Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

The sign above was posted in Detroit in 1942 to oppose a new federal housing project being built for African Americans.  Most Christian Americans will agree that slavery was an original sin of America’s founders. But what about the founder’s restriction limiting citizenship to “free white persons” via the Naturalization Act of 1790? Was this a second sin by America’s founders?

The founder’s restriction of American citizenship to “free white persons” is part an ideology called “Ethno-Nationalism”.  Ethno-Nationalists believe that nations are built on three things which are common language, common culture and common ethnicity.

When America was founded the vast majority of its citizens were of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) with a minority being from other mostly white northern European nations.  The new American British culture would come to set the tone for America.  Even when a large amount of German immigrants would arrive in the 19th century they quickly assimilated to the American British culture that had been established.

Victor Davis Hanson in his article for the National Review – “America: History’s Exception” writes:

“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity. Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.” [1]

So ethno-nationalism has been what has knit nations together for the history of mankind.  America even started as an Ethno-nationalist nation.  It was not until after the Civil War that American let go of its ethno-nationalist heritage and began its journey into multiracialism and eventually multiculturalism.  America’s motto “e pluribus unum” or as it translates to English “out of many one” was also transformed.  The founders used this phrase to refer to the 13 colonies becoming one nation.  Multiracialists change it for their purposes to mean that America would be a nation that was centered on multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Most Americans feel America has lost its identity

On March 5th 2017, Matt Sedensky in an article for the Associated Press wrote:

“Add one more to the list of things dividing left and right in this country: We can’t even agree what it means to be an American.

A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds Republicans are far more likely to cite a culture grounded in Christian beliefs and the traditions of early European immigrants as essential to U.S. identity.

Democrats are more apt to point to the country’s history of mixing of people from around the globe and a tradition of offering refuge to the persecuted.

While there’s disagreement on what makes up the American identity, 7 in 10 people – regardless of party – say the country is losing that identity…

Patrick Miller, a political science professor at the University of Kansas who studies partisanship and polling, said the results reflect long-standing differences in the U.S. between one camp’s desire for openness and diversity and another’s vision of the country grounded in the white, English-speaking, Protestant traditions of its early settlers.” [2]

Some Christians openly rejoice that America has transformed from its Ethno-nationalist roots into a multiracial multicultural country.  Many Christian’s believe the world needs to unite and leave old divisions of race, ethnic groups and even national boundaries to the dustbin of history.

But other Christians remain silently saddened as they see the America of George Washington slip away.

The Language of Race Discussions

We have gone from one extreme in our societies to another.  In times past, racial and ethnic hatred were common and generally accepted in day to day language.  In the days of America’s founding it was common for whites to degrade and insult Native Americans and Blacks.  In fact, to defend these groups in any way and condemn such hateful speech was rare.

But now over the past several decades in America a new hatred has arisen. The only acceptable discussion of race in America is that Whites should be ashamed of their past treatment of various races and that White privilege and prejudice is still holding back minorities like Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics. A new oppressed minority are Muslims.  If you were to talk about how Whites still oppress and hold back all these groups and all the evils those of European decent have brought on the world you will be praised.  You will be applauded.  You will be loved.

But any speech about race today that is NOT speaking about White oppression against various races is condemned as racist and evil.  For instance, even to ask the question I did in a previous post – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” is called racist.  To question government forced integration is to be called evil and racist.  People lose jobs not just because of racial slurs – but even for questioning racial integration and affirmative action policies.

In fact, we are told that race does not really exist and even to consider the possibility that race actually exists is irrational and racist. The debate is closed and may not be discussed.

And finally on this topic of the language of race relations I am going to make something abundantly clear that I made in other previous posts on this discussion of race.

I do NOT support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis or other White supremacist groups.    In my previous article “We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism” I denounced the actions of the KKK and Neo Nazis from a Christian perspective as not only hateful but actually as forms of domestic terrorism.  I showed in previous posts that there is no allowance in the Christian faith for hating someone because of their racial or ethnic origin.

I put the above statement in red so that no one can try and twist or malign the honest discussion I am about to have about race and ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective into saying I support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis or other such groups.

Denying the reality of race will not end racial hatred or racial atrocities

Even a small child knows that race exists.  When an adopted Black child asks his White adoptive parents “Mommy and Daddy – why do I look so different from you?” he is recognizing what we all know to be true – race exists and it is about far more than skin color differences. The child recognizes the different facial features between himself and his parents.

The difference between races is even more than facial features, hair and skin colors – in other words it is more than skin deep.  While most of the scientific community is trying to erase the concept of races from modern science teachings there is one group of scientists who simply cannot ignore what they see under the skin and they are forensic anthropologists.

“Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.

“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case.”

[3]

Think CSI, Bones and other crime shows on TV.  When they find a body in a burned out building and all they have to go on is the skeleton.  Forensic experts can ascertain with a great degree of certainty whether a person is of Caucasian, African or Asian descent.  And as far as Native Americans go – Native Americans really are just a particular Asian variant.

The fact is there are three major variations of human beings – Caucasians, Africans and Asians.  We can call them “people groups” instead of “race” as some forensic anthropologists want to do.  But the fact cannot be denied that there three distinct and discernable major variations of human beings.

But the key word is “variation”.  Just because my major variation type, people group or race is Caucasian and yours is African or Asian does not make any of us less human.  It does not give any of us the right to rule over the other.

We don’t have to pretend or try to erase or minimize race from our vocabulary and thought processes to combat racial hatred.

One other word I will use often in this post is “ethnicity”.  Now today in order to go along with trying to wipe out racial distinctions from our vocabularies people are saying “ethnicity” has nothing to do with race but only groups of people with shared traditions and values or perhaps national origin.  The fact is for all of human history ethnicity has been associated with common heredity as well as common traditions and values and national origin.  You cannot erase heredity as a historical component of ethnicity even though we are trying to do that today in nations.

So, when I use the term “ethnicity” I am using it to refer to minor human variation groups.  Northern Europeans could be classified as a minor variation of the major Caucasian variation group.  Englishmen would be a further subset or minor variation group of the Northern European variant group.  Arabs are a West Asian and North African Caucasian variant group. Nigerians would be a minor variation of the major African variant group as compared to Kenyans being another.  Chinese would be a minor variation of the major Asian variant group compared to Filipinos.

So now you will understand what I mean when I say race or ethnicity.

The Christian case against Ethno-Nationalism

Most Christian Americans and for that matter most Christians today around the world believe that ethno-nationalism is the same as racial hatred and the Bible condemns all hatred except hatred of sin:

“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”

Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)

So some Christians will stop right there and say the case is closed.  Ethno-nationalism is racial hatred and all hatred except for hatred of sin is condemned in the Bible therefore Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and Christians should condemn it or so they say.

Some Christians will go a bit further in explaining why Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and incompatible with the Christian way of life.  The following Bible passages are cited as proof that Christians should be opposed to ethno-nationalism:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”

Revelation 5:9 (KJV)

“13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”

Ephesians 2:13-16 (KJV)

So the argument from Christians who believe these passages condemn the practice and ideology of ethno-nationalism goes somewhat like this:

Christ came to save all men regardless of their ethnic background.  But he came not only to save all races and ethnicities – but he came to knock down the boundaries or as Ephesians 2:14 says “the middle wall of partition” between them.  Since Christ made no distinction in his saving of all men from all races and ethnicities then so too we as Christians should erase all racial preferences or distinctions between races in our own personal lives – this is what we are told as Christians we must do.

Some Christians will even argue that the primary reason that Christ gave himself up on the cross was to promote racial diversity and harmony and John Piper is one of those Christians.  John Piper is a nationwide respected Evangelical Pastor and Christian author and I think he represents well the modern Christian arguments against ethno-nationalism.

You won’t find the term “ethno-nationalism” in his book but you will instead find the synonym “ethnocentrism” all over his book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” like this example where he references it:

“This will mean a new global family made up of believers in Christ from every ethnic group on the planet. And it will mean that those who love that vision will work toward local manifestations of that ethnic diver­sity. Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism—globally and locally. Not color but faith in Christ is the mark of the kingdom.”

[4, p. 119]

In the following excerpt, instead of saying Christ came to end ethnocentrism, John Piper frames it differently by saying Christ came to bring ethnic diversity.  In fact, John Piper says Christ literally died on the cross for ethnic diversity when he writes:

“…this aim of ethnic diversity and harmony in the people of God (the one priesthood and kingdom) was pursued by God at infinite cost. The cost of diversity was the blood and life of the Son of God. This is not an overstatement. Consider the wording of Revelation 5:9 very closely: “You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” God paid the infinite price of his own Son’s life to obtain a priesthood of believers and a kingdom of fellow rulers from every race and every ethnic group on earth. Think on it. He paid this price particularly. It was for this particular people. He ransomed people “from the nations.” The issue of racial and ethnic diversity and harmony in the church is not small, because the price God paid precisely for it was not small. It was infinite.” [4, p. 141]

John Piper then concludes that it is part of our sacred duty as Christians to pursue racial diversity in all areas of our lives:

“And if it cost the Father and the Son such a price, should we expect that it will cost us nothing? That it will be easy? That the Devil, who hates the glory of God and despises the aims of the cross, will relent without a battle? No. To join God in pursuing racial diversity and racial harmony will be costly. So costly that many simply try for a while and then give up and walk away from the effort to easier things.

But if you love God—if you live to spread a passion for his suprem­acy in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ—you will trust him and seek his help and pursue with your life what cost Jesus his.” [4, p. 142]

As part of his belief that God has called Christians to pursue racial diversity John Piper and his wife adopted an African American girl knowing it would trouble some of his southern relatives.  He also has placed racial diversity as a hiring criterion for all ministries he oversees at his Church because he believes all local churches should do their best to reflect the racial diversity of the world-wide body of Christ.

So that is the total Christian case against Ethno-nationalism in a nutshell.  According to its opponents, Ethno-nationalism comes from a position of racial and ethnic hatred and part of the reason Christ came and died on the cross was to promote racial and ethnic harmony and remove the barriers between races and ethnicities.

In fact some Christians would even go as far as rejecting not only ethno-nationalism – but even nationalism itself. There are many Christians that would build on John Piper’s theology and state that Christ promoted multicultural globalism.   After all we are all “one in Christ” and if we are one there is no place for national boundaries anymore.

The Christian Case for Ethno-nationalism

We have just explored the reasoning by many Christians today for their belief that Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and that God wants all Christians in every sphere of their life(which would include family, church and society) to promote and implement policies of racial and ethnic diversity.

But now I will present the case that Ethno-nationalism is not a sin against God.  In fact I will show from the Scriptures that God not only allows Ethno-nationalism but in fact he was the architect of it!

I know that may sound shocking to many Christians but that is because of the sad fact that as much as we push education in our modern society – most Christians have never read the entire Bible.  They just read a few portions here and there or they listen to their Pastor or read books by Christian men like John Piper.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think it is great for us to listen to preachers on the radio – I do from time to time.  It is great to go to church each week and here the Gospel and the doctrines of Scripture preached by a Pastor on Sundays.  I have also read many Christian books by many Christian authors. But each of us must study the Scriptures for ourselves as well and remember that no Pastor or teacher (and that includes me) perfectly understands or interprets the Bible.  We are all flawed men and affected by our culture and upbringing.

No culture is perfect. Sometimes cultures and governments actually get things right and enforce God’s laws and policies. Where governments do push godly polices we as Christians should support and promote such polices.

So the question is this – is John Piper and the host of Christians he represents in America and around the world right in siding with our current cultural emphasis on multiracialism and multiculturalism or are Christians like me who side with the ethno-nationalist policies of our founders as well as all nations before the modern times right?

In other words, have nations since the flood acted against God’s will in protecting their racial homogeneity?

With that said here is the case I make from the Scriptures in support of Ethno-nationalism.

The great omission of Christians who oppose ethno-nationalism

The first argument against John Pipers position is found his same book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” where he writes:

“First, that God is the God of the nations means that God created all the nations. More specifically, he created all the people in those nations in his own image. This is not Paul’s explicit focus in Romans 3:29–30, but it is implied in what he says here.

He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups. “God made from one man every nation.” Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”

Also, God made all the ethnic groups from one human ancestor. Paul says, “He made from one man every ethnos.” This has a special wallop when you ponder why he chose to say just this to these Athenians on the Areopagus. The Athenians were fond of boasting that they were autochthones, which means that they sprang from their native soil and were not immigrants from some other place or people group.

Paul chooses to confront this ethnic pride head-on. God made all the ethnic groups—Athenians and barbarians—and he made them out of one common stock. So you Athenians are cut from the same cloth as those despised barbarians.” [4, p. 153]

So, what is the argument within his own words against his larger position against ethno-nationalism and for the promotion of racial diversity in societies?

The key is in the passage he cites from Acts 17:26. John Piper makes the same omission that most anti-ethno-nationalist Christians make.  Let’s look at this passage he cites in its entirety:

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

The critical phrase he left off (and those who support his position always leave off) is and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”.

Yes, God made every “ethnos”- every human variation type from one man and that was Adam.  That is an absolute Biblical truth.  But the second Biblical truth found in this same verse is that God also determined the bounds of their habitation.  This is a reference back to a passage in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

In Deuteronomy 32 we read about “the days of old” when God “separated the sons of Adam”.   Now you will need to follow the bouncing ball just a couple more times to see the complete truth of the Scriptures.  The event where God “separated the sons of Adam” is a reference to what God did at the tower of Babel as recorded in the book of Genesis.

The Biblical Story of Babel

The Biblical account of the tower of Babel is given to us in the book of Genesis:

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Genesis 11:1-9 (KJV)

Genesis 11 is not the only part of the Bible to speak of what God did at the Babel event.

The book of Deuteronomy gives us more detail on the Babel event:

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

The phrase “the number of the children of Israel” found in Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to this passage of Scripture:

“And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.”

Exodus 1:5 (KJV)

So Deuteronomy chapter 32 tells us God did not just divide men by language but he also separated them into nations and sent them where the nations originally started across the world and Exodus 1:5 shows us he divided them into 70 groups and then in Genesis chapter 10 we read more detail on the nations and their ancestry.

When did the Babel dispersion event occur?

Bible scholars have debated this for centuries.  The debate centers around a man name Peleg and his life as a reference for when Babel occurred. The Scriptures say this about Peleg:

“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”

Genesis 10:25 (KJV)

Arch Bishop Ussher who made his famous chronology based on Biblical events and their given timings in relation to one another placed the Babel event just before Peleg was born because Peleg means “divided”. This would mean roughly only 105 years after the flood the tower of Babel was built and God divided the people.

But if we move closer to Peleg’s death which would still be in his lifetime that would add 235 years to the Babel period. Some scholars believe there would not have been a sufficient population to build the tower as well as fulfill later Biblical events if the division happen only a 100 years after the flood making it much more likely that the Babel event probably occurred around 300 years after the flood.

It is possible if the Babel event happened 300 years after the flood that there could have been anywhere from 500,000 to has high as one million people at Babel when God separated them into nations and sent them on their way to the ends of the earth.  So I would put my guess in the middle and say there might have been 700,000 people at Babel when God divided the nations.

How did God scatter the people at Babel?

Most people think God scattered the people in only one way and that was by language.  The Genesis 11 account does allude to God dividing the people by giving them different languages.  But as we previously have shown from Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32:7-8 and Acts 17:24-26 not only did God divide the world by language – but he also divided the world into nations.  God is literally the creator of the concept of nations.

So God sent 70 groups of people out and then split them into the various nations inhabiting the world.  If he divided the people evenly we are talking about God sending out 70 groups of 10,000 people to start the first nations of the earth and then each of those groups would have divided once in their new homelands into various family and tribal groups which formed ancient cities and towns.

God divided the world by Ethnic Groups

But God did something even more interesting.  He divided men into major heredity groups (races) both by nations and continents.  Why don’t we find ancient nations in Africa with people who have Asian characteristics?   Why don’t we find people with African characteristics in the Americas before European slave traders brought them? Why don’t we find people with Caucasian characteristics in Asia before modern times?  It is because God “separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).

In fact the only area of the world we find any mixture of races at all in ancient times was in the Middle East because it was the cross roads of the known world.

Some Christians would try and argue that the 70 groups of humans that God sent out from Babel all looked the same and that only through isolated breeding over thousands of years did distinctive East Asian, Central Asian, African, European, Australian and Native American characteristics form.   That might sound fine to secularists and evolutionists but I do not buy that as a Bible believing Christian.

I do not buy into Darwin’s evolution of races.  I believe God put in Adam the DNA for every distinctive characteristic of every major and minor human variation type and the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. I believe Adam carried the human DNA for every skin color variation and every hair, eye, nose and lip variation that would ever be.  And John Piper actually agrees with me on this point when he wrote in the excerpt I quoted above:

“Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”

I believe Adam and Eve gave birth to children that had Asian characteristics, Caucasian characteristics and African characteristics. These were the three major human variant types – they did not evolve over thousands of years – but were there from the first men.

God made sure in his divine sovereignty that Noah and his wife would carry the distinctive DNA for all human variation types which most likely means that Noah and his wife as well as their parents were biracial couples which would make his three sons biracial and perhaps their wives were biracial as well.

And no I don’t buy into the theory that Ham was the father of the black race and that God cursed the black race.  So if you think I am saying that please save your breath – I am not. I believe Ham, Shem and Japheth where biracial children who were the product of their biracial parents and grandparents.  Just as the Ark carried every type of animal, bird and reptile so too it carried every human variation type in Noah’s three sons and their wives DNA.

Also I don’t believe Adam was white but rather he was most likely a middle brown of sorts somewhat like a middle easterner.  But whatever he looked like it does not matter because he carried in him the DNA for every human variation that would ever exist.

Where is the proof that God separated nations by Race?

Some people might be screaming at this article right now saying “Ok you have proven that God separated the world by languages and nations but the Bible says nothing about race!”  Well actually it does and John Piper has actually helped me to prove this point with this statement from his excerpt I previously gave:

“He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups.”

The Greek word for nation is ethnos from which we get our word ethnicity. It referred not only to a group of people with shared traditions and values but also with shared blood lines (common heredity). This is why I and others who are being faithful to understanding what nations were before our modern era maintain that one of the critical foundational pieces of nations that God created was common heredity or ethnos.

Acts 17:26 serves not as a defense of the concept of multicultural and multiracial nations, as John Piper and other modern Christians suggest, but rather it serves as a fatal blow to their position and a solid rock to support the idea that God not only approves of ethno-nationalism but he actually invented it!

So yes it is absolutely right to say as John Piper did that God created every human being from one man and he created every ethnicity of man.  Amen and Amen.  But it is also right to say that the same God who created all of us from one man and every ethnicity from one man also separated the sons of that one man by ethnicity into nations.  We cannot affirm the first truth while leaving the second truth out.

Not only does the Bible clearly state that God separated the world by ethnicity into nations but world history proves it.

Why don’t we find large mixtures of races in nations before modern times?   The answer is simple.  It is because as the Scriptures state God created the “ethnos” and “separated” and set “the bounds of their habitation”.

That means the original inhabitants of China were sent their by God. The original inhabitants of the Americas were sent there by God.   The original inhabitants of India were sent there by God. The same goes for Africa, and Europe and Australia.

So up to this point we have established from the Scriptures that it was God who separated the sons of Adam at Babel and determined where they were to go on earth.  He sent 70 different groups of people out from Babel – some not too far Babel and others he would send to the other side of the planet in what would later become known as the Americas.

While the Scriptures don’t specifically describe the racial characteristics of these groups that God scattered we know from history that the major racial types were primarily clustered by continental areas and since the Scriptures tell us God sent them there we can rightly say God divided the world not only by language and nations but also by major and minor racial categories.

But then the question becomes why? Why did God scatter the people at Babel? It appears that before the flood the concept of nations did not really exist.  The world was not divided by language, racial characteristics or national boundaries.  So why after the flood did God divide the world in the ways we have discussed?

Why did God scatter the people at Babel?

There are positive and negative reasons God scattered the people at Babel.  God loves variety.  He ordained that there would be 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples.  Each of the Tribes of Israel were unique as each of the 12 Apostles were unique.  He used 4 different men to write the Gospel from four different viewpoints.

Now God could have had every variety of man in one big worldwide order with all the major and minor variations of man that he knew he created all intermarrying and living in one interracial utopia with one culture.  But this was not what he wanted.  He wanted man to fill the earth and to spread across from one side of the planet to the other. He wanted a variety of different languages and ethnicities and nations to form.

But the people at Babel forgot God and forgot his command that he gave to Noah:

“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Genesis 9:7 (KJV)

God wanted Noah’s decedents to not only have lots of children but he also wanted them to spread out across the earth and fill the earth. Instead the decedents of Noah turned against God’s command and purposefully sought to keep themselves together.

Often times one sin leads to an even greater sin and this is what happened at Babel.

There is a sinful ideology that absolutely grew like an infectious disease after Noah’s descendants decided to stay together at Babel over several centuries.  That sinful ideology was secular humanism.

Secular humanism is the Spirit of Babel and the Spirit of Babel is secular humanism – they are one and the same. 

And do you know what feeds the Spirit of Babel and causes it grow? When mankind unites in the name of mankind across racial, ethnic and national boundaries under anything except obedience to and the worship of God.

“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Genesis 11:4 (KJV)

The people did not want to make a name for God – they wanted to make a name for mankind.  Listen to this definition of Humanism from dictionary.com which so perfectly fits the people at Babel:

“a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.” [5]

In Genesis 11:6 God tells us there would be no limit to what mankind could do if they remained united:

“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”

So, God was saying there were no limits to the sin man could commit when the world unites and this is why he wanted men separated by language, culture and race in various places throughout the world.

America played with humanism and brought about the new Babel

The fact is that while many of the founding fathers were godly men they also dabbled in secular humanism as well.  They thought they could “Christianize” humanism.  Humanist philosophy began to grow in America and be influenced more by European thinkers.  Atheism, egalitarianism, multiracialism, feminism and eventually multiculturalism took over until the values of America barely resembled those of her founders.

America started off as a Christian ethno-nationalist nation of northern European decent and in just over century it transformed into a secular humanist multiracial multicultural “melting pot”.  America would go on to be instrumental in bringing the world together to form the new Babel “that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.”

Truly the new uniting of the world with America at its center has resulted in evils that would be unimaginable a century ago.  The most powerful human sphere of authority God ever established – that of the husband and father has been almost completely neutered as a result of efforts to appease feminists and meet the demand of a secular society for greater equality for all its members. Infanticide in the form of abortion is the law of the land resulting in the deaths of millions of children each year.

Divorce is rampant and cohabitation is fully accepted. Full acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism is mandated by law. God has been chased out of our schools and secularism is fully entrenched.  Laziness is subsidized through social programs.  Most of the Churches in the western world (including America) have bought into the social Gospel.

Integration schemes are continually tried to force different ethnicities to unite.  Governments seize money from the rich and middle classes in their futile attempt to end poverty in all nations as well as redistribute wealth between different ethnic groups.

The fatal mistake Christian Diversity Advocates make

I am going to quote you a few passages of Scripture that point out a critical truth of the Scriptures that Christian diversity advocates make.

“34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”

Luke 20:34-35 (KJV)

You might be scratching your head now saying “what does marriage have to do with ethno-nationalism?” It is not marriage that I want you to notice but instead look at two key phrases Christ says here. Those phrases are “this world” and “that world”.

We live in “this world” not “that world”.  Even Christ said his kingdom was not yet of “this world”:

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

John 18:36 (KJV)

Now he did say that one day he would come to rule and establish his kingdom here on earth:

“26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.”

Mark 13:26-27 (KJV)

And in the book of Revelation it says that Christ will rule over the nations with a rod of iron:

“13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.”

Revelation 19:13-16 (KJV)

What is my point? The fatal mistake diversity advocates like John Piper and other Christians who attack the concept of ethno-nationalism make is that they think they can bring about “that world” before Christ comes.

Only God himself can cancel his Babel policy that he made for mankind. Only when Christ returns to rule over this earth can the nations of the earth unite without returning to evil spirit of Babel.

Did Christ die to promote racial diversity?

My Bible does not tell me that Christ died to bring “racial diversity” in this world “globally and locally” but rather it tells me “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Absolutely it makes no difference what our race, ethnicity, gender or social status is – Christ saves us all just the same.  And praise be to God he has saved and will continue to save men and women from “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

Christ gave this great commission to his Church:

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Mark 16:15 (KJV)

Christ didn’t say “go promote racial diversity and get rid of ethno-nationalism” he said to go into the world and preach the Gospel. He did not call us to bring about his earthly kingdom – he will do that himself one day.  When I read John Piper’s statements about Christ dying for racial diversity it very much reminded me of when Christian feminists say Christ died to abolish the sin of patriarchy and bring about gender equality.

For now, we are to live in “this world” while looking forward to “that world”.  No Christian should actively seek to work against or cancel out God’s Babel policy in this time and this world.  Only Christ can do that one day when he returns to reign.

How should we as Christians respond to living in the new Babel?

First, we need to realize that we live in this sin cursed world and that ethno-nationalism can create an environment that when unchecked by Christian principles can lead to sinful racial pride, racial hate and bigotry. History shows this time and time again. But do we think God did not know that when he instituted ethno-nationalism at the tower of Babel? Of course, he did.  But he knew an even greater sin of humanism and secularism would occur if men stayed together.  Yes, nations would be sinful on their own – but if all the ethnos of the world united together under anything less that Jesus Christ himself as King it would spell complete rebellion against God. And that is what we see today.

This is another area where John Piper and others get it completely wrong.  Christ was condemning the sinful racial pride, hatred and bigotry of Israel but he was not condemning the policy of ethno-nationalism which he himself established in Israel as he had for all nations at Babel.

So, as we are forced to live in this new Babel we must always be personally checking ourselves against attitudes of sinful racial pride, racial hatred and racial bigotry.  We must also guard against sinful national pride, national hatred and national bigotry.

But I want you to notice a word I always put out in front of pride and that is “sinful”.  Pride is not always sinful in the same way that hate and anger are not always sinful.  Sometimes pride is actually holy and just in the same way that hate and anger can be holy and just.

“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.”

Proverbs 17:6 (KJV)

For parents to be proud of their children’s accomplishments if not sinful.  If that pride in their children’s accomplishments leads to them degrading other’s people’s children because they have not had the same accomplishments then it becomes sin.  In the same way, it is not wrong for anyone to glory in the accomplishments of their father or forefathers or even those of their same kindred or ethnicity.

When an American wins at the Olympics it is not wrong for us as Americans to be proud of our fellow American that won.

Some will point to this verse to say Christians should not regard themselves as citizens of any nation whether it be America or any other:

“20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”

Philippians 3:20-21 (NASB)

But these Christians are making that same error I pointed out earlier of confusing “this world” with “that world”.  We eagerly await the transformation of our bodies into glorified bodies in heaven – but we are not there yet.  For now, we live in this world and we are in fact citizens of whatever nation God has placed us in.

What should our attitude as Christians be toward racial diversity?

There are two extremes on this issue of racial diversity.  One extreme of ages past taught that we as Christians are forbidden from any interaction with people of other races and ethnicities. The Bible does not support such a notion and this passage of Scripture directly contradicts that:

“11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

Galatians 2:11-13 (KJV)

We don’t have to be ashamed to associate with people of other ethnicities, especially brothers in Christ.  Churches should not forbid various ethnicities from coming to them. They should be open to all ethnicities because it is not the job of the church to protect its racial homogeneity.

But then we have the other extreme.  While it is not the job of the Church to protect its racial homogeneity, it is also NOT the job of the Church to vigorously promote and encourage racial diversity.

What about parents and their children? Is it a sin for a parent to prefer their child marry someone of their own ethnicity? The answer is no.  We see examples of parents being very protective of making sure their children married within their ethnicity:

“2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.”

Genesis 24:2-4 (KJV)

Again, as I said in the previous post – interracial marriage is not a sin in and of itself.  But it is also not a sin for parents to prefer their children marry within their own ethnicity.

And finally, on the subject of national policy.  We as American Christians live in a nation where we can vote and we have a say in government policies and since we as the people have say in the direction our nation goes we must oppose policies that continually run contrary to God’s Babel policy.

What that means is we as Christians should vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to weaken the nation’s sovereignty and identity and give that sovereignty to the United Nations or other international groups.

We must vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to strengthen the spirit of Babel in our society by forcing racial and ethnic integration such as bussing schemes and housing schemes.  We as Christians should vote against affirmative action schemes and any legislation which would impose racial diversity quotas on centers of education or businesses.  If we as Christians were ever presented with government proposals to limit immigration by ethnicity as we did before the 1960’s we should support such efforts.

Christians should absolutely support a ban on immigration from all Muslim nations not only to protect ourselves from terrorism but to protect our ethnic and cultural identity.  Christians should oppose building permits for new mosques in their neighborhoods.

It’s not about just about protecting Whites from the attacks of racial diversity pushers in America, it is about working to weaken or stop the spirit of Babel which is so prevalent throughout the world today and trying to return to God’s Babel’s policy where he “separated the sons of Adam”.

I hold no hatred for those who are not of my racial and ethnic kindred and I also hold no illusions about America remaining a majority white nation. I am not angry at Black, Hispanic or Asian Americans.

I am saddened at the behavior of my own kindred – those of British decent, those of northern European decent.  They embraced humanism, egalitarianism, multiracialism and feminism and in the process gave away the nation their ancestors fought and died for.  White men gave up their duty to protect the racial homogeneity of their nation both by engaging in slavery of the African people as well as allowing the slaves to stay after had they had been freed against the wishes of Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send them back to Africa.

White men in America gave up their leadership of their families and this nation when they allowed women to leave the home, pursue their own career interests and have less children.  They again failed to protect their racial homogeneity with the removal of all ethnic limits on immigration in the 1960s.

The spirit of Babel may not be stoppable and it may simply hearken the end of days.  But until Christ returns to establish his kingdom in this world we as Christians have no right to throw out God’s Babel policy nor should we embrace the evil spirit of Babel in our world.

References

[1] V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception,” National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436347/america-melting-pot-immigrant-culture-made-country-great.
[2] M. Sedensky, “AP-NORC Poll: Political divide over American identity,” Associated Press, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/AP-NORC-Poll-Divided-Americans-fret-country-losing-identity.aspx
[3] W. Lawson, “Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones,” ABC News, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1.
[4] J. Piper, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, Crossway, 2011.
[5] “Humanism,” Dictionary.com, [Online]. Available: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanism.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

  1. “then it shall come to pass, that those which you let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein you dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do to you, as I thought to do to them.” Numbers 33:55
    Doesn’t it state clearly that those who don’t want to assimilate, let your GOD be their god, your nation their nation, your language their language: those will be a danger and nuisance, and even a trap for your destiny.
    I think every immigrant should keep the standard of Ruth: ” And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave you, or to return from following after you: for where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. Otherwise please choose another country.

  2. From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists. Kind of like 2 Corinthians 6:14 says. Because then comes ideology of equality and inclusion when it comes to things that are seen as imoral on a basic level, an example of that is homosexuality, women’s rights . . . Basically by taking people from others countries and them bring in their own way of living we are inviting in the push to compromise our Christian faith?

  3. I don’t understand what is with these types of people in that they seem to abhor the physical and are always seeking the ‘spiritual’ answer to everything. We live in the physical world, we live under the effects of gravity, heat, pain, confusion – we cannot simply say “Jesus died on the cross” and think these physical things do not exist anymore. These people seem to want to live that way, as if the fact that Jesus died on the cross means they don’t have to live in the physical world any or concern themselves with its effects because they are aware of the spiritual world.

    Because they are aware of the spiritual they believe that they can force peace between the nations and peoples in the physical! They disregard creation order, authority structures and the way God created things to work because they think their knowledge of the spiritual protects them or somehow makes them immune! Like those who lie in boxes full of snakes thinking they will not be bit because they trust in the lord! I trust in the lord too, but I am still part of this physical place were the likely chance of being bitten by on of several hundred angry snakes is a distinct possibility if I go lying down on them!

    Racism will always exist until we are all in Gods kingdom. It may not be as prevalent has it has been in the past, but people will always be people and some people will hate others because of their skin color! We will always have authorities and those who abuse those authorities until we are all in Gods kingdom and He is the only authority. To think otherwise, or to think that man can somehow create ‘heaven on earth’ is ludicrous and extremely prideful. God created the nations and people for a reason and to think that they could just be erased and everyone amalgamated into one big happy family is silly! You would think that educated people like this would know better.

  4. I had this conversation today with this guy, Bill Onesty, which allowed me to elaborate on the further truths on this subject. He starts off with the knee jerk reaction to my article(without even reading it) that I was a “creep” for insuating that our founding fathers started this nation off with ethno-nationalism as its philosophy.

    Bill Onesty’s Statement:

    “The founders did no such thing. They did not establish “ethno-nationalism.” You u are a creep for insinuating this.”

    My Response:
    Did the founders not pass the 1790 Naturalization Act which restricted citizenship to “free white persons”? I think you need to check your history books. We can argue as Christians and as Americans whether that was immoral and wrong. But we cannot deny the history of America sir.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “It is one thing to claim we were founded as an ethno-nationalist nation. It is quite another to use as proof of that unwise laws that were passed after our founding and which were eventually repealed. You do know that we did away with slavery, right?”

    My Response:
    Yes we did away with slavery and we were right in doing so. Don’t confuse the issues. You do realize that the Constitution was ratified in between 1787/1788 right? That means our nation was founded two years before that law was passed. It was passed by the same people that ratified the Constitution 2 years earlier. Just because it was not part of the Constitution does not mean it was not part of our founding. Many of the first laws passed directly after the Constitution was ratified were to fill in gaps that were missed in the Constitution sir. Again it is a separate argument to say that these laws were unwise or immoral. That is a conversation to be had – but to deny they were part of our founding is incorrect since these laws were passed by our FOUNDERS.

    Bill Onesty’s Statement:

    “Ratified by the same people? No. It was passed by a Congress and signed into law by President Washington. Now ai have not done the detailed research, but not all the founders were elected to office, and not all Congress were among the founders. I would like to be precise here.

    If the argument is that these guys were close enough to the founding that they would have founding principles in mind, then ok. We agree.

    But remember the Constitution was agreed upon amidst disagreement over slavery. But also remember that those opposed to slavery put a kind of time bomb into the Constitution, hoping the matter could be settled politically later. They had confidence in the rightness and goodness of their position though they underestimated the effort required to eradicate slavery from the nation.

    So the same players sympathetic to slavery were still around and would have to agree on any law that affected immigration. Of course they would be wary of a law that would seem to hinder the importation of slaves.

    But none of this supports this notion that we were “founded on ethno-nationalism.” It only supports the idea that we were founded with high ideals but marred by the stain of slavery that would take time to remove. And we did. Something that a nation committed to ethnocentrism would not have done.

    So go take your racist ideas elsewhere.”

    My Response:
    Sir it is not “racist” to believe history. There are many people who would oppose Ethno-nationalism whether Christians or non-Christians alike that would agree with me that we were in fact founded on ethno-nationalism and that it was one of the original sins of the founders as slavery was.

    You said “If the argument is that these guys were close enough to the founding that they would have founding principles in mind, then ok. We agree.” Then we agree – if they were close enough to the founders then they had they principles as the founders.

    And yes I am well aware of the debate over slavery in the Constitutional conventions. But you do realize that the debate over slavery and the debate over ethno-nationalism were two different things? There really was little to no debate on the subject of ethno-nationalism – it was slavery that divided the founders. For instance many early Americans who believed slavery was wrong formed societies to liberate and send freed slaves back to Africa where they formed the colony of Liberia which later became the nation of Liberia. You are aware sir that there is much documentation of Abraham Lincoln while being adamant against slavery he was equally adamant against keeping the slaves here once freed. He only gave up his plans for relocating the freed slaves back to Africa when he could not get support in congress and in elsewhere to do so.

    Again it is not “racist” to be historically accurate. We can agree or disagree with what our founders believed on a host of issues whether it was ethno-nationalism or equality or womans rights and you go down the list but we cannot change history sir.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “Sir, it is racist to impose your sensibilities on the men who founded this country. That many people would agree with you is of no interest to me. It is no more persuasive than if Hitler told me that many people agreed with him! Of course they did. And they were also wrong.

    As to your repatriation argument, why would it not have made sense to these men who opposed slavery to look upon slaves as kidnapped human beings who would prefer to go back home?

    Your argument would have weight if the Declaration of Independence said “All white men are created equal” or if the Constitution mentioned color or race at all.

    Your kind of historical revisionism is detestable. You are trying to attribute motivations to the founders that they did not have in order to diminish their ideals. I do not accept your analysis, and I do not accept your protestation over historical accuracy.”

    My Response:
    Bill Onesty, I am not imposing my sensibilities on the founders. The sensibilities of the founders are clearly seen by the laws they passed as well as the letters they wrote. When we study the founders we cannot just look at the Constitution but we must look at their writings from the conventions, their private letters before and after the Constitution was ratified and the laws they passed immediately after ratifying the Constitution.

    And you completely misunderstood my statement about people agreeing me. I am talking about arguments about what actually occurred in history – not arguments over the morality what occurred.

    I see you need to take the typical leftist response and throw Hitler in there for good measure. For the record “my sensibilities” are that the founders who agreed with slavery were wrong and also even the founders who disagreed with slavery but felt Africans were lesser beings that whites were wrong. Oh I bet your head is spinning now since you thought you could box me in.

    It is intellectual laziness and dishonesty to throw out “racist” and “hitler” every time someone has a different view than you on how to handle race relations within nations.

    Your Statement:
    “Your kind of historical revisionism is detestable. You are trying to attribute motivations to the founders that they did not have in order to diminish their ideals.”

    Are you kidding? I almost fell out of my chair when you said that. It is liberal multiculturalists today who are the ones who impose historical revisionism on the Constitution and other parts of our founding. I have no wish to diminish their ideals – only to present them accurately. I love our founder despite their flaws in regard to slavery and their derogatory views toward Africans and Native Americans.

    Bill Onesty’s Response:

    “If you love the founders, quit calling them racists. They were not. They thought racism and slavery were detestable for the most part. There were some who did not but the Constitution proves the rightness of their intentions. You cannot argue with the time bomb for slavery they put in place.

    Good. Call me a leftist. And yes, discount the appeal to hitler. I thought you might object to that comparison. But note I did not call you hitler, or compare your beliefs to hitler. I actually thought you and I would be in agreement about him and his detestable beliefs.

    I think many of those men, while hating slavery and believing these men with black skin were indeed men, they were in some confusion about how to deal with the terrible legacy of having brought them here, kidnapped from homeland and family.

    But they were not white supremacists. Quite the contrary. And you will never get my agreement on your hypothesis.”

    My Response:
    Bill, you are actually wrong in the reasons that were proposed for repatriation. Let me give you two examples. One from Thomas Jefferson and the other from Abraham Lincoln.

    Thomas Jefferson – one of the men who helped write the declaration of independence and the phrase “all men are created equal” made this famous quote in regard to slavery:

    “I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general an could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

    http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/377

    What he was saying is he was searching for a way to safely end slavery. He felt if we just freed the slaves here in America they would eventually overrun whites in America – that is what he was talking about with “self-preservation”.

    Abraham Lincoln said this to a group of Black leaders whom he was trying convince to support his idea of moving freed slaves back to Africa:

    “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

    https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812

    There are actually several other times Abraham Lincoln mentioned this before and during the Civil War. He made it clear he was against slavery but not for the equal inclusion of Blacks as citizens of America.

    So do you still maintain I am imposing racist views on these men?

    Again I admire both these men even if I disagree with them in some areas. I am not calling for their monuments to ripped down as so many today are doing.

    My Statement:
    Bill for the record we are in complete agreement that Hitler’s beliefs and actions in regard to race being detestable. It is kind of sad that we have to even say that when having any conversation about race.

    As to your refusal to accept the white supremacist views of the founding fathers I leave with this quote from Thomas Jefferson – the same man who coined the Declaration of Independence phrase “all men are created equal” said:

    “In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation.”

    http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ThomasJefferson.htm

    If saying blacks were inferior to whites in their reasoning abilities and in their ability to imagine were “dull, tasteless and anomalous” is not the very essence of white supremacy I don’t know what is.

    Again I would agree with you that he was wrong in his theories about blacks in what he said. We know from American history that Blacks later became some of our greatest thinkers(e.g. Frederick Douglass) and some of our greatest artists(both in music and other forms of art).

    Now I would distinguish the white supremacist views of our founders like Thomas Jefferson from Hitler’s racial views. Hitler literally wanted to wipe out other races he thought were inferior. Many of the founders while holding white supremacist views felt sorry for blacks and did not mean to eradicate them while some felt that God naturally put whites over blacks(which was also not supported by the Bible).

    My Statement:
    Bill, Honestly I am very glad you came on here with your concerns and your love for the founding fathers because it let me expand on some things I was not able to mention in the article because it was so long and I had to cut some things out.

    We share a love for the founding fathers and we agree that had many great ideals worth fighting for. With that said I wanted to address this statement from you:

    “If you love the founders, quit calling them racists. They were not. They thought racism and slavery were detestable for the most part.”

    We cannot bury the truth of founders anymore than we can our fathers or ancestors. They did and thought some things we know were wrong.

    It is completely accurate to say the founding fathers and later great Presidents like Abraham Lincoln were racists. There own words confirm it.

    But this is a teachable moment about people being racists. Not all racists are the same in what they believe. Some racists hate other races and even want to kill them(e.g. KKK, Neo-Nazis and Hitler and his crew). Some racists may not want to kill other races but they still have a deep seeded hatred for them. Some racists don’t hate other races at all – but they think their race is superior and God has given them dominion over other races. Still other racists don’t hate other races or even believe they have the right to rule over them – they just think their race is superior to others but they don’t want to mistreat other races because of it – in fact they may even feel sorry for races they feel are inferior.

    I believe this is the reason many who love this nation’s founding are afraid to call the founders racist – because in our current culture to be called a racist is to be called a monster of the highest magnitude. There is no greater crime in our culture than to be called a racist. So to call the founders racists would be to call them monsters and comparable to Hitler but we know that comparison is not right.

    It is accurate to say many of the founders found slavery to be a problem at the least and immoral at most. But you cannot equate someone having racist views with them supporting slavery. Many of the founders opposed slavery but thought whites were superior to blacks(the very definition of a racist).

    In other words – all those who supported slavery were racists, but not all racists supported slavery. That is distinction that many modern Americans miss.

    So it is historically historically accurate to say many of the founders opposed slavery but it is not historically accurate to say most of them were not racist when in fact they were.

    One thing I would add to this that I did not say to Bill but will add here:

    Even if someone believes that self-segregation is moral and acceptable as I do and believes it is not wrong to limit immigration and citizenship by ethnicity(ethno-nationalism) we will be called a racist. Because racism is defined either as hatred of people of different races, believing one’s race is superior to other races, or governments or individuals can make choices based on race or ethnicity. So while I reject racial hatred and white supremacy if I choose to live in mostly white neighborhoods even though I don’t hate black people I am still called a racist. If I believe the government can limit immigration based on ethnic background then I am called a racist. If I believe the government should not force races to integrate through housing schemes and busing schemes then I am called a racist.

  5. See, even with facts people just cannot see fit to change their reality. In this guys mind what your saying simply cannot be true, even WITH PROOF! This tends to be the problem with a lot of people, as I am sure you already know given the subject matter of your blog. You can show people scripture that proves your point, but despite that they will not accept it. Not because you cannot prove it is true, but because they cannot change the reality they know in order to accommodate a new reality that includes things they have been trained to believe are sinful.

    Not much we can do about it, I guess. Most people don’t want to discuss facts but rather they want to argue. I have learned to forgo talking with most people about such things and instead wait for someone who is genuinely asking questions. They tend to be more receptive rather than combative.

  6. SnapperTrx,

    I agree people don’t like having their preconceived notions challenged. For instance if you tell most people in the founders motto “E Pluribus Unum” or “out of many one” does not refer to multiracialism and multiculturalism but to the 13 English colonies joining together as one nation they won’t believe you. Even in the face of facts they will not believe you.

    If you tell them America was not called “the melting pot” until the early 20th century and the founders had no such intentions they will not believe you. You can show them proof all day long – they will not believe you.

    The only reason I engaged this guy was because there were some things I had to cut out of the article and I was able to put them in the comment to him to further clarify things. Otherwise I don’t waste my time with such people.

  7. Tamara, what you have said is great!: “From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists. Kind of like 2 Corinthians 6:14 says.”
    “Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?” II Corinthians 6:14
    You are right that in the name of false equality now we have to serve darkness, supposedly because “dark is as good as light”. (maybe we will even see a ban on sales of torches haha) and “each and every colour and shade is equal”. Well, tell this to the fashion designer.

  8. It extends beyond Christian faith, but its pretty common knowledge that the majority of people like to live around people of like color and culture. When governments or others force feed those who are not like them and whos culture is radically different into a society it causes problems.

    Lets say Bill Smith lives in a nice, quiet suburban neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood is white, but there’s a black family down the road who is nice enough. The dad works a job similar to Bill’s and they are clean, love America and though they do some things differently than Bill is familiar with, he likes them and gets along with them. Another Asian family is on the other side of the road, but they too are clean, drive decent vehicles, keep their yard clean – nothing that Bill himself isn’t already doing or trying to do. He likes them and they come over for dinner every so often.

    This is a natural integration of peoples of different colors, cultures and creeds. Sure there’s differences between the three families, but they have all pretty much integrated into being American families and their commonality makes them accept each other despite their skin colors and cultural differences.

    Now lets say the local government informs the everyone that they are building low income housing in the neighborhood and they will be filling it with Sudanese refugees. Differences in income mean the neighborhood will now see the presence of a lot of old, beater cars and probably more junk. The differences in culture mean that there will be people in the neighborhood who have no idea what being an American means, and possibly have no idea how things like toilets, trash collection and other amenities work, simply because they have no idea such a thing exists! The dumping of several dozen black people into the neighborhood is also unsettling not because Bill is racist, but because its too much too fast and he will feel like he is being overrun. Likely the other families will feel the same, black or not.

    Racism exists, and it always will because people are people. There will always be people who hate others because of their skin color. However, culture shock is real, and when a man feels like his home and his city and his country is being overrun so that his culture is being wiped out, there will be problems, and that is much of what we see today. The government brings in ‘refugees’ from foreign countries and forcibly integrates them into established societies which creates a clash of cultures. However, even if they didn’t inject them into an established society and put them into their own space they would simply be creating pockets of societies that haven’t integrated into American culture. We see this happening in Europe where pockets of cities don’t allow law enforcement to go in and do their jobs because they don’t follow the same laws as the land they are in!

    Its a dangerous game and I don’t know if its being played this way for votes or for the establishment of a one-world government (which seems likely given the prophecies of the bible), but it is causing a lot of issues and will one day come to a full boil.

  9. Tamara,

    Your Statement:
    “From what I gather here I assume this has less to do with actual race but more so with the fact that mixing cultures brings about diluting the Christian culture that already exists.”

    Well it actually has to do with mixing cultures AND mixing races. The reason is this. It is built into human nature for us to cluster both by culture and by race. These are two separate factors. For instance – Englishmen, Germans and Frenchmen would all cluster by their cultures even though they have the same racial characteristics.

    However there is another natural factor in human nature. When a minority culture comes to a nation in most cases they will submit to and assimilate to dominant majority culture. The Caucasians of British decent where the dominant culture here when the country was founded. So the minority of Germans, French and other nationalities that were here assimilated to and submitted to the dominant American British culture. When a large wave of German immigrants and the Irish Immigrants came in the 19th and early 20th centuries again they eventually assimilated to and submitted to the dominant American British culture.

    But Blacks and Asians and other groups that did not share the common northern European ancestry of these groups did not assimilate in the same way. It is true that it can be argued that they were not allowed to assimilate and integrate because the American British culture would not allow them to. Some have tried to say Africans were not allowed to assimilate only because formerly they were slaves and that may be partially true. But even if the Africans had never been brought here as slaves – even if they came as free men the way the Germans and Irish did the result would have been the same simply because they did not share common racial heredity with the dominant British American Caucasian ethnic group here in America.

    Over time the immigrants from Northern European countries would seemly integrate when their children who were born and raised in America would intermarry. That is why even though my surname is of English descent, I also have German, German Jew, Scottish and Polish ancestors. Why did my ancestors so easily marry? Because they were of the same Northern European racial heredity. So just as the ethnic group in Britain was once formed from intermarriage between the Angles and Saxons(who came from Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands) who then intermarried with the Normans who invaded from France to form a new Caucasian group so to Northern European immigrants to America did the same thing here and created a new Caucasian ethnic group we call “whites” but more accurately would be called “Caucasian Americans” if we are to use the modern terminology consistent with “African Americans” and “Asian Americans“.

    You cannot stop racial clustering even after generations of different races living the same country as they have here in America. One of the things you need to realize is that human beings have a natural built in desire to see their ethnicity continue. It is completely unnatural for any Caucasian American to want to see the numbers of his own ethnicity diminish in this country the same as it would be for an African American or Asian American to see his numbers diminish in this country.

    It is the same as a parent wanting their children to out live them and see their children and grand children and know their family will go on. It is a core instinct of humanity. Now as I said in a previous post – I do believe that God made some people as natural “self-integrators” that these people actually want to self-integrate with other races. They want to intermarry or live among other ethnic groups than their own. These are the people who help us form bridges for diplomacy with other nations and for Christians they are our missionaries and we need such people.

    My point though is this. You can mix those of similar ethnic background(as the early northern European immigrants were) and as long as the immigrants submit to and assimilate to the dominate ethnic culture as they did you won’t have issues. But since those of very different ethnic backgrounds will naturally cluster and not be fully accepted and integrated into the dominant culture you will have problems arise.

    The humanist and secularist world will try and solve this racial clustering problem with equality movements. Eventually those forced equality movements will lead to moral relativism. So here is the progression of what happened in America:

    1. The Declaration of Independence said “all men are created equal” therefore white men and black men should all have equal rights.

    2. Most people do not know that Feminists in the mid 19th century came directly out of the abolitionist movement. The abolitionists were divided into two camps – those who believed in freeing the slaves and repatriating the freed slaves to Africa and those who believed in letting them stay in America and become equal citizens with Whites. The early feminist movements were formed from abolitionists who argued – “if we are going to make black men equal with white men – then why should white women and black women not be equal with the men.” This lead to woman’s suffrage movement which result in women being given the right to vote and full equality with men in the 20th century.

    3. Also in the 1940’s and 50’s the federal government began attempts at forced integration between blacks and whites with federal housing projects being build directly in the middle of white neighborhoods and the famous Brown vs Board of Education forced integrated schools. From these periods the new Civil Rights legislation of the 1960’s came which for the first time in American history took away private property rights and the right of association in an effort to force integration or else someone could loose their property through law suits.

    4. Then came the question of equality for all immigrants. Since all men are created equal it was argued in the 1960s – then we should have not ethnic quotas on immigration so they were removed.

    5. Then came equality of religions – why should Islam not be treated equally with Christianity in America? After all America has no established religion(forgetting the culture of America was Christian).

    6. Now under the guise of equality Satanists are suing to have their rights recognized.

    7. In recent years Homosexuals and Transgenders are now using the equality arguments and methods of the Civil Rights era to force integration and acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism on the American culture.

    So where did it all begin? It began with that first question way back in the early 19th century when they asked “If all men are created equal as the declaration of Independence states – then why should a Black man not have equal rights with a White man in America?” If back then they had answered “Yes Black men are created equal to White men but having them stay in this country will lead to racial strife and an equality movement which will eventually make the country into a secular humanist, multiracial, multicultural nation that rejects God and mandates the acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism therefore we cannot do this thing” then the American of George Washington may have survived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s