I think it useful to look at the Catholic/Protestant AA differences (and I would not call it a split, more just differences), in the overall context of Religion in the US and its response to slavery, abolitionism, and ultimately post civil war settlements, and then 100 years later to the Civil Rights Movement.

Most Protestant Churches went into schism over these issues, only being reunited in the late 30’s and post WWII. Methodists split three ways in the 1840’s and 50’s. Methodist Church South, stood behind Slavery. Methodist Episcopal Church, took a nuanced anti-Slavery position, but looked down its’ nose at Abolitionists. Wesleyan Methodist got the evangelicals and the Abolitionists, but post Reconstruction, they put all the Black Methodist Churches into the Central Jurisdiction, with their own bishops and all — for all intents and purposes a segregated semi-denomination. Central Jurisdiction was only modified in the 1970’s, the fear is that other Jurisdictions would not elect Black Bishops, so parts of it are retained. Black Methodist Churches are members, for different purposes, of two Jurisdictions.

The smallest Baptist Denomination in the US is American Baptist — just about 2% of the Baptist population. But it is also the richest, because it got and controls all the Rockefeller Money, and the Rockefeller Family for more than a century has been very much out front and in the lead on racial issues and movement building. Took the lead in finding, selecting and financing high quality Theological Education for Blacks — back to late 19th Century, built schools — Morehouse-Spellman is actually named for John D. Rockefeller’s wife. King’s own education was pure Rockefeller Baptist, Morehouse, then on to Crozer near Philly, and then on to Boston University for his PhD. All Rockefeller Endowed Baptist Schools. All this had a profound effect on the Black Baptist Churches, particularly in the South — but also on the professionally educated black middle class before and during movement days (which I date as beginning in the mid 30’s, and lasting into the 1970’s). The Southern Baptist Convention, largest of all, and the General Baptist Convention (Billy Graham has been major leader), have never gotten a dime from the Rockefellers or anyone they influence in the Foundation world. And it is important to know the quality of Schools this Black Baptist – American Baptist partnership that is about 5% of all Baptists supports. Well, start with the University of Chicago, add Colgate, Vanderbuilt, Duke. And you might as well realize that virtually all the land in the southern part of Manhattan is owned in trust by American Baptists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians — not the buildings, just the land, which is under 99 year leases to those who built all the Financial District Buildings. Rents go to Colleges and endowed Hospitals. Since the end of Reconstruction all these Protestant Mainline Churches have committed a significant part of this endowment to Black Education, either in their own colleges, or in Historic Black Colleges they Control.

Episcopalians had few black members in the North, but some in the South. It was the one Protestant Denomination that managed not to schism over Abolitionism. (looks like they might over gender). Black Episcopalian Churches were largely treated as “Missions” by their Bishops, as many never became self supporting parishes. Having not rocked the boat on slavery or abolitionism, they stayed even keel right up into the 60’s, and it was largely a revolt of Seminarians that changed things then. Good school to study in this respect for Episcopal History is Trinity College in New Haven CT.

For a good description of the United Church of Christ’s process vis a vis race, I really recommend Andy Young’s autobiography. “An Easy Burden: The Civil Rights Movement and the transformation of America”. Young was raised in New Orleans, was educated in an all-black Congregational Church private academy until college, and then was eventually ordained as a UCC Minister while working with King in SCLC. He tracks well the complex history of the New England Congregational Abolitionists who built black churches and schools in the South — a few, such as in NO pre-Civil War, most during Reconstruction. Young wrote his analysis of the UCC/Congregationalist impact on African Americans some time before the world ever heard of Barack Obama or Rev. Wright — but knowing that Young’s denomination, and the black sub-set of it eventually became so noticed — I really recommend his description of it. The UCC, because it has a very weak central goverance (they are Congregationalists after all) never had a schism, but also did not own Wall Street Land in Trust, or build large Universities. But Dillard in NO is UCC at least in origin, and played a major role in training K-12 teachers for black schools during the Segregation era, when teacher training in black state colleges was weak.

Understanding the Roman Catholic history vis a vis Race in the US is a very complex matter, largely because what is true of one region is not really true of another. The RC’s didn’t take any position on Abolitionism pre-Civil War. They had a theology of Slavery quite distinct from Protestantism — which really didn’t condemn Slavery, but sought to impose a fairly heavy set of moral conditions on it, conditions mostly derived from the Spanish and Portuguese practice, which somewhat differed from the practice in the American-Anglo South. Most Protestants did not preference the religious conversion of African Slaves — Roman Catholics more or less made conversion almost a condition of Slave Ownership. Ive read through some marvelous instruction for the wives of slave owners, advising them on conditional baptism of slave babies, and how to teach basic catachism on a plantation circa 1835. (It is one of the few Catholic examples I know of where a woman was advised to take on certain priestly responsibilities.) At any rate, in general, Catholics did not build instutitions for Black Catholics — parish schools, high schools, colleges or hospitals — though one Religious Order did train and supply black priests to parishes. For the most part, Catholic Colleges and Universities were totally segregated, pretty much north and south, until about 1961. At that time Archbishop Cody, (later Cardinal in Chicago, then Bishop in NO), unilaterally integrated everything without prior discussion or preperation, and he excommunicated anyone who did Racist trash talk. In contrast, Father Hesburgh had a huge problem at Notre Dame — integrating the Football team was easy, no problem with superior game-winning players, but the classrooms and the social milue of an Irish Tribal Society was a very different story. But from 1957 onward, Hesburgh was the Hierarchy’s designated leader on this in the US, so if you follow his efforts you get an excellent view of how things went. He was up against the combined resentments of all the white ethnic groups with Catholic Identity — Polish, German, Italian, Latin American, Hungarian, Irish, all of whom had acquired some fairly strong racial prejudices as a result of their American Experience.

By the way — if you recall the Notre Dame Speech Obama did in June, note that he gave a huge call out to Father Theodore Hesburgh, now retired as Notre Dame President, very old, and sitting off to the side. I am sure he had much to do with that invitation, and with the determination the school showed to go through with the speech, and manage the protest. I would suggest those protests are just part of a series that includes uncivil behavior during a joint session of congress and an effort to censor an address to school children. It is all about Race, within a construct of both Class and Caste, and it is a massive effort to make Obama de-legitimate. I got my fingers crossed — thus far Barack Obama has mastered all the tricks they have thrown at him.

I think both factors are critical to understand, that this has been going on pretty much this way for at least two decades, but also that there is a major element of white racism involved. It’s just that it’s not the only motivating force. And for some whites on the Republican right, it may not be the most animating element.

Naomi Klein on “Minority Death Match: Jews, Blacks and the ‘Post-Racial’ Presidency”
Harpers-web

http://www.democracynow.org/20…..eath_match

We speak with journalist Naomi Klein about her latest article for Harper’s Magazine, “Minority Death Match: Jews, Blacks and the ‘Post-Racial’ Presidency.” The piece examines the World Conference Against Racism that was held in Geneva this past April, a follow-up to the first racism conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001. There was a major boycott with the Obama administration refusing to attend, claiming the conference would unfairly target Israel. Critics say the controversy over Israel could have been an excuse to avoid dealing with the conference’s key issues, including addressing the legacy of slavery. [includes rush transcript]

I agree with Bob Somerby when he argues that the intensity and craziness of the teapartiers and the Republicans in Congress hasn’t yet exceeded that directed against Bill and Hillary Clinton from the earliest days of their administration.

But in analysis of this you have to place two bits of framing that went on almost as soon as Clinton was inaugurated. (1) There were reports of women having sexual dreams about Clinton (yeah, go back to those early news articles) and (2) Clinton was America’s first “black” president in the sense that he understood how black culture worked and how it envisioned the role of a leader. Those looked like innocent straightforward, if somewhat wacky, analysis then. But in hindsight the look like an attempt to label him as a ******-lover. Is that not a racist attack?

Why 1979? That is when racist Southern fundamentalism (represented by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the junta that took over the Southern Baptist Convention that year) was joined by Ralph Reed with racist non-Southern urban ethnic Catholics (represented by certain factions of the school voucher and right-to-life movements, with the blessings of conservatives in the hierarchy) joined in a campaign to delegitimize Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter and elect Ronald Reagan. And when they were supported in their efforts by the cleansing intellectuals of the Heritage Foundation. And given cover through reporting and opinion by conservatives in the Village. How well did that work? Reagan, as president gave a speech in Charlotte, NC, where there was the largest successful school busing program in the country and where business leaders and parents had worked hard to make it work. Reagan gave cover for business leaders and racist parents (native and non-Southern transplant) to destroy the gains that had been made and resegregate the public schools. In addition, he encouraged the growth of private religious schools and home schooling, which further undercut the public schools. And in the political momentum that followed Sue Myrick (now in Congress) defeated Harvey Gantt (Charlotte’s black mayor), leading to a Republican takeover of the city and its urban region.

When Jerry Falwell moved from being a fringe racist Baptist that the Republican Party tried to avoid associating with to the spokeman for the Moral Majority (what an oxymoron), racism became institutionalized in the Republican Party. Prior to that, it was just a faction. And the Republican primary purges began. To see its effects, just consider the transformation of Lamar Alexander and Richard Lugar.

It was a cheap way for conservative institutions to get ground troops for their pro-corporation campaigns. And its success accounts for the persistent of the culture wars; why deliver on promises when you can use the same issues over and over again.

What is striking is not that it’s still here but how marginalized it has finally become. And how old habits of Republican politicians are hard to change.

But Radical Republicanism isn’t only about race and for many of them only secondarily. Some of them really are worried that abortion rights and the existence of gays is going to make their spouses leave them and turn their kinds into drug addicts. Some of them really think that some communistfascistislamic conspiracy is going to silently take over their town one night and turn their churches into mosques.

Because it’s fundamentally all about fear of the other, and fear doesn’t really think this hard. It simply fears.

For the last 15-20 years they’ve been able to reliably use the God-guns-gays fear formula to keep their base in line, but now they have a newer, easier-to-use weapon which is fresh compared to the old tried and overused God-guns-gays. It’s most definitely about race, because they weren’t making headway any longer with the old stuff; they were losing ground with young folks especially at church, couldn’t use same approach. The fresher, au courant product is the brown-skinned other.

And the corporatists who fund the crazy-making angry white fundamentalists are happy with the measurable results, an increase in support. Just read American Family Association for a while; you’ll see the entire thing is about fear, and the number of articles targeting this administration must make their funders so very happy that the legitimacy of the presidency can be called into question so easily with this revamped fear formulation.

I meant to show the video of the lone chap carrying the Public Option Now sign to my rather naive spouse in order to ask him to point out all the brown-skinned people in the video that he could see.

The only ones I saw were among the cops escorting the lone chap.

The main problem with Maureen Dowd’s Sunday column is a chronic one for her: she reasons dumbly. Although she mentions Congressman Joe Wilson’s neo-Confederate affections, her actual argument is that she had an aha! moment that revealed to her that the teapartiers were racist. When Wilson did his now-famous “You lie!” shout, MoDo just knew that what he was thinking was, “You lie, boy. Whether she knew this from her own telepathic powers or the voices in her head informed her, she doesn’t say.

Joan Walsh makes a couple of very interesting points from the polling data. Obama’s approval rating since Inauguration Day to early September dropped by one-third among white voters, but very little at all among nonwhites. But what that means is that his approval rating among white voters is down to about what it was on Election Day. So that doesn’t really point to some general rise in white racism.

But of course, the teapartiers are a particular subset of white voters. We’ve seen significant involvement by “patriot militia” types in the Tea Parties. That itself is evidence of white racism being involved. And we can see from the paranoid kookiness of the protesters’ signs and statements that they are more susceptable than average to rightwing conspiracy theories, which puts them in an environment where white racism is tolerated and even encouraged.

I agree with Bob Somerby when he argues that the intensity and craziness of the teapartiers and the Republicans in Congress hasn’t yet exceeded that directed against Bill and Hillary Clinton from the earliest days of their administration. He recalls that by the second summer of Clinton’s first term, there had been two active assassination attempts against him, including someone flying a private plane toward the White House one night and crashing it on the lawn, apparently aiming for Clinton’s bedroom.

But white racism was a major part of the anti-Clinton activists’ political outlook, as well. And it was directed against Clinton because the militant right and some substantial portion of the quieter Republican Party supporters see the Democratic Party as too sympathetic to minorities and committed to “identity politics”.

Racism has a different general effect among Republicans, Democrats and independents. I think you said it correctly in indicating that white racial attitudes may make some voters more receptive to the scare tactics of the Radical Right.

But Radical Republicanism isn’t only about race and for many of them only secondarily. Some of them really are worried that abortion rights and the existence of gays is going to make their spouses leave them and turn their kinds into drug addicts. Some of them really think that some communistfascistislamic conspiracy is going to silently take over their town one night and turn their churches into mosques. And given the rotten job our Establishment press has done in reporting on the health care debate (e.g., this week’s Newsweek cover), I’m sure there are some people who are scared that the Demcorats want to set up “death panels” to off Grandma. And have no clue about how universal coverage works in the countries that actually have it. In their case, it may be the health-care demagoguery that makes them receptive to more explicit white racist appeals, rather than the other way around.