When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became an unavoidable and imminent reality, conservatives—not all of them southerners—executed a strategic retreat, accepting the demolition of de juresegregation but defending de facto segregation via private action. This required last-ditch opposition to the provisions of the law prohibiting discrimination by employers and those offering “public accommodations” such as restaurants, hotels and retail stores. Here’s how the 1964 Republican presidential nominee took his stand with Dixieland:
I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called "public accommodations" and in the area of employment--to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional government in which 50 sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal Government.Goldwater didn’t merely object to these portions of the law on “constitutional conservative” grounds, however:
[I]n addition I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of tho bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an "informer" psychology in great areas of our national life--neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an "informer" psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.This prediction, of course, was thunderously wrong, but it reflected the kind of “slippery slope” arguments we are hearing today with respect to enforcement of nondiscrimination laws involving LGBT folk. Just as importantly, Goldwater and many others were engaged in an effort to depict discriminators as victims of government overreach simply wanting to live their lives according to their religiously informed consciences.
Read the rest here
Religious belief has been used as an excuse for many atrocities. If religious freedom justifies discrimination, it's not the worst it has done. Although much evil happen in the name of religion, Religion itself is not inherently evil, there are churches that are welcoming and ethical. The conservatives in the debate need to see how the time has changed and religious beliefs need reformation to apply better to the ethical standards of the time.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the debate? The right to marry versus the right to live life. When many compare the social movement of the LGBT community and the black community there's not much comparison. Blacks were being oppressed at every level of life. Their entire right to live life had been oppressed. Religion is not responsible for the oppression as many say, but people are in their interpretation.
ReplyDeleteWhat's it going to take for us to learn from the past mistakes? How many more Fergusons? How many more groups on the margins of our society? Are we still going to be waging the same war 50 years from now?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we are going backwards right now. We are not adding freedom, but are taking it away. We are not unifying, but are becoming more and more selfish. We want freedom for ourselves but not for others. This will never work, we need to think of other people and not just ourselves!
ReplyDeleteIf religious freedom justifies prejudice, it's not the worst that has been done. Religion what most people know is good verses evil and there is the debate. Furthermore religion is not responsible for the oppression only the people in that religion were wrong. How many more groups on the margins of our society are on the edge as well?
ReplyDeleteIt saddens me to see how often religion is used as a way of excusing the wrong and discrimination. It has been years since the civil war but nothing much has been changed. Rather than changing, people became passive in expressing their opinions and views for reasons such as politics and I think as Erin did on above comments, we should keep ask questions until people realize.
ReplyDeleteKilgore is arguing a point that I think many liberals have been arguing for awhile, but he articulates it well, and his inclusion of quotes from the Goldwater commentaries were fascinating. I've long ceased to be amazed by the myriad ways in which individuals can a) bend scripture and/or the law to suit their case and b) depict themselves as the victims, regardless of the circumstances or what constitutes truth. The optimist in me hopes that we will see a social and political swing away from the direction of privatized discrimination, but these days, I'm not holding my breath.
ReplyDelete