Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
December 20, 1956
NUMBER 33, PAGE 2-3b

"A Reply To Brother Echols"

R. Ervin Driskill, Lewisville, Texas

In my former article, in the Guardian (October 18, 1956), I suggested that others who had convictions on the "segregation" issue speak out. Brother Echols has done that, in this issue, and I'm glad that he has. I know of no editor' (other than Brother Tant) who would allow me and Brother Echols to write differing articles on these issues. Thanks, Brother Tant and, thanks, Brother Echols.

In Brother Echols' first paragraph (following my quotation) he says, "Reason number one that he gave IS true and is adequate to end segregation." Question, Brother Echols: Is a ruling of the Supreme Court true just because they have ruled? If so, should they rule the people of America could no longer have New Testaments in their homes, should we comply with said ruling? What is LAW; the Constitution, or those nine men? If the nine men are LAW, (everybody knows they're not) your position would compel you to rid yourself of any New Testament you might possess. The present Supreme Court's ruling was based on "Modern authorities" and these "Modern authorities" either hold membership in or, are participating with Communist or Communist-front organizations. Some of them are connected with as many as eighteen Communist organizations. Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, a Socialist of Sweden, who has expressed contempt for the Constitution of the United States — quote, "impractical and unsuited to modern conditions" and its adoption was "nearly a plot against the common people" — wrote a book (An American Dilemma) and this book was cited as one of the "Modern authorities" upon which the ruling was based. He was brought to America by the "Carnegie Corporation" and Alger Hiss was director of it. Brother Echols, in view of all of this, was the segregation decision made by Americans — Negro or White, or by Communists? If you still say we should comply with the ruling, "God save not only America, but the church and Brother Echols." If you do not know these things, it is high time you were informing yourself about them. NO! a thousand times NO! we are not morally nor legally obligated to obey a decision whose authorities rest not upon the law (Constitution) but the writings and teachings of pro-Communist agitators.

Second, Brother Echols says, "The only way we could refuse to obey the decision of the Supreme Court is to show that what the Court said is contrary to the Law of Christ." Well now, Brother Echols, how about you showing it is in harmony with the Law of Christ. You are FOR it, so your obligation is to not only AFFIRM it is in harmony, but to PROVE what you affirm. But I'll prove it is "contrary to the Law of Christ": (1) Integration is contrary to the Constitution (was until 1954 and still is IF THE CONSTITUTION, which is our law, HAS NOT CHANGED) — has the Constitution changed? (2) The Constitution is in harmony with the Law of Christ (you wouldn't deny this would you, Brother Echols?). (3) Therefore, integration is not in harmony with the Law of Christ. I have proved it by my "constituent elements," brethren.

Third, he says, "As Brother Driskill examined 'some of the passages used by integrationists' I got the idea that he was doing just that." That was the idea, exactly, Brother Echols.

Fourth, "Is the decision of the Court contrary to the law of Christ? If so, where is the passage it violates?" The first question is already answered. The second question, w-e-1-1 where is the passage that shows it is in harmony with the law of Christ? Brother Echols, it's easy to ask questions, isn't it? I am highly in favor of defending the Constitution but I will not defend any Court who perverts the Constitution. Make of that what you will!

Brother Echols then refers to something I said about "Is forced integration right?" and says this word (force) is "USUALLY used to arouse prejudice" and to "destroy confidence in this branch of our government." Are you suggesting it was used by me for this purpose? ? I wish you would not speak in such generalities. You were rather specific in your last paragraph.

The readers can now refer to his quotation from the Constitution. I ask, does the segregation of White and Black "ABRIDGE, (or deprive) the PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" of either? That those who gave us the Constitution (which Brother Echols uses as a basis for HIS position and emphasizes certain words) did not believe segregation was a violation of it (the Constitution) is evident from THEIR PRACTICE. The old adage that "actions speak louder than words" is true. Brother Echols has given us the WORDS of those who gave us our LAW but, did they have in mind "integration" or "segregation"? Their ACTIONS show which, and Brother Echols would condemn them (the framers of the Constitution) by putting a construction on what they said that is out of harmony with what their ACTIONS show they had in mind. And then, he has the effrontery to talk of defending the Constitution. Our Colored friends are provided "EQUAL" protection of the laws so far as I know.

He now says that I stated, "God himself segregated the races. Where did he read it?" and then gives his definition of "segregate." Well, read my article and you'll see his first statement is wrong. I said, "We know that later Adam's posterity was SEGREGATED (by God himself) and thus we have the different races today." Brother Echols, would you please read Genesis 11:1-9 and give particular attention to the word "scatter" (of verse 9) in the light of your definition of "segregate"? There is the passage, my brother, in the "Book Divine." I do not think you are conscious of it, but you are not only "joining the Communist," but you are also rejecting Constituted law, when you "deny segregation."

Our good brother is desperate when he talks about "depriving them of equal privileges just because he doesn't want them around him" . . . Brother Echols, be careful; you do not like the word "prejudice," you know. Nothing was even hinted about depriving anybody of anything and you should be ashamed.

And he doesn't know the difference in preaching the gospel to a Colored man and in sleeping with him. No, nothing I've said, kills anything, I've said, Brother Echols notwithstanding. I object to my children, integrating with the Colored, principally on the ground of Color and I do not have to endorse the "morals" of every white child. I give other children (the majority of them) credit for being good morally too. If the Orientals were as 'thick" as the Colored, I would favor the same. I am opposed to the destruction of the White race; I wonder if you are. Tell us.

Brother Echols can call my article a prejudiced effort, if he cares to, but discerning readers will know that his is an attempt to evade, and not meet the issues squarely. I just don't believe Brother Echols has as much "love in my heart for all men" as he lets on. Would you care if one of your children married a Colored boy or girl? Or, do you believe in segregation too?? Brother, I'd like mighty well to believe that you believe in integration but I seriously doubt it. When you give your daughter in marriage, to a colored boy, let me know; I'll apologize.

Again, our brother missed the point. When I said I hoped to see "certain brethren" faced with the problem of intermarrying, I was not hoping the marriage would take place (that is where the evil is, my brother) but it would afford an opportunity to prove these "certain brethren" did not believe in what they had been advocating (integration).

Brother Echols missed, accused, flipped and flopped, for some reason. Let us hope it wasn't because of PREJUDICE.