That does make some sense, I'll admit, but the problem is, BJU might've had different reasons from normal for putting the ban on. It may be that interracial dating bans were GENERALLY racist, but that doesn't mean that BJU's had the same motivation.
I am only saying this because I actually read that whole Easter Sunday sermon and, while I disagree with it quite decisively, it does not seem to imply anywhere that any race is inferior and in fact says the exact opposite many, many times.
Could be wrong, but that's my impression, anyways.
EDIT: Also, I am not particularly "insistent" of position here. I don't really know if these bans were racially motivated or not, I'm just trying to find it out. If I seemed insistent, it's because I had to keep repeating myself because no one even understood what I was saying. You're the first person that has given me a shred of evidence that interracial dating bans were ever racially motivated.
Oh ok, I see where you're coming from. You weren't saying that interracial bans themselves weren't racist, you were saying that BJU didn't put their ban in for racist reasons. Gotcha.
Sure, maybe BJU put in the interracial marriage bans for non-racist reasons. But I highly doubt it. I can't get into the minds of the BJU staff who instituted the ban, nor have I read the speech you refer to yet, nor have I researched this specific issue deeply. But being located in a state where interracial marriage was previously outlawed for racist reasons, along with having a university president that made comments calling for the killing of gays and upholding segregation, is strong circumstantial evidence that the BJU marriage policy was indeed racially motivated. To me, my impression is that if BJU apologists are arguing that the bans were put in place for non-racist reasons, not only is that logically tenuous, but it definitely seems like revisionist history on their part to try and whitewash (no pun intended) bad policies.
But let's take a step back and assume your argument is true. Even IF BJU put the policy in place for "non-racist reasons," wouldn't that still be an equally as bad policy? You'd hopefully agree that the interracial marriage ban was not a good idea, right? Really, I don't see how your position is going to help out BJU in any substantial way, other than prove that they weren't racist, in which case, good luck with that, since there's a mountain of evidence that contradicts that assertion.