THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 23, 1996 TAG: 9606210097
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: 73 lines
THE FIRES OF RACISM are raging across the South again, and it is long past time for some control.
Unlike President Clinton, who has laid blame for suspected arsons in a spate of southern black church burnings on a climate of ``racial hostility,'' I'd like to start with fact, not political rhetoric. Rather than fanning the flames, let's step back and examine them.
Were these fires racially motivated? And if they weren't, why are our President and Congress so eager to condemn them as acts of racial hatred?
(Considering it is an election year, and Clinton has felt some personal heat of late - FBI files, Whitewater - that may be a rhetorical question.)
As of Friday, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has recorded 38 fires at predominantly African-American churches since Jan. 1, 1995. Of these, 24 are considered ``active'' investigations, meaning no suspect has been arrested.
Seven others have been cleared with the arrests of nine suspects, none of them an apparent right-wing terrorist, and the remaining eight are regarded as accidental. No one has been killed or seriously injured.
Sometimes statistics confound, other times they illuminate. What's lacking with these statistics is context.
How many predominantly white churches have burned during this same period? And how do the numbers in 1995-96, adjusting for population growth, compare to arsons at black and white southern churches in previous years?
Sadly, arson is a common crime, especially among delinquent youth. It's easy to commit and easy to get away with. According to the National Fire Protection Association, 85,000 fires of ``suspicious'' origin are set each year. Of these, 600 arsons involve church buildings, of which there are 300,000 nationwide.
When 15, 20, 35, 50 - how many? - arsons, out of 600, are directed against black churches, is it indicative of a hate-mongering conspiracy, or not? Is it significant?
Churches make ideal targets for the arsonist. They are open, public places, frequented by many people, but often left unattended. They contain many nooks and crannies for stealthy fire-setting. They go up in spectacular blazes. And for some, they represent oppressive moral authority - punishment - not spiritual sanctuary.
Fire has always had a wicked, forbidden appeal. Of power. And rebellion. Especially for aggressive, troubled teenagers. A 13-year-old girl, arrested in the arson of a black church in North Carolina, is suspected of being part of a devil-worshiping cult.
But mischievous children also play with matches. Mentally deranged people vandalize and burn buildings. And yes, white supremacists, and good ol' local boys liquored up and out looking for trouble, sometimes torch black churches.
People also burn buildings, even houses of worship, to collect insurance money.
So far, the ATF and FBI have come up with little hard evidence. Many of these churches were old wooden buildings, isolated in the countryside. They were reduced quickly to charred ruins.
The explanations for these fires will undoubtedly range widely. So why is it so easy - and so acceptable - to attribute them to racial hostility? To hate?
The public would be better served by reports of the facts of each individual fire: The basic when, where, how and why (if known), and who, including any witnesses and suspects in custody. Are there any connections?
I don't want any buildings to burn - churches, schools, homes - and I am sensitive to the devastating loss that a community suffers when a church is destroyed. But let's look at the facts before we set Mississippi to burning again. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor for The
Virginian-Pilot. ILLUSTRATION: FILE PHOTO
President Clinton has blamed the church burnings on a climate of
``racial hostility.'' by CNB