The question has arisen as to the importance of religion and religious people in the civil rights

[Thats my opinion]

movement.

I think that any reasonable look at the history will tell us that King, and the religious people, money and institutions that were with him, were essential to the Civil Rights movement, and that without them there would have been no voting rights law and no breakdown of segregation.

Were they the only actors and the only groups that brought an end to segregation and the opening of a whole new America? No. There were many groups, ideologies and perspectives with him. Some of them were non-believers who saw in the religious movement a positive force. There was no effort by anybody to devalue the religious impact.They joined it and were happily welcomed. There was no discrimination or litmus test. Religion or ir-religion was not an issue. Getting rid of segregation was!

What was true in this case was and still is also true in a dozen other positive progressive movements in the United States.

Using a common logical formula, I believe we can say:
Religion, its people, its institutions and its money were necessary causes but not sufficient causes.
The movement could not have existed without them, but what they contributed was not enough. it took many others. It still does.

So we need to join hands, trusting in what others bring to the cause.

[freshwest]

1. We must be open minded. Sometimes you find friends in the most unexpected places.

[Fumesucker]

2. And yet these days one of the prime opponents of full civil rights for all is religions..

Even President Obama cites religious concerns for not being in favor of marriage for everyone who wishes to marry and he is far from alone in that.

If you look at those churches that were most active in getting civil rights for blacks in our society I think you'll find that many of them are opposed to full civil rights for gays.

I was a member of what is considered one of the more liberal churches in the USA during the civil rights era, I sat through many sermons but I don't recall ever hearing a single one that opposed segregation and unequal treatment of the races although I was in an area where Jim Crow was in effect.

[cbayer]

8. While true that some of the prime opponents to GLBT civil rights can be found in churches,

some of the fiercest advocates for GLBT civil rights can also be found in churches.

Which church were you attending during the AA civil rights movement? How could it have been "one of the more liberal churches in the USA" if it were silent on civil rights? That seems a contradiction.

[Fumesucker]

9. Episcopalian..

They weren't anti-civil rights I believe but as I said, I don't recall any sermons on the subject of civil rights for blacks.

It was just one of those subjects that didn't get spoken of either way.

Compared to just about all the white denominations where I grew up Episcopalians were wildly liberal

I seem to recall something about America never being so segregated as on Sunday morning..

[cbayer]

10. I would suggest, then, that you weren't in what I would describe as a liberal church.

It may have been relatively liberal when compared to others in your community, though.

[Fumesucker]

12. I also attended Southern Baptist services sometimes..

Long and complicated story but night and day difference..

[cbayer]

13. Was the civil rights movement a topic of discussion in the Baptist church you attended?

[Fumesucker]

14. The N word was commonly used at the Baptist church, never heard it at the Episcopalian..

It was a strange time, a cusp of history if you will. It wasn't all that long before I started HS that not only were the races segregated, the sexes were too, there were separate boy's and girl's high schools about eight years before I was a sub-freshman.

[cbayer]

16. Ah, that kind of Baptist Church.

It certainly was a cusp of history. I remember a trip to the south where I first saw the separate bathrooms, water fountains, entrances at diners, etc.

It altered my view of the world.

[trotsky]

15. "some of the prime opponents to GLBT civil rights can be found in churches"

"Some of"???

Try all.

[skepticscott]

3. You very dishonestly

try to conflate the contribution of "religion" and "religious people". Obviously (and trivially) most of the people involved in the civil rights movement were "religious people", since at the time most people in general (and most blacks) were religious people (and still are), so the demographic could hardly be otherwise. The NFL could not exist without religious people too, but so what? And of course, you continue to avoid the issue that most of the people opposing the civil rights movement were also "religious people". Touting a few of the leaders of the movement as mentioning "god" and "faith" in their speeches says nothing about the motivation of the rank and file of the marchers.

And the biggest whopper of all is this:

"Religion or ir-religion was not an issue. Getting rid of segregation was!"; coupled with

"Religion, its people, its institutions and its money were necessary causes" of the civil rights movement.

If religion was not an issue, and if there was no litmus test, then it can only have been incidental, and not necessary, by a common logical formula.

You're just bound and determined that religion is going to get a lion's share of the credit for everything good that's ever been accomplished. Well, sorry...but it just ain't so.

[mr blur]

4. The question didn't just "arise" - you brought it up,

in, if I remember correctly, a very unpleasant manner.

Why are you bringing this up again - what do you feel the need to prove (to your own satisfaction, if no-one else's)?

Seeing as most people then would probably have described themselves as "religious", you may as well write, "being human was a necessary cause..."

[trotsky]

5. While it's nice to see you have somewhat moderated your offensive and insulting position on this...

to something a little less blatantly insulting, you're still wrong. You have no way of knowing that the movement required religion. History played out the way it did, but unless you have a time machine and can try altering it to see what happens, you have absolutely no way of being certain about your statement.

But hey, it sure seems like the conditions that led to the Civil Rights movement being necessary in the first place couldn't have existed without religious people and institutions, I'll give you that.

[madmom]

6. How do you know? If atheist were allowed to just proclaim our beliefs without

fear of some kind of retribution, who knows what has been/could yet be done by someone who is a non believer. We do things because they need to be done, there were probably far more atheist in the civil rights movement than you or I will ever know.

[Thats my opinion]

19. What happened?

Do you have any evidence that atheists feared or were subject to some kind of retribution?

It seems that all the murders etc. were inflicted on those out front--namely believers. This was real retribution for being there--not assumed because it did not happen, but could of.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Um, really? Are you that out of touch.

Let's see. The civil rights movement you are talking about happened in the 50s and 60s. Let me recommend that you start by googling Joseph McCarthy. Then the HUAC. Then the Hollywood blacklist. That might give you a start at understanding why people during that time period might not want to declare their atheism.

Serious question: Are you really this obtuse?

[2ndAmForComputers]

21. I don't think he's obtuse.

But the self-imposed obligation to try to advance an agenda with every uttered word may make one LOOK obtuse.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Yeah, but this one is beyond the pale.

I mean, seriously, why would someone in the 50s and 60s not want to identify as an atheist and is there any proof of someone feeling ramifications for identifying as such? I MIGHT expect that from someone who just came to this country and has NO concept of our history, but for a progressive of his age? Wow. I mean if it isn't being obtuse then the only other option I can come up with is very, very unflattering.

[Thats my opinion]

27. My question had to do with the civil rights movement, not the 50s and 60s,

I know a fair amount about the Mc Carthy era since I lived through it.
I know of no indication that they were after atheists. Communists and "fellow-travelers were the objects of the tyranny.

I was under attack in those days--but that is another story.

Obtuse or worse? Please! The question was about persecution of atheists in the civil rights campaign. Tell me about it.


I can give you a pretty good list of those who were attacked by dogs, abused in the freedom rides, murdered, on and on. To my knowledge they all came from the religious community --and were protected and sheltered by the religious community.

[Goblinmonger]

28. So you lived through it

and clearly heard the phrase "godless commies" and never put together the atheism connection to all that?

Do you think with the witch hunts for "godless commies" (which was the reason we put "under God" in the pledge, remember?) that someone in the civil rights movement (which a lot of the same people that hated the "godless commies" hated as well) was going to go out of their way and draw even more attention to themselves by declaring their atheism? Or at least you can't understand why some might have been silent about it?

[Thats my opinion]

29. Fair enough

But the witch hunts were not because they were godless, but because they were commies.
I was on the middle of it, and have gone over the transcripts of the Mc Carthy stuff and the House Committee on Un American activities, and never once was the accusation made that they were atheists--not once.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Read McCarthy's speech "Enemies form Within" from 1950

Can't believe you missed all the atheist rhetoric of the time, frankly.

...

The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less momentous.

...

The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism . . . invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.

...

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time, and ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down.

...

Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there by anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said the time is now? . . . that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the communistic atheistic world?

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456

But, yeah, hey, why would anyone have any problems coming out as an atheist with this attitude in the US?

[skepticscott]

48. The Internet

is so nice for exposing liars and bullshitters

[Thats my opinion]

49. Point well made and well taken. nt

[skepticscott]

53. Translation:

"damn! caught out again!"

In post 19, you claimed complete ignorance of why atheists would have been reluctant to reveal their status at that time in history, and yet in post 29, you claim intimate knowledge of the information that someone else cited to put the lie to that.

And you still can't even come out and admit you were wrong, about this or anything else in this thread where your claims have been utterly demolished. Just more of the same "good solid post" condescending BS.

[onager]

37. OK, let's hear from a few actual Black people on the subject...

...now that we've had the usual White Lib'rul Xian re-write of history.

Quotes/attitudes easily available from Mr. Google. Or from the many Black atheist/freethinking websites.

--A. Philip Randolph, labor organizer: "Our aim is to appeal to reason...Prayer is not one of our remedies."

--W.E.B DuBois, co-founder of the NAACP: Described himself as a freethinker and criticized the black churches for being too slow to promote racial equality.

--Hubert Henry Harrison, Black activist, educator, writer: "Show me a population that is deeply religious and I will show you a servile population, content with whips and chains."

--James Baldwin, poet, playwright, civil rights activist, and former Pentecostal preacher: "..being in the pulpit was like being in the theatre; I was behind the scenes and knew how the illusion worked." "If the concept of God has any validity or any use, it can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving. If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of him."

--Carter G. Woodson, journalist and historian, founder of Black History Month: In 1933, he wrote in "The Mis-Education of the Negro" that "the ritualistic churches into which these Negroes have gone do not touch the masses, and they show no promising future for racial development. Such institutions are controlled by those who offer the Negroes only limited opportunity and then sometimes on the condition that they be segregated in the court of the gentiles outside of the temple of Jehovah."

--Richard Wright, author: "Before I had been made to go to church, I had given God's existence a sort of tacit assent, but after having seen his creatures serve him at first hand, I had had my doubts. My faith, as it was, was welded to the common realities of life, anchored in the sensations of my body and in what my mind could grasp, and nothing could ever shake this faith, and surely not my fear of an invisible power."

--George Schuyler, controversial socialist-turned-right-wing author: “On the horizon loom a growing number of iconoclasts and Atheists, young black men and women who can read, think, and ask questions, and who impertinently demand to know why Negroes should revere a God who permits them to be lynched, jim-crowed and disfranchised.”

--Alton Lemon, Black ACLU member and plaintiff in the landmark Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) decision. This case established the famous three-pronged "Lemon Test" for government aid to religious bodies.

[Thats my opinion]

38. Good solid citations.

Most of these were in the mix--and others. While not at the center of the movement, they were strict in their support and without them the challenges to the religious south would have been severely thwarted.

Thank you.

[skepticscott]

40. Ooohhh...you get the "good, solid" award!

Though one wonders why someone making such a big deal of this issue wouldn't have also found these and disclosed them himself, other than that the clear facts undermine the agenda he's trying to peddle, so he crossed his fingers and hoped that no one else would do what you did very nicely.

[onager]

43. Yep, and with the usual thrilling bonus - condescension!

While not at the center of the movement, they were strict in their support and without them the challenges to the religious south would have been severely thwarted.

I'm sure people like A. Philip Randolph and W.E.B. DuBois would be surprised to find out they weren't at the center of the civil rights movement.

You do know that Randolph was "at the center" of getting the American armed forces desegregated during WWII, don't you?

And that in addition to DuBois, three other founders of the NAACP - Roy Wilkins, Walter White and James Weldon Johnson - ALL identified themselves as agnostic?

Hell, I grew up in that "religious south" you mentioned, raised as a proud SoB (Southern Baptist) and racist. And even I know this stuff.

I also know the two reasons why Black freethinkers moderated their public views on religion during the civil rights era: one, they faced a huge backlash from the black churches and two, they had J. Edgar Hoover parked in their bedrooms.

In fact, according to some of our posters in this-here very Religion group...cough, cough...some prominent Black leaders like Bayard Rustin and Langston Hughes must have been de facto atheists. In the 1930's they were members of the Communist Party. And as everybody knows, atheism = communism. (BTW, that's sarcasm, for the thin-skinned.)

For anyone interested, here's a great article by Ruth Keller on this subject - "MLK Proud to Walk with Humanists:"

http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=333&article=0

[Iggo]

7. Mm-hmm, yeah.

[rrneck]

11. There is nothing unique or special

about leveraging the emotional bonds people share to move them to collective action. The use of religion to help achieve that goal may or may not have necessary. We will never know. It was certainly expedient. And that expedience is part and parcel of the tendency to use people's feelings as an end rather than a means. Had king lived he might well have become as big a religious capitalist as any other. Again, we will never know.

What we do know is religion continues to attempt to insinuate itself between the citizenry and government. It does this by making fraudulent claims of moral superiority through the use of marketing techniques. Those techniques use fallacious logic like claiming necessity where none is proven to exist.

You cannot claim inevitability without sufficiency. If religion wasn't enough to secure civil rights for African Americans, there is no reason to believe it brought with it any moral authority to accomplish that goal. In fact, if King had used his considerable rhetorical skills to motivate people through patriotism rather than sectarianism the unfortunate influence of religion in government might not be such a problem today. As it stands now the memory of "Reverend King" is a useful tool for sectarian power brokers of every stripe. The objective is the same for every one of them: the insinuation of religious ideology between citizenry and government. It's the same old disaster capitalism that has made religious leaders rich and powerful for thousands of years.

Sectarianism, like capitalism, is inimical to democracy. Your pseudo generous offer to "join religion" in the cause of social reform is just another attempt to recast culture in sectarian terms. When you argue that religion is necessary for progress you're jest inviting those whose help you say you need to take a seat in the back of the bus.

[Thats my opinion]

17. To speculate on what might have been

in order to trash what was is hardly rational.

My advise is "don't join hands with us." Your prejudices will just get in the way.. But don't trash what we do now. The progressive causes need us even if you don't.

[laconicsax]

18. Speculating on what might have been is exactly what you're doing!

It's all in rrneck's post (which you presumably read):

You cannot claim inevitability without sufficiency. If religion wasn't enough to secure civil rights for African Americans, there is no reason to believe it brought with it any moral authority to accomplish that goal.

[mr blur]

23. And your (obvious) prejudices never "get in the way"?

Astonishing.

Your belief that "progressive causes" need your own particular brand of self-delusional theological waffle is quite staggering.

Oh, if only the world knew (or cared) about you - you could solve everything!

(probably necessary for you)

[rrneck]

24. I haven't trashed anything yet.

Bootstrapping religion to get people to cooperate was merely expedient, but hardly necessary for cultural development. It worked, but it helped legitimize religion as a means of political action that ultimately divides loyalties along sectarian lines. We don't have to speculate at all about that. The evidence is all around us whether you care to admit it or not. If King, Graham, Fallwell, Schuler, and all the rest had proselytized in the name of nationalism rather than sectarian power the political left wouldn't have to compete for unity from the bulk of Americans among others that promise them "divine prosperity" and deliver their votes to those who pick their pockets. What King may or may not have done is, as I said, moot.

Religion started out with its snout in the trough two thousand years ago and it has its front feet in there now. Christianity has become so duplicitous and corrupt the triple rotation of emotional hot buttons of umbrage, denial, and selective tradition is taken as standard operating procedure. Christianity has so completely become a creature of capitalistic market exploitation it can't think outside the box of its own manipulative greed. When the market for one incarnation of Christ's word becomes stale there is always someone there to trot out some new, improved, pop, pomo one size fits all, malleable, tantalizingly ambiguous yet emotionally satisfying God of whatever you need right now. And the modus operandi is always the same: 1.) Trade on the good works of Christian tradition to create the illusion of legitimacy , 2.) Deny the concomitant failures of those same traditions by 3.) producing some new interpretation of scripture that tells people what they want to hear.

Here in the twenty first century any "spiritual leader", "theologian ", or "religious activist" whose activities occur anywhere but from behind a pulpit in front of real people is participating in market acquisition and political powerbroking right along with any other media enterprise. The means, methods, and objectives are the same. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have no claim to moral authority because they have had to use the negative societal forces they are supposed mitigate just to survive. Most use it to profit. Christianity offers no solutions for the moral dilemmas of our time, only a way to profit from them.

I might consider "joining hands" with Christianity when Christianity discovers the virtues of soap and water. Now you can consider it trashed.

[mr blur]

26. Well said! nt

[Thats my opinion]

30. I will just not deal with bigotry of that sort. bye nt

[rrneck]

31. So

I guess that offer to "join hands" is only available if I ride in the back of the bus.

When you assume the superiority of your ideology without empirical evidence, especially in the face of its frequent and obvious failures, you have engaged in the very definition of bigotry. And no amount of framing, spin, or slippery language will hide it. It will always be right there for everyone to see.

You have no choice but to deal with that reality.

[skepticscott]

33. Yes, he does have a choice

To run and hide and refuse to address issues directly, and to invent any lame excuse he can for his failure. The epitome of intellectual cowardice.

[rrneck]

34. +1.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. I'm not sure you understand what REAL bigotry is

Which sort of delegitimizes your OP that used REAL bigotry as a context.

You can't just run away from an argument because things aren't going your way. It doesn't help your position at all, and damages your credibility each time you engage in that behavior. I think as a member of a privileged group (a white male Christian), it may be hard for you to understand how offensive you can be.

[cleanhippie]

51. You are not using that word correctly, or it doesn't mean what you think it does.

[trotsky]

50. That is one brilliant post.

[cleanhippie]

25. Religion caused the NEED for a Civil Rights movement in the first place.

Kinda like giving yourself the disease just to take the cure.

[dimbear]

35. Joshua Chapter 9 verse 27:

"And he gave orders in that day, that they should be in the service of all the people, and of the altar of the Lord, hewing wood, and carrying water, until this present time, in the place which the Lord has chosen."

Very merciful, rather than kill them.

[Evoman]

36. Religious people....always taking the credit, never accepting the blame.

[Thats my opinion]

39. While Americans of all sorts, have been on both sides of the major isssues before the country,

I celebrate those who have stood for peace, justice, equality, without wallowing in the fact that there have been others opposed to these very things. I celebrate the positive things done by non-believers without telling you that you must apologize for the atheists who have been on the other side.

[skepticscott]

41. Then why not just celebrate what they did

instead of trying so desperately to give credit to religion for what was accomplished, while not giving equal blame to religion for the opposition?

[Evoman]

42. Ha.

One Question: Are religion, its people, its institutions and its money necessary causes but not sufficient causes for slavery, genocide and Chicken Soup for the Soul books?

I don't celebrate the positive things non-believers do. I don't take credit for being on the same team as them either. Because non-belief is meaningless....it's like being proud that somebody with brown hair saved a life, because I have brown hair. I neither have to be proud nor ashamed because non-belief isn't something you subscribe to, nor is it a group you join.

It frustrates me when religious people, especially white people, get their jollies because they belonged to the same group as people like King. Because the truth is, most of them, would probably have been against him at the time. They are the same people who would have been okay with witch burning, and okay with ostracizing non believers. Because most people are weak, pathetic, and go along with the status quo.

[rrneck]

44. You'd be a helluva car salesman if you decide to go that way.

Or maybe a politician...

[cleanhippie]

45. A strong argument correlating that car salespersons, politicans, clergy persons, snake-oil con-men..

are all simply the same thing with different packaging, could be made and supported.

[rrneck]

46. Yep.

I used to be one and I can smell a pitch coming a mile away.

[struggle4progress]

52. Paul and Silas bound in jail had no money for to go their bail

Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

The very moment they thought they were lost, the dungeon shook and the chains fell off
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

The only chain that we can stand is the chain of hand on hand
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

The only thing that we did wrong, was to stay in the wilderness a day too long
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

The one thing that we did right: we stood up and begun to fight
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

I got my hand on the gospel plow. Won't take nothing for my journey now
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on

I'm gonna board that big greyhound, carry the love from town to town
Keep your eyes on the prize
Hold on