Racism Is Still Alive and Well

This political season, my kids have enjoyed pointing out some of the political t-shirts, signs and bumper stickers that they see. They obviously have a bias that they get from me and my wife, because their politics are always right in line with ours. We’ll take full credit and shout “Hallelujah”!

One t-shirt caught their eye recently, and they asked us to explain it. The text of the message said this – “Paint the White House Black – Obama”. After reciting the words to us, they asked us for a deeper explanation about this slogan. I’ve looked it up and found that this line stems from a rap song by Ludacris – I’ve never heard it, nor do I intend to. Senator Obama has said that Ludacris is one of his favorite artists. If you want to see hatred wrapped up in a “song”, go read the lyrics to this rap entitled “Politics (Obama is Here)”. You’ll be shocked (I hope).

How do you explain racism to young children? Aren’t the days of the Ku Klux Klan and the Watts riots past us? Is our nation still enduring the hatred and baiting that characterized the 1960’s? Do we still live in a time where skin color and nationality make a difference in how we treat people? Apparently we do.

Make no mistake - the t-shirt in question does contain a racist message. Racism is defined as any policy that fosters the idea that there are inherent differences in race or culture. As skin color in this case determines a racial difference, it’s rather easy to conclude that the wearer of the shirt believes that there is a difference between putting a black person in the White House instead of a white person. It’s a kind of reverse apartheid, where segregation is made based on skin color. The person in question here is clearly making a stand for black skin color over white, as if that has anything to do with who should be governing our nation.

To put it in perspective, imagine for a moment that I had a t-shirt made up that said “Keep The White House White – McCain”. Could I get away with wearing that in public? It’s doubtful. I would very likely get negative publicity, and possibly be accused of a hate crime in our society today. It would certainly draw all sorts of negative media attention. But isn’t it the same message as the first t-shirt? Doesn’t it somehow imply that race has something to do with the election? Wearing either shirt or rapping the lyrics to a Ludacris song are clear announcements of racism.

Here is the lesson I am teaching my children. Skin color does not matter. Policy matters. Our nation should be judging our presidential candidates by what they say, do, and believe. Their race should have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yet, for a large segment of people (on both sides) it still does. I wonder where the polls would stand today if we had locked both candidates in a box when it all started and we were exposed only to their words. The numbers would be different, I’m sure.

The sad truth is that skin color still makes a difference to some people. White people still distrust black people and their ability to govern. And some black people want to make up for years of injustice by behaving in the same racist and biased way – only in reverse. They are acting as if there is a need to offset decades of racial bias by suppressing whites for a time. Many would not admit this openly, but a glance at some of the rapper lyrics that are so popular would tell us otherwise. They want the whites to suffer for a time, as penance for slavery and suppression inflicted on them by our ancestors.

If we truly want to be a nation known for its equal treatment of race, then we need to act that way now – not by offsetting the past sins with equal and opposite treatment. This election (as in all elections) should be about evaluating each candidate on principles and beliefs, with a blind eye toward truly irrelevant issues such as skin color. Would we disparage a candidate because they were balding, or sat in a wheelchair? Then why does the amount of melanin in a person’s skin have anything to do with their ability to lead? The clear answer is that it does not.

Undivided Leadership

The link between good leaders and successful ventures is undeniable. In corporate America, the best companies do not take leadership for granted, but spend a great deal of time and money promoting those with leadership skills and grooming the best leaders to take the reins at the right time.

In the same way, nations need leaders who are undivided in their ways. And nations that have undivided leadership themselves remain undivided. Even more, nations who rally under the banner of God enjoy His blessing – not randomly but in a focused and targeted way. God gives blessing to righteous nations who vow to follow Him.

For proof, look no further than the Israelite nation of the Old Testament. Though they started out relatively small and they had no place to call their own for a time, God gave them victory after victory to overcome enemies who should have defeated them easily. This was not a chance event – God gave them success because they were His chosen people. However, the Israelites eventually grew jealous of the leadership structure of other nations and asked their God-appointed leaders for a king. Though he clearly did not like the prospect, Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel, and things began to worsen.

Saul did not turn out to be a good king, and faltered in his governing, losing sight of God to the point that he called on a witch to predict his future. That event led directly to his death (1 Samuel 28:19). Saul was followed by David, a much better king overall, and the nation of Israel enjoyed God’s blessing for a time. At the end of David’s reign, Israel enjoyed a peace and prosperity that they had never known before.

David’s son, Solomon, took over the throne, and though he started out strong, his final years signaled the beginning of the downfall of God’s chosen people. 1 Kings 11:4 says, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God.” When Solomon had finished building the temple, God promised that the nation of Israel would be cut off and rejected if he ever turned away from God. Isn’t it interesting that this promise hinged on the faithfulness of one man in the entire nation – the leader? The result of Solomon’s divided heart was a divided people. Israel would soon split into two nations and would never attain her previous glory. God is faithful to all of His promises.

Proverbs 14:34 tell us that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Indeed, it seems the leaders of our own beloved United States have plunged us into the same state as Israel after Solomon’s rule. In nearly every area, our nation’s leaders equivocate on truths that should never have been placed in doubt. The role of government vs. the family, education, the loss of individual freedoms, abortion, and even the current high state of taxation all rail against the principles set out by God in his word. We are witnessing a presidential election in which both political parties have thrown out many of God’s basic tenets as outdated or inapplicable.

What would happen if just one voice in politics stood up and proclaimed to follow God’s laws, strictly and fully, while in office? That candidate would be the object of ridicule, cast aside as out-of-touch and possessing a skewed mindset. But that attitude is exactly what God demands of our leaders – an attitude that is undivided, unwavering and humbled to God’s laws. And if we were to elect such a candidate, the blessings of God would return and righteousness would exalt our nation, just as it did over two centuries ago.

And that can happen. It requires the faithfulness and efforts of God’s people to bring about that change, just as it has throughout history. If there is one thing that the Bible teaches us, it is that God is willing to forgive and start anew with His people. Pray for our country, that we might return to living (and leading) under God’s laws and that His blessing will return to us.