Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No More Protected Classes
@susanquinn has brought to our attention the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, and specifically this division’s director. On the one hand I applaud the concept that the religious freedom of healthcare providers should be aggressively defended, but on the other hand I cannot but see this as a bad omen.
You see, this is an admission that religious people are the objects of discrimination by our own government, by businesses, and by other groups of people. But it is also yet another declaration both that our government needs to protect entire groups of people from other groups of people, and that the federal government is the sole arbiter of which groups get protecting from whom, from what, and where those protections extend.
In a sane society, this should not be even necessary. Worse still, when another political party comes into power, what would stop them from upending the “protections” of this administration? All we’ve done is politicize yet another part of our lives. This will not end well. I wrote what follows some four years ago, when that other party was in power. It is no less relevant today.
The federal government has no business declaring that this group or that group is somehow “more equal” than another, nor does it have any business at all in declaring this group or that group needs to be accorded special rights and privileges not allotted to other groups, or at the expense of other groups. If you want to begin to break up the polarization of America, try breaking up the fiefdoms of the protected groups. Otherwise, they’re all just fighting over the scraps of our liberty and society.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Voltaire
This is often said by people who claim to be defending free speech. Why? Well, we claim to value freedom of expression and celebrate its inclusion in our First Amendment. We claim we value the give and take of ideas and values, including religious values. We claim to value the right of the press to publish the news and opinions it sees fit to publish. We claim to value the right of the lone soapbox preacher or the mass evangelist. Voltaire’s quote seems to epitomize our values, so he is often quoted with solemnity.
Practice is another matter. We do not really have free speech. We cannot talk about race anymore, especially if we’re white. We cannot easily talk about the differences in the sexes either, at least not in meaningful ways, especially not if we’re men. Increasingly we cannot discuss sexual preferences or orientation if we’re straight. We are all to pretend that such things do not exist. We are told we are all equal, or least should all be equal, and we’ve stretched the definition of “equal” to the point that we really mean leveled.
Why is it that we are not allowed to talk of such things? We are simply not allowed to think such things. The proliferation of “Hate Crime” laws has added a category of prosecution that punishes a criminal based on what was going through the perpetrator’s mind at the time of the criminal act. The ridiculous nature of this is evident in a simple thought experiment: If A and B are different races, and A kills B, the punishment meted to A could be higher merely if A had uttered a racial epithet prior to or during the attack. Had A kept his trap shut, he would be up for a lesser punishment. We are punishing the vocalized thoughts.
Hate crime laws such as these are a fairly recent innovation, though, and their genesis lies in something older, another set of laws which punish the intents behind actions. This older thing is punishment of “Discrimination”. Discrimination is the act of discerning between things, it is the thought preceding the activity.
Discrimination is also a dirty word. We are not allowed to discriminate. To be accused of discrimination is to invite censure and lawsuits, no matter how ridiculous the claim.
A silly story to illustrate the point:
I worked at a bookstore and we accepted checks for payment. Checks are a top method for retail scams. Once a customer tried to buy a set of expensive computer and medical books with an out of state check, expired driver’s license, and low check number. When we refused the sale, she accused us of “DISCRIMINATION.” My manager coolly replied: “We discriminate between those who can pay and those who can’t.” Silly indeed.
But the customer understood that by screaming that word in public, she was attempting to stake out territory as a victim.
We now accept without thinking that “discrimination” is wrong, though few understand the meaning of the word.
discriminate |disˈkriməˌnāt| verb [ no obj. ]1 recognize a distinction; differentiate:
To recognize a distinction. But this is hardly ever the connotation, and there is a 2nd and more recent definition in the dictionary
2 make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age:
This is the definition most people hang on in some form. Read that definition carefully, notice the adjectives of “unjust” and “prejudicial,” which are value judgments and require intent. The word, by that definition, comes loaded with connotation, all negative. Discrimination, by that definition, is a sin. Discriminators are Criminals.
But should they be? Should we use the heavy hand of the government to slap or punch those who discriminate?
We Protect classes of people based on Race, Sex, Religion, and increasingly Sexual Orientation; these are Protected Classes under law.
Protection & Economics
Economists have long recognized that businesses or industries, protected by tariffs, taxes, regulations, artificial barriers to entry, or government sanctioned or created monopolies and cartels, distort markets and encourage corruption. The US sugar market is so protected that we pay twice the world market price for sugar, leading the food industry to switch to the cheaper (and subsidized) corn syrup, a change which is increasingly a culprit in obesity. We have an ethanol mandate and an ethanol subsidy that both meddle with the fuel market, and make food prices higher than they would otherwise be. Our Postal System is an entire protected industry with all the attendant abuses, bizarre services, and waste. The abuses of Labor Union cartels are so well documented that we need not rehash them.
What is more, these protected industries, enriched off their ill-gotten gains, lobby hard for the continuance of their protections. Were their protections broken they would scream loudly, for the effect would be concentrated. Their wealth would enable them to create a long litany of sob stories and “interest pieces” for the news. Yet as awful as they are, their abuses are distributed across us all, so we merely grumble until their abuses rise to a burden impossible to ignore.
In short, as Conservatives and Libertarians, we can all recognize that these protections have distorted our markets and corrupted our political process. The war against these has been long and hard fought, for our opponents are vocal and rich off the spoils of the system, and they enrich their allies in Congress.
Protection here is clearly wrong, and even a sop for “good intentions” does not mitigate that corruption. Good Intentions pave the way to Hell, and the never-ending government meddling in economic policy, with all its maladroit malevolence and caprice, continues to be sold to the rest of us as “the right thing to do.”
But does this not also apply elsewhere?
Let us return to the issues of Employment and Commerce. By law, we have protected the classes of Race, Sex, Religion, and Sexual Orientation. Do we see the same forces of market distortion? We do of course. Large businesses, afraid of an EEOC investigation, now have “Diversity Programs” which encourage the hiring and promotion of the protected classes of Race and Sex. Government contracts have a myriad of set-asides for Race, Sex, veterans, the disabled, all of which are gamed terribly by contractors. Bids are not awarded strictly to the lowest or best bidders; they are weighted and allocated by quotas all in the name of preventing discrimination. It is truly “killing the patient to save the patient,” and it makes it very difficult for an honest business to compete.
Thieves like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have built their entire careers on blackmailing businesses into “donating” to charity fronts, and stuffing their boards with hand-picked “racial experts.” These groups need merely to accuse a company of not having enough minorities as an obvious symptom of “Discrimination,” launch a media campaign, and await the results (this is well documented in Shakedown, by Kenneth Timmerman).
In fact, if a company or organization is accused of “Discrimination,” the burden of proof lies with the accused to prove a negative: that they have not discriminated. This was used against our banking system in the 1990’s. Minorities tended to have lower credit scores than non-minorities. This meant that banks awarded fewer loans to minorities. Rather than work to understand why minorities had lower scores, however, our government instead accused the banks of racial discrimination. The banks caved, loosened loan requirements, and contributed mightily to our housing crisis. Though the anti-discrimination laws, in theory, require demonstrable intent and proof of actual racism, mere coincidence was the only “proof” required against the banks.
Employers must tread carefully when disciplining or firing a protected employee, building dossiers for months before taking action. This does not prevent the nearly inevitable lawsuit, but it does reduce the likelihood of having to make a payout. In theory companies in most states hire employees “at will,” and in theory should be able to fire them without even needing to give a reason, but for protected classes, this is rarely the case. The accusation of “Discrimination” is enough to start a court case.
There is a further distortion perpetuated here: it pays well to get your group elevated to the level of a Protected Class.
And why not? Protected Classes are harder to fire, can sue if not hired, are guaranteed a minimum percentage of government contracts, enjoy full media opprobrium and frequent sympathetic “personal interest” stories (it’s always easy to find a bigot, and bigots make good TV), Congressional lobbying power, government grants, redistribution programs, and prosecutorial immunities.
It is an undeniable fact that lobbyists are working hard to elevate Sexual Orientation (i.e., Homosexuality) to a full acceptance as a Protected Class. As this plays out, we should all expect to hear more from our media on how this the Right Thing to Do, to protect another victim group, indeed we hear about constantly now. I’m not faulting Homosexuals for this, this is the political game to play, and the rewards are huge. I fully expect Christian groups to do the same as the pendulum swings too far. Give it a decade and expect to see Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. all added to the quota checklists of large corporateDiversity Programs.
This is not a joke either, corporate buyers talk quite candidly off the record of finding, for instance, a dream supplier run by a black female veteran with one leg, one that “checks all the boxes”.
A Conflict of Protections: The Hierarchy of Victim Groups
Here is the nexus of our crisis. Homosexuals will be a Protected Class. Religion is a Protected Class. These Protected Classes are now in conflict over turf and resources. The resources are Power and Coercion, with the side effects of money and prestige. Each side is demanding the government favor themselves over their opponent, even though each is supposed to have equal footing. Who will win?
Well, Religion has the older claim to be sure, but it has no media or government sympathy at the moment. The antipathy of the Left towards Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is well documented (though vociferously denied). Besides, the Christians are the Bigots in the news story, the typecast villain every good “Personal Interest” story needs to grab headlines. “If it bleeds it leads” is still the news mantra, and this paradigm requires both a villain and a victim.
This reveals an ugly truth of our Protected Classes: Some classes are more protected than others. It’s rather like Rock-Paper-Scissors in a sense, with a trump suit.
Religion beats Sex. Sex Beats Race. Race beats Religion.
But Homosexuality trumps all at the moment, except perhaps Islam. Our media is careful, for instance, to ignore that the majority of Blacks do not want SSM, but doubly ignores honor killings or extermination of gays in Muslim countries.
Our terribly flawed system of Protected Classes seeks the precious resources, of which the Government has a monopoly, of Power and Coercion both over the general populace, and over each other. Government monopolies on resources can have terribly corrupting effects on a society. We’ve seen this before too, though in a different context: In Socialism.
The Socialist Control of Resources
In Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell, Professor Sowell gives an analogy. If there were a government monopoly on bricks, and both a church and a mosque wished to build a new facility, then they would each petition the Ministry of Bricks for an allotment. The Ministry would have to decide between the two groups over who got bricks. The church and mosque would compete directly with each other to win the bid, promoting enmity between themselves, while the hapless Ministry will probably award the bricks based on its own caprice or bribery – in short: CORRUPTION. In a free market of bricks, the church and mosque would only buy bricks according to their own means, competing indirectly in the free market. There would be no enmity between them on that account.
The Government today has declared itself the sole arbiter of thought crimes, and the sole wielder of punishment against “thought criminals”. When a company is in a dispute with a Protected employee, the employee and employer will each petition the Government to wield its power against the other, instead of settling their disputes privately.
When one Protected Class is in conflict with another, our Government has asserted that only it has the power to resolve that conflict. Like with the hapless Ministry of Bricks, it is asked to resolve a dispute better left to the free market.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act – The Original Sin
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is completely to blame. In 1964, the Federal Government unilaterally asserted the power to protect Race, Religion, and Sex in a way it had never tried before. Set aside the voting rights, an entirely appropriate realm of government, the sin is in the sections on Employment and Commerce
For the first time, the United States created Protected Classes, then asserted total authority to police disputes with such classes. Americans could be punished by fines or imprisonment for merely refusing to hire a Protected Class or to serve a Protected Class in their business. Relying on the prior stretching of the Interstate Commerce Clause beyond any meaning, Congress declared that no American citizen could refuse a business transaction with any group declared Protected.
The intent behind the law was noble, and the law was clearly aimed at the Southern states, still mired in racial laws and government-sanctioned and government-mandated racial discrimination in everything from restaurants to restrooms, to drinking fountains. Yet Congress merely traded one evil for another.
The Civil Rights Act was deemed necessary to forcibly undo the Jim Crow laws promulgated by the Southern States after the Reconstruction era, when Union troops ceased to act as an occupational force. The evil of Jim Crow is beyond doubt, but what is often lost is that Jim Crow mandated the separation of the races for the purposes of employment and commerce. Jim Crow was a central motivation for many blacks to migrate north, and it was this migration that Woodrow Wilson fought when he imposed Jim Crow on the federal bureaucracy. FDR’s support of the minimum wage was at least partly to prop up his white labor union supporters against black workers, who were freely undercutting the unions on construction and factory jobs. It was Jim Crow laws that forced businesses to discriminate against blacks. In short, the Jim Crow laws imposed then locked in forced segregation.
Jim Crow, in other words, forced a behavior on businesses that they might otherwise have not engaged in. It created the Thought Crime of Integration and punished it accordingly. Had the Civil Rights Act merely broken the back of those laws it would have been right and proper.
The damage done by the Civil Rights Act was to instead impose Anti-Segregation on businesses. If it was wrong for Jim Crow to force businesses to discriminate, then how is it not wrong to force businesses to not discriminate? Congress Over-Reacted by transposing one set of thought crimes with another, but made is subtly worse by making the offense one of omission: A Negative Crime. Before, a business had to be visibly seen discriminating, an easily proven activity. Now a business has to be visibly NOT engaging in an activity, the mirror image of the prior situation.
There is absolutely no way a business can demonstrate a lack of an activity, but to avoid scrutiny businesses must now engage in a sort of hyperactive racial quota and recruiting system.
And of course, the other Protected Classes, seeing the spoils to be gained with quotas, have further gamed the system. Though this is hotly denied, we have active quotas today in hiring for race and sex, wherein American Citizens, supposedly equal before the law, are segregated into groups and judged by their physical characteristics.
The Balkanization of the American Electorate
Protected Classes have become intellectual ghettos and petty fiefdoms. Blacks are protected, treated as a mass block by this law. After all, protection comes with power and goodies. Yet this has separated Blacks from Whites, not to mention Hispanics or Asians, for they too have their own protected blocks now.
Women are pitted against men, for the law has decreed the interest of Women to be separate from other groups.
The actual practice of the law has been insidious too, for case law and federal statutes essentially treat some groups as more equal than others. The assumption is that if you are a member of a majority class, then you are retarded from prosecuting for discrimination crimes against minorities.
It is small wonder then that racial relations continue to be strained. For a race to remain protected means power to its protectors. If racism were to really decline then the racial “leaders” would be out of work and out of power. If male/female relations were seen to be balanced, then radical groups like NOW and NARAL would be moot. It is in the best interests of Protected Groups to retain their protection, thus it is in their interests to continue to be seen as oppressed victims, regardless of the truth.
Their battle cry is “Equality,” but this rings hollow in their actions. Instead, we are further separated from each other. Men’s groups and clubs are broken up by women, though female clubs and schools are allowed to remain. Employees are left wondering if their advancement was due to ability, or to their “check box” factor, while others are left to wonder in silence as their colleagues are promoted by sex or race.
And shopkeepers are left to wonder, should they turn down a customer, if that customer will turn around and prosecute or sue them for Discrimination. That the Seattle Florist is sued for discriminating against a Homosexual wedding is a sign that Homosexuals are now, at least in Washington, a Protected Class.
The Florist illustrates our separations all too well: The Florist is also claiming status as a Protected Class, and now our government must choose which classes are More Protected than others.
Demanding Service
Why am I not free to refuse service? What is gained by demanding all businesses serve all customers? In this day of instant communication, if a white business turns down a black customer, that customer can have his complaint on Facebook, Google, Linked In, Tumblr, and a thousand other sources in minutes. Why do we need to involve prosecutors, legislators, bureaucrats, and the courts in such mundane acts?
If a baker refuses a homosexual customer, that customer will advertise it to the entire homosexual community, and doubtless other bakers will step forward to take the business. Discrimination here promotes competition and specialization.
Why must we continue to act like children, bringing every petulant dispute to our nanny Government? Why are we prevented from settling these matters privately?
Moving Forward – Free to Be Racist Jerks, Resolving our Disputes
We are not children. We do not need protection. We should be individuals, not Interest Groups seeking patronage and power, or coercion over others.
It is time to eliminate the business clauses of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Jim Crow is Dead and Buried. 1964 was 50 years ago now. If you were 20 then, you are 70 now. Surely whatever purpose the law served has been met, as those who most defended Jim Crow are now dead and buried with it.
Southern White Racists are now a cartoon villain, trotted out like the Nazis whenever Hollywood runs out of energy.
We have no more Southern White Racists to beat up, so we make up fantasies like the ridiculous The Help, like some sort of Medieval Mystery Play, where instead of a rousing chorus of “Kill the Jews” we instead have a rousing chorus of Spit on the Southerners. We feel virtuous and purged when we watch these, like some sort of ritual atonement for the sins of our ancestors.
But the truth is that this is all a charade now. The spoils of Protected Classes are too readily seen to be ignored, but we are not free to speak our minds and say it all must end. Just as we are not free to speak our minds and say farm subsidies must end, we are not free to speak our minds and say the Race, Sex, Religion, and Orientation racket has to end.
It is high time to recognize that the 1964 Civil Rights act has further divided our society, and that its outgrowths continue to force Americans to compete against each other for spoils.
It is time to Grow Up.
Published in Domestic Policy
Great post SkipSul!
Strongly seconding this. The evil of Jim Crow could have better remedied by targeting the government requirement that businesses discriminate on the basis of race. That we, instead, issued a new government requirement demanding a new race-based discrimination in the other direction was an enormous mistake.
Sometimes, it’s best to end the evil and leave it at that.
No wonder victim-class hoaxes are a thing. It’s a wonder, frankly, that there aren’t more of them.
Focusing on people’s physical attributes is not healthy for our country, as Skipsul has so well examined in the original post. The post is an excellent analysis of the problem we have created for ourselves.
John Roberts got this one right at least:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Barry Goldwater had it exactly right and was excoriated for it. How long will it be before Americans can face up to truth?
Yes, we need more adult behavior. And we also need those in governmet to admit their own failings and limitations.
It is high time to move beyond the failings of our past to a better future based in true Liberty.
Thanks for posting a great analysis on a subject sorely in need of exposure.
This is part and parcel with our ongoing tribalism.
Victim thinking leads to genocide. I think we need to push back on it, but the left is dealing in it, and it alone. It makes sense, since the right has been ineffective in fighting the left, that on the right we are going to see calls for it too.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seems to be a fine example of what we can do when we have bi-partisan agreement.
An excellent point, and a frightening one at that.
As you know, @skipsul, you’ve written an excellent OP. I agree with all your points. I just don’t think there is the will to reverse these decisions, by either party. The Left will scream they are being victimized, along with those “special needy groups”; the Right doesn’t have the courage to stand up to the spewing of anger and hatred to take the necessary steps. I would ask you and everyone, and I ask sincerely, should religious groups not have been protected? Maybe that is the issue here for me: religious groups must simply stand up for themselves, not look to the government, and deal with whatever hatred comes their way. Much to think about. Thanks.
Agreed. At the time I was against it, too. I still remember the sinking feeling in my stomach when I pulled the newspaper out of the mailbox and learned from the front page headline that it had passed. I thought our country was done for. (I was in high school then, and yes, that’s how I got the news.) I wasn’t against what it was purporting to do. That was a problem that needed action. I was against what it would lead to, given the new scope of powers that it gave to the government.
A few years later I decided I had been wrong, that it was a good thing and didn’t destroy our country the way I had feared, and what other alternative had there been?
More recently, perhaps starting 15 years ago or so, I came to think that I had been right in the first place. It is leading to everything I had feared, and worse.
Of course these decisions will not be reversed. That’s why I’m not against special protection for religious groups and any other group that needs protection. If we can’t undo the law, help it lead to its logical conclusion sooner rather than later, and maybe then people will see the problem with it. Maybe some will see the problem, which will motivate them to continue on the path. But there is no other way. If you want the bad guys to see what is wrong with specially protected groups, they are going to have to be motivated to come up with these arguments themselves.
I’ve always said government-mandated racial discrimination is not the solution to private racial discrimination.
I’m old enough to remember when the adjective “discriminating” was a compliment meaning “having or showing refined taste or good judgment.”
I hate the balkanization of America maybe more than most but last week I had an incident in my life. Iwas walking my dog and the short version is I was threatened by a 27 year old man child, 6 ft 3, 240 lb with bodily harm. He later tried to run me down with his truck missing me by inches. I was hesitant to call the police because there may of not been any witnesses. Again for brevity, I did call the next day and they interviewed me. Basically my word against his? Little did I know that I am in a protective class, old. I didn’t hear back from the police for two days then I got a call from my Elder Abuse counselor who works for the police. It was so reassuring. They are very serious about protecting elders here in Mt Pleasant SC. If there is any question the tie goes to the old guy. There was a day that with my training I would have handled the man child my self but at going on 73 and resent health issues he could have ruined the rest of my life. My counselor said that when the police interviewed my attacker he repeatedly referred to me as that old guy, like I need reminded . My town also just had a horrible incident where a 25 year old beat his grandfather, grandmother, aunt and cousin to death with a barbell so things are on edge.
Good post, but one thought that occurred to me as I was reading this section is that some may consider Jim Crow the original sin, with the CRA being the secondary sin of overreacting.
I doubt that those in government, on either side of the aisle will ever look into their failings. And often, those on either side of the aisle, at least at the upper levels of the Parties, have gotten the riff raff to be in continual agitation over things that the Elite could care less about. While meanwhile they barely do more than figure out which campaign contributors to have their staff call on, etc.
Good point, though Jim Crow was a response to sins even more original than that. Maybe it’s turtles all the way down, or maybe you could trace the original sin all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
When you think about how the Civil Rights Act was brought to us by the same president and congress (for the most part) that got us into Vietnam and would not let us win, maybe what we have now isn’t so bad, by comparison.
@skipsul
I don’t ever expect to see Christian and Jew added to the government protected list. Esther got the best deal from government you will ever see for these two groups.
If there is an Original Sin here, it is the failure of the protected class of white American citizens to integrate the freed slaves and their descendants into the broader society for many decades after the Civil War. This was a national, not just regional, failure.
During the debates over the 14th Amendment, Radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens proposed an alternative to the language providing for “equal protection of the law”, “privileges and immunities” and “due process”. Steven’s proposal was simple and direct:
That language quite clearly establishes a color-blind constitution and was voted down. Perhaps we would be better off today if it had been adopted. Instead, the actual language of the 14th Amendment has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow “reasonable” racial classifications. The Court followed the same logic in Plessy in 1896 regarding segregated passenger rail cars, as it did in the 1970s cases upholding affirmative action.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was neutral in its language regarding discrimination, as both its language and the voluminous legislative history demonstrate. What led to interpretations that contradict the language were actions by federal regulatory agencies and commissions (mostly during the Nixon Administration) and the 1970s decisions of the Warren Burger led Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it proved true, that as one of the opinions in the 1978 Bakke case said:
But then we aren’t stopping the problem inherent in creating special classes of people, but expanding it. (Unless I am not getting your meaning.) Also there seems to be societies within the US that have only certain classes. So there will be regional differences regarding which group is considered to be the one that is properly protected.
(Example: hispanics in Los Angeles will not likely give up the sanctuary status that the city officials have now enacted.) So in a sense we may well be returning to the ethnic-based neighborhoods of seventy years ago. If everyone is “equal” then there is bound to be fights among each group about which one has been slighted, and which one is now more unequal. Rather like sibling rivalry inside families, only with more dire outcomes.
There would be a Devil’s Bargain were religious groups, denominations, or entire religions to gain the “protection” of government. Entanglement between faith and governing often corrupts both, and we can find a number of examples throughout history.
The Catholic entanglement with the monarchy of France
The Puritan entanglement in both Massachusetts Bay Colony, and in Britain.
The Orthodox entanglement with the Romanovs, and now with Putin
The Evangelical entanglements with the Republican Party from the 80s through today.
You always run the risk that the inevitable corruption of politicians and religious leaders will taint both the party and the faith. People will rag on Republicans when some megachurch leader gets caught, or they’ll rag on church leaders when endorsed politicians are exposed. The Orthodox in the USSR were oppressed because they let themselves be bound to the Romanovs, and though Putin is affording them special favor now, when he falls or dies, at some future date the church will face backlash.
While I do think that conscience protections for the faithful are necessary in medicine today, at the same time those protections are only necessary because other federal laws punish the faithful. Better to amend the law than to layer in more accretions.
Very true. I had to pick a starting point for the essay, and really I could have gone back to 1492, but it was long enough as it was.
But yes, you are absolutely right. So many missed opportunities. I could have singled out Woodrow Wilson (whom I loathe quite deeply) with especial disfavor for segregating the federal government. I could have singled out the weak presidents of the 1880s who ended the Reconstruction occupation of the South and allowed the southern whites to segregate things there too.
Time and time and time again, the US has squandered opportunities for racial reconciliation, and when it finally did move, it over-reacted and created all new problems.
Your statements are all correct, but what are the chances of the better thing getting done vs. more accretions? Keep in mind the Republican record for legislating against abusive government.
Fair point.
Nicely said. Also, my paragraph above may not have been clear enough. The failure was not just Jim Crow and the South. It was every region of the country. For example, Brown v Board of Education was about the Topeka, Kansas school system.
I go to Mt. Pleasant periodically, and it always struck me as a nice, peaceful place. Even so, I carry concealed wherever I’m allowed just because incidents like this can and do happen.