* This is the third installment in my “Why I Don’t Believe” series.
Historical and doctrinal racism in the LDS Church has been a subject of my study for years. It also figured prominently in why I left Mormonism.
I could write at length on this issue (and have), but I don’t want to deter people from reading this. My previous posts have been tedious enough. So I will try (and probably fail) to keep my commentary to a minimum and instead let church leaders’ words speak for themselves.
For the purposes of this post, all I ask is that you consider the following statements and whether they are befitting of men of God.
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110)
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…[Negroes] should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Volume 7, pages 290-291)
And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;… (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 22, page 304)
Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pages 101)
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, page 61)
Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Book of Abraham 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pages 527-528)
The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin….But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom…What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. (George F. Richards, General Conference Report, April 1939)
Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?…If [the] Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems As They Affect The Church, BYU address, 1954)
In 1947, Dr. Lowry Nelson, a faithful Mormon and sociology professor at Utah State Agricultural College (now USU), wrote the First Presidency a letter that challenged the LDS Church’s teachings and policies toward blacks. He wrote, in part: “The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist.”
In an official letter, signed by all three members, the First Presidency responded:
From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now…We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency…toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.
Two years later, the First Presidency again reiterated the church’s position:
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time…The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality…Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
Another case study in church racism is Ezra Taft Benson. Benson was a vehement opponent of the civil rights movement and allied himself with fringe, far-right groups like the John Birch Society. His politics would sometimes seep into his conference talks. In one such talk, Benson dismissed the “so-called civil rights movement” as little more than a Communist front.
We must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. [The civil rights movement's] planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own. (Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference Report, October 1967)
Benson was so convinced of this conspiracy theory that he even wrote the foreword to the book, The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence, and White Alternatives.
Many Mormons are aware of their church leaders’ prejudices and yet it doesn’t trouble their testimonies. Their understanding is that prophets are men and thus fallible. They are, as we all are, products of their time and don’t always speak in their capacity as mouthpieces of the Lord. I find this rationalization of church racism unsatisfying, however. The statements above are not mere musings—they are doctrinal pronouncements from respected church authorities. Church leaders claimed divine sanction for their bigoted views. All of the statements included here were taught as doctrine and expressed over the pulpit and published in church publications.
I see at least two other shortcomings to the “prophets are men” explanation. First, God cannot allow his prophets to lead the church astray. And yet, that’s exactly what church leaders did for many decades on doctrines concerning race. Second, while I don’t demand perfection of prophets, I do expect of them something better than racism. Matthew 7:16 says, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” And few fruits are more rotten than racism.
Racism in the LDS Church isn’t restricted to church leaders’ statements over the years, either. It is also readily apparent in the LDS canon. The Book of Mormon, for example, teaches that God marked the Lamanites (the alleged ancestors of today’s Native Americans) with dark skin to segregate them from the righteous Nephites.
And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (2 Nephi 5:21)
When the Lamanites were righteous, the curse was removed and their skin would again be white.
And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites… (3 Nephi 2:14-15).
O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Jacob 3:8)
With little exception, church leaders believed and taught that a literal change of skin color would occur in Native Americans who were repentant or converted to Mormonism. Spencer W. Kimball, as recently as 1960, held this view as evidenced by his observations of the Lamanite adoption program.
The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome…The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation…There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. (Spencer W. Kimball; The Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, page 923)
Just as converts would become “white and delightsome,” Brigham Young believed the opposite to be true as well—that apostates would “become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Journal of Discourse, vol. 5, p. 332). Starting with Young and lasting until only a few decades ago, the devil was even referred to as having black skin in the LDS temple endowment ceremony. (“A Kinder, Gentler Mormonism: Moving Beyond The Violence Of Our Past,” by Keith E. Norman, Sunstone, August 1990, page 10)
In light of all the above, some Mormons concede that the church did indeed preach racist doctrines. They stress, though, that the church follows a “living prophet” who can receive revelations that supersede previous ones. This view was most famously articulated by Bruce R. McConkie shortly after the lifting of the black priesthood ban in 1978:
Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept…We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore. (Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pages 1-2)
This view of continuing revelation is too abusive, too elastic, and terribly convenient. New revelations can expound upon existing doctrines, but they shouldn’t outright contradict them. Revelations must generally conform to what has already been revealed. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “If what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.”
And while the church has rescinded the black priesthood ban, it has never officially repudiated or apologized for those racist teachings that justified the ban for over a century. Those offensive racial themes in the Book of Mormon also remain. So absent a total recognition and disavowal of its doctrinal racism, I simply cannot forget and forgive as McConkie would have me do.
Please understand that I am not claiming that Mormons are racist. I’m not even arguing that the LDS Church has been uniquely or unusually racist. In fact, some of Joseph Smith’s views on race were progressive for his time (he opposed slavery), and one can cherry-pick from the Book of Mormon verses that suggest racial tolerance. Rather, I think that Mormonism’s history of racism reveals the LDS Church to be an all too human institution. Not an evil or racist institution, mind you—just an uninspired one.
Interesting that mormons often defend themselves with scripture or verse most resembling verses found in the bible
While I will not try to defend the history of the LDS church in regard to racism, I find it interesting that the claim is made that Benson was racist for comments relating to the civil rights movement, not his comments regarding blacks or other minorities. In fact it appears that certain portions of the Benson quote have been left out.
“The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. While it can be thwarted in a fairly short period of time merely by sufficient exposure, the evil effects of what has already been accomplished cannot be removed overnight. The animosities, the hatred, the extension of government control into our daily lives–all this will take time to repair. The already-inflicted wounds will be slow to heal.
First of all, we must not place blame on the Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder. Not one in a thousand Americans–black or white–really understands the full implications of today’s civil-rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.
Next, we must not participate in any so-called ‘blacklash’ activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.
We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committess launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them.” (General Conference Report, Oct. 1967, p.38)
Benson urges Mormons to “not participate in Anti-Negro or mob activity”, and suggests that the militant anti-negro groups are just as problematic as the civil rights movement. Not comments you would expect from a bigot and a racist. I understand that it is impossible to quote an entire book or speech on the website, and do not wish to limit the comments on this website as I find them facinating, however, quoting selected passages of longer material is always problematic.
Based on the entire quote it appears that Benson’s opposition was to a certain political movement. Perhaps Benson was racists, I know my grandparents, and many others of that age would be considered racist by today’s standards, however, all of the quotes used, in this website, to demonstrate his dislike of blacks refer to the civil rights movement rather than any specific race. Therefore, I do not believe that you have presented compelling evidence of his racism.
Perhaps I am driven to defend Benson due to my political views rather than my religious views. I am opposed to any additional government involvement, even if it alleges to champion causes I agree with, such as the civil rights movements, anti-abortion (despite my belief that abortion is wrong, I do not believe that government has the right to outlaw such action), financial reform, and healthcare reform. I have now digressed to comments better suited for a political website, and I apologize.
Jon, I appreciate your website, you have presented many compelling arguments, however, I do believe that your argument that Benson was racist due to his disagreement with the civil rights movement is at best non-sequitur. Interpretation of evidence is often where disagreement arises. You interpret the disapproval of the civil rights movement as signs of racism, I interpret the disapproval of the civil rights movement as disapproval of the civil rights movement. Disapproving of the campaign for, and passage of certain laws does not mean you hate, or even dislike, those who the law purports to benefit. Benson also said “Human liberty is the wellspring of human progress.”
You’re right that opposition to the civil rights movement is not necessarily indicative of racism. But it’d be naive to deny that racism often traveled with that opposition.
Benson’s opposition to the civil rights movement was dressed up in conservative/libertarian arguments about the role of government. So were that all I had to hang my charge of racism on, I’d agree with you that I’m being unfair to Benson in this post. Allow me, then, to briefly develop my case against Benson.
Benson was more than just opposed to the civil rights movement, he was terrified of it. I think he public comments on the civil rights movement betray a fear of both communism and blacks (note that I say fear and not hatred). Consider the following statement:
“If Communism comes to America . . . the Negro represents only 10 percent of the population. In any all-out race war which might be triggered, there isn’t a chance in the world that Communist-led Negro guerilla units could permanently hold on to the power centers of government, even if they could capture them in the first place.”
I cannot believe that such paranoia stems from a mere political disagreement about the role of government. Warning of “Communist-led Negro guerilla units” screams racial fear.
The company Benson kept is also suspect. He was exuberantly supportive of groups like the John Birch Society, which published (with Benson’s foreword) the reprehensible little book “The Black Hammer” pictured in my note. And Benson was on the short list to be a running mate with avowed segregationists/racists Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.
Then there was Benson’s defense of the black priesthood ban. When Kimball was asked by an interviewer why he lifted the ban when he did, he responded that he feared he successor (Benson) would not do the same (this is mentioned in Edward Kimball’s biography of his father).
All this paints a picture of a man who harbored deep-seated racial prejudices.
Nowhere in my note did I call a church leader a racist; my argument is only that church leaders held (and taught) racist beliefs. When people hear the term ‘racist’, it conjures up images of the KKK, whose racism was violent and hateful. But I mean something more domestic when I say racism. I explain this in my note’s conclusion: “Please understand that I am not claiming that Mormons are racist. I’m not even arguing that the LDS Church has been uniquely or unusually racist…Rather, I think that Mormonism’s history of racism reveals the LDS Church to be an all too human institution. Not an evil or racist institution, mind you—just an uninspired one.”
In light of that, it is not my contention that Benson was an evil man, or even that his racism was motivated by hate. No, I think Benson’s racism was probably more a fear of change and an ignorance about and insensitivity toward the plight of black Americans.
I should also mention that when Benson was president, his racism was largely muted. This could be a genuine change of heart on Benson’s part, but his senility and the fact that race was less contentious an issue in the ’80s and ’90s may account for this as well.
Thank you for your clarification, and I apologize if I have somehow misstated your position, regarding racism vs. racist. It was not my intention to suggest that you believe Benson to be evil or violent. I understood your intent to present the positon that certain racial prejudices were furthered by Mormon leaders. However, your response again falls victim to the intitial failure. The “Communist-led Negro guerrilla units” quote is taken from an October 1967 General Conference talk. (I assume that anyone on this site know what General Conference is). However, similar to your original post, the original quote material has been selectively edited.
“If Communism comes to America, it will probably not happen quite like that. [Referring to the three pronged attack explained in the speech]. Even, though this is the basic formula used in so many other countries now part of the Communist empire, there is one very important difference. In China, in Cuba, and in Algeria, the segment of the population that the Communists used as the “battering ram” of their revolution of force and violence was the majority segment. In America, though, the Negro represents only 10 percent of the population. In any all-out race war that might be triggered, there isn’t a chance in the world that Communism-led Negro guerilla units could permanently hold on to the power centers of government even if they could capture them in the first place.” (Ezra Taft Benson, October 1967).
A reading of the full speech paints a very different picture than you present with the edited quote. The speech is an explanation of how Benson believes communism has worked in other countries and a reason why it may fail in the United States. The key phrase is “Communist-led”. If he had said “Communist-led soldier guerilla units” would you suppose he had a fear of all soldiers, or “Communist-led farmer guerilla units” (which is what had been done in other countries), would you allege that he feared all farmers. I do not believe so, I believe that you would suggest that he had a deep seeded fear of communism, which I will agree with. The speeches clearly demonstrate this fear. A careful reading of the entirety of the speeches demonstrates, what I believe to be an overwhelming fear of communism. Was that a character flaw, perhaps.
In addition, the comment by Kimball does not indicate the reason for believing that his successor would not have done the same. Although Benson was Kimball’s successor, while Kimball was alive it was not guaranteed that Benson would be his successor. Weak argument I know. I think that it is safe to assume that Kimball, as most mormons believe that the president of the church is a prophet and would not disregard direct instruction from god, therefore, Kimball’s successor would not have disregarded direct instruction from God. Perhaps this is a good argument that the change in policy regarding blacks was not inspiration, but Kimball’s personal beliefs, however, it is not evidence of Benson’s personal racial prejudice.
While I have some knowledge of this point in US history, I will need to research what appears to be an assumption by Benson, that the communists would utilize black americans. I will need to further investiage whether this assumption has any historical backing. If this is an untrue assumption, it seems that I will have to concede the argument that Benson did indeed harbor significant racial prejudices. However, if evidence demonstrates that black americans were more likely, based on percentages, to be acceptive to communist ideals and engage in violent civil unrest then the statement that it would be “Communist-led Negro guerilla units” may not “scream racial fear”, rather it may simply be an observation.
We may never know for sure whether Benson held racial prejudices, perhaps he did. However, as this site repeatedly requests evidence to support the allegations, I cannot help but feel that the evidence you have provided demonstrates a fear of communism, which I do not dispute, rather than a fear of black americans.
My main point in my original comment was that I appreciate your website and the well thought out arguments presented. Intelligent discussion, while it may never convert or un-convert is a welcome, and rare thing in today’s world. My purpose was to remind any who post on this site to becareful with how they edit the quotes used, and perhaps the best practice would be to create a link to the source material, especially when citing to a known leader of those with opposing views.
I don’t think my excerpt of that Benson quote obfuscated its original meaning at all. If anything, I just interpreted it wrong. In that quote, Benson isn’t actually warning of such guerrilla units, but instead saying that they don’t pose a threat (well, at least not an existential or permanent threat). So I presented his quote to you wrongly, sorry—this particular quote doesn’t scream racial fear. It is interesting to note, however, that Benson’s son, working with the Utah John Birch Society, stoked baseless fears that a planned NAACP civil rights protest in Salt Lake City would bring violence against Mormons, so the protest was prevented.
About the alleged link between communism and the civil rights movement, I discussed it briefly here: http://usu-shaft.com/2010/in-commemoration-of-mlk-jr-day/
It’s true that some civil rights leaders, like MLK Jr., had socialist sympathies (he supported affordable housing and health care, for example, because it’d afford minorities greater opportunities), but MLK Jr. explicitly denounced communism.
That some in the movement were sympathetic to socialism (even if that support was disproportionate) does not mean that the civil rights movement was reducible to a nefarious communist plot.
You’re right that Benson did not advocate “anti-Negro” mob violence. But notice why he does not advocate it. He doesn’t say it’s wrong to engage in such activity because blacks are human beings that ought to be treated equality. He doesn’t say it’s wrong because blacks are understandably upset at the discrimination they face. No, he just says it’s wrong because it “fits perfectly into the Communist plan.” That just strikes me as odd that THAT is the reason not to participate in “militant anti-Negro groups.” Had such activity not fit perfectly into the Communist plot, would it then be justified?
One last thing. Here’s why I think Benson’s conspiracy theory about the civil rights movement has undertones of racism: He portrays blacks as gullible dupes—that blacks were incapable of formulating their opinions and needed to be led. That stereotype against blacks has a long history in America. And that’s what I find objectionable about the theory that the civil rights movement was a communist invention. Blacks had legitimate grievances, and they didn’t have to be convinced of that by communist conspirators.
I’m glad you take the time to spell out your disagreement with me though, James. I wish more Mormons would do the same. I hope you continue to visit and contribute to this blog.
Hey guys, I appreciate your warm and thoughtful nature in your comments. And to the blogger I want to say much respect for speaking from the heart, and not in a bitter way (even when some bitterness is pretty understandable).
“David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” contains a whole chapter discussing the conversations and actions of the first presidency and the twelve regarding civil rights, missionary work, and the priesthood ban (you can read much of it on google books). Ezra Taft Benson was one of McKay’s “inner circle” who consistently advised him against ending the ban, and against support of the civil rights movement along with other high ranking members of the Church (But not all – Hugh B. Brown was an all too lonely voice of reason and progress, McKay himself was moderately conservative, becoming increasingly progressive, but often torn between tradition and slightly progressive impulses, between people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Hugh B. Brown).
My first grievance is with the logic of anti-communist leaders, including Benson. Blacks were angry because of segregation, exploitation, discrimination, and violence against them, and all this made the egalitarian promises of socialism more appealing. So, why not support civil rights and pull the rug out from under socialist movements. I can imagine only two reasons. One, they weren’t very smart – not good strategists; or two, they were influenced by their prejudices (maybe even subconciously to some degree) and looking for ways to discredit the civil rights movement.
I guess I’d rather be stupid than prejudiced (in reality I am probably a little of both).
But aside from strategical oversights, and more importantly. What are we to make of the fact that civil rights were only discussed by Benson as it related to the Cold War. Did he not recognize the pressing issues facing his African American brothers? Didn’t these issues and noble efforts warrant more than dismissal as part and parcel of a communist plot? I think the “tone” of the few public comments he made on race was condescending and probably implied contempt for the movement.
If Joseph Smith was outspoken and relatively progressive regarding the race issues of his day, Benson, Mark E. Peterson, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others were not the most courageous or progressive in their time on the same subject.
Granted, it is hard for me to be fair to them. They grew up in a different world. I was born in 1983 to parents and to a world that mostly taughbt me the evils of racial prejudice or any other kind. Even the Mormon Church that I grew up in mostly taught me to treat everyone equally (to the extent that the Church’s involvement in the Prop 8 campaign seemed an obvious and direct contradiction of Mormon values of tolerance, agency, freedom of conscience, etc.).
So, what do I take from all this? Not that they are evil. in fact, the research that preceded and followed my reading of this Blog inspired a different kind of reaction, though not unlike the author of this Blog. The general authorities were like me. They struggled with questions during their leadership of the whole church that I struggled with as a very inquisitive missionary for the church in predominantly African island countries in the Carribean. And their answers weren’t any more definitive than mine. Their decisions were not the result of inspiration as much as they were the result of the tension between inspiration and prejudice and dogma and compassion and community pressure and peer pressure and courage and fear, etc., etc.
People can make up their own minds about what this might mean for the Church’s claims of unique authenticity. But in the very least it means to me that we have to follow our own consciences! And that we should be on the alert about our own prejudices. I have felt spiritual growth as I explored the way dogma and prejudice affected my opinion and treatment of the GLBT issues (And people did not think of me as a prejudiced person to begin with, least of all myself, but with some serious introspection I saw found some reasons for regret – and I became more certain that I couldn’t in good conscience support the Church’s position on gay marriage or homosexuality).
Now to return to Benson for a moment. We have seen that he spoke in uninspired ways while under the influence of the red scare and the John Birch Society. Maybe its time to consider his comments on “The Proper Role of Government” in this context. Mormons do not have to believe welfare is part of a communist plot to destroy this nation any more than they have to think this of the civil rights movement.
I can imagine one more scenario, potentially to Benson’s credit, though still not praiseworthy in my opinion. There is a slight possibility that his opposition (if I can call it that) to the civil rights movement is not based on a lack of intelligence or on prejudice, but rather based on his dogmatic adherence to the notion that the federal government should stay out of people’s business. But this position remains indefensible where civil rights are at risk, in my opinion (see 14th Amendment). If we always let the states and localities of this nation do as they please without interference from the federal gov’t, who knows when slavery would have ended, or Jim Crow? But this is a whole other issue I apologize for taking things off topic.
Thanks for dropping in and sharing those thoughts, Karl. I hope you stick around and check out my other posts.