R
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Perhaps you are thinking of abusive situations where one culture has all the rights and the other is denied its rights and is held down close to enslavement. Of course, as I indicated already, I am opposed to that. I want everyone to have equal rights and opportunities regardless of their culture or of their caste.This is Catholic Answers Forums, not Stormfront.
Please take your spew elsewhere.
However, when it comes to separating people on the basis of culture in order to promote a peaceful society, I don’t see where that is always wrong - provided of course, that each side has equal rights, equal privileges and equal opportunities by law. I look for example, at the situation of dividing up Belgium into two separate but equal units. Even the Catholic university of Louvain has split up into two parts, one Flemish and the other French. They are split into two different locations, there are even two different catalogs for their library. Why would this be wrong, since each side has equal rights by law? I just don’t see how this is insideously evil, given the current circumstances in the country.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Good for you.
The point is that this sort of separation is purely for ease of scholarship and communication. It doesn’t mean that, say, the son of a scholar at the Flemish university isn’t allowed to ride on a bus with the daughter of a scholar from the French university.
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but “separating people on the basis of culture” does not necessarily make for a peaceful society. People can and will make that separation themselves (for example, I might prefer socializing with people who speak the same language or enjoy the same food that I do), but institutionalizing this - especially when the Government does it - is involved. The Government cannot endorse segregation. It has to be voluntary if peace is to be preserved.
Some of us still have family who remember a time when bars in India would have a sign saying “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.
V
VivienneJ
Guest
Nothing wrong with the natural separation for ease of administration or by personal choice. As soon as it becomes a point of law the potential, and eventual, domination of one by another almost always follows.Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but “separating people on the basis of culture” does not necessarily make for a peaceful society. People can and will make that separation themselves (for example, I might prefer socializing with people who speak the same language or enjoy the same food that I do), but institutionalizing this - especially when the Government does it - is involved. The Government cannot endorse segregation. It has to be voluntary if peace is to be preserved.
Some of us still have family who remember a time when bars in India would have a sign saying “Dogs and Indians not allowed”.
Dreadful sign that, RPRPsych, related to ones I saw growing up that labelled public benches and entrances to a wide variety of buildings as being only for ‘whites’ or ‘non-whites’; or where the sign ‘management reserves the right to refuse admission’ meant that if you belonged to certain racial groups you’d better not try to go in there. And those are the more ‘gentle’ examples of what can be legislated ‘separate development’, not something I would like to experience again.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
Sorry, I missed your post before. Good question.
First, being a Catholic, I don’t operate by personal interpretations of the Bible. However, since you asked, perhaps you’d like to share exactly where Christ approved of or promoted segregation?
As to your example of separating the universities, that does not even begin to compare with apartheid - unless you are saying that members of one group were beaten/imprisoned/killed if they tried to mix. In which case I would say that the policy was insidiously evil. Mentalities like that gave rise to blemishes on our faith such as exemplified by the Magdalene laundries, where “immoral” women were segregated from “decent” society.
On a purely humanistic level, any separation of races that is held in place by brute force is wrong. One does not need a Bible, or any religious faith at all to know that. Interfering with a person’s right to work, travel, live and enter into holy matrimony with the person of their choice, is interfering with the freedoms recognized in the universal moral code that is “written” on all human hearts.
On a faith level, my Church teaches me that racism is wrong: that includes racial segregation, racial hatred, racial prejudice and beliefs of racial superiority. That only makes sense: if part of humanity is considered superior to another, it also implies that God’s creative work can be ‘inferior’ which is impugning the work of God Himself.
So this, “separate but equal is okay because the Bible never condemned it” is simply…Let’s just say, to be charitable - unworkable.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I believe that this separation in Belgium is not what you say it is. It was not simply for ease of scholarship that this university separated in 1968. There were violent student demonstrations in the mid 60’s by the Flemish students and academics complaining of discrimination and demanding the separation of the university which occurred in 1968. And in Flemish towns, pupils are required to attend Flemish schools and are given no credit for attending French schools, at least that is how it was when I last checked. So the separate but equal or segregation of cultures in Belgium is something which has promoted peace and therefore, I would argue, that it is not immoral or invidiously evil. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where separation of cultures is condemned as invidiously evil.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
The “argument from silence” is notorious for its self-serving use, especially by gay rights activists and other “progressives” (“Hey, Jesus didn’t say anything against gay saunas, so they must be OK, right?”).
We have consciences. If you want to believe that institutionalized separation is good, on the basis of a single example from Belgium, when history teaches us that it has lead to struggles, wars and widening of divisions, then I think I’ll bow out here.
P
pnewton
Guest
Perhaps the unborn are not granted citizenship before they are actually born and the Holy Father is aware of this when he made the statement.
P
pnewton
Guest
I love that word. Unworkable. I am surprised that anyone can seriously consider believe separate but equal could work. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It is institutional racism and will never be anything else. It is contrary to human dignity to categorize him by his skin color and let that be the basis of how he is treated.
T
Thinking10
Guest
I am not arguing for segregation, but I think this is illogical.
If a group wants to govern itself as it believes is best, it must keep other groups from participating in its self governance. If whites and blacks (or any other differing groups whether it be due to religious differences or something else) each have a different idea of how to govern themselves, they must exclude the other group to prevent conflicts of interest in governance.
If they are forced by law to share the same government, then naturally that will lead to conflict because one group will try to dominate the other group to prevent that group from gaining power and governing in a way they disagree with.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You claim that it doesn’t work, but in Belgium most towns are deemed to be either Flemish or French and if you are a child in a Flemish town for example, you will not get any credit for time spent in a French school. In a Flemish town, all legal documents are processed in Flemish. Article 4 of the constitution of Belgium divides the country into linguistic areas, which form the basis of the federal structure: “Belgium has four linguistic areas: The French-speaking area, the Dutch-speaking area, the bilingual area of Brussels Capital and the German-speaking area.”
This separation into liguistic (or cultural) areas has worked well in Belgium, contrary to your (false) contention that separate but equal does not and has not worked. The separation of the Catholic University of Louvain in 1968 has promoted peace between the Flemish speaking and the French speaking students who were at each others throats in the mid 1960’s which saw violent demonstrations against integration of the two cultures.
P
pnewton
Guest
False, huh. Well, I guess that is your opinion. Belgium does not have apartheid or a separate but equal policy that I have found anywhere. Like Canada, they do have some separate language areas. Unlike South Africa, the division is not racial. Having an accommodation for language is not the same as an accommodation (or lack of) for skin color. In fact, while I have found no support for you presentation of this example, which you also have not provided, I have found that they prohibit racial discrimination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Anti-Racism_Law
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Of course Belgium prohibits racial discrimination. However, it is easily checked that the Catholic University of Leuven did split up inot two separate but equal universities in 1968, as a result of student riots that broke out mostly by the Flemish students alleging discrimination.
I didn’t think that any support woud be necessary, since this is well known to anyone who knows the recent history of the Benelux countries.
kuleuven.be/kuleuven/
uclouvain.be/index.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvain-la-Neuve
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universit%C3%A9_catholique_de_Louvain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_University_of_Leuven_(1834%E2%80%931968
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katholieke_Universiteit_Leuven
P
pnewton
Guest
Okay. Then I will stand by my opinion that this is nothing like apartheid, separate but equal or any sort of institutional racism from history.
S
seekerz
Guest
Again, were the Belgian kids separated by baton-wielding security personnel and herded like sheep into ghettos?
Answer me this, if you are seriously arguing for “separate but equal”: how can equality exist when one party is in a superior position, enforcing the separation?
There can be no peace without justice. So the idea, of separation for “peace” sake" makes no sense.
S
seekerz
Guest
What surprises me is that this is even a debatable issue. What other established injustices will we debate next: is euthanasia good because it prevents suffering among patients and their caregivers?
R
RPRPsych
Guest
It’s debatable because opposing segregation is somehow seen, by a few, as “liberal”, and that’s a dirty word - isn’t it?
(For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I’m not the world’s greatest source of political wisdom.)
E
estesbob
Guest
Or something equally ridiculous: “Can one vote for a candidate who supports unrestricted abortion on demand if he promises to raise taxes and provide health insurance for all?”
T
Thinking10
Guest
Hypothetically, suppose whites aren’t happy under black rule and blacks aren’t happy under white rule. Would it be immoral for white South Africans and black South Africans to form two separate nations so each group can live and govern itself independently of the other?
- Status