Was this true?

Question

"Example: It was a felony crime for a black to marry a white in 28 states, and that was all the way up to the year 1968 when new civil rights bills took it down. Now you cant do citizen's arrests on such unions as in the past. However, it did remain illegal in Alabama for a black to marry a white all the way up until the year 2000. " - Imperial Klans of America



Ahh in the "land of the free"

It's funny how the bible belt, the most fundamentalist part of the country had a tendency of promoting such good Christian behavior like racism and lynchings.

I wonder if it's homosexuals they REALLY care about or is it a cover for anti-"misecegenation"

I never understood why fundies care so much about who strangers marry.

Answer 1

Yes, it was only repealed in 2000, and 40% still voted against repealing the law!

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/

We are as proud of our heritage of denying interracial couples the right to marry as people in 100 or 200 years will be proud of the heritage we leave for them now.

Answer 2

Well, a few things to think about to put this in the proper context. First, the south enslaved blacks and many slave owners used parts of the bible to make these slaves more content in their captivity. They ignored the parts that spoke out against slavery and instead focused on the parts that told slaves they were serving God by serving their master's cheerfully. Since most of the slaves couldn't read, they didn't hear the full message. At the same time, these slave owners were raising their children to believe that blacks were ordained by God to be slaves (sometimes suggesting that the "mark" on Cain was black skin)...again, using the bible to satisfy their own needs. Was this "christian"...I'd say no, but it is hardly the first time that people used the name of God for selfish reasons...and God makes it clear they will pay for this sin!

Then we have the influence of the KKK spreading lies and propaganda...largely comprised of the poor mislead descendents of the slave owners. Why would they have focused on the North where there were fewer blacks (at the time) and where they wouldn't have a willing audience of people that had been deceived for generations! These laws existed for so long in the southern states because of the influence of all this history. Unfortunately, some of the attitudes still exist!

The name of God can be a powerful tool...it doesn't seem fair to judge all believers because so many people use it for evil purposes (e.g., to enslave others)! Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean that he or she is one...the bible tells us to judge other Christians by their actions (and leave the rest of the world to him)...in that light, I have no problem saying that people who used (and still use) Christianity to justify and promote racism or murder are NOT Christian!

Answer 3

The Bible is not racist. New Testament Christianity is specifically not racist.

The South has a long history of racial issues and what you're seeing here has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their history and upbringing.

It's not reasonable to paint all Christians with the KKK brush just because some crazy people in Alabama call themselves Christians. Just as you can't say I'm nuts just because my neighbor is.

Answer 4

If you go to my family reunion, it will remind you of the United Nations. I am bi-racial myself. And, *gasp* I'm a Christian. A non-racist Christian who can actually tie her own shoes without help. And you know what? I am not the only one either.
What really gets me is that people seem to think that everyone who lives in the Bible Belt is religious.
I find it sad that you don't even see how bigotted the statement is that you have made.

Answer 5

Racism is not a part of being a believer in God. He has created us all. As to homosexual people....it is not they who are condemned...but their actions as it goes against God's purpose. It is no different than those of us who are straight, engaging in a sexual relationship with someone we are not married to. Sin is sin. Being gay is no different than being born blind, deaf, or with one arm or whatever. It is a physical anomally that occurs that man does not yet understand. It is no ones fault. But it, like the other disabilities make life more difficult.

Answer 6

Well, we could ask Louisiana Senator David Vitter what he meant when he said gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Oh wait, he's still busy explaining to his wife why his name appeared in the D.C. madam's little black book.
Fundies use the Bible to justify their hate, just as they used to quote the Bible to justify condemning interracial marriages.

Answer 7

Christians hate gays, blacks, women, other religions, and their own people. My favorite thing they say is, "But god loves you".

Exodus 20:5
For I, the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the inequities of their parents.

Deuteronomy 4:21
For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.

Answer 8

God IS the Red Eye. It's about oppressing others for fun and entertainment!

Answer 9

"Amen" brotha! The god complex really sucks for those on the receiving end.

Answer 10

The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people often treat each other.

Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking.

One of the prevalent evidences of man’s inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply, racism is prejudice against people of other ‘races’1 for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied to demean individuals based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance, or accent.

More often than not, these rules allow an unfounded assumption of superiority over that individual, which in turn justifies any feelings of disdain or indifference towards them. In truth, this attitude is usually based on nothing more than fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. The manifestations of racism can be blatant, such as in hatred from the Ku Klux Klan or the oppressiveness of apartheid; it can also be as simple as telling degrading anecdotes or possessing a cold attitude of indifference.

As a result of evolutionary thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience heartfelt sympathy for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries. For reasons they could never justify, they believe ‘life’ somehow means less to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I have heard this type of comment from ‘educated’ people!

This misinformed attitude is understandable if people accept the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’, that the rules of the animal kingdom must apply to humans ‘because we’ve all evolved from animals’!

Neither racism—nor the idea of evolution—started with Darwin. Both are manifestations of basing one’s thinking on a non-biblical foundation. However, Darwin’s writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a ‘scientific’ justification for it. His book’s subtitle referred to the ‘preservation of favoured races’.

The Bible, of course, teaches in the first chapter of Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth, and all life upon it. There is no evidence to show that man’s existence came about in any other way. The theory of evolution is based on assumption and misinformation.

If we believe the Bible, all of the Bible, then it is clear that all people were created by God. ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’ (Genesis 2:7).

Acts 17:26 says: ‘And [God] hath made of one blood [i.e. from one original ancestor, Adam and his wife, Eve] all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …’. That means we’re all related!

The origin of the earth’s different ‘races’ (the Bible doesn’t use this term, but calls them tribes and nations) has long caused unnecessary confusion among both Christians and non-Christians. The truth is surprisingly simple.

Most evolutionists today wouldn’t dispute the biblical creationist understanding that all ‘races’ came from the same original population (they would not agree that it was only two individuals), although that wasn’t always the case. Evolutionists teach that these groups ‘evolved’ independently from each other, separated for many tens of thousands of years. Evolutionists feel this length of time is necessary to explain the development of physical differences between the ‘races’.

This misleading concept gives rise to the idea that some ‘races’ have developed and become more ‘sophisticated’ faster than others, leading to the ultimate conclusion (often subconsciously) that certain ‘races’ are superior to others.

Madonna and evolutionary racism

So-called rock ‘star’ Madonna was quoted as saying she would be unlikely to choose a black partner again. Claiming to have been mistreated when she dated black men, she allegedly said: ‘Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact that they haven’t had the same chances as we white people have had to be educated or exposed to things that make you more evolved.’5

Sadly, millions of young people follow all the antics and comments of Madonna, whose activities scarcely merit a claim of cultural superiority. Madonna’s statement highlights the all-too-common belief that some ‘races’ are less ‘evolved’ than others. Although Madonna may have only been referring to social evolution, in many people’s minds the concepts of social and biological evolution are inextricably related.

In fact, modern molecular biology confirms the biblical view that all the peoples of the world are astonishingly close genetically. For example, it is common knowledge in the medical profession that, when looking for someone as an organ donor for a transplant, the person whose tissue type is most suitable for you (whether you are black or white, for example) may very well be someone of the ‘opposite colour’. In reality, all of us have the same brown-black pigment, melanin, in our skin, simply making more or less of that pigment.

The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, offers a clear and concise explanation of how the different ‘races’ developed after the confounding of the language and population dispersion at Babel (recorded in Genesis 11:1–9). The book provides logical, scientific evidence that mankind has descended from Noah and his family (and Adam and Eve before that). (See the online extract How could all human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives?)

It explains how the dispersion, involving the breaking up of a large group into many small groups (comprising members who spoke the same language) who only breed within the group, ensured the resultant populations would have different mixes of genes for various physical features.

Adam and Eve, created perfect, would have had the genetic information enabling their offspring to have the many combinations of skin, hair, and eye colour existent in the world today.2

Today’s population descended from Noah and his family after the Flood, so the amount of genes available would probably have been slightly reduced from those of Adam and Eve.

Thus, the dispersion ensured that within a short time certain fixed differences3 would become apparent in some of the small groups, which we would call separate ‘races’.4

In Romans, we are told that all men are born equal: ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23), but the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has brought the possibility of redemption and salvation: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [regardless of which tribe or ‘race’ they belong to] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16).

Among believers:

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).

In the light of God’s Word, there can be no justification for promoting or condoning racism.