# Am I crazy?



## earl40 (Jun 3, 2013)

I think racism should be against the law.

You?


----------



## The Calvinist Cop (Jun 3, 2013)

It is, but I think having protected "classes" is wrong too. 
Then again, I see only 2 races:
those in Adam
and those of us in Christ.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 3, 2013)

The Calvinist Cop said:


> It is, but I think having protected "classes" is wrong too.
> Then again, I see only 2 races:
> those in Adam
> and those of us in Christ.



I hear you. Though no doubt God intended to make some people more black, red, yellow or white than others. Also I agree that one shade of color (whatever shade) should not be a reason to discriminate.


----------



## Frosty (Jun 3, 2013)

Two questions:

-is it enforceable?

-who judges what constitutes "racism"?


----------



## earl40 (Jun 3, 2013)

Frosty said:


> Two questions:
> 
> -is it enforceable?
> 
> -who judges what constitutes "racism"?



I would be happy to sit on the committee to determine what is and what is not racism. I think this would be an easy job and very enforceable.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 3, 2013)

The Calvinist Cop said:


> It is, but I think having protected "classes" is wrong too.




Along with this, eventually we have what we have now: special classes with special rights. Is profiling to keep a terrorist from blowing up the airport ok? I think so. Should a company be forced to hire a minority to meet some decided minimum standards, even if they are slugs? No way. Hire the qualified _without regard to race_. In trying to rid ourselves of racism, we end up being the most racist of all.........


----------



## davenporter (Jun 3, 2013)

Affirmative Action is racist.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 3, 2013)

Is white pride worse than black pride or gay pride?


----------



## matt01 (Jun 3, 2013)

What is racism? If it is the thought, then we should also start executing all the murderers and adulterers- I might as well go first. God will judge us for the actions of our hearts/minds, we don't need the state going there. As for overt acts, there are already plenty of laws in place to deal with these issues.


----------



## Edward (Jun 3, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Am I crazy?



Crazy's not the word I'd use.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 3, 2013)

earl40 said:


> I think racism should be against the law.
> 
> You?



Why?

Not why is it wrong... but why should the state enact laws to punish it?


----------



## Tim (Jun 3, 2013)

We need to have a definition of racism.


----------



## The Calvinist Cop (Jun 3, 2013)

Good Questions, but poor answers?
is it enforceable?
in my experience-depends on the situation.
who judges what constitutes "racism"? 
the populous-driven by the situation.
i.e. Crack dealer sells crack buyer fake crack, enraged by the phony crack (wax), he runs the dealer over with his hummer. During the mayhem, the buyer yells "racist" slurs-hence a "hate crime". However, satanic graffiti at a church is just "graffiti". The graffiti was still enhanced because at a church, but not classified as a "hate crime".
Is not all crime hate?
What else are we to except in a fallen world.


----------



## The Calvinist Cop (Jun 3, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Is white pride worse than black pride or gay pride?



Daily I deal with Aryan Brothers, Aryan Circle, Black and Hispanic street gangs. They all have allegiances to their skin color and things of this world, my only response to them is: 
Pride is pride.
Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. Proverbs 16:5


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 3, 2013)

Racism is the epitome of stupidity.

But I'm curious, is there an argument from general equity that will show it to be a violation of God's law? Can stupidity be outlawed?


----------



## Edward (Jun 3, 2013)

I'd expect the proponents of the proposition to use Galatians 3:28 for their proof text.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 3, 2013)

Edward said:


> I'd expect the proponents of the proposition to use Galatians 3:28 for their proof text.



This may prove that racism is wrong, but this is a different proposition than "racism should be illegal."


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 3, 2013)

No, it shouldn't. But to get back to answering the OP, I don't think you're crazy; you mean well. 

As father of a mixed race family, we see plenty of looks and questioning glances. We take the tack that the world is full of ignorant people, and racism is one way they show their ignorance. Any crime is a crime of hatred, even if only the opportunistic leaning to grab an old lady's purse. You do not respect her as a member of God's creation or you would not seek to harm her. You do not seek to honour her as the aged should be honoured, you do not love her as a sister. You hate her in your selfishness. But I digress... My children are stronger and more able to verbalize their pity for the ignorant because we teach them that they must stand up for themselves and not go running to a human rights tribunal when they are maligned due to their race. Joseph is the king of this response, as he is Asian, handicapped, and has one heck of a speech impediment. Our own kids laugh at him when he speaks, but he just powers on through - it is a beautiful sight to behold. He figures that people who laugh and don't understand him are the ones with the problem, not him.


----------



## ReformedChristian (Jun 4, 2013)

Do I think Racism is evil and unbiblical and should it be outlawed? well it depends on what you mean by racism if you mean favoring one over another sure. But since the word race seems to have lost its meaning in our postmodern culture. It seems hard to define.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 4, 2013)

It wasn't hard to define when I was a kid growing up in the south with water fountains and rest rooms marked white and colored. It was a shameful thing in this country then and if it is racism it is still a shameful thing.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2013)

If somebody believes that there might be differences between the races, is this racism?

If I think Kenyans make better marathon runners than eskimos...not merely due to upbringing, but due to genetics...am I an eskimo-hating racist?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 4, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> If somebody believes that there might be differences between the races, is this racism?


No. This is _prejudice_, which may or may not be a negative.

_Racism is prejudice in action_, again something that may or may not be a negative, depending upon the circumstances, context, etc.

In general, however, when we speak of racism it usually carries a negative association. I do not think this form of racism should be against the law unless the circumstance wherein it exhibits itself is in fact a legal context. So, for example and ignoring any Scriptural issues for the moment, assume I have particular racist views about this or that class of people. I would think that I am within my rights to not do any personal business with them. On the other hand, it would be illegal for me, as an employer, to refuse to hire these persons based solely on their racial class, or to treat them adversely if they are my employees.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jun 4, 2013)

Racism really is impossible to ban unless you want to find a way to police thought crimes. Racism when it plays out in some sort of open way could be banned because it is partiality, which is immorality but even then you are really on saying that you can positively discern people's motives.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 4, 2013)

It is against the law of God.
Concerning secular laws, there is a big difference between "against the law" and "not practiced by an overwhelming majority". There was a Russian joke about how to appreciate how wonderful our country is: read the Constitution and never go outside.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I crazy?
> ...



Indeed I have been called worse.

I used that word because it is "self evident" and most of all biblical (treat your neighbor as your self) to me that it should be against the law to practice racism and the majority of the Christians I have asked this question to say no. As I slept on this question last night I am starting to think they are "crazy" or In my most humble opinion thinking like a racist.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

matt01 said:


> What is racism? If it is the thought, then we should also start executing all the murderers and adulterers- I might as well go first. God will judge us for the actions of our hearts/minds, we don't need the state going there. As for overt acts, there are already plenty of laws in place to deal with these issues.



I am not a theonomist and the penalty for practicing racism is not the discussion here but if it (racism) should be against the law.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Is white pride worse than black pride or gay pride?



Gay pride is worse than white pride and white pride is worse than black pride. Just saying, and I know you know the reason I put them in the order I did.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Brad said:


> Racism is the epitome of stupidity.
> 
> But I'm curious, is there an argument from general equity that will show it to be a violation of God's law? Can stupidity be outlawed?



No doubt Jesus would say they broke the second greatest commandment by not loving their neighbor as themselves thus general equity should speak very loudly here In my most humble opinion. I also agree with your assessment it is the "epitome of stupidity" and cannot believe my Christian brothers and sisters would do not agree that racism SHOULD be against the law. I am totally stumped and wonder if it is not clouded by our current governments lack of wisdom. Do we really hate authority that much that we are willing to not see this issue for what it is and not from the practical view of if laws against racism would be enforceable?


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Edward said:


> I'd expect the proponents of the proposition to use Galatians 3:28 for their proof text.



Catagory mistake. This is not a question if one is a Christian or not but a question of man made in the image of God.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

kvanlaan said:


> No, it shouldn't. But to get back to answering the OP, I don't think you're crazy; you mean well.
> 
> As father of a mixed race family, we see plenty of looks and questioning glances. We take the tack that the world is full of ignorant people, and racism is one way they show their ignorance. Any crime is a crime of hatred, even if only the opportunistic leaning to grab an old lady's purse. You do not respect her as a member of God's creation or you would not seek to harm her. You do not seek to honour her as the aged should be honoured, you do not love her as a sister. You hate her in your selfishness. But I digress... My children are stronger and more able to verbalize their pity for the ignorant because we teach them that they must stand up for themselves and not go running to a human rights tribunal when they are maligned due to their race. Joseph is the king of this response, as he is Asian, handicapped, and has one heck of a speech impediment. Our own kids laugh at him when he speaks, but he just powers on through - it is a beautiful sight to behold. He figures that people who laugh and don't understand him are the ones with the problem, not him.



Kevin, first off I would applaud your general attitude on this issue. I would suggest, you being obviously a "white man" should fight for your children's God given right to be treated as a human beings made in the image of God no matter what "color" they are. No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

ReformedChristian said:


> Do I think Racism is evil and unbiblical and should it be outlawed? well it depends on what you mean by racism if you mean favoring one over another sure. But since the word race seems to have lost its meaning in our postmodern culture. It seems hard to define.



I am coming from this from a biblical perspective in that "from one man God made every man".


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Unoriginalname said:


> Racism really is impossible to ban unless you want to find a way to police thought crimes. Racism when it plays out in some sort of open way could be banned because it is partiality, which is immorality but even then you are really on saying that you can positively discern people's motives.



Not true because men can judge actions.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).


Where did you get this idea of "less rewards" or "more punishment"?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 4, 2013)

Derived of pride, contrary to God having created life in His own image, and to be respected with dignity, it is indeed against THE law.

And adultery, lasciviousness, abortion, slander, lust, pride, greed, selfishness, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting, having other Gods, worshipping anything more than the true God, making graven images of things supposedly in Heaven, profaning the sabbath, not honoring your authority, wishing ill will on others, being angry with our brother without a cause, stealing, and
prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

and many, many more things.

The problem is, we are not obeying ANY of them. And the laws of our land are deliberately undermining them ALL, more and more, while, in blindness and rebellion, non believers self righteously demand obedience....

they themselves do not portray.

Indeed, we need a Savior.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is white pride worse than black pride or gay pride?
> ...



Why is "white pride" worse than "black pride?" I understand the reason for the gay pride being worse, but why is white pride worse?


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Not true because men can judge actions.


Not in every circumstance, and we should also view other people's motives with charity. For example, if you apply for a job and are turned down, you may never really know why beyond what the person tells you and it would be uncharitable to judge the persons motives in such a way that calls the person a liar. Very few people in this day and age are stupid enough to say Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Arabs need not apply, so I am curious how you would go about finding out the racists apart from some sort of witch hunt.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Earl,
Do you really want our exceedingly corrupt government to add "racism" (a liquid definition that will always be left to interpretation) to their power (which once given, will never be relinquished)? I sure don't....and that doesn't mean I'm crazy or racist. In fact, the EEOC laws already forbid racism in that arena. How about the lazy worker who pulls the "race card" when he is legitimately fired for laziness? I can be dropped like a hot potato for no reason whatsoever, but a "minority"? Not without a fight. That's racism! As MLK said a man should be judged by his character and not by the color of his skin. I agree that what we had with slavery and racism here in the 'States was terrible. 
I don't know what things are like in Florida, but we have racism here something fierce. If I (a descendant of the German, French, and Norwegian) go down to the Englewood, Humbolt Park, near west side, or many of the south side neighborhoods in Chicago day or night, there is a good chance that I will be beat up or shot.....because I'm white. Where are the racism police in those places? My town is a true "melting pot". We have it all. Last night, I had my Puerto Rican, Eastern bloc Euro, and British friends over to pray and watch a study of sola gratia. 
I try to make judgments on character and behavior and not color. A disrespectful punk is a disrespectful punk (red, white, green, black, yellow, purple). A courteous person is a courteous person (red, white, green, black, yellow, purple). A burglar is a burglar (red, white, green, black, yellow, purple). A gang-banger is a gang-banger (red, white, green, black, yellow, purple). I would handle each of these folks according to their character/behavior. A courteous "minority" is always welcome at my house. A white gang-banger or burglar? Not a chance.............


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jun 4, 2013)

The term "racism" is itself an unbiblical term. There is only one race according to Scripture, the human race. The whole idea of racism is that a particular gene pool is better in some way than another gene pool; but there's really only 1 gene pool. Scripture divides humankind into 2 groups of people but not based upon genes - there are the children of God and the children of Satan.

Racism in itself can't be outlawed because it is a thought/attitude. The civil magistrate/ecclesiastical magistrate/fathers (depending upon what sphere of authority we're talking about) can't punish people for having hate in their hearts only when they act out on that hate in a sinful way. This would include suppressing hate speech (which, to be clear, I am speaking of as defined by a godly civil magistrate). 

But not every act of racism may necessarily be against civil law. I don't think we need a civil law that says "A father shall not deny his daughter the right to marry a man of a different skin color for the sole reason that he is a different skin color." Rather, I think in a functioning godly society, a father who attempted to do this but had no moral objection (because both his daughter and the suitor are Christians in good standing) would not be punished by the civil magistrate but would be instructed and disciplined if necessary by the church elders.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 4, 2013)

> Kevin, first off I would applaud your general attitude on this issue. I would suggest, you being obviously a "white man" should fight for your children's God given right to be treated as a human beings made in the image of God no matter what "color" they are. No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).



That's just it, they are children created in the image of God, full stop. They themselves don't really see it, and it is a cool thing to watch. I know I've posted this example before, but when Hannah was about 3 or 4, she saw a Benetton ad on TV of a white girl and black girl running together and playing. She looked kind of puzzled and asked me, "Dad, are they sisters?" I just said no, without explaining how that would be impossible, blah, blah, blah. They're my kids, that's all. We've got chocolate, vanilla, and butterscotch, but they're all ice cream.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Racism is the epitome of stupidity.
> ...



Our current government's lack of wisdom is an excellent reason *not* to ask it to enforce laws against every sin God forbids. This is not hatred of authority; I simply believe that God has not given _all_ of His authority to the state. For the state to seek to take more than it is given - as I believe ours has - the end result, though it may initially seem beneficial, will always end poorly.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

kvanlaan said:


> > Kevin, first off I would applaud your general attitude on this issue. I would suggest, you being obviously a "white man" should fight for your children's God given right to be treated as a human beings made in the image of God no matter what "color" they are. No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).
> 
> 
> 
> That's just it, they are children created in the image of God, full stop. They themselves don't really see it, and it is a cool thing to watch. I know I've posted this example before, but when Hannah was about 3 or 4, she saw a Benetton ad on TV of a white girl and black girl running together and playing. She looked kind of puzzled and asked me, "Dad, are they sisters?" I just said no, without explaining how that would be impossible, blah, blah, blah. They're my kids, that's all. We've got chocolate, vanilla, and butterscotch, but they're all ice cream.



Your children are indeed blessed to have you as a father. Now as they grow older they will see the mistreatment perpetuated by those who do not hold to our view, and I wish that the law would address and curb actions that arise from the sin of racism. As a father I am sure you do not wish to see your children hurt and it is sad it is not against the law to practice racism.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



All pride is bad, but the sin of black pride arose because of "white" people attempting to make "black" people feel less than humans who are made in His image. Thus I can understand why black pride arose without agreeing it is good. White pride is almost pure evil in that In my most humble opinion it judges solely on the color of external appearances and thus worse than black pride.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt those that suffer for being "another color" will be reward in heaven and those who do not advocate that men should do so will loose rewards in heaven (if they are a Christan) or be punished more in hell (if they die in unbelief).
> ...



Scripture and the WCF. All our works will be judged. Believers works shall be judged and unbelievers works also. This is where The Lord will judge not only the works but the motive.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Skyler said:


> Our current government's lack of wisdom is an excellent reason *not* to ask it to enforce laws against every sin God forbids. This is not hatred of authority; I simply believe that God has not given _all_ of His authority to the state. For the state to seek to take more than it is given - as I believe ours has - the end result, though it may initially seem beneficial, will always end poorly.



I generally agree that the lack of wisdom would entail probable failure of justness though I am not sure I would allow dogmatic pragmatism rule in what our government OUGHT to do within the authority God has already given them.

Do we have to be there on judgment day? I shudder now just thinking about it.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Would it be less sinful then for Slavic whites to exercise "white pride" than their white peers, since theirs is a history of slavery, too?


----------



## Edward (Jun 4, 2013)

Skyler said:


> This may prove that racism is wrong, but this is a different proposition than "racism should be illegal."



But as we've seen on the thread, the proponents have haven't been able to come up with any real scriptural proof for their position.

Actually, I don't think it speaks to racism at all.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Edward said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > This may prove that racism is wrong, but this is a different proposition than "racism should be illegal."
> ...



Jesus spoke of judging people based solely on similar instances. Take the story of the good Samaritan. Here we see Jesus differentiating between good and bad actions and not on nationality (a form of prejudiced much like racism). Also so far as racism considered purely as a topic in scripture, the 2nd greatest commandment addresses this issue from logical and necessary inference, in that we are to treat all people as we would treat ourselves which includes all those with different shades of grey. There are scores of truly good laws that curb bad behavior and are biblical because of good and necessary inference from principles taught in His Word.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Would it be less sinful then for Slavic whites to exercise "white pride" than their white peers, since theirs is a history of slavery, too?



Though I am not familiar with your example I have no doubt I understand why "black" people thought they needed to pump up black pride though I do not say is right and moral, but less sinful because of what caused such ideas.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Gforce9 said:


> In fact, the EEOC laws already forbid racism in that arena. How about the lazy worker who pulls the "race card" when he is legitimately fired for laziness? I can be dropped like a hot potato for no reason whatsoever, but a "minority"? Not without a fight. That's racism! As MLK said a man should be judged by his character and not by the color of his skin. I agree that what we had with slavery and racism here in the 'States was terrible.



May I add I think *it is good* to have law on the books that allows people of "color" to obtain jobs they may deserve. The abuses, that do indeed happen, should not cause us to repeal these laws...from a pragmatic and moral point of view.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 4, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Gforce9 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, the EEOC laws already forbid racism in that arena. How about the lazy worker who pulls the "race card" when he is legitimately fired for laziness? I can be dropped like a hot potato for no reason whatsoever, but a "minority"? Not without a fight. That's racism! As MLK said a man should be judged by his character and not by the color of his skin. I agree that what we had with slavery and racism here in the 'States was terrible.
> ...



"Deserve" is key. In your sentence, you seem to suggest people "deserve" a job. I prefer the term "earn", proving they can handle and do a good job. I am 100% against the "special" privileges given anyone because of race or color. Guarantees against harassment? Good and right. Go to the front of the line and become untouchable? It is the very racism that you claim to be against.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

Gforce9 said:


> "Deserve" is key. In your sentence, you seem to suggest people "deserve" a job. I prefer the term "earn", proving they can handle and do a good job. I am 100% against the "special" privileges given anyone because of race or color. Guarantees against harassment? Good and right. Go to the front of the line and become untouchable? It is the very racism that you claim to be against.



I use the word "deserve" in the sense that one person is more deserving of a job over another based on qualification and not skin color. So you may replace the word earn with deserve if you like in my post.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 4, 2013)

> Now as they grow older they will see the mistreatment perpetuated by those who do not hold to our view, and I wish that the law would address and curb actions that arise from the sin of racism. As a father I am sure you do not wish to see your children hurt and it is sad it is not against the law to practice racism.



I do not wish to see them hurt, but what racism we've seen does not hurt them. They are secure in our love and God's love and don't need the passing approval of strangers to make their world happy and fluffy. I am more concerned that the law would curb actions that arise from adultery, as that breaks down and destroys families in a most horrible way. Racism merely makes the racist out to be a fool in more ways than one. Adultery destroys in the name of 'love' - it is a twisting and bastardization of God's set order for humanity (as is homosexuality, for that matter). Being racist is like shouting out, in a crowded theater, that you are an idiot of the basest order and you deny God's love for mankind and God's creation at its very foundation, because you deny that a man's value is based on God's love for that man and you instead base it on his skin color. Racism shines a critical light on the racist, it is its own punishment. Now for others to join in because they don't see it as an issue is disgusting, but not illegal.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Jun 4, 2013)

Tim said:


> We need to have a definition of racism.



And that's the problem; there isn't a consensus on what that definition should be.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > We need to have a definition of racism.
> ...



I think all agree that racism is sin.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

kvanlaan said:


> I do not wish to see them hurt, but what racism we've seen does not hurt them.



May it stay that way though I suspect strongly your experience is not universal and may be rather rare from what I hear from my minority friends.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 4, 2013)

> I think all agree that racism is sin.



Earl, I think I can go that far with you, for the reasons I cited above. But if we're locking up ignorant people for being ignorant, I'm buying stock in cement and re-bar companies because there's a whole whack of prisons going up soon!


----------



## earl40 (Jun 4, 2013)

kvanlaan said:


> > I think all agree that racism is sin.
> 
> 
> 
> Earl, I think I can go that far with you, for the reasons I cited above. But if we're locking up ignorant people for being ignorant, I'm buying stock in cement and re-bar companies because there's a whole whack of prisons going up soon!



This is where general equity comes in.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 4, 2013)

> May it stay that way though I suspect strongly your experience is not universal and may be rather rare from what I hear from my minority friends.



Fair enough, but when it goes beyond words to assault, then it is assault, reasons notwithstanding. All crime is committed based on hate of others to a degree, and in today's society, it is often because one's self-love (read selfishness, narcissism, etc.) outweighs one's love for others. That's the source, not skin color. If that was the stated basis of the attack, then it is still just assault, and I guarantee you that a judge that hears it was based on race is going to tag on some more time for the crime. And I pray it is not because of the fact that it was 'racially motivated' but that it was because a judge sees that an individual who treated a fellow human being in such a manner based on skin color will not hesitate to do the same to others based on equally asinine criteria, that is the danger to society, not his issues with skin color.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 5, 2013)

Earl this seems like an unbalanced focus for a Christian to be involved with in America. We have laws to protect all races, creeds or colors.

Like others have said, there are only two distinctions that are biblical: those in Christ or those not in Christ, those of the world and those not of this world, Israel or not Israel, children of God or children of the devil etc etc. 

God is not a respecter of persons. He saves of every nation, tribe and tongue and he also damns of every nation, tribe and tongue. There will be of every skin color in God 's elect and of every skin color in those that are reprobate.

When true persecution comes to the people of God. The enemy wont care if your black or white or yellow or brown only that you are washed in the red blood of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 5, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Our current government's lack of wisdom is an excellent reason *not* to ask it to enforce laws against every sin God forbids. This is not hatred of authority; I simply believe that God has not given _all_ of His authority to the state. For the state to seek to take more than it is given - as I believe ours has - the end result, though it may initially seem beneficial, will always end poorly.
> ...



Oh, I agree with you on dogmatic pragmatism. Our disagreement lies in the extent of the authority that God has given the state. You seem to be implying, though I hope this is not the case, that you believe the state has been given the authority to judge and punish any and all moral infractions, including the thoughts and intents of a man's heart. Would you agree with that statement?

For the sake of the discussion, here are two definitions for racism per Merriam-Webster. Are you arguing that both should be illegal, or one of them in particular?



> 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 2: racial prejudice or discrimination


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 5, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



My friend, if you get "more or less" from that, you have got some very serious misconceptions about the judgment, the nature of sin, our Lord's justice and, especially, the Cross.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 5, 2013)

Skyler said:


> Oh, I agree with you on dogmatic pragmatism. Our disagreement lies in the extent of the authority that God has given the state. You seem to be implying, though I hope this is not the case, that you believe the state has been given the authority to judge and punish any and all moral infractions, including the thoughts and intents of a man's heart. Would you agree with that statement?
> 
> For the sake of the discussion, here are two definitions for racism per Merriam-Webster. Are you arguing that both should be illegal, or one of them in particular?
> 
> ...



I totally agree that the state not has been given the authority to judge moral infractions as if they know the intention of the heart. Though I will say this, the state has been given the authority to judge _the actions_ that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition. What I find intersting is the state here in the USA does this (albiet poorly) to some extent in the EEOC and also because they do it poorly is not an excuse to not be the state.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 5, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Earl this seems like an unbalanced focus for a Christian to be involved with in America. We have laws to protect all races, creeds or colors.
> 
> .



We have some laws that do such, but it is not against the law to serve a cup of coffee ONLY to "white" people at a resturant if the owner wishes.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 5, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Vladimir said:
> ...



I was just listening to RefNet, and heard Sproul speaking about actual different rewards in Heaven. I am sorry, Earl, I may have been rash in my statement. I will have to research this.

The concept sounds bizarre, though. Even if Sproul says that works do not matter for sanctification, how do they matter in the judgment? Bad sins and real bad sins? Good works and great works? Wages of sin are death: is there "less death" and "more death"? How do you marry this with the doctrine of imputed righteousness?


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 5, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



Here are a couple portions of scripture regarding the judgment seat of Christ. 

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 KJV)

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. (Romans 14:10-13 KJV)


----------



## Skyler (Jun 5, 2013)

earl40 said:


> I totally agree that the state not has been given the authority to judge moral infractions as if they know the intention of the heart. Though I will say this, the state has been given the authority to judge _the actions_ that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition. What I find intersting is the state here in the USA does this (albiet poorly) to some extent in the EEOC and also because they do it poorly is not an excuse to not be the state.



Thank you for the clarification on that.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 5, 2013)

Vladimir said:


> Even if Sproul says that works do not matter for sanctification, how do they matter in the judgment? Bad sins and real bad sins? Good works and great works? Wages of sin are death: is there "less death" and "more death"? How do you marry this with the doctrine of imputed righteousness?



I don't know what Sproul means if he says works do not matter for sanctifiation, I would have to hear what the context was. So far as how do works and how they relate with imputation is a great great question that we all need to be reminded of often. I do this by remembering a quote that says "Reprobation like justification are not based on works". This means we are not sent to hell or heaven based on any works we do. We all were born and conceived in Adam because of the imputed sin of Adam (Adam's work and unrighteousness). Of course the Good News is the imputation of Christ's work and righteousness to those he loves which is the best part of imputation that only a few receive, relatively speaking to the whole of humanity.

The works of believers will be judged based on not only if they conform to what God has said we should do, but also the motivation to Who these works were done for. This is why we Christians should do EVERYTHING unto The Lord. 

The works of unbelievers will also be judged by the same standard as Christians which are, if they are commanded by God and the motivation they were done for. Of course the motivation for doing good works is totally missing thus ALL the works will be shown as being sinful at the root and thus sinful. The amount of punishment will be doled out by if they did do what God commanded according to His law. Of course if they follow His commandments they will be less sinful because the law does curb sin even in the most rank unbeliever. Even Hitler loved his mother is my favorite example to demonstrate such.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2013)

earl40 said:


> matt01 said:
> 
> 
> > What is racism? If it is the thought, then we should also start executing all the murderers and adulterers- I might as well go first. God will judge us for the actions of our hearts/minds, we don't need the state going there. As for overt acts, there are already plenty of laws in place to deal with these issues.
> ...



A law that has no sanctions is worse than useless. If racism is to be against the law, there must be a punishment, otherwise there is no point to the law.


----------



## Vladimir (Jun 6, 2013)

Just letting everyone know I move the rewards and punishments discussion to: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/degrees-rewards-punishment-79308/


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2013)

And to further point out: There is a difference between sin and crime. Not all sins are crimes. Getting drunk is a sin. It's not a crime. Driving while drunk is. For all of theonomy's problems, they were very clear on this distinction. If we make these types of sins into crimes, we have entered into one of the most diabolical tyrannies---thought crimes (which is where we are headed now, but that's cool: it's better than being ruled by Moses).


----------



## Skyler (Jun 6, 2013)

earl40 said:


> ...the state has been given the authority to judge _the actions_ that arise out of bad moral intentions. Am I saying the state should judge kids who do not go to bed on time....nope that is the parents spear of authority. I am saying the state has the authority to disapline those that pratice discrimination as per #2 in your definition.





> 2: racial prejudice or discrimination



Do you believe the state has the authority to judge _all_ actions that have a motive of racial prejudice or discrimination, or only a particular subset? More generally, does this apply to perceived superiority in general, or only perceived genetic superiority?

Consider the following hypothetical cases:

1. A person maintains a generally civil attitude towards those he believes to be inferior, but admits privately to holding the opinion that those with a particular characteristic are superior.
....a. Alternatively, consider that he admits this opinion publicly, or that he argues for it in a public context.
2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.
3. A person actively attempts to discredit/displease someone he believes is inferior in order to convince them to leave his community.
4. A person actively attempts, in cooperation with others or alone, to force someone he believes is inferior to do something against their will.

Which of these would you argue should be illegal?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2013)

God in his wisdom did not give the state the authority to punish "thoughts" or intentions. And to illustrate this further: who gets the authority to define racism? Do we let that Christ-hater Disease Morris at the Southern Poverty Law Center define it? Why not? He's the biggest race-baiter in America. I can promise you that if racism becomes illegal, it will be so defined that everyone on this board is a racist because you don't vote democratic.


----------



## Frosty (Jun 6, 2013)

The problem is that while yes, racism is an evil thing, there is no practical and effective way to make it illegal.

It keeps coming back to this issue: WHAT is racism? And, WHO determines what constitutes racism? How can it be proved that someone did or said something out of a racist attitude?

There are some laws already on the books that enter into the exterior of this realm, but that's about as far as you can go. You can't legislate people's motives and inner beliefs.


----------



## The Calvinist Cop (Jun 6, 2013)

Frosty said:


> You can't legislate people's motives and inner beliefs.



There is in policing...Racial Profiling.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2013)

Skyler said:


> [ Consider the following hypothetical cases:
> 
> 1. A person maintains a generally civil attitude towards those he believes to be inferior, but admits privately to holding the opinion that those with a particular characteristic are superior.
> ....a. Alternatively, consider that he admits this opinion publicly, or that he argues for it in a public context.
> ...



On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.

#2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.

#3 I would allow and encourage the injured party to sue the pants off of him for defamation of his humanity.

#4 I am not sure what you mean here.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2013)

Two comments:

1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."

2) Do you take exception to the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 5th Commandment, which clearly acknowledges that society is composed of superiors and inferiors and equals?



earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > [ Consider the following hypothetical cases:
> ...


----------



## matt01 (Jun 7, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> 1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."



Certainly not clearly. There are plenty of laws (or regulations) on the books related to actions that are done for racist or prejudicial reasons, there is no reason for what you propose. I wouldn't call you crazy, but possibly misguided. As someone wrote above, it would appear that your focus is on the wrong things.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 7, 2013)

earl40 said:


> On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.
> 
> #2 I would not prosecute. Though I would allow the workforce to weed him out if he will not be a good employee.
> 
> ...



I agree with #2 & #3. Though I think it's interesting that the only action that you've declared you would prosecute is a public confession of a belief in genetic superiority... can you give any other examples that you would prosecute?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2013)

Are you talking to me or the original poster? I haven't necessarily set forth my own position, save for the following:

1. Any definition of racism at this point in our society will favor the status quo
2. Making thoughts "crimes" goes beyond God in his word.



matt01 said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."
> ...


----------



## matt01 (Jun 7, 2013)

I was responding to the OP, having previously asked what racism was.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1) Unless I missed it, you still haven't given a definition of "racism."
> 
> 2) Do you take exception to the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the 5th Commandment, which clearly acknowledges that society is composed of superiors and inferiors and equals?



The 5th has NOTHING to do with racism in the context of this thread. The definition I am using is one that most here understand tacitly in that it would be any treatment of another human being that The Lord has granted all certain rights in line with them being made in his image.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2013)

Skyler said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.
> ...



I could list scores if we lived in a society that was like ours in the 1950's. For instance my father had a private business that had two different waiting rooms. Now back then it was the accepted way things were done and my father chose to comply to this evil because he did not want to start a race riot even though he HATED that he had to do do such.

Now a days I would not allow by law any business to not allow all black, yellow white or red to do business if they chose to do so. I also would prosecute with more severe penalties those who perpetrated crimes based on race....sort of like we have now (good law we have *now*) that many here appear to think is not needed, though I will grant that law is not quite what I have in mind.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2013)

Skyler said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > On #1. I would prosecute the person if he publically declares his racism. He now has made the matter of the heart readially apparent and he will try to polute society by spreading his ill concieved beliefs. We should not allow such as I also have the opinion that the KKK should be outlawed. BTW it is interesting how they wear hoods to conseal the shame they espouse,which of course is an opinion that may be wrong, in that I am indeed assigning an evil motive for the white sheet.
> ...



Jonathan just curious, do you believe the KKK should be outlawed?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2013)

So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?

I have to confess that whenever I hear the sentiment that 'there oughta be a law', I get the picture in my mind of a man with a leash looking for a dog...


----------



## Skyler (Jun 7, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



That's interesting, because earlier you upheld an individual's right to choose whether to enter into an employer/employee or customer/supplier relationship with someone else based on their belief in their own superiority. Do you believe that should be illegal after all? And if so, what sort of relationships does that extend to, and why - should it be illegal to refuse to befriend someone because you believe you are superior? 

As a corollary, should people have a right to choose who they do business with or hire at all? Are there any valid criteria for that choice, and why isn't personal preference one of them?

In regards to the KKK, my understanding of the current organization is somewhat limited, but it seems to me that they would have fallen under the general category of a domestic terrorist organization, killing/threatening/injuring/vandalizing the property of those they disliked. I don't know what the modern formulation entails, but the version just described should be illegal as a terrorist organization. I see no reason to make it "more" illegal to perpetrate crimes for racial reasons than for social-status reasons, religious reasons, or any other demographic reasons.


----------



## Edward (Jun 7, 2013)

Skyler said:


> a domestic terrorist organization, killing/threatening/injuring/vandalizing the property of those they disliked.



Those were mainly the ones working for Hoover's FBI.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Brad said:


> So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?
> 
> I have to confess that whenever I hear the sentiment that 'there oughta be a law', I get the picture in my mind of a man with a leash looking for a dog...



I hear you Brad, and yes not serving redheads would fall under my law if I were king.  I can imagine the visceral reaction you describe about "there ought to be a law" and do you remember the movie Legends of the Fall with Pitt and Hopkins and the barkeep would not serve the Indian a beer? Well there ought to have been a law.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Skyler said:


> That's interesting, because earlier you upheld an individual's right to choose whether to enter into an employer/employee or customer/supplier relationship with someone else based on their belief in their own superiority.



I sorry, where did I say such?


----------



## Skyler (Jun 8, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > 2. A person refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior.
> ...



See above.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > So, Earl, if I have a particular distaste for red-headed people, would I be prosecuted under the laws you propose?
> ...



Would you base any laws off of the Bible or is this simply your own fancy? Which of the two is more likely to lead to tyranny?


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Skyler said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



This is why I would prosecute of the _practice_ of racism and not for holding racist beliefs.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Brad said:
> ...



I see this as a biblical issue as stated earlier. In other words, Jesus commands ALL men to treat them as they would treat themselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 8, 2013)

Just to offer a thought. The fifth commandment was referenced here (I'm not sure why in context) but I want to quote it below. According to the principle of the general equity of the Law of God, I could see a number of just laws that would govern conduct of men and women to punish evildoing in the breaking of the 5th Commandment with respect to the duties of superiors, inferiors, and equals. Of course, the problem today is that nobody recognizes themselves as inferior to another in the manner that the WLC defines it:



> Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
> A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, *not only natural parents,649 but all superiors in age650 and gifts;651 and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family,652 church,653 or commonwealth.*654
> 
> Q. 125. Why are superiors styled father and mother?
> A. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations;655 and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.656



The problem with race as a category is that I don't really see it as a Biblical category that informs me what kind of honor or treatment a particular individual is due. In a real sense, the problem with the person styled a "racist" who despise a particular set of people based on a grouping of skin color or some other category is that he has just grouped his superiors, his inferiors, and his equals and treats none of them according to how they ought to be treated according to the general equity of the Law of God. The white man who despises the President for his skin color alone and fails to honor him as his superior, sins according to his duties as an inferior (within the scope of where the President is his superior). The President who fails to uphold the dignity of the unborn sins in his duty to inferiors. The man who fails to submit to his elders in a Church discipline matter sins with respect to a duty to superiors. The elder who fails to show respect to a man older than him also sins with respect to his duty to a superior even while that older man is an inferior in another way within that Church.

Of course, many of us are equals and so the problem of whether or not I'm permitted to not serve someone simply because I despise that person for some characteristic seems to be the chief concern. I think the Law of God is pretty explicit throughout about upholding the diginity of our neighbor and was explicit in commanding Israel as a principle to treat well the stranger within her gates. I don't think one can say that the manner in which one conducts business is sacrosanct and that just laws cannot sanction those who fail to treat others with dignity. That doesn't mean it's a simple matter to figure out where the laws start and stop but the general equity of the Law would permit magistrates to punish evildoing in that regard.

Here's the rest on the 5th Commandment. Read carefully:



> Q. 126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
> A. The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.657
> 
> Q. 127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to their superiors?
> ...


----------



## Skyler (Jun 8, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



So, you _would_ prosecute someone who refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2013)

If I said out loud, "I don't like crackas," would I be prosecuted under your law? If I said, "White men can't dance," would I be prosecuted?



earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...


----------



## Edward (Jun 8, 2013)

earl40 said:


> I think racism should be against the law.



After thinking further on this thread for several days: 

I think political correctness should be against the law.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Skyler said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



Nope because this is a category mistake. I believe the the biblical teaching in the difference in authority, or being "superior" as Rich has pointed out in his excellent post. We should all make biblical distinctions among humans and not distinctions based on the color of a persons skin.

I attribute the confusion going on here on my lack communication my thoughts clearly for I did indeed write with the false assumption that everyone here would understand what I meant when I said racism. I should have started out with "should the practice of racism be against the law" with the word "racism" being used to describe what is totally unacceptable in God's eyes.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> If I said out loud, "I don't like crackas," would I be prosecuted under your law? If I said, "White men can't dance," would I be prosecuted?



I like crackas with cheese and this "white" man can dance though not very well.

Seriously though, I would indeed prosecute anyone who used a pejorative term to defame someone . General equity may involve a fine or 10 days in jail. Wisdom based on love would be in order.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 8, 2013)

The problem with that, and I know this is all theoretical, is who decides what a perjorative term is? Is that power given to the state? Tyranny threatens.

Black men call each other 'n-word' regularly; I don't dare. I don't want to, actually, although I wish I could joke about it without causing a scene.

So they could use it, and I couldn't? Or no one could?

But then some might make the case the being called 'black' is perjorative - or 'negro' - they want 'African-American,' or what have you.

Furthermore, there is the real issue of tone and intent: Witness one black man saying to another affectionately, "N-word, you all right." Now imagine white me as a store clerk to a black customer, saying heaving and sarcastically "N-word, you all right."

Same words, totally different tone and intent. Now we'd have juries deciding who meant what, and whose feelings were actually hurt, and was it reasonable for their feelings to be hurt.

1. This is not workable.
2. This invites tyranny by the state.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 8, 2013)

earl40 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



So, then, would you prosecute someone who refuses to enter into a relationship (as a friend, coworker, employee, employer, spouse, teacher, student, seller, buyer, etc.) with someone because he believes he is superior by virtue of his skin color?

I'm not understanding the "category mistake" here. Racism is inherently a motive, not a practice. Any of the actions you've given as examples thus far (for example, segregation) could be carried out against other demographics for non-racial reasons - religious reasons, social reasons, etc. None of them are inherently "racist".


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 8, 2013)

Go get married, Jonathan. And many blessings upon you!


----------



## earl40 (Jun 9, 2013)

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I think racism should be against the law.
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 9, 2013)

By inference it is a sin, not a crime. Okay, what would be the just punishment for the yet nebulous crime of "racism?" Secondly, and I don't think you have dealt with this yet, who gets to determine what constitutes racism? Would it be the Satanists at the Southern Poverty Law Center? What about Atty General Eric Holder, who told whites that it's time to have a "frank conversation about race?" (which I interpreted him to be saying, "Shut yo cracka self up and listen").

So we have at least two areas that hinge on this that you haven't dealt with:

1. The difference between sin and crime (which is why I am saying you are going beyond God in his word, which always leads to tyranny).
2. What is the just punishment for this crime? (Remember, it can't be too harsh or too lenient, and of course, any punishment you give I will immediately challenge you on it since this "crime" rests on faulty epistemological grounds. In other words, it's impossible for you to justify the punishment since you have no biblical basis for calling this a crime).
3. If I reference Abe Lincoln's "darkie jokes" (his term, not mine) or the Lincoln quote where he says blacks aren't his equals and they need to all go back to Africa, would that be prosecuted?
4. Why stop at racism? If a guy lusts at a girl and says, "Dat girl be fine!," would that be prosecuted? Why not? You've already gone beyond the Federal Government's wildest dream in trying to prosecute intentions. 



earl40 said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...


----------



## earl40 (Jun 9, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> 1. The difference between sin and crime (which is why I am saying you are going beyond God in his word, which always leads to tyranny).
> 2. What is the just punishment for this crime? (Remember, it can't be too harsh or too lenient, and of course, any punishment you give I will immediately challenge you on it since this "crime" rests on faulty epistemological grounds. In other words, it's impossible for you to justify the punishment since you have no biblical basis for calling this a crime).
> 3. If I reference Abe Lincoln's "darkie jokes" (his term, not mine) or the Lincoln quote where he says blacks aren't his equals and they need to all go back to Africa, would that be prosecuted?
> 4. Why stop at racism? If a guy lusts at a girl and says, "Dat girl be fine!," would that be prosecuted? Why not? You've already gone beyond the Federal Government's wildest dream in trying to prosecute intentions.


1. The difference between sin and crime (which is why I am saying you are going beyond God in his word, which always leads to tyranny).
Concerning #1 The topic of treating any foreigner badly was indeed a crime in OT Israel. What the penalty was I do not know. I asked if there SHOULD be a law against (acts) of racism. This is in respects to *any* government here on earth. Of course I would not expect our current government to enact law against such, for as Rich said "the problem today is that nobody recognizes themselves as inferior to another in the manner that the WLC defines it". In other words, today's society is far from the time the WCF was penned and if I was King there would be laws against the practice of racism. 
Also this is a moral issue and thus follows the below.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but *much strengthen this obligation*.[10]

So do we lessen the moral obligation and thus not enact law to curb the obligation to treat our neighbor as our self?
I think the Law of God is pretty explicit throughout about upholding the diginity of our neighbor and was explicit in commanding Israel as a principle to treat well the stranger within her gates.

I will leave this topic for now in that I believe Rich has summed it up superbly earlier.....
"I don't think one can say that the manner in which one conducts business is sacrosanct and that just laws cannot sanction those who fail to treat others with dignity. That doesn't mean it's a simple matter to figure out where the laws start and stop but the general equity of the Law would permit magistrates to punish evildoing in that regard."


----------

