Quakers and Civil Rights

American North

Skipping ahead in Sweet Land of Liberty, I see the Jews and their allies are covered at some length:

A small, dissenting denomination, the Quakers were out of the American mainstream. More so than any religious group in the mid-twentieth century, they pushed aggressively for racial equality – and for a small group, they were ubiquitous. Their zeal made them the most visible white dominated group in the civil rights movement besides Communists. The AFSC directed most of its energies southward. There were a few Quaker beachheads in the South, most notably, Greensboro, North Carolina, where the Quakers ran Guilford College. There Quakers challenged employment discrimination and segregated education. AFSC activists fanned out throughout the region south of the Mason-Dixon Line, desegregating playgrounds and pools in Washington, DC, pushing for integrated housing in the packinghouse towns of Louisiana, and working with fledgling civil rights groups in places as far-flung as Dallas, Texas and Prince Edward County, Virginia.

By the late 1940s, they began to turn their attention to the unfinished problem of racial equality in the North. Members of AFSC built an integrated cooperative housing project in North Philadelphia, collaborated with the United Automobile Workers to construct racially mixed housing in Milipitas, California, and worked closely with Chicagoans trying to integrate the city’s Trumbull Park public housing project. In Syracuse, New York and Columbus, Ohio, among many other northern places, Quaker activists coordinated efforts to eradicate slum housing and open new suburban developments to blacks. But of all these northern efforts, the most important and influential were in their own backyard – Philadelphia’s suburbs …”

Follow Hunter Wallace on Gab, VK, Facebook and Twitter.
About Hunter Wallace 5907 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

43 Comments

  1. Sorry pushed the comment button too soon.

    Even though this time gap is not as great as Rudel’s , this shows there’s a several hundred year gap in the origin of the Gauls and the Hebrews, so the Gauls are a older people than the Hebrews.

    The genetic of the Hebrews and the Gaul’s descendants are entirely different. I would suggest that CI believers do some reading about Jewish and European genetics so they can see for themselves what those differences are.

    The Hebrews and the Gaul’s lived in entirely different areas of the world. In ancient times, the ancestors of the Gauls lived in Asia Minor, under the name Cimmerians, and later moved into Europe. The Hebrews, of course, lived in the Middle East, until the various migrations and exiles that happened around the Greco-Roman times.

    The languages are different. There’s absolutely no correlation between Hebrew and European languages. Heck, nearly all written Semitic languages are written right to left, while all European languages are written left to right.

    The physical appearances of both people are different. As I’ve said previously, written and pictorial descriptions of Jews and Gentiles from the most ancient times show distinct features that belong to different racial groups.

    Finally, the religions and the cultures of the two people were different. One only has to read the law of Moses and compare it to what is know of the ancient Celtic-Gaul cultures to see the vast gap between the two. Can anyone reading the histories of the Gauls and Hebrews truly and honestly believe that the Gauls and other people of Europe were the descendants of lost Israelite tribes? Only if one is honestly or willfully ignorant of real history.

  2. Let’s not confuse three different ‘Gauls’: (1) The east-central European people called Galatians who invaded Anatolia FROM Europe, NOT the other way ’round — and (2) the Celtae, called Galli by the Romans, who were the inhabitants of one of three divisions (Belgae, Aquitani and Celtae) of the land now called France — and (3) the WORD ‘Gaule’ (unrelated to ‘Galli’) that derives from the old Frankish-German word ‘Walholant’, related to the Germanic ‘walha'(meaning an alien, or foreigner) meaning specifically: NON-Frankish Gallo-Roman.

    William Blake’s ‘British Christian Identity’ poem is called the English national anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM8Mn9H3604

    I found and read an old British Israelitism book in the seminary library years ago, and I didn’t agree with it.

  3. I had enough science education (even considered a physics major, years ago) and spent enough years studying ancient literature and religions to NOT apply ‘literalism’ to Genesis. It is PERFECTLY evident that the age of the earth and of the appearance of forms of life on earth is not six literal days or thousands of years, but millions, and MILLIONS, of years.

  4. MN, no Christian, until the dawn of the evolutionary theories of Darwin and his contemporaries, believed in that billions of years nonsense. I’d suggest that you read the materials presented by the Kolbe Center and the ICR for proof of this. And, btw, if we can’t believe that Genesis is literally true, why should we believe in the rest of the Bible as true? And why should I take seriously anything you say about the Bible or Christianity if you don’t believe it yourself? Rudel is far more honest with his hard core agnosticism in calling the Bible “iron age myths” than you are in your theist evolutionism

  5. Christians who treat the Genesis creation account as ‘teaching’ — just as it was undoubtedly originally intended and understood — are simply better informed than dark age and medieval Christians and others more recently who assumed in their ignorance that it was intended as a literal history. Others treat it as a literal history today who know better, or could know better, are not innocent.

    Of course the Gospel requires faith, and obedience, until we experience it and see the fruits of the Spirit that comes to live and work in us. Of course it is necessary to believe in things that are unseen and unprovable, but it is NOT necessary to misconstrue as miracles certain metaphorical teachings that were never INTENDED to be taken literally. Sanctified common sense avoids the dark road of superstition. God ‘gave us brains and expects us to use them’, as well as the Word and His Spirit to guide us.

    ‘Literalism or agnosticism’ is a false dichotomy, a lie intended to destroy the Church.

  6. Mosin, was Jesus an ignorant, dark ages man because he accepted Genesis as factual history or was he God incarnate? Was he resurrected from the dead, or is that a dark age myth too? Fish or cut bait, Mosin. Either believe the faith or become an honest unbeliever.

  7. The more false miracles, relics, legends, etc. the people ‘buy’ (believe in) the more new false miracles, relics, legends etc. will be foisted on them. The scam never ends, as long as they allow themselves to be led down the road of superstition away from the one Biblical, orthodox true Faith.

  8. ‘Believe all miracles or no miracles’ is a false dichotomy intended to destroy true faith. Those extra (false) miracles and teachings that make the Gospel void and lead people to Hell also make the false ‘church’ wealthy and powerful.

  9. Anyone who has studied the physical evidence of the fossil record, and the rudiments of physics and astronomy, and the nature of ancient religious literature, will realise fully that the account in Genesis is to be taken as teaching not as a literal account of a six-twenty-four-hour-days event. There is no other position that could be held honestly or innocently.

  10. Some Jesuit-ists and most orthodox Rabbis are pleased with followers who accept ‘literal’ interpretation — blind followers who can be led even further to believe literally in even more false, worse things. White nations need a revival of true Biblical Christianity that will take an entirely different path.

  11. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘Anyone who has studied the physical evidence of the fossil record, and the rudiments of physics and astronomy, and the nature of ancient religious literature, will realise fully that the account in Genesis is to be taken as teaching not as a literal account of a six-twenty-four-hour-days event. There is no other position that could be held honestly or innocently.’

    I agree.

    Apparently, recent Popes have also come to this conclusion.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-pope-bigbang-idUSTRE7052OC20110106

    God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope
    BY PHILIP PULLELLA

    VATICAN CITY Thu Jan 6, 2011 10:05am EST

    (snip) Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the Church’s image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.

    Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

    The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism — the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible — and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world. (snip)

  12. Re: ‘Apparently, recent Popes have also come to this conclusion’:

    But we know that historically, as well as recently, Popes and ‘Black Popes’ and the rest of the inner party of the system have come to any conclusion that serves to maximise their influence and power.

  13. Mr. Dalton; thanks for making your position a bit more clear. I would ask you to investigate the findings of the Jewish author “Yahuda” in his ground-breaking work, ‘Hebrew is Greek.” Therein, he notes that the two langauges are all but the same tongue, and how that could be. It’s not an easy find. Jewish supremacist types bought up all available copies, but you might find one in a College/university library someplace, and just ‘happen’ to make a copy of it. It will disabuse you of the ‘unique’ nature of the Hebrew tongue.

    As to genetics, you can read results any way you please, and come up with your own conclusions. The fact that certain ‘ethnic types’ NOW live in the Levant, does not mean that they have ALWAYS lived in the Levant. Based on the most conservative estimates, the #’s of people living in Palestine, after the Hebrews took over the Promised Land, upon their Exodus from Egypt (assuming the factuality of the Biblical account- but, even here, note discrepancies in the chronology- cf. Rolf’s book, and the History Channel series on his discoveries) was at MINIMUM, 5 million people. Now, if the number of people RETURNING after seventy years in Babylon, near the Caucausus mountains, can be reckoned as somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000, where did the other 4.5 MILLION people go?

    As I mentioned Schroeder’s “Science of God,” I would advise you, as a somewhat literate man, to procure a copy at your local bookstore, and read it. Factuality of the biblical record is not against the scientific notion of billions of years of development (note, I avoid the term, evolution)- but it’s how you correlate the two, is what matters.

    That you, as a catholic, should even hold up the ICR, and the Hamite ‘one blood’ fools as reputable sources (they’re protestants, anti-catholic bigots, and foolish ‘scientists’, for the record) is beyond credibility. I think back to my time among the ICR homeschooling crowd, and noted with amazement, at how quickly ‘one of their own’ (who is fully on board the Multiculti bandwagon) was trashed, when he DARED dissent from this specious ‘science construct.’ I include this as a comment on your endorsement, Mr. Dalton.

    http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/lord-what-fools-these-hs-protestants-be/

    The reason I bring this up, is that the HS ICR crowd is just as much ‘judaized’ as the liberal, left-leaning types, in this regard. Darwin himself wanted to give Origin of the Species to the world, because he was a closet multiculturalist, not a ‘scientist’!

    http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/charles-and-harriet-sittin-in-a-tree/

    I hope this aids the conversation.

    Mosin, as to RUDE-L. That he can only give one line dissimulations to the facts mustered, shows me he’s a coward. That he is a UCC, means he’s worshiping Satan, rather than Christ, as the UCC forty-five years ago, was so liberal, they had become a cult of pseudo-calvinist Unitarians, in all but name only. Let the dead bury the dead, to be honest. He’s a useless piece of flotsam on this board, whose pontifications serve nothing but to rile people up- and his unchristian, un-gentlemanly behaviour on this one post, renders him as I said- like Joew, or Stonelifter. A loose cannon, and a schmuck, that all civilized men and women should shun.

  14. Mosin, you still didn’t answer my question about Jesus. Do you believe he was God in the flesh? Do you believe he was raised from the dead? Do you believe in any of the Biblical miracles? If you don’t, knock off the Christian piety act and become an honest unbeliever.

    As for certain Popes believing in the big bang, sorry Sam, the official doctrine of the church hasn’t changed. Unless the Pope speaks ‘from the chair’ and repudiates the Apostles and Nicene Creed (the deposit of faith) we still believe in the Genesis account of creation. And no Pope will officially renounce Bibical creationism.

  15. May the grace of God help us to accept the truth (of the Gospel) that is unseen and unprovable, and the courage to reject all the other miracles and ‘additions’ that are popularised but spurious (like apparitions of the ghost of ‘Your Lady’) — and the wisdom to know the difference. May we study and fully grasp the nature of ancient religious literature and learn to interpret properly, so we cannot be confused and used by popular false interpreters of difficult texts such as Genesis, Daniel and the Apocalypse of John.

  16. It follows: IF the Pope (the INFALLIBLE ‘Vicar of Christ’) ever speaks evolution FROM HIS CHAIR, THEN they will believe it.

    Never say never.

  17. The Pope can say one thing standing, another thing while sitting, or at least never mention ‘it’ while sitting on his throne.

  18. Mosin, you still can’t give a straight up/down, yes/no answer. And you never will, because you’re a religious liberal.

  19. I will not reply directly, as I resolved several weeks ago. I will also not comment on any of Ryan’s threads.

    If anyone considers me ‘liberal’, they are wrong. As I wrote very plainly on another thread, several weeks or months ago, regarding faith in the Deity, incarnation and resurrection, His promised return, judgement and the hope of the Saints. I haven’t changed since, so I’m still one of the MOST CONSERVATIVE. We even reject the un-biblical heretical innovations of Rome that make the true Gospel void. What could be more conservative than that!

    God not only created the heavens and the earth, He also gave us the ABILITY (and He expects us to USE it) to understand how it wasn’t created in six twenty-four-hour days.

    The false dichotomy of obedient ‘Creationist’ ignorance versus evolutionist atheism is designed to confuse and destroy. Let Christians beware and avoid BOTH ignorance and ‘liberalism’.

    Let the southern white ethnonationalist movement beware of Papist wolves wearing ‘Creationist’ Talmudic clothing.

  20. Mr. Dalton: From what I have read of Mosin’s comments, he is NO Liberal.

    He may be a Protestant, but he is NO liberal.
    One does not need to be a liberal, to understand either the factuality of the six-day scenario, or the unacceptability of the ICR/Hamite folderol.

    I taught in a RCC Seminary College early in my career. What I heard, saw, and listened to, made me realize the even Rome isn’t ROME any more. It’s a terrible thing to realize that your church is nothing more than a synagogue of Satan, but it clearly is today, even more so, than twenty five years ago. As my sainted mother used to say, “I didn’t leave the Church, the Church left me.” But she stuck around until she died. I had too much “schmahts” to remain within her— also, I didn’t like a number of priests trying to hit me up, when I turned of legal age. Read ‘Goodbye, Good men’ to know of what life was like for a trusting RC Boy in SO CAL, in the 1970’s. Brrrrrr.

  21. Mosin, Jesus accepted the Old Testament as factual history. You don’t. Neither do liberals. So was the Lord superstitious? I don’t think so!

  22. Fr John, I also have seminary background, though not a Roman Catholic school.

    Going back many generations, at some point I believe all of my ancestors were Roman Catholic, however. We are neither Romanist nor Protestant, not cultic but orthodox and Biblical.

    I pray that I will always interpret the Scripture literally wherever the heavenly Author and the human writers intended it to be taken literally — as I believe most of it is, even most of the Old Testament — so I don’t doubt, deny and try to explain away any of the miracles, and I also don’t treat the obvious metaphors as miracles.

    It just seems so obvious to me that the six day creation account was intended to be taken metaphorically that I find it hard to imagine any modern ‘Creationists’ could be both honest and intelligent.

  23. Foolish, bullying Creationists claim that Jesus Himself was a Creationist, and anyone who differs is opposing Him. But the faithful interpreter who willeth to do His will shall know….

  24. Mosin, Jesus believed in Adam and Eve, (Matt. 19:4-6), so I guess he was a bully and a creationist too.

  25. “That he is a UCC, means he’s worshiping Satan, rather than Christ, as the UCC forty-five years ago, was so liberal, they had become a cult of pseudo-calvinist Unitarians, in all but name only.”

    Just to set the record straight from your lies, it is my wife who is a Congregationalist, I was raised a Lutheran.

  26. Rudel, hadn’t you described yourself as ‘Reformed’? That combined with your Pennsylvania background generally means UCC Reformed, but there are other, less liberal Reformed groups.

    His creation of Adam and Eve should be taken literally, but the twenty four hour days was intended metaphorically.

    Jesus didn’t ‘believe in’ divorce and remarriage. In fact He condemned and forbid it, yet the cult of the Infallible Pope ‘annuls’ and allows what Jesus forbid. Breaking up marriages and assisting adultery is an unmistakeable mark of ‘religious liberalism’.

  27. UCC and mainline Lutheran congregations commonly share church buildings, called ‘union churches’, in this area. Little difference between them. Congregationalists are much less common here than in New England, but just as liberal, and Fr John’s description of ‘pseudo-calivinist Unitarians’ is still accurate enough.

  28. If I believed in such things, I’d be wondering if this new pope is the anti-Christ. He seems more of a hardcore Cultural Marxist and NWO supporter than any form of Catholic, even a very liberal one.

  29. “If I believed in such things, I’d be wondering if this new pope is the anti-Christ. He seems more of a hardcore Cultural Marxist and NWO supporter than any form of Catholic, even a very liberal one.”

    He keeps making these really looney statements that contradict each other and certainly any Christian teachings I’ve ever heard. I think he’s a nut.

  30. Mosin, Jesus said their were 12 hours in a day. That implies 12 hours in a night. Your attempt to say Jesus was speaking literally and metaphorically at the same time is just you speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

    Your talk about annulments is nonsense. An annulment doesn’t break up a marriage. It declare the conditions for a marriage never existed in the first place. Some of those conditions are, gross immaturity, (for example, couple too young for marriage) a marriage done against the will of one or both partners, (for example, a ‘shotgun’ wedding) undisclosed preexisting mental illness, undisclosed sexual immorality before and after marriage, undisclosed first or still existing marriage, unwillingness to consummate the marriage or unwillingness to have children. Truly, your ignorance is amazing!

  31. Some Catholics I can admire.

    Catholic fringe defies Pope, disrupting interfaith Kristallnacht ceremony Argentine cathedral

    Ultra-traditionalist Catholics have openly challenged Pope Francis by disrupting one of his favorite events, a ceremony that he and Jewish leaders led in the Metropolitan Cathedral each year to promote religious harmony on the anniversary of the beginning of the Holocaust.

  32. Dalton,

    Do you support the Catholic Trads who protested Pope Francis’s interfaith “holocaust” or not? Just curious.

  33. Lew, I can’t support the disruption of a church service, but I would not have attended that service myself. Judaism and Catholicism are polar opposite religions, one believes in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, the other hated and vilifies him as a false prophet. The SSPX folks were right to say it was wrong, they just did it the wrong way.

  34. Stephen E Dalton says:

    ‘Your talk about annulments is nonsense. An annulment doesn’t break up a marriage. It declare the conditions for a marriage never existed in the first place.’

    Let’s get real Stephen.

    Unscrupulous weasels like Ted and Joe Kennedy used the annulment -ploy- to their advantage.

    Teddy, wanting a newer, younger model claimed he lied when he vowed to be faithful when reciting his marriage vows. So, after 20+ years of marriage and 3 kids he dumped his wife and eventually got the annulment.

    What a joke!

    His wife Joan was left humiliated, devastated but he was able to marry Vickie and remained in good standing with the church and and his Catholic constituents who bowed their heads and said a prayer when he paraded before them taking communion.

    Pretty much the same deal with his nephew Joe. After a dozen years and 2 kids he dumped the old model for a newer version and claimed his first marriage wasn’t valid because he was too immature or not in the right place mentally or something to that effect when they married. A long drawn out mess leaving his first wife in shambles.

    The wives were screwed over but so what?

  35. Some people in the Church, like the Kennedy’s, will, sadly, with the help of some dioceses, misuse the annulment process. Most Catholics, (and I include myself) who go through the process, play by the rules. BTW, Joe Kennedy’s wife appealed the annulment and she had it overturned.

  36. Stephen E Dalton says:
    ‘BTW, Joe Kennedy’s wife appealed the annulment and she had it overturned.’

    Yeah, some 15 or so years later. LOL. The damage had already been done.

    http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1634956,00.html

    ‘The most controversial “marriage that never was” in recent U.S. political history is back. Sources tell TIME that the Vatican has reversed the annulment of Joseph P. Kennedy II’s marriage to Sheila Rauch. The annulment had been granted in secrecy by the Catholic Church after the couple’s 1991 no-fault civil divorce. Rauch found out about the de-sanctification of their marriage only in 1996, after Kennedy had been wedded to his former Congressional aide, Beth Kelly, for three years.’

    ‘With divorce strictly prohibited in Catholicism, annulments allow Catholics to remarry before a priest and continue receiving the sacraments.

    Several years after his 1991 civil divorce to Rauch, Kennedy obtained an annulment from a Church tribunal in Massachusetts so he could have a Church ceremony with Kelly.

    The couple had already been married in a 1993 civil ceremony, but needed the Roma Rota appeals tribunal at the Vatican to uphold the Massachusetts annulment verdict before they could be married by a priest. Now with Rauch’s successful appeal, that cannot happen, unless Kennedy wins a counter-appeal.

    ‘The annulment was the subject of Rauch’s 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church’s proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally “cancel” nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan’s influence in the church.’

    Hmm. Joe was supposed to be the next Golden Boy of the Kennedy Clan in politics, therefore the Boston Goodfellas granted him an annulment. I wonder how many donations were required of the deep pockets clan?

    But in typical Kennedy family tradition it was discovered that he was an immoral, dishonest, defective scum bag. Duh!

    After realizing he was going to be more of a liability than asset the Vatican under pressure from Women’s groups and bad publicity (After writing her 1997 book, SHATTERED FAITH, Rauch criticized the Catholic Church’s hypocrisy and went on the talk-TV circuit) reversed the decision in 2005. Rauch was informed of the decision by the Boston Archdiocese in 2007.

  37. The whole Kennedy clan are a bunch of drug addicts. Teddy was a coke-head (when he wasn’t driving drunk or maybe he did both at once) and JFK famously received methamphetamine shots several times a day which the lapdog press reported as being “vitamins.” 🙂

  38. Romanism whitewashes its liberal, unscriptural, heretical divorce and remarriage policy.

    But we must see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil here, of They who are too big and powerful to be criticised.

  39. Rome whitewashes?! The last time I looked, we pretty much know the dark and light sides of our history. Guess what? The good stuff far outweighs the bad stuff by a country mile.

    We’re too big to be criticized?! We Catholics have always been critical of the faults of our clergy and fellow laity. How do you think we survived for nearly 2000 years, do you really believe we just allowed bad things to go on forever!? We have always reformed when it was called for.

Comments are closed.