Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Rev Ted Pike Archive

Civil Rights Act:
Tilted Foundation

By Rev Ted Pike
23 Jan 2008

The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. includes landmark civil rights acts of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Civil Rights Act of 1968 with its Fair Housing Act ostensibly granted equality, equal opportunity, and voting rights to blacks.
In reality, these acts also granted unprecedented power to the federal government to invade states' rights and enforce not just equality but special rights and privileges for black Americans. These laws were built on the premise that blacks, having suffered so long and bitterly, were entitled not just to equal treatment but to special perpetual compensation. They would not have to earn equally high GPA's to enter college, medical, or law school. Business owners would have to atone for years of discrimination by guaranteeing annual quotas of blacks in their workforce. Predominantly white taxpayers had to fund expensive bussing programs to place black children in white public schools far from their home districts.
Such preference violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids government to grant special benefits to any group -- regardless of how deeply it has suffered.
These civil rights acts also dealt a body blow to the sanctity of personal property. The forgers of our nation believed that anyone who is a US citizen has rights to equality and justice before the law. Citizens can use all publicly owned facilities and services. They may serve on juries and in the military. They may enjoy public education, unrestrained voting rights, and freedom from involuntary servitude.
But our early ancestors never taught that any citizen can entitle himself to enjoy others’ rental property, businesses, private institutions of learning, fraternal groups or even churches, contrary to the owners’ wishes. People might suffer hurt feelings if they’re not included in privately owned organizations. But the founders knew that a much worse injustice would result from destroying private control—a right as fundamental to our heritage as free speech. (This does not apply to vital or emergency services. No privately owned companies in that business could or should ever safely deny assistance to people of any race.)
Federal civil rights acts eroded this foundation. They made private property and institutions into essentially public-controlled properties. Restaurants, apartments, educational institutions, etc.—created and kept running by the hard work and financial investment of individuals—could be sued by a racial minority who was denied access to them. Americans who insisted on their property rights became federal criminals.
Civil rights laws were predominantly meant to grant special rights to blacks, yet feminists claimed similar victim status under centuries of “male chauvinism.” They demanded and got federal concessions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Eventually, feminists won the right to sue employers for discrimination in hiring or firing.
In 1968 the parent of the present federal hate crimes bill (Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 2a) led to later enactment of triple penalties against anyone who committed a crime motivated by bias against federally protected groups. It also stipulated that anyone whose speech might provoke another to violence against these groups should be indicted along with the active offender.
Inevitably, homosexuals demanded the same privileges and protections as blacks and women. Through the nineties, roughly 45 states passed hate crimes laws. Most granted homosexuals virtually the same protections that blacks acquired in 1964.
Protection of homosexuals, transvestites, and transgendered people is a critically important demand of the federal hate bill, repeatedly submitted to Congress since 1998.

Civil Rights Firestorm

During the sixties a few dissenting Constitutionalists (including myself as a high school student) suggested that a civil rights bill should go no further than absolutely guaranteeing equality before the law. Yet, Constitutionalists were out-shouted in an emotional “civil rights” firestorm. It was not surprising that the Communist Party USA and the American Jewish community totally supported civil rights legislation. Communists wanted to abolish private property, which is largely what segregation was all about. The Jewish agenda, at least from the vantage point of its top strategists (the Anti-Defamation League), was to lay the foundation upon which broader Christian-persecuting bias and hate crime laws could be built.
The bias crime juggernaut that began to roll in the sixties has now assumed tremendous momentum. Its dark ambitions loom far beyond civil rights idealists’ dreams. More and more groups—including families with children, the disabled, homeless, religious sects such as Jews, Sikhs and Muslims, even (as in England) witches and warlocks, atheists and Satanists—attempt to hitch a ride on the "special rights” hate crimes gravy train.
How can society protect itself from an ever-expanding number of special interest groups demanding preference and invasive access to our property in the years ahead?
First, we must reevaluate how the civil rights movement took us in the wrong direction. We must understand that discrimination is not ended by giving one group preferential rights over another. Those not possessing such advantages automatically become victims of reverse discrimination!
We must also understand that the civil rights laws of the sixties, enacted with massive public blessing, were really potential hate crime laws. All homosexuals have to do to make them so is inject “sexual orientation” next to race and gender. Voila! Civil rights laws become Christian-persecuting hate laws.
America must again obey the 14th Amendment that prohibits special protection of any one group. Congress should repeal all aspects of civil rights laws that violate it.
We must re-instate the ancient ethic that, just as a man’s house is his castle, so all privately owned property is under sole control of its owners—not his neighbors, government or specially protected groups.

Return to Segregation?

"Yet," many will object, "Doesn't this lead to re-establishment of segregation? After all, isn’t segregation the banding together of communities agreeing not to allow their institutions, businesses, or private colleges to be accessed by blacks?"
No. Segregation was a broad state-enforced exclusion of black participation from many tax-supported activities and institutions. Insisting that private individuals and groups regain the right to discriminate against those who want to make use of their property is not the same. It’s only a return to universal norms about the sanctity of private property. Such norms have been unquestioned since the dawn of history. We must re-instate the right of property owners to discriminate against the militant homosexuals who have pirated the civil rights laws. Unless their agenda is resisted, they will win special federal protections in the years ahead to invade and destroy the integrity and morality of Christian colleges and churches.
I believe public pressure and criticism—not federal edicts—are the best ways to repulse possible bigotry in the use of our private property. It is unkind, repugnant, and abrasive for anyone to inform another human being that his skin color makes him unwelcome as a patron, employee, renter, or student in a white-owned business or institution. But, through economic boycott and vigorous criticism, it should be the role of society, not government, to repress bigotry.
Otherwise, in place of black victimization, we will continue to witness white and Christian victimization. Insistence on property rights will be viewed by the courts as “bias” and “hate crime.”
Ultimately, racial tension between blacks and whites won’t be solved by either black or liberal attempts to dispossess whites of their property rights or by white segregationist attempts to re-acquire them to the extent they existed before civil rights laws. Both these efforts created suspicion, strife, bad blood -- and bad legislation. From Selma to S. Africa, attempts to disenfranchise blacks from white prosperity have only resulted in race envy and class hatred. Conversely, the more than 40-year American experiment to disenfranchise whites of their personal property rights creates white backlash and evil freedom-stealing bias and hate crimes laws.
Is there a political solution to these two strife-creating extremes? I doubt it. But there is a spiritual one. Christ came and died for all mankind, empowering all races to be united in love and worship of their Creator and in love for one another. It is no accident that one of the first acts of the apostle Philip was to meet an Ethiopian (black) eunuch and share with him, in question and answer, the wonders of unity and power in Christ (Acts 8:26). Perhaps all efforts to find a perfect solution to the problem of racial tension fail because they are destined to do so. If a strictly political solution existed, who would need the transcendent power of a clean heart to love one’s fellow man as much as ourselves? That only comes from Christ.


Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.

Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians:
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal it now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians at Purchase this gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at for $24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688, or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this topic. Call (503) 631-3808.

P.O. Box 828, Clackamas , OR 97015



Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.