• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Christians finally smashing the idol of Multiculturalism

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
23,699
8,876
up there
✟348,685.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
As happened in America.
As is happening in England. I saw a news clip a short while back of a street interview with a woman saying she and her family were happy to migrate from India a half century ago because they loved the British culture. She says that is almost gone now as she feels she is back to living in India again.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,948
5,886
New Jersey
✟380,866.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Plover. Are you willing to admit thag MLK was not a Christian?

No. This is something we're going to disagree about. In my view, liberal Christians are Christian. Friedrich Schliermacher was Christian. Paul Tillich was Christian. Marcus Borg was Christian. At the end of days, the Almighty (I hope) will explain to each of us which of our theological guesses were wrong. In the meantime, those who look to Jesus for salvation, or at least those who look to Jesus as a guide for their lives, I consider Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,394
4,491
✟336,893.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
No. This is something we're going to disagree about. In my view, liberal Christians are Christian. Friedrich Schliermacher was Christian. Paul Tillich was Christian. Marcus Borg was Christian. At the end of days, the Almighty (I hope) will explain to each of us which of our theological guesses were wrong. In the meantime, those who look to Jesus for salvation, or at least those who look to Jesus as a guide for their lives, I consider Christian.
I guess we will. You evidently think Christians are at liberty to deny the Trinity, Jesus's resurrection and other essential Doctrines espoused in the Nicene Creed. MLK and those liberala ceased to be Christian when they denied Jesus and believed he was just an enlightened teacher. Christianity is not a materialist philosophy but we believe in miracles and the divine.

Multiculturalism and progressive thought is not what defines a Christian.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,394
4,293
71
Franklin, Tennessee
✟264,750.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First off, we do not have open borders.
De jure, no, we don't. De facto yeah, we do. It's "Katie bar the door" but Katie left an hour ago. The Mexican border has been effectively open since the beginning of the Biden regime.

Do I hate immigrants? No, my mom was one, all legal and above board, from Korea, as are my maternal grandparents, and all of my maternal aunts and uncles and cousins and what have you. And my wife. Do I hate Mexicans? Not a bit of it, although they do tend to laugh at my Spanish. No Mexican kinfolk that I know of, although one of my great-nieces was dating a Hispanic kid last time I visited in Cali, so who knows where that'll go? And anyway, I can't bring myself to hate anybody who hasn't done me any harm that I know of. Fair play?
We have requirements for those coming into the US.
Observed largely in the breach right now.
Our immigration system does show love.
Not its proper role. Its proper role is to secure the borders, and let in we say let in and exclude who we say to exclude. It's not to stand by the door and say "Y'all come!" There are surely people who I don't want coming in. MS-13. The Cartels. Uncategorized foreign operators. Intelliegnce agents. General nogoodniks. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, prefer they be excluded.

Works for me. My biracial half-Asian Half-Redneck self goes to Europe and England as often as possible. Daughter in Denmark, football team and cherished mates in England. Do they let me into those countries based on my multicultural mulriracial heritage? They do not. They check my passport at every stop, and if I don't check out clean, they'll tell me to take my multicultural/multiracial hindquarters back where I came from. I'm OK with that. They're under no obligation to allow me in; I'm not one of theirs, even though my grandchildren are their citizens, I have Holger Dansk tattooed on my right arm, and I'm Millwall 'til I die. I'm a US national, and if they don't like the cut of my jib, they can sent me packing back to the grand old USA post haste. That's as it should be.
Most all immigrants are better people than the average home grown American.
Speaking strictly for my own kinfolk, yeah. But then I may be a wee bit prejudiced there. My geekboy side makes me assume that on average, people are pretty much... average.

But then again. I reckon if I was a Cartel member, or an MS-13 goon, or anyone being chased by Los Federales who'd prefer not spend any quality timesin a Mexican prison (frequent One Star reviews on TripAdvisor), I might take advantage of American multi-culti sentiment to slither across the border where la policia aren't allowed to follow. (Just me, of course, I don't think a real cartel murderer, Tren de Aragua gangster, or Islamist car bomber would ever consider that). But ever so, we might want to ask before we let folks in what their intentions are.
We do need improvements but Washington seems to want trouble at the border
And avoids "trouble" by just handing out road maps and juice boxes to all new "imigrants".
Anyone that looks upon another person and judges them by appearance fails to show Christian love. Anyone that does not look at those fleeing oppression with compassion, fails to show Christian love.
And if the "oppression" they're fleeing is a long sentence in a Mexican hoosegow, well, we gotta show 'em Christian Love and let them in. "Judge not", right?
Do not be a Henny Youngman Christian and try to hide behind one line of scripture to validate your views. Read everything and learn Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, neighbors, ourselves in the same manner.
And to keep our doors unlocked at night?
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,950
1,221
Midwest
✟202,085.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He denied the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, the second coming and our Lord's divinity. He wasn't a Christian.
Can you offer evidence of these claims, such as showing where he did so?
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,950
1,221
Midwest
✟202,085.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As happened in America. There is now alomost no trace of the orignial inhabitants. Until I read one of Grisham's novels, I was unaware of reservations that contain 'Native Americans'. Or is this just fiction? (I also know enough about America to know how little I understand. America and Britian are very different).
Depending on how one defines the term "native american", about 1-3% of the inhabitants of the United States qualify.

They do indeed have their reservations. While this was kind of just done originally as a way to limit them to particular areas so the white settlers could get everything else, it does mean a bunch of state and federal laws don't apply to them. So, for example, a bunch of them have casinos because they're exempt from a bunch of the gambling regulation that may affect the rest of the state (see the Wikipedia article Native American gaming - Wikipedia).
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,948
5,886
New Jersey
✟380,866.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As happened in America. There is now alomost no trace of the orignial inhabitants. Until I read one of Grisham's novels, I was unaware of reservations that contain 'Native Americans'. Or is this just fiction? (I also know enough about America to know how little I understand. America and Britian are very different).

It's not fiction. If you run google maps on some of our western and midwestern states, you'll see reservations. See, for example, the maps of North and South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I agree that Americans in the postwar era have focused on several different human rights issues side by side. For now, though, I want to keep the focus on race, since that was the subject of your original post.

to be clear, my focus is not on race itself, but on postwar Christianity's obsession with race via the imagined virtue of multiculturalism.

Let me ask some questions, to see whether I'm understanding you. Obviously, you're exaggerating MLK to make a point, but it sounds like you dislike the Civil Rights movement that he symbolizes. It sounds like you may be saying that the Civil Rights movement is in contrast to "classic biblical Christianity". But I may be misunderstanding you. So, some clarifying questions.

1. Do you think the Civil Rights movement in the US was a good thing, a bad thing, or a mix?

2. Do you think racial discrimination in employment, schooling, and housing is a good thing or a bad thing?

3. If the members of a congregation are a mix of races and ethnicities, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

4. If the residents of a neighborhood are a mix of races and ethnicities, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

5. If a church works to reduce racial prejudice and discrimination in their area (county, city, state), is that a good thing or a bad thing?


I don't see any problem at all with different ethnic groups intermingling organically. A black family shows up at a predominantly white church, they should be welcomed with open arms.

This is a far cry from programs of state engineered and state enforced mass immigration (i.e. essentially at the barrel of a gun) which often produces more ethnic tensions than it does harmony.

So, you really need to draw a distinction between natural and organic movements of peoples, and state-enforced social engineering programs.

While some of the ideals of the Civil Rights act may be noble, I think it has generally been a disaster, and the fruits are seen quite clearly today. That is a huge topic in itself, which I would be happy to get into more detail.



However, to return to the subject of the thread, this program of state engineered "ethnicity-mixing" that you seem to advocate for, has nothing to do with Christianity. With the exception of the church itself under the Lordship of Jesus, there is no call to eliminate distinct ethnic groups or associations. There is no call for mass immigration programs whatsoever, especially mass immigration of other religions.

Instead, this is the "Gospel" of the Postwar Consensus. All tribes and nations and tongues (and genders) mixed together under a pluralistic liberal order.

This is the big problem. Postwar Christianity has merged, and in some cases even replaced itself with this new civil religion.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,160
3,918
Louisville, Ky
✟924,638.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Mexican border has been effectively open since the beginning of the Biden regime.
That is incorrect. There are restrictions for all that come to border crossings.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is incorrect. There are restrictions for all that come to border crossings.

He said "effectively", not "according to stated policy"

You are advertising a total ignorance of the difference between de jure and de facto.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,948
5,886
New Jersey
✟380,866.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I don't see any problem at all with different ethnic groups intermingling organically. A black family shows up at a predominantly white church, they should be welcomed with open arms.

So you don't agree with state-enforced or culturally-enforced segregation (both of which were very much in force in the Virginia of my childhood). Good, I'm glad.

This is a far cry from programs of state engineered and state enforced mass immigration (i.e. essentially at the barrel of a gun) which often produces more ethnic tensions than it does harmony.

So, you really need to draw a distinction between natural and organic movements of peoples, and state-enforced social engineering programs.

I really need some examples of "state enforced mass immigration" and "state-enforced social engineering programs".

If a group of families leaves a troubled area of the world (Ukraine, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.) and chooses to live instead in a country that they view as safer (such as the US or the UK), do you view this as "natural and organic movement" or "state-enforced social enginering"?

However, to return to the subject of the thread, this program of state engineered "ethnicity-mixing" that you seem to advocate for, has nothing to do with Christianity. With the exception of the church itself under the Lordship of Jesus, there is no call to eliminate distinct ethnic groups or associations. There is no call for mass immigration programs whatsoever, especially mass immigration of other religions.

"Ethnicity-mixing" and "mass immigration" are not the same thing. Are you chiefly opposed to large-scale immigration, or to laws addressing citizens of multiple ethnicities within a country?

I'm an American, originally from the South. When you say "state engineered ethnicity-mixing", I hear things like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia and the Fair Housing Act. Is this what you oppose, or do you have something else in mind? Again, examples would help.


As a final note: Can you tell me what country you live in? That might help me understand you better. Every country has its own particular history. If you live in Belgium or Sudan or South Africa or Russia, your country's history is going to be different from mine, and your government's actions will be different from mine. There might be weird stuff going on in your country that I don't know about, and that you might reasonably be objecting to.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,160
3,918
Louisville, Ky
✟924,638.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
He said "effectively", not "according to stated policy"

You are advertising a total ignorance of the difference between de jure and de facto.
We do not have open borders. By either measure. You are advertising a total ignorance of what Open Borders mean.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you don't agree with state-enforced or culturally-enforced segregation (both of which were very much in force in the Virginia of my childhood). Good, I'm glad.

That's a tricky question. Are the very existence of national borders "segregation" ?

Do you think forcing different ethnic groups to live next to each other (at the barrel of a government gun), is the "Christian" thing to do?

I certainly don't agree with state enforced segregation if both groups would prefer to live with each other.

I really need some examples of "state enforced mass immigration" and "state-enforced social engineering programs".

?? That's just normal immigration policy. Native populations have no recognized rights to collectively refuse the influx of say, thousands of Somalians or Haitians, if the government decides they want to move them into anytown, USA.

If a group of families leaves a troubled area of the world (Ukraine, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.) and chooses to live instead in a country that they view as safer (such as the US or the UK), do you view this as "natural and organic movement" or "state-enforced social enginering"?

"chooses to live" ? The way you're describing it is as if the whole world has an inherent right to just waltz into the USA. Is that what you think?

I'm sure you're also aware that the majority of migrants are economic/opportunistic in nature and not actually fleeing an active war or genocide.

We should try and focus on the real situation and not just an ideal.

"Ethnicity-mixing" and "mass immigration" are not the same thing.

They pretty much are, in practice. Mass amounts of non-western, non-English speaking foreign migrants moving into western, english-speaking areas. How is that not the mixing of ethnic groups?

Are you chiefly opposed to large-scale immigration, or to laws addressing citizens of multiple ethnicities within a country?

I'm against laws that make it a crime for an ethnic group to choose to associate with itself.

I am also opposed to the postwar consensus influence upon Christianity that started imagining that this kind of ethnic preservation was a "sin", and somehow became the ultimate sin,

and the eradication of ethnic barriers (the "open society" ) as the ultimate virtue.

I'm an American, originally from the South. When you say "state engineered ethnicity-mixing", I hear things like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia and the Fair Housing Act. Is this what you oppose, or do you have something else in mind? Again, examples would help.

Well, there were cases where people were literally forced at gunpoint to mix ethnic groups together. Do you support that?

It's certainly a sacred cornerstone of the postwar religion, but do you really believe that kind of threat of violence is emblematic of Christian virtue?

As a final note: Can you tell me what country you live in?

I live in the USA.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We do not have open borders. By either measure. You are advertising a total ignorance of what Open Borders mean.

Oh, okay. Maybe you can enlighten me. What kinds of things would happen inside of a nation that had largely unprotected or unenforced borders?
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,160
3,918
Louisville, Ky
✟924,638.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Oh, okay. Maybe you can enlighten me. What kinds of things would happen inside of a nation that had largely unprotected or unenforced borders?
Well, we'd have plenty of workers doing the jobs which Americans don't want. About 44% of farm workers are undocumented immigrants.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,948
5,886
New Jersey
✟380,866.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In response to my query, "I really need some examples of "state enforced mass immigration" and "state-enforced social engineering programs":

?? That's just normal immigration policy. Native populations have no recognized rights to collectively refuse the influx of say, thousands of Somalians or Haitians, if the government decides they want to move them into anytown, USA.

There are two separate questions here.

1) Immigration into the country: I agree that both visitors and immigrants to the US should be screened at the border. I agree with turning away people who have a serious criminal record. I also agree that there may be a limit on the number of new immigrants the US -- or any country -- can accept in a single year, given that a nation's resources are finite, and sudden population increases can strain those resources.

2) However, once a person has been accepted into the US (whether as a tourist, a student, a temporary worker, or a permanent resident), they then have the right to rent an apartment, buy a house, go shopping, and so on, in any town that they choose. If that's what you mean by "state-enforced social engineering", then I think it's a positive moral good. A person newly-arrived from Somalia or Haiti has every right to buy a house in my neighborhood and to send their children to my local public school.

"chooses to live" ? The way you're describing it is as if the whole world has an inherent right to just waltz into the USA. Is that what you think?

I'm sure you're also aware that the majority of migrants are economic/opportunistic in nature and not actually fleeing an active war or genocide.

I agree with screenings at the border; see my comments above.

And I'm quite aware that many people come to the US for reasons like employment, education, or just because they like it here. For example, the international faculty members that I work with came to the US for employment, and the international students I teach came to the US for education. In both cases, most were not refugees. That's fine. There are lots of reasons to travel to a new place. I'm glad they're here.

Well, there were cases where people were literally forced at gunpoint to mix ethnic groups together. Do you support that?

It's certainly a sacred cornerstone of the postwar religion, but do you really believe that kind of threat of violence is emblematic of Christian virtue?

Any use of violence by Christians is morally troublesome. In practice, however, governments (even in majority-Christian countries) seem to need a police force and the threat of punishment in order to enforce laws. Part of the purpose of government is to limit how much the nation's citizens can harm one another, and I don't know how to accomplish that without the occasional use of force.

So, yes, I support the use of the National Guard to enforce the integration of schools during the 1950s and 1960s.

I live in the USA.

Thanks, that's helpful to know.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are two separate questions here.

1) Immigration into the country: I agree that both visitors and immigrants to the US should be screened at the border. I agree with turning away people who have a serious criminal record. I also agree that there may be a limit on the number of new immigrants the US -- or any country -- can accept in a single year, given that a nation's resources are finite, and sudden population increases can strain those resources.

2) However, once a person has been accepted into the US (whether as a tourist, a student, a temporary worker, or a permanent resident), they then have the right to rent an apartment, buy a house, go shopping, and so on, in any town that they choose. If that's what you mean by "state-enforced social engineering", then I think it's a positive moral good. A person newly-arrived from Somalia or Haiti has every right to buy a house in my neighborhood and to send their children to my local public school.


Okay, but what if the majority of people in America decide, "Hey, upon further consideration, we actually don't want lots of people from third-world nations coming into our country. We're going to turn off immigration from those countries."

They have that right, don't they?

And it would be okay, wouldn't it?

They're not inflicting violence upon anyone, they're simply saying, they'd like to stop immigration from such and such countries.

You personally might disagree with that decision, but surely they are not committing some awful sin by doing so, correct?
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,339
719
✟89,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
  • Winner
Reactions: Jipsah
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,160
3,918
Louisville, Ky
✟924,638.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"It's not happening......... and it's a good thing that it is."
I answered your questions. We do not have open borders. But many of those that do get in illegally are doing tremendous good for Americans.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,948
5,886
New Jersey
✟380,866.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Okay, but what if the majority of people in America decide, "Hey, upon further consideration, we actually don't want lots of people from third-world nations coming into our country. We're going to turn off immigration from those countries."

They have that right, don't they?

Legally, yes, they have that right.

And it would be okay, wouldn't it?

They're not inflicting violence upon anyone, they're simply saying, they'd like to stop immigration from such and such countries.

You personally might disagree with that decision, but surely they are not committing some awful sin by doing so, correct?

The decision would be morally wrong.

Again, we can talk about practical considerations. A sudden population increase may require building infrastructure -- houses, roads, schools, etc. -- which takes time, so we may have to slow the rate of population increase so that we can properly accommodate the newcomers.

But a decision to stop all immigration from such and such countries would be morally wrong.
 
Upvote 0