> 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.