Am I crazy?

[earl40]

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.

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

See above.

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

 

[earl40]

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.

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?

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]

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?
A. The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart,658 word, 659 and behaviour;660 prayer and thanksgiving for them;661 imitation of their virtues and graces;662 willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels;663 due submission to their corrections;664 fidelity to,665 defence,666 and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places;667 bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love,668 that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.669

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them;670 envying at,671 contempt of,672 and rebellion673 against, their persons674 and places,675 in their lawful counsels,676 commands, and corrections;677 cursing, mocking678 and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonour to them and their government.679

Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love,680 pray for,681 and bless their inferiors;682 to instruct,683 counsel, and admonish them;684 countenancing,685 commending,686 and rewarding such as do well;687 and discountenancing,688 reproving, and chastising such as do ill;689 protecting,690 and providing for them all things necessary for soul691 and body:692 and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God,693 honour to themselves,694 and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.695

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors?
A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them,696 and inordinate seeking of themselves,697 their own glory,698 ease, profit, or pleasure;699 commanding things unlawful,700 or not in the power of inferiors to perform;701 counseling,702 encouraging,703 or favouring them in that which is evil;704 dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good;705 correcting them unduly;706 careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger;707 provoking them to wrath;708 or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.709

Q. 131. What are the duties of equals?
A. The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other,710 in giving honour to go one before another;711 and to rejoice in each others’ gifts and advancement, as their own.712

Q. 132. What are the sins of equals?
A. The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required,713 the undervaluing of the worth,714 envying the gifts,715 grieving at the advancement of prosperity one of another;716 and usurping pre-eminence one over another.717

 

[Skyler]

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.

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

See above.

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

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]

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?

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.

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

See above.

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

 

[Edward]

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]

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.

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

See above.

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

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

See above.

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

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?

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.

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]

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

 

[earl40]

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.

Indeed.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[earl40]

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."