit many other places where the struggle for civil rights took place. I’ve sat at a replica of the whites-only lunch counter in Wichita where activists staged a sit-in in 1958. I’ve visited the 16^th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham where KKK terrorists planted a bomb in 1963 that killed four young black girls who were going to Sunday School. I’ve stood on the National Mall where Rev. King delivered his “I Have A Dream Speech,” telling America that he foresaw a day when “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

Fast forward 40 years to when I had my own children. I am proud to say that the new generation has fulfilled Rev. King’s dream. I thought of King’s words when my daughter’s best friend was a little black girl who came to play at our house. My daughter went to visit her friend’s home as well. Likewise, one of my son’s good friends was a boy of Mexican descent whose parents barely spoke English. I think that my children are almost literally colorblind when it comes to race because when I ask them to describe their friends, they seldom mention skin color.

My children are probably less prejudiced than I was at their ages, but I’ve changed as well. I realized years ago that racism was inconsistent with my Bible which teaches me that all are equal in Christ. If people can’t stand to be around people of other races on earth, what will they do in Heaven where believers all colors and creeds will spend eternity together? It is sadly ironic that the most segregated time in America is Sunday morning.

When it comes to love and marriage, I teach my children, as Rev. King said, to prioritize the content of the character over the color of skin. I would prefer that my children marry good, respectable, loving people of other races than “white trash.” As U2 sang, “I believe in the kingdom come when all the colors will bleed into one.”

It is disturbing that a number of Republicans seem to be turning their backs on the “proposition that all men are created equal.” Most recently the ironically-named Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) defended white nationalism and white supremacy and was rightfully censured by his colleagues. President Trump called the participants in the Charlottesville riots “very fine people” even though they were alt-right white nationalists. The discussion of race riots, police killings of black men, and illegal immigration often has racial overtones, such as the fake pictures of Trayvon Martin that circulated on the internet and the false claims about an illegal immigrant crime wave. I recently had a conversation on Twitter with a conservative Christian Trump supporter who denied that the Bible condemned white supremacy. [DT1] [DT2] 

One of the most disturbing racial problems in recent years is the conservative response to the killing of Philando Castile, a concealed carry permit holder who was shot and killed by a police officer in Minnesota in 2016. Gun activists and the NRA were largely silent despite the disturbing nature of Castile’s death. At the time, many were quick to dismiss Castile, a school cafeteria manager, as a drug dealer or gang member. I have to ask myself if the reaction would have been the same if Castile had been white. If I’m honest, I have to say “no.”

Things aren’t perfect in America, but they have improved by an astronomical degree since Martin Luther King’s time. Whatever you think of King, a flawed man with human failings (but not a communist), the bottom line is that King was responsible for the largely peaceful transition from an American racial caste system to one of the most racially equal societies on the planet, at least in terms of the law.

But two centuries of racial oppression are not easily undone. While my generation did not see segregation ourselves, I have no doubt that black kids grew up hearing stories from their parents and grandparents about the bad old days of segregation just like I grew up hearing about my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. It should be understandable that some blacks are still sensitive about slavery and segregation.  

It isn’t necessary to be politically correct to be respectful of other races. Being politically incorrect does not mean being impolite or bigoted. The condemnation of Steve King is a step in the right direction for a party that is hemorrhaging minority voters, but ultimately the Republicans should condemn the bigots in their midst because it is the right thing to do, not because it will help them at the polls.

Republicans will claim King as one of their own today, but the modern GOP shouldn’t defend itself by pointing to the actions of past Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln or the 1960s Republicans who helped to pass the Voting Rights Act. Instead, they should recall the words of President Reagan who addressed those “who still adhere to senseless racism and religious prejudice” in 1981.

“To those individuals who persist in such hateful behavior,” Reagan said, “if I were speaking to them instead of to you, I would say to them, 'You are the ones who are out of step with our society. You are the ones who willfully violate the meaning of the dream that is America. And this country, because of what it stands for, will not stand for your conduct.’”

Racism today is so socially unacceptable that even most racists won’t admit that they are racists. That is Martin Luther King’s ultimate victory.

Originally published on The Resurgent

---

 [DT1]https://twitter.com/captainkudzu/status/1083916475306409985

 [DT2]

It's time to lower Confederate flag

In the wake of last week’s mass murder in Charleston, SC, amid the usual calls for gun control has come a secondary demand that South Carolina remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds in Columbia. For perhaps the first time, conservative Republicans such as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Senator Lindsey Graham have joined the calls to remove the flag. As a lifelong Southerner and staunch conservative, I agree that the time has come to lower the Confederate flag.

I grew up respecting the heroes of the Confederacy. As a native Georgian, I learned family lore about my ancestors who had fought for the South, including one great-great-grandfather who was captured at the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864 and then interned at the notorious federal prison camp in Elmira, NY. I still hold a great deal of respect for Confederate leaders such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.  

There is disagreement even on the nature of the flag in question. Some defenders of the South Carolina flag point out that it was not the national flag of the Confederacy. In reality, the rectangular “Southern Cross” was the Confederate navy jack and was similar to the Confederate battle flag. The flags of the Confederacy can be seen on USflag.org. Both the battle flag and the navy jack were a Confederate flags and, in the minds of most Americans have come to be the Confederate flag.  Photos of the South Carolina flag appear to be the Confederate battle flag, a square version of the Southern Cross carried by the Confederate army. In the end, the exact version of the flag is irrelevant.

Confederate apologists have long made the claim that the Civil War (which should more properly be called the War of Secession) was about state’s rights, not slavery. There is some truth to this argument. The rub is that the state right in question was the right to keep slavery, the South’s “peculiar institution,” legal. This is made abundantly clear in the declarations of causes passed by the seceding states. These declarations are available for review on CivilWar.org.

South Carolina, the first state to secede, cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” as their reason for leaving the Union. More specifically, the Carolinians charged that “non-slaveholding States… assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

In Georgia’s declaration, its delegates cite slavery as the reason for secession in the document’s second sentence: “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”

One must conclude not only that secessionists were leaving the Union to protect slavery, but that they were proud of their pro-slavery stance. Given that the Confederacy was born to protect slavery, it is also a given that the Confederacy was a racist institution. Therefore, the Confederate flag must be a racist symbol.

Proponents of the flag also argue that the United States flag must also be a racist symbol because Old Glory flew over legal slavery for longer than the Southern Cross. This statement is in error for several important reasons. First, slavery was never a federal matter. It was always subject to the individual states. A timeline of slavery by Mount Holyoke College shows that Vermont banned slavery with a constitutional amendment in 1777, one year after the Declaration of Independence. Other northern states had banned the practice by 1804.

Additionally, the Constitution itself reflects American uneasiness about slavery. The Three-Fifths Compromise is often incorrectly interpreted to mean that the Constitution considered slaves to be three-fifths of a man. In reality, the Three-Fifths Compromise laid the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery by providing a check to the power of the Southern slave states.

Likewise, the Constitution granted Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves after 20 years, an action that Congress took in 1807 when it passed the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves. In the South, even though slaves were no longer imported, the slave trade persisted as children of domestic slaves were separated from their families and sold to new owners. After the slave trade was declared to be piracy by Congress in 1819, the US Navy took an active role alongside the Royal Navy in bringing slave smugglers to justice and ending the slave trade in the Atlantic Ocean.

In contrast with the Confederacy, the United States took strong action to hasten the end of slavery. Even though the American flag flew over slavery for almost 100 years, slavery was never the official policy of the United States. In the end, secession hastened the end of American slavery. The 13^th amendment, which abolished slavery, was ratified on December 6, 1865, much earlier than it is likely to have been passed without the war.  

The racist association of the Confederate flag did not end with the war. The flag was raised above the South Carolina statehouse in 1961 to commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the Civil War according to Daniel Hollis, the last surviving member of the centennial commission. Hollis doesn’t recall a racial motive behind the raising of the flag, but South Carolina politicians, mostly Democrats, were fighting against desegregation at the time. In fact, South Carolina’s delegates seceded from the national Centennial Commission to protest President Kennedy’s decision to move the ceremonies to Charleston’s navy base rather than exclude black delegates who had been refused entrance to the segregated Francis Marion Hotel. The brouhaha was referred to as the Second Battle of Fort Sumter.

The South Carolina statehouse flag may not have been explicitly associated with segregation, but elsewhere the Confederate flag was adopted by anti-civil rights activists. The Georgia Encyclopedia notes that the inclusion of the Southern Cross on the Georgia state flag in 1956 was prompted by the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decisions in 1954 and 1955. Rep. Denmark Groover said, after the new Georgia flag was adopted, that it “will show that we in Georgia intend to uphold what we stood for, will stand for and will fight for,” a reference to preserving segregation.

The South Carolina flag was moved from the top of the statehouse to a different site on the statehouse grounds as part of a compromise in 2000. The Georgia flag was changed in 2001.

The best argument for keeping the Confederate flag is as a memorial for Confederate soldiers. An estimated 260,000 Confederate soldiers died in the war. This was almost five percent of the total non-slave population of the Confederacy. Another 194,000 were wounded and 31,000 taken prisoner. It is appropriate to fly Confederate flags at war memorials. It is not appropriate to give the flag a place of prominence on the state capitol grounds or on a state flag.

The bitter truth is that Confederate soldiers, even the majority who did not own slaves, fought to preserve a racist system, even as they were protecting their homes. After the fall of the Confederacy and the abolition of slavery, the flag became the symbol of racial segregation in the form of “Jim Crow” laws and “separate-but-equal” treatment of blacks. As such a racist symbol, the Confederate flag has no place in a modern American government.

This is not to say that the Confederate flag should be banned. Freedom of speech dictates that people should have the right to fly the flag on private property, wear it on their clothes or paint it on their cars a la “Dukes of Hazzard.” It would also be improper to attempt to erase all vestiges of the South’s Confederate history from society. Slavery, the Confederacy and the Civil War happened and that history should be openly acknowledged and discussed.

There is a vast difference, however, between a state government endorsing the Confederate ideals by prominent placement of the flag and flying the flag at a memorial or displaying it at a museum. By keeping such a divisive symbol, states marginalize 30-40 percent of their populations. If the flag keeps alive the memory of Confederate soldiers, it is fair to say that it also keeps alive the memory of slavery and Jim Crow for black Southerners. It hearkens back to the 1960s when Klansmen could murder a black army officer, as they did not far from where I grew up, and all-white juries would unanimously acquit the killers. Bringing down the Confederate flag would be an important step in putting this racist part of our past behind us.

An addition to being good for country, lowering the Confederate flag would be a good thing for conservatives. Democrats never miss a chance to imply (or state outright) that Republicans are racist. Quite often, conservatives step right into these liberal traps.

To many minority voters, defending the flag of a 150-year-old failed racist nation makes conservatives seem like racists themselves. Conversely, hauling down the flag would remove a roadblock to increased minority participation in the GOP. If Republicans want to win future elections, they must find ways to reach out to minority voters rather than alienating them over trivial issues. In 2015, the Republican Party can either spend political capital trying to rehabilitate the Confederate flag, a lost cause in itself, or wooing minority voters. It cannot do both effectively.

Opposition to the Confederate flag spreads across racial lines. Rasmussen found that by a three to one margin, voters oppose having the Confederate flag continue to fly in front of the South Carolina statehouse. Outside of white Southerners, themselves a minority, support for the Confederate flag is thin.

South Carolina’s Confederate flag will come down, whether now or in the not-too-distant future. If the flag, hoisted by Democrats in both 1861 and 1961, is taken down now, under the effort led by Governor Nikki Haley, a woman who is herself a member of an ethnic minority, today’s Republicans will be completing the job that was started by Republican Abraham Lincoln more than 150 years ago. The irony will be delicious. 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Photo credit: eyeliam/flickr

Race, slavery and the Bible

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Georgia was at the center of America’s racial struggle, for good and bad.  From its colonial days, Georgia was a slave-owning colony and then state.  It stood in the heart of the Confederacy and, even after the abolition of slavery blacks were treated as less than equal.  A few miles from where I grew up and less than ten years before I was born, Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn, a black US Army veteran of WWII, was murdered by Klansmen in 1964.  Martin Luther King, Jr., an Atlanta native and pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, became the face of the civil rights movement.  King represented a full circle between past attempts to use the Bible to justify racial discrimination.  King, and other Christians like him, was instrumental in banning slavery and segregation in the US.

Over the years, religion has been used to justify slavery and segregation as well as racial reconciliation.  Pastors and congregations have used Bible verses to support arguments on both sides of the racial and political spectrums.  What does the Bible really tell us?

Slavery has probably existed almost as long as human societies have.  The earliest mention of slavery in the Bible is in Genesis 9:25 in which Noah curses Canaan, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah, to live in slavery because Ham ridiculed Noah while he was drunk in the days after the Great Flood.  By the end of Genesis, the entire Hebrew clan was enslaved in Egypt.  The Bible repeatedly reminds the Jews that they were rescued from slavery by God (Exodus 2:23, 6:6, 20:2, Leviticus 26:13, Deuteronomy 5:6, 5:15, 16:12).

Slavery was not condemned by the Bible, but, beginning with Moses, God set down rules for the treatment of slaves.  An early rule regarding slaves is found in Exodus 20:21 which stipulates that a slave owner must be punished if a slave dies after being beaten.  Beating slaves was not forbidden in itself.

Slavery as we know it, based on race, was forbidden.  Slaves were typically taken as captives in wars, or in some cases sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts or provide for themselves.  The Bible did forbid the type of slavery in which slavers raided African villages and sold the inhabitants into slavery.  In Exodus 21:16, God, through Moses, forbade the kidnapping of people to sell into slavery. 

The law books of the Bible also address the treatment of slaves.  Leviticus 19:20 regulates sexual relations with slaves.  Leviticus 22:11 concerns the possession of slaves by priests.  Leviticus 25:42-44 forbids the sale of fellow Hebrews as slaves and stipulates that Jews had to buy slaves from the surrounding gentile nations.  In Deuteronomy 15:12-15, the Bible specifies that if a Jew sells himself into slavery, he must be offered freedom after six years.  If he elects to go free, the owner had to supply him with food and livestock.

The New Testament also addresses slavery.  The book of Philemon is a letter from Paul to the owner of an escaped slave, Onesimus.  Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, asking that he be treated not as a slave, but as a brother (v. 16).  Similarly, in Ephesians 6:9, Paul instructed slave owners not to threaten or harm their slaves, since both slave and master had the same Master in Heaven.  A similar statement in Colossians 4:1, instructs slave owners to give to their slaves what is “right and fair.” 

Paul did provide a condemnation of the slave trade, if not slavery itself.  In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul listed slave traders in a list of sinners and lawbreakers, along with murders, adulterers, perverts, liars, and perjurers. 

To this point, the Bible has condemned the slave trade and instructed slave owners to treat their slaves humanely and fairly.  Paul went a step further, however.  In several passages, Paul implicitly states that slaves and owners, as well as Jews and gentiles, are equal in the eyes of God.  1 Corinthians 12:13 says that both slaves and freemen have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Deuteronomy 32:36, Revelation 13:16, and Revelation 19:18 all point to the fact that God judges free and slave equally.

In case there is any doubt, Paul goes even further.  He states what for his time must have been a radical thought.  In both Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11, Paul states explicitly that there is no slave or free.  Paul also points out that Jews and Greeks are equal as well, a notion that the leaders of God’s Chosen People would not have liked.  In God’s eyes, all people are equal.  None are superior and none are inferior.  In God’s eyes all people are sinners and are in need of the freedom from sin that Jesus offers (2 Peter 2:19).

These statements provide the basis for the eventual abolition of slavery.  Even though some nominal Christians taught that blacks were inferior descendents of Ham, there is no basis for this.  To the contrary, a close reading of the Bible shows just the opposite: that people should be treated as equal, regardless of race, creed, color, or nationality.

It would take hundreds of years, but Paul’s words would finally give birth to movement for the abolition of slavery.  The abolition movement began in colonial America.  The first resisters to slavery were members of the Society of Friends, a Christian sect also known as Quakers.  After the American Revolution, many free whites began to equate the plight of slaves with that of the former colonists. 

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 set the stage for the eventual abolition of slavery.  The constitution gave the federal government the power to ban the importation of slaves in 1808, which it did.  The 3/5 compromise, contrary to claims that it valued slaves and only 3/5 of a person, limited the political power of the slave states.  The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 also made slavery illegal in the Northwest Territory.  During this period, Northern states began to enact state laws banning slavery.

Probably no man was as instrumental in the abolition of western slavery as William Wilberforce.  Wilberforce was a Christian and a prominent member of the British parliament who, influenced by slave trader turned evangelist John Newton, began a campaign to end the slave trade in 1798.  The campaign resulted in the end of the British slave trade in 1807 and the end of all slavery in England in 1833. 

American abolitionists too, were often inspired by their religious beliefs.  Frederick Douglass, a former slave, framed his arguments against slavery in religious terms, pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians owning slaves.  Sojourner Truth, a former slave born in New York, used the Bible to effectively argue for both women’s rights and the abolition of slavery.  Many other abolitionists opposed slavery on moral grounds derived from a Christian worldview.  Many put their beliefs into practice as conductors or station keepers on the Underground Railroad.  Harriet Tubman, “the Black Moses,” was one of the Underground Railroad’s most famous conductors, as well as a spy for the Union Army.

John Brown's execution day

One of the most infamous Christian abolitionists of the nineteenth century was John Brown.  Brown worked on the Underground Railroad in Pennsylvania before moving his family to Kansas, where he became known for his savage attacks on pro-slavery settlers.  Brown eventually was captured by US Marines under the command of Robert E. Lee and sentenced to hang.  Brown was executed on December 2, 1859.  His last words, in a note given to his jailer, foretold the wrath of God that was soon to be visited upon the United States for the evil of slavery:

I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that, without very much bloodshed, it might be done.

Elected on the heels of John Brown’s hanging, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, also framed his opposition to slavery in moralistic terms:  “Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil...” The Republican Party was created in 1854 specifically to oppose slavery. 

There is dispute over Lincoln’s religious beliefs.  Many believe that he was not a Christian because he never joined a church.  Nevertheless, he did often attend church and read the Bible regularly.  In his speeches and letters, he quoted from the Bible regularly and is said to have had large portions of it committed to memory.  He also grew up in a Baptist family.  Lincoln himself said, “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular.”  Whatever his personal spiritual beliefs, Lincoln’s Christian background likely shaped his beliefs on the immorality of slavery.

Further, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was one of the most popular songs of the Civil War.  It became a popular marching song of the Union army.  Its lyrics, together with the tune of another popular song about John Brown, are unmistakably Biblical.  The words invoke the sacrifice of Christ as an inspiration for the Union struggle to abolish slavery.

After the abolition of slavery, the struggle started anew to gain full legal equality for all Americans regardless of race.  In the years after the Civil War, a system of “separate-but-equal” was established and black suffrage was discouraged in many areas.  Again, activists steeped in a Christian worldview led the movement for equality and civil rights.  As with slavery, however, people also used the Bible, mostly out of context, to support segregation as well.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was the symbol of the civil rights movement. King, his father and his grandfather were all Baptist preachers.  The Bible taught King that blacks were equal to whites and his faith in God gave him the strength to stand strong.  Alluding to Moses, King said, “I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land.” 

Another famous figure of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, was also a committed Christian.  Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to move to the back of the bus, but the quiet dignity that her faith instilled made her a sympathetic face for the Montgomery bus boycott and the civil rights movement as a whole.

Jackie Robinson

Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball, was also a Christian.  Robinson was given his chance by Brooklyn Dodgers general manager, Branch Rickey, also a Christian.  Many other rank-and-file Christians pushed for equality on the basis that no race was superior since all races were created by God and descended from Adam.

In other countries, a Christian worldview has also helped to bring about equality and freedom.  After years of apartheid, South Africa is now integrated.  In the aftermath of apartheid, many wanted to try the former leaders of the country for human rights abuses.  Instead, South Africa established a Truth and Reconciliation Committee that walks the line between mercy and justice.  Bishop Desmond Tutu was instrumental in establishing the process that is helping black and white South Africans to reconcile and face the future in peace.

It might have taken thousands of years, but we are as close to the full equality of the races, what was most likely God’s original intent, in modern America as anywhere in history.  There will always be racist fringe groups, but in modern America they are ostracized and not part of mainstream society.  We are very near to Martin Luther King’s colorblind society, but the next step is a difficult one to take.

The next step on the road to equality is to attack what President George W. Bush called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  Preferential treatment for any race needs to be phased out.  Programs such as these had their place in the days of integration, but our society is fully integrated now.  People of all races have equal opportunity, as evidenced by the election of President Barack Obama, and there are laws to prevent discrimination (with the exception of discriminatory government programs and laws). 

To believe that any one race needs special government help to succeed is an inherently racist notion.  It is time to remove race-based programs.  If the government feels that it is necessary to provide entitlement programs (which it increasingly cannot afford to do anyway), then they should be administered on the basis of need, rather than race.

According to Joel Kotkin in his book The Next Hundred Million:  America in 2050, the population of the United States will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming decades.  Many new Americans will be immigrants and many will be born here.  True to the tradition of the American melting pot, they will come in a variety of races, creeds, and colors.  It is in our best interest to welcome them into our society and to help them assimilate. 

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1722

As different races assimilate into our society, there will more intermarriage.  The races will blend.  This is a good thing.  I look forward to a day when the color of someone’s skin makes no more difference than the color of their hair or eyes.  When my children grow up, I will be far more concerned with the character and culture of their spouses than the color of their skin. 

If this was God’s intent from the beginning, then why does the Bible not prohibit slavery?  Why didn’t Moses tell the Jews in the wilderness that since they had known the evils of slavery in Egypt they were now forbidden from owning slaves themselves?

I believe that the answer can be found in Matthew 19:8.  In this passage, Jesus is asked about divorce by a group of Pharisees.  Jesus answered, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”  Similarly, I believe that if we could talk to Jesus face-to-face and ask him why God did not prohibit slavery, He would say, “Moses permitted slavery because your hearts were hard.  But it was not this way from the beginning.”

The races may coexist peacefully and equally in the modern United States, but this is not the case for all parts of the world.  Harassment, persecution, and even genocide of people who look, speak, or think differently still happens all too often.  Likewise, slavery still exists in many parts of the world.   We should use our national influence to encourage equality and reconciliation around the world, while fighting to end slavery everywhere.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/race-slavery-and-the-bible"> 

(This article originally published Feb. 24, 2010.  It has been one of my most popular posts.)