I make a related conclusion in post #2 – that yes, the religious right was at least partially rooted in racism, but so were many and maybe even most things in US politics through mid-20th-century and beyond. White supremacism was the default position for centuries, and only very recently has this started to break. And the remaining white supremacists (and those with, perhaps, less overt and more ‘benign’ forms of racist and bigoted beliefs) are bewildered and holding on to what they have (or think they have), in terms of the makeup and progress of the country, as hard as they can.
A related point – the US, for the most part, was overtly white supremacist in allowing/mandating slavery until the Civil War. After the Civil War (and after Reconstruction was abandoned), the US was still (for the most part) overtly white supremacist in allowing/mandating segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, toleration and even promotion of the KKK (and related groups), and similar policies and practices, until the 50s and 60s Civil Rights movement.
And even since the Civil Rights movement, the US has been partially (though usually not overtly) white supremacist in allowing/mandating policies like red-lining and other forms of property and housing discrimination, rampant discrimination and even race-driven brutality in the justice system, employment discrimination, and other policies and practices.
The US has made enormous progress on this subject, but we still has a long way to go.
And as for Jews . . . this was a period or not long after the period where they simply were not welcome in a great many places, including many hotels and many towns and neighborhoods. There were no Jews in any Levittown – William Levitt was Jewish himself but he would not sell to Jews – if he had, it would have made it harder to market his homes to white gentiles. (Letting blacks buy in was of course completely out of the question.) You can read the story in Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, by James Loewen. So Nixon’s anti-Semitism was not so rare or remarkable a thing as you might assume; what is remarkable is that he got past it long enough to hire Henry Kissinger.
True – but most American political factions/positions today are not rooted in racism even if they date from that period. But the RR – it is still an almost-all-white movement, nonwhites of similar views are not really part of it in the sense of working side by side with the whites very often, and buried racist attitudes still show through occasionally.
Reagan talked about welfare queens, Clinton talked about ending welfare as we know it. Why is it racist when Reagan did it and not when Clinton? How do you talk about reforming welfare so the undeserving don’t get it and it does not create dependency?
Bush talked about Willie Horton because crime was a huge issue in America, it doubled in the sixties, double in the seventies, and almost doubled in the 1980s. In the midst of that you had a governor of a state running for president. That state had a program which allowed convicted murderers serving life sentences out for weekend passes. When one of the murderers out for the weekend took that opportunity to stab, beat, and rape, why is it racist to say that might not be a good idea? Do you know who first brought up the weekend pass issue? Al Gore, was he a racist too or does he get a pass because he is a democrat?
Reagan talked about welfare queens because that was a legitimate issue. Incidentally the original welfare queen was a white lady who pretended to be black. Reagan’s strategy against South Africa worked and that country ended apartheid peacefully and without turning communist.
What happens to any voter when one of their pet issues is not being addressed by either candidate? They vote based on other considerations. The Southern vote did not change that abruptly. They voted for Nixon in 1972, which was a huge nationwide landslide. They voted for Carter in 1976. They voted for Reagan in his two nationwide landslides and then Bush 1 in his. Since then they have been split depending on how good the candidate is.
Strom Thurmond changed parties because he was an unprincipled opportunist who saw which way the wind was blowing. There were 21 Democrat Senators who voted against the Civil Rights act. 20 of them stayed Democrats until they retired. 91 Democrat Representatives voted against the civil rights act. 90 of them retired as Democrats. Did all of them suddenly stop being racists in 1968?
So your saying that the national Republican party was racist but the Alabama republican party was too principled to appeal to racists? That makes no sense.
Goldwater got 6% of the black vote Nixon got 15% in 1968 and 13% in 1972.
People vote for other things than race. It is undeniable that the Democrat party was home to white supremacists, and racist from after the Civil War until some time in the 1950s or 1960s. Yet they won the black vote by huge margins every presidential election after 1936. The Costigan Warner anti-lynching bill was defeated in 1935 by a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Roosevelt refused to support the bill. In the next election he won 71% of the black vote.
If black people can look past a party defeated an anti-lynching law in a presidential election why can’t you believe white people can forgive the Republicans for not being racist?
Anti-Catholicism was a major force in American politics for a hundred years. It no longer is. Racism was a huge factor in American politics until it ceased to be. The Civil Rights movement happened, the racists lost and ceased to be a force in politics. There is no need to believe in secret signals and people speaking in code.
Did you know that Bernie Sanders has given several speeches in Fairfax Virginia? That is the same county where Suffragettes were tortured at the Lorton workhouses. He is obviously sending a dog whistle to all of the misogynists out there that he hates women and if he is elected he will repeal the 19th amendment. Open your eyes people!
It wasn’t just “welfare queens” – it was “strapping young buck” (yes, Reagan really said that!) and “states rights”. I think welfare reform was bad, and Clinton is also guilty at times of using racist language, but not to the extent that Reagan did.
I’ll note again that I’m not characterizing Reagan as a racist person, necessarily – just that, like most of the rest of his party at the time, he deliberately tried to appeal to racist voters by framing language in a way that he thought would appeal to them.
If Al Gore framed it in a way, as Lee Atwater did, that deliberately fed into the fear of black men as dangerous and violent, then YES. I’m pretty sure Gore didn’t do that, though.
If all Bush did was challenge this policy, then that wouldn’t have necessarily been a deliberate appeal to racists – but the Willie Horton ad most definitely was.
Complete bullshit on Reagan’s strategy – Reagan vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, and that veto was overridden by Congress. And that act, expressly opposed by Reagan, led to the end of Apartheid.
You’ve got your history totally backwards on Reagan and apartheid. The anti-apartheid strategy worked, and Reagan’s did not.
Racism was addressed – continuously. At the local level, it was addressed by many Democrats (as well as Republicans).
Again, why did George Wallace get so much support? Why did he leave the Democratic party? What happened to those voters – and why did they choose Nixon?
And because he was a racist.
Who said anything about principles? The Republican party wasn’t necessarily racist, but they made a choice to try and deliberately appeal to racist voters. State politicians on both sides were already doing that.
As far as the Democrats who remained Democrats – most of them renounced racism. Not all of them, and not all immediately after the Civil Rights act, but eventually most of them did renounce their prior support for racism.
Those are pretty notable numbers – in '68, when George Wallace ran, and Nixon wasn’t trying as hard to appeal to racists, black support ticked up. In '72, when Nixon got overwhelmingly re-elected by much higher numbers overall, black support ticked down. Why, when almost the entire rest of the country went way up for Nixon, did black support go down? It’s almost as if Nixon started to say things that appealed to others but not black people…
Black vote counts before the Voting Rights Act don’t mean shit. How could they, when millions of black people couldn’t vote?
It’s like trying to tally up support of Southerners for the Confederacy but ignoring the millions of black people in the South. Meaningless numbers when so many millions weren’t allowed to participate.
No idea what you’re trying to say here.
Complete bullshit. Do you really believe no one tried to appeal to those millions of voters? No political strategist thought “let’s do something to get those millions of racists to vote for us”? That makes no sense, unless you believe political strategists and candidates are all crystal-clean. I don’t – I believe that they’ll do just about anything to win, and in US politics, trying to appeal to racist voters is pretty small ball, and standard practice, as far as that goes.
It’s also bullshit to compare anti-Catholicism to white supremacy. There was no equivalence in scope or support – no George Wallace of anti-Catholicism; no Civil War over anti-Catholicism; no Civil Rights movement against it; just nothing comparable at all.
I agree – no secret signals or codes. Just normal political messaging, designed to be framed in a way that appeals to different sets of voters. In this case, messaging designed to appeal to racists.
If, as Reagan talked about supporting “states rights” (which has, since the Civil War, meant states rights to oppress black people), Bernie talked about keeping women out of the voting booth, then it’d be the same. But he didn’t, and Reagan did talk about supporting states rights.
Read about the Southern strategy, and all the other parts of history (like Reagan’s complete failure of apartheid strategy) that you have shown ignorance for.
puddleglum, what does it mean to you that about half of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be illegal? Does it tell you that racism is no longer a significant part of political views today?
From wiktionary: Strapping definition - Of a person of either sex; Having a sturdy muscular physique; robust.
Buck definition-A young buck; an adventurous, impetuous, dashing, or high-spirited young man.
There is nothing necessarily racial in saying that strapping young bucks should get jobs instead of collecting welfare. You interpret it that way because you are determined to view it through that lens. Reagan was in public life for over fifty years, he got his start in politics giving speeches around the country to GE employees, became governor of the largest state in the country, had a weekly newspaper column, ran for president three times, and gave literally thousands of speeches. The best you can do to find him using this mythical “dog whistles” is three words which according to their common usage at the time have no racial component whatsoever.
.
So if the escaped murderer who raped a woman and attempted to stab her fiance to death had been white then it would have been okay to bring up? That is an absurd double standard. It was a legitimate issue because Horton and any other murderers should not be given weekend passes.
The end of Apartheid happened in 1990. South Africa had withstood the sanctions and its economy grew more after sanctions than the previous few years. The governor of South Africa’s central bank said “‘‘This situation can continue indefinitely,’’ he said. ''That’s what many of the proponents of sanctions fail to appreciate. By sending what they call a stronger message to the South African authorities on the need to dismantle apartheid and so on, they thought that they would accelerate the process of reform.
'‘Though their objectives might have been sincere and understandable, the methods have certainly not accelerated reform in this country, and the figures I have just presented show conclusively that the South African economy is not only surviving, it is actually growing and meeting all its commitments and putting up a quite reasonable performance.’”
On the other hand what actually ended apartheid was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which has Reagan’s principle foreign policy objective.
Here is FW DeKlerk who received a Nobel Peace Prize for ending apartheid:""The collapse of the Soviet Union helped to remove our long-standing concern regarding the influence of the South African Communist Party within the ANC Alliance. By 1990 classic socialism had been thoroughly discredited throughout the world and was no longer a serious option, even for revolutionary parties like the ANC.
At about the same time, the ANC was reaching a similar conclusion that it could not achieve a revolutionary victory within the foreseeable future. The State of Emergency, declared by the South African Government in 1986, and the collapse of the Soviet Union - which had traditionally been one the ANC’s main allies and suppliers - led the organisation to adopt a more realistic view of the balance of forces. It concluded that its interests could be best secured by accepting negotiations rather than by committing itself to a long and ruinous civil war."
George Wallace did not leave the Democratic party. After losing the presidential race he ran again as a Democrat for governor and won. He ran for Democratic nomination in 1976 and finished third. He then continued as governor for several more terms until retiring as a Democrat in 1987.
Anti-Catholicism was a potent force in the US from the Know Nothings in 1840 to the second KKK in the 1920s. It then stopped being a political force. Just like racism was an even more potent force for a long time, until it stopped being a force.
Reagan did not talk about states rights, it was one line in the speech and there was nothing in it to indicate anything about race.
An old joke:
A man goes to a Psychologist and says, “Doc I got a real problem, I can’t stop thinking about sex.”
The Psychologist says, “Well let’s see what we can find out”, and pulls out his ink blots. “What is this a picture of?” he asks.
The man turns the picture upside down then turns it around and states, “That’s a man and a woman on a bed making love.”
The Psychologist says, “very interesting,” and shows the next picture. “And what is this a picture of?”
The man looks and turns it in different directions and says, “That’s a man and a woman on a bed making love.”
The Psychologists tries again with the third ink blot, and asks the same question, “What is this a picture of?”
The patient again turns it in all directions and replies, “That’s a man and a woman on a bed making love.”
The Psychologist states, “Well, yes, you do seem to be obsessed with sex.”
“Me!?” demands the patient. “You’re the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures!”
People who are obsessed with race can find race everywhere they look, it does not mean that it is actually there.
Don’t waste your time, puddleglum.
These liberals are bound and determined to keep the fires of RACISM!!! burning, no matter what.
One of the reasons millions of us over 50 have left the democrat party…
“no racial component”? Ignorant bullshit. “Buck” has been a racial slur for black males for a century.
It was a legitimate issue presented in a way designed to stoke racial fears and appeal to racists. Just like affirmative action might be a legitimate discussion to have, but presenting in a way designed to stoke racial resentment, as Jesse Helms did in some political ads, was part of the Southern strategy.
More ahistorical assertions. Disinvestment and sanctions caused very significant economic harm to South Africa – billions of rands left the country, as well as causing significant devaluation of the rand, due to sanctions and disinvestment. Ridiculous to claim that this had no affect – countries don’t like to become economic international pariahs.
Reagan opposed this. Maybe he had other reasons, but opposing sanctions and disinvestment would have helped the Apartheid regime. Why on earth would anyone defend this?
Reagan was wrong on this issue. Do you really believe that those sanctions shouldn’t have occurred? That disinvestment shouldn’t have occurred? Was the Democratic party wrong to sanction South Africa, in your opinion?
Complete bullshit once again. He fucking ran for President in a third party on segregation and white supremacy. He rejoined the Democratic party later, and he also disavowed segregation and white supremacy, and apologized for his former positions.
Again, why did he do this? Why did he run third party for segregation and white supremacy?
Racism hasn’t stopped being a force, even if it’s lessened, but it was extremely significant through the mid and even late 20th century.
Again – what does it mean to you that half of Mississippi Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal? Is this just coincidence that Republicans in Southern states feel this way and Democrats don’t, when it was reversed a century ago? Is it just coincidence that the South was a Democratic stronghold, solid as oak, until the 1960s, and then grew shakier and shakier for Democratic candidates election after election?
Yes there was – states rights. “States rights” has always been about race – the rights of states to oppress black people. Read the articles of secession of most of the Southern states for the Civil War – the “rights” they were most concerned about were to enslave and brutalize.
People obsessed with pretending racism doesn’t exist anymore can always dismiss real racism, but that doesn’t mean that it is not actually there.
[sarcasm]Right… apartheid had nothing to do with racism; Reagan was right to oppose sanctioning the apartheid regime; using racial slurs like “buck” has nothing to do with racism; George Wallace leaving the Democratic party and running for President on a segregationist platform (and winning Southern states) had nothing to do with racism; and Southern states in the Civil War didn’t start the war to defend slavery and white supremacy even though their articles of secession explicitly stated this was so.
And it has nothing to do with racism that half of Mississippi Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal.[/sarcasm]
Admitting that the Democratic party once support white supremacist policies doesn’t make the modern Democratic party evil. Similarly, admitting that the Republican party had a strategy to attract the white supremacist voters that the Democratic party rejected doesn’t make the Republican party evil.
Denying these facts just makes one willfully ignorant on this issue. There was a political vacuum, at the national level, for white supremacist voters – and in the 1960s, most white Southerners supported white supremacist policies. Does anyone really think this wasn’t true? And does anyone really think that the Republican party didn’t try to get these folks, who were furious with the Democratic party, to vote for them?
No, it didn’t. It happened in 1994.
Cite? And are we taking the start of cultural sanctions, or the mid-80s financial sanctions, the ones that really counted. Becausethe IMF seems to think differently.
Yeah, no, Gerhard de Kock was an apartheid functionary, what do you expect him to say? His word on SA’s economic position was about as trustworthy as Baghdad Bob’s on the Iraq War.
What ended apartheid was a combination of ongoing domestic unrest, sanctions and boycotts (both foreign and local), the threat of expanded armed revolution, the cost of the Border War and the end of the Cold War. Probably in that order.
Half a Nobel Prize. The same De Klerk who, in his autobiography, said “Obviously, sanctions also did serious damage to the country”. And what did his co-Laureate have to say about sanctions, on the day of his release from prison?
[QUOTE=Nelson Mandela]
It is only through disciplined mass action that our victory can be assured. We call on our white compatriots to join us in the shaping of a new South Africa. The freedom movement is a political home for you too. We call on the international community to continue the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid.
[/QUOTE]
Sure sounds like he thought sanctions mattered.
Don’t forget William Buckley and the National Review were absolutely against the civil rights movement.
N.B.: The point of “dog-whistle” racist messaging is not that only the target audience can hear it. Everybody can hear it, and everybody knows exactly what it means. The point is plausible deniability based on intentional ambiguity.
Absolutes like “always” are “always” dangerous. The two people I knew best in the republican / Reaganite RR were also, respectively, missionaries to Korea and PNG. They sang “Red and Yellow, Black and White, all are precious in his sight” in Sunday School.
I’ve just had another look at the Moral Majority platform, and although it had strong support in the south, I don’t see any racist dog-whistles.
All in all, although I can’t tell you where the Religous Right went after Reagan, the statement that racism was a formative narrative appears to be preaching to people who are too young to remember.
He didn’t say Black Buck he said bucks. You can find references to bucks as being young and energetic men since 1303.
Here is the transcript of the Willie Horton ad, can you point out the racist part?
"MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: Bush and Dukakis on crime.
[TEXT: Supports Death Penalty]
MALE NARRATOR: Bush supports the death penalty for first degree murderers.
[TEXT: Opposes Death Penalty]
MALE NARRATOR: Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty…
[TEXT: Allowed Murderers to Have Weekend Passes]
MALE NARRATOR: …He allowed first degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison. One was Willie Horton…
[TEXT: Willie Horton]
MALE NARRATOR:…who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times. Despite a life sentence…
MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison.
MALE NARRATOR: Horton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping his girlfriend.
[TEXT: Kidnapping. Stabbing. Raping.]
MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: Weekend prison passes. Dukakis on crime."
Everything in that ad was 100% factual and race was never mentioned.
How can you discuss affirmative action without mentioning race? By saying discussion of certain issues is racist it makes it impossible for a candidate to dissent. This is the definition of Orwellian, to change the language to control how people are allowed to think about political issues. If you say there is a way to do so without being racist can you point to a political ad about affirmative action that has not been criticized as racist?
Sanctions don’t work. Here is a study(pdf) of 120 times sanctions were imposed. They worked 4 times, all of which were very minor issues such as South Korea not buying a nuclear power plant, or the USSR six three British nationals who were arrested. The US has had economic sanctions over Cuba for fifty years and they did not work. Of course it hurt the overall economy a little but in a non-democratic state it only matters if it hurts the people in the government. Sanctions make people poorer and more dependent on the government which increases the power of the government sanctions are trying to hurt. Some American companies had to sell their South African subsidiaries which were purchased at bargain prices by members of the white oligarchy. In the 1980s there were only two choices for voters in South Africa, the apartheid regime or the communist ANC. When the USSR collapsed the ANC ceased to be communist and moderates no longer had to choose between two horribles and apartheid ended.
He did not leave the Democratic party, he took a hiatus, failed then went right back to the Democrats. If the Republicans had become the party of white supremacy why did he go back to the Democrats?
Wallace is an instructive case, he first ran for Governor in 1952 and was endorsed by the NAACP. He lost, blamed it on not being anti-black enough and became the biggest segregationist in the next governors race. Because of this he won election as governor and tried to run for president. Then in 1972 he had a “change of mind” and stopped supporting segregation. Of course since their was now a vacuum in the racist lane, his Republican opponent must have picked up all those votes, right? On the contrary the next election after disavowing segregation Wallace won over 80% of the vote. I don’t think he ever changed his mind from his first race to his last, when he thought being pro-segregation would win him votes he was pro-segregation and when he thought it would lose him votes he dropped it like a bad transmission. There was no more votes in being racist in Alabama past 1972 so he stopped.
No it is not a coincidence. What bound the South to the Democrat party was racism, when racism started to ebb so did the Democrat party in the south. The greater the racism they longer it took for the South to leave the Democrats and join the Republicans.
States rights go back to the constitution and the tenth amendment. Context tells you what is being meant. In 1798 the had to do with resisting the Alien and Sedition Act, in 1812 they had to do with New England opposing the war, in 1828 they had to do with tariffs and trade, in the 1850s they were used by the North to oppose the Fugitive Slave Law. In the Civil War era they obviously referred to slavery and in Jim Crow they referred to discrimination. In Reagan’s speech they referred to welfare laws quite explicitly.
I always appreciate the irony in people who call themselves progressive wanted to pretend that it is perpetually 1968. I can appreciate peoplewho want to live in the past, but really it is not so scary living in a time where voters care about other issues.
Continue to find excuses – Reagan even apologized later for it, feigning ignorance. He was either ignorant that it was a slur, or he used it to send a message.
Then why did they show Horton’s picture? If it was just about a criminal incident and policy, then there was no reason to show an incendiary picture.
I’ve never said discussions of certain issues is racist – just that some of the methods that Republicans have used have been meant to appeal to racist voters.
Why wouldn’t they try? With millions of racist voters available, do you really believe that the Republican party wouldn’t try to get their vote? The Democrats certainly tried until Civil Rights made it mostly a lost cause.
Do you really believe that the Republican party was so moral that they wouldn’t try to get those racist voters? I don’t. That was politics as usual – try to appeal to masses of voters.
MrDibble and I showed several cites that sanctions did indeed harm South Africa. Maybe they don’t work in every case, but they did in this case – check those cites again.
They worked for South Africa because they harmed the voters that mattered to the apartheid government – white voters. When their businesses started to suffer in major ways, they started to reconsider their support for apartheid.
He renounced white supremacy, remember? And I don’t claim that the Republicans were the “party of white supremacy” – just that they, like the Democrats before them, tried to appeal to racist voters.
Why do you think he “took a hiatus” (if you want to play semantics)? Why did he run third party? Why did he do so well in the South, and why did the Democratic candidate do so poorly in the South?
Right – when he thought being racist would help him win votes, he said racist things. When he didn’t, he rejected them. You’ll notice that when he said racist things he left the Democratic party, and when he stopped saying them he came back.
Though “no more votes in being racist in Alabama past 1972” is just ridiculous hyperbole. Less votes, perhaps, but far from none.
Democratic party, not “Democrat party”, by the way. Just for your education – I’m sure you’d prefer to use the correct adjective term that Democrats prefer, just like I’m sure you’d never call someone “Phil” if they preferred “Phillip”.
So why did those Southern racists choose to support the Republican party? Why do so many Mississippi Republicans think interracial marriage should be banned?
Ever since the Civil War they’ve referred to some version of white supremacist policy and practice, for the most part. I’m not going to convince you, I recognize, but you’re also not going to convince me that Reagan didn’t try to get the votes of those millions of racist voters. I don’t know if Reagan was a racist, but I don’t believe he’s such a poor politician that he didn’t try to get those millions to vote for him.
I appreciate this irony too – so glad we can enjoy this appreciation of these hypothetical other people who pretend it’s 1968 all the time!
No idea what this has to do with this discussion, though. Tons of progress has been made – appealing to racism is no longer a net political benefit, as it was for most of the 20th century (and used by the Democratic party for the first 2/3rds, and the Republicans for a few election cycles afterwards). But there is still a lot of progress yet to be made, as findings like the Ferguson Report, which found that the city used their police department mostly to raise revenue from black citizenry, rather than protect and serve their community, revealed.
See post #95.
Whether ‘Republicans appeal to racists’ and ‘American Religious Right rooted in racism’ are two fairly different issues seems to me. As was noted, debating the meaning of the ‘southern strategy’ is not directly relevant to the ‘religious right’ since the latter didn’t arise as an identifiable political force until after the South turned Republican.
The much more straightforward root of political activism among conservative religious people is Roe v Wade. Everything overlaps and causality goes in various directions in social and political developments, but religious voter activism is hard to tie in any logical way to the fall out from the Civil Rights movement. George Wallace didn’t appeal to religiosity, though again overlapping, some of the people attracted to him were religiously devout, others not. I hope it’s not a very naive foreign or American never-been-to-the-South view that everyone in the South is religious. Far from it, let alone every Republican religious.
To update, Trump’s appeal is somewhat like Wallace’s. You can call it ‘racist’. You can call BLM racist. You can go on for pages debating that but it’s basically spin either way IMO. The reality is that both are politics based promoting ‘our’ group’s interests. Trump is supported by a lot of people who think the interests of (particularly downscale) whites need representation and defense. A lot of left leaning opinion rejects that, saying that as the ‘historical power group’, whites are racist if conscious of ‘white interests’, but blacks etc can be conscious of ‘black etc interests’ and not be racists. But that’s just a belief, to which Trumpists say GFY.
Anyway, Trump doesn’t especially appeal to the religious right. He has some support there, but most of his supporters are not particularly religious and some are anti-religious, ie they don’t support Ted Cruz because he is ostentatiously religious.