"Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for ... the Ku Klux Klan"

I believe it was wise of a Fundamentalist institution to have changed the name of one of its men’s residence halls recently from Bibb Graves, who’s best known as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibb_Graves#Political_life] KKK-linked Governor of Alabama , to H.A. Ironside, who’s best known as a Fundamentalist leader.

During lawless Reconstruction, it was more a law and order vigilante group.

I respectfully disagree with this Gone with the Wind flavored assessment. During Reconstruction, the Klan was a murderous terrorist organization designed to wear down the occupation of the war weary but victorious North. This was done through criminality and murder and flexing resurgent all-white political power. A primary goal was to keep the black man in his place, so that he could not enjoy or experience his newly won rights. I strongly recommend reading Stephan Budiansky’s The Bloody Shirt for this eye-opening history. It’s a rare history book that acknowledges without blinking that at one time the Republicans were clearly the good guys.

While Stokes’ article is certainly lopsided (The Klan, after all, murdered many Republicans, white and black, and was a huge influence in Democratic politics), Fundamentalism has much to be ashamed of in supporting a racist status quo in many American states. Instead of standing up for the oppressed, it often put God’s stamp of approval on oppression. Even until very recently, Fundamentalist institutions held tenaciously to monstrous racial theories long after the world had come to its senses. It is still present among some which I have seen firsthand.

We should be very careful and clear-eyed in defending our own when shame would be a more appropriate response. Many Fundamentalists have been complicit in robbing people of justice. That is a cause for deep remorse and repentance.

From Time Magazine ( Feb. 07, 1927 ): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,729968-1,00.html

From NYTimes ( June 24, 1926): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00F10FC355F17738DDDAD0A94…

The NYTimes article notes that a Klansman supported Norris; but that doesn’t mean Norris supported the Klan

This article from the J F Norris society “debunks” the Klan connection: http://thejfranknorrishistoricalsociety.blogspot.com/2010/09/debunking-…

Having observed the man up close, I can conclude the passion of his message was directed towards issues, not intended against persons or groups. He hated the devastating effects of liquor, but he loved the victim. He opposed the priestly concept of infallibility, but could align himself with Catholics with crucial issues. He spoke often of his admiration for stalwarts in all denominations, but resented over-lording tactics of ambitious leaders. The anti-Catholic bias did not begin with the Klan. Thomas Jefferson is quoted in Wikipedia as equating the priest-hood as hostile to liberty. On a personal note, I can testify that J. Frank Norris never unfairly attacked the Catholic faith, at least he never indoctrinated me with such folly. As a World War II Veteran of the South Pacific and Europe, I can reveal nothing but pleasant experiences I had with my fellow comrades of all faiths. I served with Catholic buddies, slept in the same hut, fraternized on a daily basis, but very rarely in unfriendly conversations. Most Catholic lay persons are genuine in their devotion to sacred principles. Open and frank dialogue is in keeping with the spirit of ecumenism. This aspect of ecumenism is commendable and represents the same philosophy which J. Frank Norris embraced. No subject is sacrosanct.

Some elements of the Klan in the 1920’s were vocal in anti-Semitic rhetoric. Anti-Semitic attitudes perpetrated the myth that the Jews crucified Christ. Elements of the Christian world have echoed the “Christ killer” myth, not taking into account the multitudes of Jews were the pioneer followers of Christ. Most all of Christendom has fallen into a fallacious trap. J. Frank Norris split ranks with a number of his fundamentalist brethren over this issue. Early in his ministry, he was passionate about the Jewish right to their inherited land. To equate Norris in league with the Klan would certainly be a stretch of the imagination.

The Klan in Texas emerged in prominence in the early 1920s, so powerful in fact, that one-half of the Texas Legislature were in the grip of Klansmen. This was true in vast regions of the country, brought on by the increase of foreign immigrants, most of whom were Roman Catholics. The heart of the Catholic issue centered around the authoritarianism of the Catholic Church. While Norris was in the center of the issue, he was no more different than the vast majority of Protestants, even though he was more vocal.

[RPittman] Well, no one can accuse David R. Stokes of objective, fair, and passionless views on Fundamentalism and J. Frank Norris. Although his obvious word choices and the way he states his facts betray his bias, he does write with flair and readability. At least, he holds your interest.

Stokes is not objective on this count:

[Norris] shot and killed a wealthy Fort Worth businessman in July 1926 in a dispute over his vitriolic sermons. He was charged with murder and faced death in the electric chair. He would beat the rap.

He didn’t simply “beat the rap”! It was clearly self-defense. (I had posted some links to the portion of the trial transcript elsewhere on Sharper Iron - here it is again)

http://www.jfranknorris.net/books/Word_for_WordTranscriptofDrNorrisTria…

That Stokes could not objectively address this aspect of Norris’ life, makes his veracity suspect!

“Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for … the Ku Klux Klan”

I suggest that racism and a misunderstanding of the Christian teaching on “in the image of God” provided a “fertile recruiting soil for the Ku Klux Klan”

Were / are some fundamentalists racist? Yes! But I don’t believe they were /are racist because they were / are fundamentalists.

Were / are some fundamentalists racist? Yes! But I don’t believe they were /are racist because they were / are fundamentalists.

I agree with this, Jim. They were racist because they accepted the racism of the culture. A study of Indiana klansman (my home state) found that Klansman came from all demoninations and stripes of protestant whites. Nothing particularly Fundamental about racism. But, O, if the fundamentalists had stood up for justice! If that had been their legacy! But that kind of courage was very rare indeed.

And it gets worse. Some Fundamentalists added to the sin of racism by creating and maintaining racist theory as though it were a biblical doctrine, thus implicating God in their sin. By making it a doctrine, they could disdain justice as worldliness and political correctness as some still do today. Thus Fundamentalists became associated with a virulent sin society was shaking off, and it stained, and still stains the cause of Christ.

[RPittman] I wonder if we’re abandoning a godly man to the naysayers who have no love or respect for God’s people anyway. Graves was a good friend to BJU. Is public image so important? Even Fundamentalists, who did not know Bibb Graves or know anything about him beyond the politically correct slanted propaganda, are ready to jump on him with both feet. Somehow, I find this repulsive and disgusting.

From the wiki article on Graves:

… both Graves and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, another Alabama Klan member, were more opportunists than ideologues, politicians who used the temporary strength of the Klan to further their careers.

…

Roosevelt’s “court packing” plan and Hugo Black’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1937, when Black’s ties to the Klan were debated in Congress, Graves noted his own previous membership as well, a membership that had been publicly revealed when he resigned from the organization in 1928

Would one perhaps consider his resignation from the Klan repentance? I would!

But for you brother Pittman: Do you consider BJU stripping the hall of his name, unwise? repulsive and disgusting?

[RPittman] During lawless Reconstruction, it was more a law and order vigilante group.

Yeah, and the criminals that they targeted JUST HAPPENED to be blacks, and whites friendly to blacks. The fact that so many people associated with the KKK back then is a negative indictment of the population of that time, and not any indication of any virtue or merit in the KKK. That’s like saying that since street gangs, illegitimacy, drugs and jail are so common among certain communities - more common than going to college in some cases - that gangs, children out of wedlock, and a criminal record can’t be so bad.

The Klan is often used unfairly without true historical perspective in an attempt to discredit either conservative or religious groups. Look, attempts to contextualize or be an apologist for the KKK are no different from doing the same to Al Qaeda. LOTS of Muslims try to put terrorist groups in ” true historical perspective” and claim that their critics are simply motivated by “Islamophobia.” Why not just come out and admit that the KKK and its supporters were wrong and leave it at that?

[Wayne Wilson] Some Fundamentalists added to the sin of racism by creating and maintaining racist theory as though it were a biblical doctrine, thus implicating God in their sin. By making it a doctrine, they could disdain justice as worldliness and political correctness as some still do today. Thus Fundamentalists became associated with a virulent sin society was shaking off, and it stained, and still stains the cause of Christ.

For a brief period I considered interracial marriage a sin. I was wrong. Ham’s book “One Blood” has been a tremendous help to me!

I think we fall into a trap when we categorize men by “race”:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dp/one-blood

First, I would propose that we do away with using the term “race” when discussing the different groups of people in the world.

Before Darwin, the term “race” was largely a political and geographical term. People that were closely related biologically (such as the English and Irish) were considered to be separate races. Darwin’s theory has permeated the entire globe and the teaching of evolution has really redefined the term “race.” Now, when most people think of “race,” they’re thinking of lower races, higher races, black races, red races, etc. Even the best of us at times have struggled when we use that term. It just doesn’t mean what it used to mean.

Every human being in the world is classified as Homo sapiens. Scientists today agree that there is really only one biological race of humans. Geneticists have found that if we were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent,1 even if they came from the same people group. “Racial” characteristics account for only about 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation. That means that the “racial” genetic variation between human beings of different “race” is a mere 0.012 percent.

Overall, there is far more variation within a people group than there is between one people group and another. Anyone who continues to make racist distinctions does so based only on superficial, outward appearances rather than on sound scientific fact and clear biblical reasoning.

Let me guess … a tradition of Klansmen in your family, right? And enough of this “political correctness” nonsense. Racism is a sin. Segregation and discrimination violate the Constitution. The people who supported those things were wrong, period. Yes, lots of good Christians supported these things. So what? Plenty of good Christians DIDN’T. It is possible to be a Christian and still be wrong. And we certainly shouldn’t defend things that are wrong because certain Christians do them. You brought up the Noah and David examples … well what you are doing is the equivalent of claiming that adultery and drunkenness aren’t sins because Noah and David did it. Look, Noah’s sin came at a great price … it led to his cursing his son. And David’s sin came at a great price also. So, don’t think that the wickedness of the KKK and its sympathizers were merely ignored by God.

Budiansky admits in the prologue to having changed the historical perspective.

Brother Pittman,

Is this the passage in the proplogue to The Bloody Shirt you speak of?

This book tells the stories of a few of the people who lived through that chapter. It does not purport to be anything like a complete history of reconstruction. It does not pretend to explore, much less analyze, all the political and economic nuances that came to bear on the events of this exceedingly complex period in our nation’s history. It does aim to challenge the palliative stereotypes, the exculpatory myths, and the outright bald-faced lies that still characterize far too much of what passes for common knowledge of this era.

I would say he achived his purpose rather well from original sources. Can you show some serious instances where he was wrong?

No, this is not the passage and no, he did not achieve his purpose.
.

Can you point me to that passage please? A page number…a paragraph perhaps?

Also, as to this comment

Furthermore, I’m sick and tired of hearing charges of racism as if it is the original sin.

I don’t think racism is the original sin, but it is America’s most grievous sin – a deep sin – an early sin that went uncorrected and continued on in worse forms for a very long time, a sin of unspeakable cruelty and injustice to a whole people, and prompting more sin through rationalization and justification and eventually a perverse theology. I do not think America is a racist country today. Thank God. But there are still elements that linger, and sadly, among believers too.

http://sharperironintheironskillet.blogspot.com/2011/08/si-you-lie.html

OK for those who don’t get filings … and I guess the above author is one of them

http://sharperiron.org/about-filings

SharperIron Filings are links to bits of news around the world and the “blogosphere.” The items linked to are not published by SI and do not necessarily express the opinions of anyone at SharperIron. They’re chosen because we believe they may be of interest to SI readers. (As is customary on the ‘Net, we do not seek permission to link to Web content.)

Note how the filings is in quotes: “Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for … the Ku Klux Klan”

That’s a quote from Stokes … not S/I.

I doubt the above author get’s it but I hope S/I members can read and understand

*** UPDATE ***

I posted the filing myself - not Aaron. And anyone can see from my comments on this thread that I do not believe that “Fundamentalism provided fertile recruiting soil for … the Ku Klux Klan”.

Note my earlier comments:

• “That Stokes could not objectively address this aspect of Norris’ life, makes his veracity suspect! “
  
• “I suggest that racism and a misunderstanding of the Christian teaching on “in the image of God” provided a “fertile recruiting soil for the Ku Klux Klan”
  

I also posted the filing http://sharperiron.org/filings/8-27-11/20001 “Earthquake May be a Divine Sign”

AND I believe that the crack in my driveway is a divine sign! :)

Also for those not clear on what Filings are, there’s a link at the top that says “About Filings.” The way it works is you click it to find out what Filings are. (It’s been there for a couple years now I think.)
Free tip of the day. ;)

I see I must duck when I post this, with all the shrapnel flying around. However, I couldn’t let this one pass:

[Wayne Wilson]
I don’t think racism is the original sin, but it is America’s most grievous sin – a deep sin – an early sin that went uncorrected and continued on in worse forms for a very long time, a sin of unspeakable cruelty and injustice to a whole people, and prompting more sin through rationalization and justification and eventually a perverse theology. I do not think America is a racist country today. Thank God. But there are still elements that linger, and sadly, among believers too.

Really? America’s most grievous sin? I hope this is hyperbole. While I believe the culture and practices of racism that existed in the U.S. were a great sin, I would say the www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/roe.html murders of 40 million unborn babies has that sin beat by a long shot.

Wayne, if you want to get some perspective on the race issue (including what should have been done), read some of Thomas Sowell’s writings (especially http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/15940308…] Black Rednecks and White Liberals ). He is a black man who lived through the Jim Crow era and the civil rights gains of the 60’s. Slavery was not a “white” or “American” problem. It was a world problem with everyone from rival African tribes down to landowners in the States having a part in the practice and thus the guilt. Yes, Christians need to examine and condemn the faulty theology that allowed some in the past to justify this tragedy, but Christians were the ones who fought the most against the slave trade and slave ownership. And, there were many other philosophies (such as Darwinism) that were used to justify this sin that had nothing to do with Christianity.