…and this is a 
Mildred Loving has died
Category: Politics
Posted on: May 6, 2008 8:41 AM, by PZ Myers
Loving was the woman who, with her husband, was tried in the 1960s for the crime of interracial marriage; their victory before the Supreme Court led to the striking down of laws banning racially mixed marriages across the country. Here's part of her account:
Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.
The judge's comment is particularly interesting. He's using an unholy mix of rank creationism and Blumenbach's 19th century taxonomy of human races to justify his decision! For all the finger-pointing at science for promoting racism, though, it's clear that most of the rationalizations have come from god-fearin' church folk. Browse the racist web boards (here's an example; it's the evil Stormfront, so be warned), and you'll find an amazing infatuation with biblical authority.
It's worth noting that the same flavor of argument, thumping the bible to claim god is agin' it and making up 'facts' about the natural world, is also the same strategy used to argue against homosexual marriage. I remember 1967 — that was the year I was grooving to Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and the Beatles — and it's dismaying to think our country held onto the bigotry that denied people the right to love one another for so long, but it's even more distressing to see that the same attitudes still prevail in 2008.
Comments
Just for optimism's sake, I like to think of this a proof of how far we've come within my own lifetime.
Posted by: Jim A | May 6, 2008 8:51 AM
Posted by: Bob | May 6, 2008 8:52 AM
My son saw this news last night and was a mite startled to learn that he, too, would have been a felon if he'd married forty years earlier (though that would have been tricky fifteen years before he was born.) I was a bit startled that he was unaware of "miscegenation" laws - but I was happy, too. We have progressed some.
Posted by: Coragyps | May 6, 2008 9:03 AM
It all starts with swearing on the bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...what a fricken sham!
Most judges wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them in the ass.
Posted by: Latina Amor | May 6, 2008 9:05 AM
Thank the FSM for good folk like the Lovings who stood up against the evils of their day, making things better for future generations.
Posted by: Donnie B. | May 6, 2008 9:06 AM
We've come a long way, that's for sure. And she helped a lot.
I hope no judge pulls presumptuous God lines in court nowadays...
Posted by: Michelle | May 6, 2008 9:06 AM
Christianity has long been a major source of evil on this planet, and when I was in high school and college in the 1960's, I don't know how many times I heard Christian preachers wailing about how Gawd Almighty demanded that the races be kept separate.
Christians commonly referred to their Wholly Babble to bolster their claims, although I personally don't know any Christians who really read more of their Wholly Babble than their apoplectic preachers scream at them.
Posted by: waldteufel | May 6, 2008 9:06 AM
It's amazing how the bible can be (and has been) used to justify so much hate, cruelty, murder, intolerance, sexism, racism, etc. and christians still consider the bible-god to be all about love. Ha!
Posted by: DocMike | May 6, 2008 9:07 AM
The mind reels in horror at such a decree both in its language and implication as its made from a percieved unquestionable 'absolute authority'.
Which reminds me:
"When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods."
Jacob Bronowski
Posted by: chad | May 6, 2008 9:07 AM
It always seemed to me that in proceeding thus against a couple named "Loving," they were defying Irony--a force more powerful than any "god."
Posted by: AdamK | May 6, 2008 9:08 AM
Clearly this is all the fault of Alfred Wegener.
If those continents hadn't drifted apart all those years ago then the geographic isolation would have made it much less likely that genetic drift and selection of pigmentation alleles would result in the development of groups of people with distinctive physical features and hence there would be no different 'races' to speak of. Problem solved!
Time to stop teaching this Godless 'geography' that is poisoning our children's minds.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 6, 2008 9:09 AM
Hey uh guys... Watch out on the religion bit. She still gave God all the credit for her wedding and supreme court victory. She believed it was his sign that anyone can marry who they wanna.
Posted by: Michelle | May 6, 2008 9:12 AM
This is a very good disproof of Stein's theory about Darwin and Hitler...
Creationism has all mankind neatly divided into races, all created separate by God, with very precise separations. (There is still the sons of Noah theory, but it does not fit with the abovementioned Stormfront post; and anyways, it is a kind of precise separation between races. Also according to this theory, Amerindians do not exist. But I'm digressing).
Modern biology says all mankind is a (very large) family, with a common patriarch^Wancestor. (And it also says that whenever you try to define a race, it will cover either >95% or
This being said, which one could most easily lead to the Holocaust?
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | May 6, 2008 9:18 AM
I think you should have a post category simply titled "Goddamn"
Posted by: caynazzo | May 6, 2008 9:18 AM
> Browse the racist web boards . . . and you'll find an amazing infatuation with biblical authority.
It's the "low-hanging fruit" principle. Whatever demented program you want to justify, you look first in the Bible KNOWING you can find support there.
Posted by: Voracious | May 6, 2008 9:20 AM
This is sad. You judge God based upon the sins of men. Before you blasphame God again, think before you do that. Because you could be wrong about the fact of there being no God.
PZ Meyers was alive in the day when it was agianst the law to mix races. Perhaps it is his fault for what those people did to people in mixed marriages. (see what I am saying?)
For centuries people have used God's word for their own agenda. Then years later you harshly judge Christians for what some others have done.
Kind of like, when people see teenagers causing trouble. They see them in gangs, they see them commiting crimes, they see them skipping school, they see the graphiti around town. They harshly judge teens as nothing but trouble makers, little twerps that belong in jail. When in fact they are the small part of teenagers. You don't hardly see the good ones because being good doesn't stand out. Being bad does. This is very similiar.
Do you judge all Christians (there are over a billion of them in the world) based upon jimmy swagert? hagee? Preachers with an axe to grind? Politicians who used Christians for their own purposes?
Am I responsible for the evils that religeon has brought?
Or are we responsible because we are men and women who are sinners? We are all evil.
Posted by: Starbuck | May 6, 2008 9:23 AM
The biblical thing is pretty funny considering that it actually says there are three races, based on the sons of Noah, two of whom are white (or all three depending on your interpretation). Another fine example of "absolute literalism".
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | May 6, 2008 9:24 AM
"The majority is always sane."
-Nessus the Puppeteer.
Amazing how often something reminds me of that.
Posted by: fcaccin | May 6, 2008 9:25 AM
Sorry for the mispelled words. Sometimes I don't pay attention when I am typing fast.
Good day me amigos!
Posted by: Starbuck | May 6, 2008 9:25 AM
"...the judge declared: 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.'"
Those sneaky Africans... who let them into North America? And what were those pesky Injuns doing there? God clearly intended it for white men.
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | May 6, 2008 9:27 AM
Things have progressed, but I wonder how far -- in the mid '80s a friend of mine in college was repeatedly subjected to harassment and abuse by his ROTC buddies about dating a black woman, so much so that, despite the clearly serious nature of the relationship, he broke up with her. (This isn't the State officially prohibiting interracial relationships, of course, although given that the ROTC is essentially a military organisation, it comes pretty close.)
Posted by: Tulse | May 6, 2008 9:28 AM
We are all evil.
Don't buy into that tired old bullshit, Starbuck. You probably aren't any more evil than I am - and I cry if I watch Old Yeller.
Posted by: Coragyps | May 6, 2008 9:28 AM
@Starbuck: God has a pretty darn awful agenda himself. An agenda of prejudice, murder, genocide, destruction, hate. All spawned by HIM. READ THE BIBLE.
Posted by: Michelle | May 6, 2008 9:29 AM
@16
Someone's gotta do it, because it sure doesn't look like you people are.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | May 6, 2008 9:31 AM
Aaargh... I just discovered Stormfront from your post. I did not know of its existence, and Wikipedia tells me that it is Google-censored here in France (by the way, knowing that not only China does this is a kind of a shock, but it's true that France is one of the democracies that has the most anti-hate restrictions on free speech).
This place really stinks... I'm a bit surprised that it manages to stay within legality (even under First Amendment, there *must* be some things you can not publish, such as a call to murder ?!).
Anyway, I need to be a bit more disciplined and avoid folllowing any link I see, especially those with big warning signs like that, or else I don't know how in how many government files I will end up... :-/
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | May 6, 2008 9:33 AM
I actually can see how you could get this out of the story of the Tower of Babel...fucked up divisive, ugly story. Of course, more likely the judge was just taking his own beliefs and applying them to God without much regard to what the Bible does or doesn't say, but nevertheless, I can't say that the OT god does a great job separating himself from this kind of prejudicial nonsense either.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 9:36 AM
Y'all are being a little hard on Starbuck. The point is that Christianity, or any belief in an absolute authority, can and has repeatedly been used to justify unwarranted actions. Because there is only one very jumbled book to look at for guidance, it can be used in a myriad of ways, and pretty much everyone will be right. The Bible is not clear. It can be used to justify too many horrors.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 6, 2008 9:36 AM
Another good news marriage story today: After suing state agencies, SoCal man takes wife's surname
Posted by: Silmarillion | May 6, 2008 9:37 AM
Talking to Christians about this is even more surreal than talking to young people who just don't know (I would also been a criminal if I'd married just thirty years earlier than I did). Christians act as though miscegenation is so far from Christian thought it's ludicrous, as though it was a notion that could only have held sway hundreds of years ago.
I don't mind Christians changing their morality over time: I approve of it. It's just incredibly odd that they persist in pretending it hasn't actually changed.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 6, 2008 9:39 AM
When I try to explain my optimism that someday the State will stop presuming that it performs marriages that clerics "sanctify" and retreat to witnessing legal contracts between consenting adults of any gender, I cite Loving. If "miscegenation" appalls no less than gay marriage, I abandon the conversation in search of somebody to talk to who isn't wearing a pointy bed sheet.
Starbuck, part of the problem is the notion that all men and women are sinners, the specious claim that, "We are all evil." Speak for yourself. The Bible is a textbook for evil, and I won't have my children trained in it. People can get pretty severely fucked up, and some I daresay are evil, but it isn't through any innate property having to do with spooky magicians making people out of mud in 4004 BC. Spare me.
Oh, and PZ, in 1967, you weren't grooving to The Beatles. Teenyboppers tried to think they were, but they were just being cute. I'm older than you (I'm older than Wilkins!) and in the summer of 1967, when my friend and I first read about teenyboppers in his parents' copy of Aquarian Oracle, we looked forward to next summer, when we'd be old enough to be teenyboppers. We weren't grooving.
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 6, 2008 9:42 AM
@#16 --
This seems like a rather weak form of Pascal's Wager, which is an extremely weak argument to begin with.
No. We aren't all "evil" by nature. Some people sometimes behave evilly by choice. That's why we're responsible. Because we don't have a fallen, sinful nature. We could behave morally, and when we choose not to, it's our fault and our fault alone -- and there's no divine being who can save us from it.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 9:44 AM
Terrible news. Despite not wishing to be too public a person, Mildred made a point of speaking out in favour of gay-marriage. She has my utmost respect and admiration.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 9:46 AM
Does anyone else think that the quote by Jefferson, on Stormfront's front-page banner, is *exactly* antithetical to what they seem to think it means?
Posted by: co | May 6, 2008 9:47 AM
#21 tulse OTOH a friend of mine who was stationed in Berlin in the 80s was teasing one of the "blacker than thou" guys in the company for going out with a white girl and was told: "She's not white, she's German."
Posted by: Jim A | May 6, 2008 9:48 AM
Starbuck, PZ isn't judging "God" based on the sins of men. He doesn't believe in God at all. He's judging men based on the evils of men (sin being a theological term, and isn't it "we are all sinners" not "we are all evil"?).
And most here, likely including PZ, don't judge all Christians by this. We think all Christians are wrong in some of their beliefs, but you don't vilify a person just because you think they're incorrect if it doesn't affect you.
Christianity does at least concern itself with ethics. Atheism does not. This is part of why atheism is not a belief system, and not a religion, and doesn't really tell you much about a person overall. People who say "atheism has no morals" are absolutely correct; there's no moral principle you can derive directly from "there is no god". Atheists themselves, of course, can have morals, simply not from theistic belief.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 6, 2008 9:52 AM
Up until the 50's, Washington D.C. was a segregated city. One of the founders of Atlantic Records, Ahmet Ertegun a Turk, would hold concerts in the Turkish Embassy because Washington laws prohibited mixed audience shows.
http://www.pbs.org/previews/am-atlanticrecords/
"Ahmet Ertegun, a young Turk - literally - with an immigrant's passion for the African-American music he heard in the rigidly segregated Washington, DC, nightclubs of the 1940s, recognized that "all popular music stems from black music, be it jazz or rock 'n' roll or rap." He exported these unique sounds to England, where they merged with the European sensibility, and then imported that fusion back across the ocean. "The Atlantic Sound," which sprang from the small record label Ertegun co-founded in 1947, was a revolutionary new genre, single-handedly influencing the future direction of contemporary music. Ertegun wrote music, produced music, defined careers and changed lives. "He found Ray Charles, he introduced Eric Clapton to Aretha Franklin, he fell asleep on Mick Jagger," says Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner in AMERICAN MASTERS "Atlantic Records: The House That Ahmet Built.""
Posted by: bernarda | May 6, 2008 9:54 AM
@20
LMAO
That has to be the post of this thread!
Posted by: maxi | May 6, 2008 9:55 AM
We are all evil. - Starbuck
Speak for yourself.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 6, 2008 9:56 AM
Having married a lovely Hispanic woman, I've directly benefited from Mildred and Richard Loving's accomplishment. someday, (the sooner the better) there will be a case that overturns the homobigots and we'll be just that much closer to a better society.
Posted by: Keith | May 6, 2008 9:57 AM
No Dennis. Starbucks is in fact letting bigoted fundamentalist demagoguery off the hook by opting to rebuke those who criticize it as well as criticize the "mellow yellow" Christians who choose to ignore that seething vein of hatred and intolerance running right through their own religion. They act like they are scared of their own shadow.
Posted by: caynazzo | May 6, 2008 9:57 AM
@28 Silmarillion,
Wow, amazing that had to be specifically changed. My wife's father took his wife's family name for exactly the same reason. That had to have been over forty years ago. You would think patriarchy would have been considerably stronger back then.
It was also Japan.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 6, 2008 9:58 AM
Hard to believe that PZ isn't on Steve Sailer's blog radar. I'm astonished that with the link to Stormfront he hasn't made an appearance.
Lucky you,PZ.
Posted by: Tom M | May 6, 2008 10:03 AM
Yes... Mildred Loving. We might even be tempted to scoff at a novelist who made up such a name for a person in her situation:
Mildred: An Old English name meaning "gentle strength".
(Her husband's name, Richard, means "powerful leader".)
Posted by: Kseniya | May 6, 2008 10:07 AM
Another Poe? Starbuck: Do you judge all Christians (there are over a billion of them in the world) based upon jimmy swagert? hagee? Preachers with an axe to grind? Politicians who used Christians for their own purposes?
Am I responsible for the evils that religeon has brought?
Or are we responsible because we are men and women who are sinners? We are all evil.
1) Yes, I judge the ideology by the acts of the leadership. Christians, as a community, are responsible for the acts of Christianity over a two thousand year history. I think at this point we can safely say that almost every version of extant Christianity has been pro-slavery, pro-racism, pro-totalitarianism (we can except the Quakers and the Unitarians, who are generally rejected by most Christians as Christians). When they have rejected those positions, it's because they were dragged kicking and screaming by folks considered either heretics or non-Christians (atheists was the common slur).
2) "We are all evil, we are all sinners". Speak for yourself scumbag. That belief right there is one of the greatest evils of Christianity; by believing we are essentially evil beings, Christian ideology excuses and propagates evil. Christianity is evil because it is undergirded by the belief that, essential, earth is a hell - a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any ideology that helps create hell on earth is immoral and monstrous.
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:09 AM
Starbuck "Am I responsible for the evils that religeon has brought?
Or are we responsible because we are men and women who are sinners? We are all evil"
The concept good, sure we've tried for the last 1500 years and it always comes out a mess, it's just the people wrong were doing it. The commies argue the same thing LOL
Posted by: Bob L | May 6, 2008 10:13 AM
#25, Jerome:
Well, yes, there are things Americans cannot publish, but not many. I have actually been astonished to find how much some European nations prohibit; it seemed to me that it was a real scandal when David Irving was prosecuted for Holocaust denial. Don't get me wrong. Holocaust denial is weird, wrong, even insane; but a "crime"? That sort of prosecution, in my opinion, should not happen in a country that deems itself "free." (Yes, yes, Guantanamo and a thousand other things; we are very guilty over here, too. In saying the French are wrong to prosecute such things I'm well aware that the French are not the only violators of basic human rights in the world.)
Our test for advocacy of violence is the Brandenburg standard (from the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio): a state may not prohibit the advocacy of violence "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." So, if I publish in a blog, "left-handed people ought to be driven from our community, and their houses ought to be burned," that's legal (albeit, yes, ridiculously stupid and evil). If I go to a rally and tell a crowd of people, "that house on the corner is owned by left-handed people! Let's burn it right now!" that's not legal. The "imminence" factor makes it very hard to get into trouble from something you publish; the more likely prosecution scenario involves events unfolding after a speech inciting violence or something like that.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Trask | May 6, 2008 10:18 AM
@ 36,
yes, Ertogrul was a great man. Clapton must have forgotten about his own roots when he made his infamous quote about Britain needing Enoch Powell.
Posted by: johannes | May 6, 2008 10:18 AM
I wonder what all of those nice "white" Christians think about the fact that the only physical description of Jesus that exists, from Josephus, says that he was black?
Posted by: Thony C. | May 6, 2008 10:28 AM
(we can except the Quakers and the Unitarians, who are generally rejected by most Christians as Christians)
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:09 AM
Why are Quakers and Unitarians "rejected by most Christians as Christians"? To those who would reject such I'd ask, are Protestants not Christians due to their non-Catholicism? Are Catholics not Christian due to their apostasy?
As greatly as Churchianity hasn't a clue, to the same extent neither do the professed Atheists.
Posted by: Salt | May 6, 2008 10:32 AM
Yes, there are nearly as many species concepts within Christianity as there are sects.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 6, 2008 10:35 AM
This is why I support gay rights - because my gay friends deserve to have someone speak out for them, as someone else did for me. Thirty years ago, I might not have been able to marry my husband. We've had many a double take, a few harsh interactions, and a wonderful marriage.
Posted by: Karen | May 6, 2008 10:41 AM
"... he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."
So the Europeans were interfering with their god's arrangement when they came to the Americas and again when they brought Africans here? Those nasty immoral Europeans! Shame on them -- ship them back to Europe where they belong!
Posted by: Margaret | May 6, 2008 10:41 AM
Quakers:
http://www.quakerfinder.org/faq.htm
Apparently, many Quakers do not consider themselves Christians, and their beliefs about Christ would seem to put them in a non-Christian camp (unless you want to also count Muslims as Christians, as their views on Christ as a religious teacher seem similar).
Which is interesting, because Christians often bring up that "Christianity stopped slavery" (in the US) because it was a Quaker initiative. So I guess they claim them for that purpose.
Posted by: CrypticLife | May 6, 2008 10:42 AM
The Lovings did their small part to make this world a better place, and will always be remembered for it. Would that we all could say as much. RIP, Mildred.
Posted by: Glenn | May 6, 2008 10:43 AM
You judge God based upon the sins of men.
I judge god on his deeds. And, if he existed, I'd have to kick his ass for being worse than the sum total of the worst of the humans he was responsible for creating. We're talking about the god who invented spina bifida and hell, after all. You should be praying that such a monster does not really exist, and that you're not eternally enthralled to it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 6, 2008 10:45 AM
I wonder what all of those nice "white" Christians think about the fact that the only physical description of Jesus that exists, from Josephus, says that he was black?
What passages gave you that idea? Obviously the whole "white Jesus" trope is ridiculous, but I suspect that if Jesus really existed, he would have looked more Arabian. Then again, Africa is almost right next door to Israel...
Posted by: Brandon P. | May 6, 2008 10:47 AM
I don't know about Quakers, but in some Unitarian congregations you don't even have to believe in God, much less the divinity of Jesus. Heck, there is a large contingent of Wiccan Unitarians. Individual Unitarians are definitely not necessarily Christian.
Posted by: Tulse | May 6, 2008 10:48 AM
Oh, I'm sure they're fine with it, as long as he doesn't try to marry a white woman.
Or another man.
Posted by: kmarissa | May 6, 2008 10:48 AM
@33
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I re-read it about 10 times to make sure I wasn't misreading, but Jefferson was definitely saying all men, White and Black, are equal and will eventually participate in this government. Guess the people on the site really are that stupid.
What else can we expect? Intelligent they are not.
Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | May 6, 2008 10:56 AM
Salt: Why are Quakers and Unitarians "rejected by most Christians as Christians"? To those who would reject such I'd ask, are Protestants not Christians due to their non-Catholicism? Are Catholics not Christian due to their apostasy?
As greatly as Churchianity hasn't a clue, to the same extent neither do the professed Atheists.
Salt, you're an idiot (arrogant ignorance is in my book idiocy). Unitarianism has evolved out of Christianity, but not being Trinitarians, most Christians denominations would not recognize them as Christians. And Unitarians have returned the favor by evolving away from Christian dogma in general. Trinitarianism has been a hallmark feature of Christianity since the fourth century.
Most Quaker sects are still closer to Christianity - and quite close the woo-woo good-guy self-image of Christianity - they believe in a direct relevatory position that is both at odds with the pre-reformation churches (Catholicism, et. al), and the post-reformation Biblical authority churches (almost everyone else).
And you've got to love that Atheists with a capital A, as if atheism was a fixed ideological and community position. What the hell is Churchianity? Some kind of new No-True-Scotsman?
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:58 AM
As a counterpoise to #53
The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian organization, in the sense that it is originally based on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/Quaker-faq/
Posted by: Salt | May 6, 2008 10:59 AM
Marcus: You should be praying that such a monster does not really exist, and that you're not eternally enthralled to it.
They like it. They really do - it's not the "heaven" that they love, with it's angels and choirs, but the hell, with the demons, pitchforks, whips, chains, nipple-piercings, ... you get the image, right?
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 6, 2008 11:03 AM
#28 Silmarilion; that's interesting. I'm planning on doing the same when I get married (taking on my fiancée's surname). Hadn't thought that it may be expensive - I'll have to seriously look into what's involved in the UK!
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | May 6, 2008 11:04 AM
Salt: Lordy, you're dishonest. Here's the full paragraph:
" The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian organization,
in the sense that it is originally based on the teachings of
Jesus in the New Testament. You will in general find some
disagreement among Friends about whether there was a Virgin
Birth, whether various miracles were supernatural occurances
or religious embellishments, whether Jesus was The Son of God,
or just one of God's children etc. You will in general find
agreement that those differences are not important :-)."
This would not fall under Christian according to almost any other Christian organization/ideology. Since the 4th century, not believing in some variety of the Creed has been punishable by everything up to death in most of the Christian world.
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 11:09 AM
Oh, how revolting.
The Stormfront board has an agnosticism/atheism section. You get shit like this (on a thread asking how atheists approach "the issue of race" differently than religious people):
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 6, 2008 11:10 AM
Was anyone else expecting the following?
"the judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red,"...adam and eve, not adam and steve...
Posted by: Pablo | May 6, 2008 11:21 AM
@Starbuck -
This is sad. You judge God based upon the sins of men. Before you blasphame God again, think before you do that. Because you could be wrong about the fact of there being no God.
Well, right out of the gate I can see that I'm not wrong about you being a disphit.
PZ Meyers was alive in the day when it was agianst the law to mix races. Perhaps it is his fault for what those people did to people in mixed marriages. (see what I am saying?)
No. you're not making any sense at all. The fact that PZ was alive in a time of racism is not in any way equivalent to actually being a person who promotes a racist agenda. It's a stupid bullshit analogy, and I'm calling you on it rather than retreating from it.
For centuries people have used God's word for their own agenda. Then years later you harshly judge Christians for what some others have done.
And?
Kind of like, when people see teenagers causing trouble. They see them in gangs, they see them commiting crimes, they see them skipping school, they see the graphiti around town. They harshly judge teens as nothing but trouble makers, little twerps that belong in jail. When in fact they are the small part of teenagers. You don't hardly see the good ones because being good doesn't stand out. Being bad does. This is very similiar.
Actually, it's not even remotely similar. Teenagers don't have a deliberately crafted ideological history butressed a Book of Holy Law and maintained by various forms of bureaucracy, legalism, tradition, politics, warfare, and pandering moralism that they themselves create and enforce over centuries through their clergy/preisthood/bought-and-paid-for-politicians. It's another stupid bullshit analogy.
Do you judge all Christians (there are over a billion of them in the world) based upon jimmy swagert? hagee? Preachers with an axe to grind? Politicians who used Christians for their own purposes?
At the very least, I regard them with healthy caution and skepticism. No Christian has ever given me cause to regret doing so - and as you said, that's a lot of Christians. And I'm sure as hell not afraid to judge someone based on the things that they themselves say and do. Like now.
Am I responsible for the evils that religeon has brought?
Are you now making apologies and excuses for Christianity? Why, yes, you are. In that case - yes, you do bear a measure of blame.
Or are we responsible because we are men and women who are sinners? We are all evil.
No, and no. At least some of us stand up straight and tell the truth. You could take a lesson from that.
And you're not Starbuck. Kara Thrace would kick your mealy-mouthed ass.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | May 6, 2008 11:27 AM
#28 That's wierd. I took my sife's name (in Arizona) when we married in 1996, and had no problems at all. No one even batted an eye at the SS office (my first stop), getting a new drivers license, or passport.
Of course, once I had those three forms of government issued ID, the rest was easy.
The only snag we ran into was some help desk person at the power company thought she was a paralegal or something and insisted that I had to go to court and do a legal name change.
My wife's response was classic. She said, "I have a passport, driver's license, and social security card that says his name is , it's easier for me to prove his name is than it is for you to prove it's ."
I love that woman. =)
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | May 6, 2008 11:30 AM
Just wanted to say, in regards to Mildred Loving, that it was a brave thing they did to stand up for their commitment to one another. I talk about that case in my classes. I also get interesting stories from my students, that illustrate how this discomfort with interracial relationships is still with us...
A young woman (white) told of how she had been in a car with her boyfriend (black), on their way back from dinner. They were pulled over near the downtown campus of our university. The officer came around to the passenger side, signaled her to roll down her window, and asked, "Are you alright, miss?" This was last fall, 2007.
The following day, I was out with my in-laws. My brother-in-law is black, has been married to my sister-in-law (white) for about 25 years. I related this story, and he said, "That happened to Becky and me last week, right around the corner from the house."
My jaw absolutely dropped. Again.
We live in a very racially diverse city of a quarter million... and interracial couples are getting pulled over, and police are checking on the well-being of the white females.
Gaaaah....
Of course, we also live in a very Christian, Dutch Reformed area. Coincidence?
Posted by: gramomster | May 6, 2008 11:32 AM
To be fair, Kara is definitely not an atheist. And one could argue that she and her entire culture are racists of a sort (although I suppose they have some cause...).
Posted by: Tulse | May 6, 2008 11:36 AM
@ #65
Salt: Lordy, you're dishonest. Here's the full paragraph:
[quote]
This would not fall under Christian according to almost any other Christian organization/ideology. Since the 4th century, not believing in some variety of the Creed has been punishable by everything up to death in most of the Christian world.
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 11:09 AM
What's dishonest? Virtually all denominations have some disagreement amongst themselves. My simply pointing to an origin -
"The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian organization, in the sense that it is originally based on the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament" -
as a basis for its being deemed Christian is dishonest?
"Salt, you're an idiot (arrogant ignorance is in my book idiocy)" -
Who's the idiot here?
Frog, have you any idea just what you said here? -
"Since the 4th century, not believing in some variety of the Creed has been punishable by everything up to death in most of the Christian world."
Which brings me to this -
What the hell is Churchianity? Some kind of new No-True-Scotsman?
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Not at all. Churchianity is an quasi-impostor of Matthew 16:18. And I highly doubt you'll understand that at all.
Posted by: Salt | May 6, 2008 11:43 AM
Yes she's not an atheist but she's definately not a monotheist....remember the monotheists are the genocidal machines(and lately the cultists/deranged groupies of a man who inadvertently colloborated in said genocide), while the polytheists are...well irrational in their own way. But so far I've seen more evidence on the show for the Lords of Kobol being real than I have for any other imaginary friend.
Posted by: R | May 6, 2008 11:52 AM
Can I recommend the use of broken links, replacing Http with HXXP, when linking to such nasty sites as stormfront. Linking from a respected and well visited site such as this will only push it up the google rankings and give it a respectability it most definitely does not deserve. If people want to see what you have linked they only need to replace the X's with T's
Posted by: symball | May 6, 2008 11:54 AM
@gramomster:"A young woman (white) told of how she had been in a car with her boyfriend (black), on their way back from dinner. They were pulled over near the downtown campus of our university. The officer came around to the passenger side, signaled her to roll down her window, and asked, "Are you alright, miss?" This was last fall, 2007."
My god, I almost choked when I read that. HOW can this still happen in this day and age?
Posted by: Michelle | May 6, 2008 11:58 AM
Following up on Etha Williams' comment:
Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance is an atheist. Creativity (formerly Church of the Creator) and National Alliance are anti-Abrahamic and not traditionally theistic. American Renaissance-affiliated scientific racists are generally atheistic or agnostic. JP Rushton and Kevin MacDonald (an evolutionary psychologist at UC Long Beach), are frequently cited by contemporary racists. Rushton asserts that he is working within the scientific tradition of Darwin and Galton.
Google search within Stormfront for "Darwin" yields 4,830 results; "Christ" gets 30,300. One of the first few Darwin results is a discussion of Expelled ('Creationism, evolution, and Nazis. Yes, Nazis..'). One racist complains:
"Sometimes when I am debating the ID/creationist crowd on Stormfront, I feel like that Iraqi scientist in the Youtube video debating his countryman about whether the earth is round or flat."
Boo hoo.
Posted by: Colugo | May 6, 2008 12:00 PM
"and it's dismaying to think our country held onto the bigotry that denied people the right to love one another for so long, but it's even more distressing to see that the same attitudes still prevail in 2008."
Why does you hate Jeebus and the Holy Bibble?!?!?11!
Sad to say, people are a pretty crappy species.
Posted by: Sean | May 6, 2008 12:07 PM
Wait, wait, wait... There are actual people that admit to being racist? And join racist associations? WTF???
The mind boggles...
Posted by: maxi | May 6, 2008 12:09 PM
BTW, my brother married a nice african-american lady...some of my mother's friends made VERY interesting comments about how 'difficult' their married life would be.
No 'problems' so far and the two of them have been married for five years...
Posted by: Sean | May 6, 2008 12:11 PM
"Am I responsible for the evils that religeon has brought?"
Posted by: Starbuck | May 6, 2008 9:23 AM
Yes, next tard question...
Posted by: God | May 6, 2008 12:13 PM
Salt: What the hell is Churchianity? Some kind of new No-True-Scotsman?
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Not at all. Churchianity is an quasi-impostor of Matthew 16:18. And I highly doubt you'll understand that at all.
So you are an idiot, and a No-True-Scotmanite. The true Christianity is only your version of Christianity, and the Christianities held by 99% of Christians is "Churchianity", so you don't have to take responsibility for the implications of your ideology.
What a sham. This is like Marxists who say that "True Marxism" has never been tried. By your reckoning, you could claim that Islam is Christianity too (it too has it's foundation in Christianity), or even Rabbinical Judaism (which evolved to a large extent as a response to Christianity). How about Santeria?
Your kung-fu is weak.
"And I tell you Peter, your head is like a rock, and on that rock-headed stupidity I will build my church". Original version, via personal revelation.
Posted by: frog | May 6, 2008 12:17 PM
@71
They're not racists, they're biologists. . . get it?
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Posted by: AgnosticTheocrat | May 6, 2008 12:23 PM
A white supremacist website that is more "scientifically" oriented than Stormfront is Majority Rights, which features crapola on "ethnic genetic interests," "human bio-diversity" etc.
Which group more sullies the image of evolutionary science: creationists or scientific racists?
Posted by: Colugo | May 6, 2008 12:26 PM