The distrust existed independent of Civil Rights legislation. Moral problems can't be entirely solved by law, but does that mean law should not take a moral stand before culture and individual behavior? By your reasoning, we should wait until abortions are no longer sought before passing a law against it, murder and theft should be things of the past before it is forbidden.
No, it means that in order for a law to be effective, there needs to be a moral consensus. "Government of, for, and by the people" requires that the law serve the people, not vice versa. It is logically impossible for a true democracy to impose an order not sought by the populace at large. Yet that is precisely what CRA64 did.
By your reasoning, we should wait until abortions are no longer sought before passing a law against it
That's certainly arguable. What is NOT arguable is that doing so would make the law against abortion infinitely more successful. In fact, it might obviate the need for such legislation at all. And by YOUR argument, Prohibition should have worked.
murder and theft should be things of the past before it is forbidden.
Murder and theft are already opposed by the vast majority of the people. They always have been. No such consensus existed against racial discrimination. And the paltry attempt to legislate a conscience on the matter has done nothing but give rise to an entitlement mentality, a continuing culture of despair, and a deeper schism between the races.
Nice point, Lucysmom!
Liberals seem to do this all the time for deviant behaviour which THEY approve of, such as teen sex, homosexuality, or drug use. ("Well, people are going to do it anyway, we might as well just give them condoms, or needle exchange."
But they exhibit ZERO TOLERANCE and are in favor of draconian measures for anything they deem bad, such as "homophobia" or smoking or public displays of religion.
Cheers!