Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Mayflower Compact - A Covenant

Expand Messages
  • Nikolai
    ... Parnell, I happen to opine the burden is on Fred to show a scriptural basis for his, again in my opinion, novel idea of racially segregated state. As it
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      puritanone wrote:

      > Nikolai, please show from scripture why Fred's view is wrong.

      Parnell, I happen to opine the burden is on Fred to show a scriptural
      basis for his, again in my opinion, novel idea of racially segregated
      state. As it stands, since I'm not aware of either an explicit
      scriptural command to form racially segregated states or a valid
      deduction by good and necessary consequence from scripture that would
      imply such a command, I think it's only proper to expect, before I may
      raise any objections, to see what grounds, if any, such an idea has.

      I would also be most grateful if Fred clarified his usage of the word
      "race." "Race" could be used in several different ways, the last thing I
      want is to talk about apples while all along we were talking about
      oranges not to mention pears and other fruits might end up being
      discussed without anybody being aware of what's going on.

      > Calling it "outrageously racist" is no argument.

      I agree. I haven't been presenting any arguments. Fred's post appeared
      to be an expression of his personal opinion. But so was my remark. Based
      on the contents of the post, I think his suggestion, as far as I
      understand it, is outrageously racist for it undoubtedly implies racial
      discrimination which is what essentially constitutes racism. Please
      note, I have no problem with discrimination, lawful discrimination that
      is, but obviously not all discrimination is lawful. In other words, all
      racism is discrimination but not all discrimination is racism.

      > For example, I see nothing in scripture that would say the
      > aborigines of Australia should not be allowed their own separate
      > nation on the island of Australia. Do you? Where?

      No I don't, nor do I see anything in scripture that would say uninspired
      poetry should not be sung in worship. That being the case, I assume
      since such worship practice is not commanded, it is therefore forbidden.
      Why forming of states should be done any differently? I understand the
      distinction between worship practice and forming of governments but I
      think it is no simple curiosity matter to ask someone like Fred why
      racial segregation should be employed in forming of a sovereign state?

      > Don't get me wrong- I am not advocating "racially" pure nations.

      OK, what exactly is then being advocated in the post we are discussing?
      It has been suggested that African-American citizens of the United
      States should be given a territory within it to form a new state. Now, a
      trivial question is, why Michigan? On a more serious note, how are we to
      determine, a) what is African-American and, b) once we know what it is
      that makes up an African-American, how do we proceed to separate those
      who are and those who are not such? Perhaps a DNA test? And by the way,
      why African-Americans should have their own state in the US? What about
      Chinese, Italians, Irish, Jews, Russians and whoever else we can put on
      the list? What is it exactly that makes African-Americans in Fred's
      opinion deserving a state but Irish we should leave empty handed? I'm
      sure Russians would love to have certain parts of NYC to be run by
      "brothers" and sometimes even by "sisters" if you know what I mean.

      > But neither do I see it as sin if a given people want national self-
      > determination where non-sinful national characteristics are
      > preserved, and not be forced into some melting pot empire.

      I have no problem with that. I doubt though that Michigan has any
      "national characteristics" distinctively different from those of Florida
      or California. Quebec or Chechnya may have some legitimate claims to
      such distinctives relative to other parts of the given countries, but
      even they never consider their claims to have any racial content,
      although Chechnya should probably be excluded from this remark. The
      separatist movement of Quebec, for example, would have been dead before
      it started if its goal was to create a racially French state (whatever
      that means). The movement is successful precisely because it has no
      racial segregation of any kind in view, or at least not publicly.

      EPC Brisbane
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.