Biblical Justification for the KKK?


What were some of the verses of scripture that KKK members used to justify the separation of races and the superiority of a white race? Also how did they reconcile with the fact that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and also that many prominent Biblical figures weren’t white?


I think, for them, the central question was slavery, and they probably cited the usual “slavery” passages to prove that slavery is okay. (The Bible doesn’t say that American-style slavery is okay, or even racial slavery – but I doubt the KKK was interested in such subtle distinctions.)

However, I have seen one passage that is sometimes quoted in favor of racial inferiority: the Curse of Canaan – “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” Genesis 9:25-26.

I’ve seen texts from the 1800s asserting that this means black people are supposed to be servants. Of course, the text doesn’t say anything about black people being servants, but it does say Canaan would be a servant, and some of the people in the 1800s imported the idea that black people are descendants of Canaan, and therefore said they are cursed to be servants too.

The argument is silly because, first of all, it doesn’t say anything about black people, second of all, there’s no proof that black people are descendants of Canaan, and third of all, even if they were, it doesn’t say anything about Canaan’s descendants being doomed to servitude, it just says Canaan will be a servant.

But again, I doubt that little things like logic would stop KKK members from misusing this text to justify racial slavery.


Quick question: Are you implying that there is an acceptable form of slavery?


The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

(Am I allowed to say that in this forum?)

Remarks added upon editing: If you google “ku klux klan scripture” you can find plenty of material. I only lightly skimmed it because, frankly, it looks like a fool’s errand, but various web pages cite Chapter and Verse, sometimes regarding the separation of peoples or races, sometimes regarding “beasts” which KKK may claim refers to people of certain races. To analyze or refute these interpretations would, in my opinion, be a grand waste of time and effort.

Peace and Blessings to All.


I don’t think there is an acceptable way to buy and sell a man like property. But I think there are acceptable ways to buy and sell his labor, in ways that are in accordance with his dignity, and I think the term slavery has been applied to these ways of dealing in the past. Bondservant comes to mind, and I think that if a man consents to this condition, and is treated well, there’s nothing wrong with calling that condition a form of slavery. Serfdom, chain gangs, and prison laborors are other forms that may be acceptable. We might not call these conditions slavery today, but I think they have been called that in the past.


Not sure, one really can’t reason with madness and evil and hate which is what KKK stands for even if they think they are good Christians. It’s impossible for a normal rational mind to understand any of this and what few verses they pick and twist to justify their warped thinking. Many of these groups have joined together, neo-nazis, skin heads etc.Hitler believed in something called positive Chrisitian movement which is really neither. The burning of the cross has always struck me as so evil.


That’s not what I got from that. dmar198 was simply pointing that the two concepts of slavery (the Bible’s and America’s) were different.


Isn’t the understood definition of slavery “owning a human”, though? I mean, we could call lots of things slavery that aren’t slavery so that we can say that some slavery is ok. But I think that’s dishonest. A person who consents to their condition is not a slave. There is something wrong with calling that slavery.


Today it is. But I don’t think it always has been defined so clearly. Thomas Aquinas, for example, says that slavery is okay under certain conditions, one of them being that it must be understood that the human persons themselves are not property, their labor is. Under the modern definition, therefore, he wasn’t talking about slavery at all, but at the time, people clearly thought he was.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit