Would Segregation have been wrong if it really was separate but equal?

ShieldWife said:

Tell me, have you sold all of your possessions and given the money to the poor?

Click to expand...

Are you just going to ignore the part where most of the church leaders including his own apostles which helped found the christian religions and are said in scripture to hold the highest esteem in heaven, were NOT nomads. Some had homes, jobs and even Paul the Apostle whom God used to write Most of his holy word, used his rights as a roman citizen when it was deemed necessary. (see one of my post above)

ShieldWife said:

I agree with you on some things in this thread, but I need to voice some objection here. The government “makes” money, it doesn’t actually make the stuff that money buys. It doesn’t make food, build houses, or create labor or scarce goods. Fiat currency only gives the government, and those it grants privileges to, a greater share of those scarce goods that already exist. When the government makes money, then the money itself is theft.

Click to expand...

Without some form of agreed upon currency then typically the only forms of resource distribution are barter or violence. Barter can work on a very small scale, but quickly loses it's potency upon scale and distance. (as does everything eventually but still. ) Violence doesn't really work if for the fact that if nothing else, humans can't reproduce at a fast enough rate to make such violence sustainable. We don't reproduce at a 12: 1 ratio like pigs or rabbits. It takes 3/4 of a year just to produce 1-2 kids on average.

Whether you consider Money or even property theft. Unless, your going to live by yourself or in a very small tribe where everyone knows everyone like they are kin, Money and property are the lesser evils compared to the alternative. To be fair. At least when I hear "Taxation is theft." being used. it's less a literal statement and more a protest of politicians using tax dollars for their own benefit.

"The treasury is not for personal or political gain!" is probably a more accurate statement but it doesn't role off the tongue or fit in a hashtag as well.

KilroywasNOTHere said:

Are you just going to ignore the part where most of the church leaders including his own apostles which helped found the christian religions and are said in scripture to hold the highest esteem in heaven, were NOT nomads. Some had homes, jobs and even Paul the Apostle whom God used to write Most of his holy word, used his rights as a roman citizen when it was deemed necessary. (see one of my post above)

Click to expand...

So, is it a mistranslation that Jesus said to give away all of your money and possessions? Maybe in the original Greek those passages say to start a mega-church and own 5 mansions.

Some Christians do actually live as Jesus advocated - most notably Franciscan mendicants. The fact that other Christians don’t mean that they are imperfect Christians, which they should admit because being flawed is the entire point.

Though I’m not one to go around telling Christians how they should live their lives or internet the Bible - BUT - if people are going to go around quoting Jesus to justify taking other people’s money at gunpoint, it does seem like they should at least strive in their personal lives to live up to Jesus’ words.

Without some form of agreed upon currency then typically the only forms of resource distribution are barter or violence. Barter can work on a very small scale, but quickly loses it's potency upon scale and distance. (as does everything eventually but still. ) Violence doesn't really work if for the fact that if nothing else, humans can't reproduce at a fast enough rate to make such violence sustainable. We don't reproduce at a 12: 1 ratio like pigs or rabbits. It takes 3/4 of a year just to produce 1-2 kids on average.

Whether you consider Money or even property theft. Unless, your going to live by yourself or in a very small tribe where everyone knows everyone like they are kin, Money and property are the lesser evils compared to the alternative. To be fair. At least when I hear "Taxation is theft." being used. it's less a literal statement and more a protest of politicians using tax dollars for their own benefit.

"The treasury is not for personal or political gain!" is probably a more accurate statement but it doesn't role off the tongue or fit in a hastag as well.

Click to expand...

Taxation and fiat currency are forms of violence. You can have non-violent forms of money: precious metal currency or notes backed by it. I’m not saying that there aren’t advantages to fiat currency and, of course, taxation - but let’s not white wash what’s actually going on here.

ShieldWife said:

So, is it a mistranslation that Jesus said to give away all of your money and possessions? Maybe in the original Greek those passages say to start a mega-church and own 5 mansions.

Some Christians do actually live as Jesus advocated - most notably Franciscan mendicants. The fact that other Christians don’t mean that they are imperfect Christians, which they should admit because being flawed is the entire point.

Though I’m not one to go around telling Christians how they should live their lives or internet the Bible - BUT - if people are going to go around quoting Jesus to justify taking other people’s money at gunpoint, it does seem like they should at least strive in their personal lives to live up to Jesus’ words.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that when two things contradict themselves you should examine both of them. Not pull a single slogan and throw the rest as mud. Yes, Jesus did tell the rich man. "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that people sinned by having property, or that giving away whatever they willed was some form of anointment for sins. Heck in the case of
Ananias and Sapphira Peter says "Didn’t it (the land) belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” the rebuke was not of keeping the land or the wealth but of lying how much they gave. Had they simply been honest they would have most likely been blessed and praised all the same. (Which in my opinion makes the story all the more tragic but I digress.)

you'll notice that I kinda corrected bintananth by pointing out the context of the scripture was trying to use to justify taxes

KilroywasNOTHere said:

it should also be noted, the people who asked him that question I believe were trying to trap him if he said yes you have a moral duty to reject the rule of Caesar, then they could charge him with insurrection against the roman empire where they could then have him killed, if he told them to kiss ceaser's butt then it would draw the ire of the people and they would seek to stone him.

So basically Jesus was saying. "I know what you're trying to do, I'm not going to fall for it. Stop trying to be two-faced politicians and give God his proper due just as you do Ceaser."

Click to expand...

you then turned around and used your own sloganeering scripture to justify your view point as a sort of gotcha. yes we as human beings are imperfect by default and yes we need to be humble, but when you do use sloganeering to justify another person's sloganeering especially when yourself admit your an atheist, it doesn't make you look enlightened it makes you look smug.

Frankly I wish we'd stop pulling holy text into political conversation as people inevitably strech whatever scripture to justify whatever point of view, and said scripture's only have value to the people adhearing to that religion. So it's mute to everyone else. But something tells me that's not going to happen

ShieldWife said:

Taxation and fiat currency are forms of violence. You can have non-violent forms of money: precious metal currency or notes backed by it. I’m not saying that there aren’t advantages to fiat currency and, of course, taxation - but let’s not white wash what’s actually going on here.

Click to expand...

Salt, Spice and aluminum were all considered precious forms of currency at one time until major trade parties it was no longer of value (typical because of a glut) even with something precious it's only as valuable as an entity is willing to pay for it. Short of simple barter and trade, said value is pretty much determined in the same way Fiat currency is. "it's this valuable because I say it is, if you don't like it go somewhere or submit to my offer."

it's not so much is "one is fair and peaceful trade the other is a form of violence." so much as "It depends on which entity you prefer to take your chances with when it comes to throwing their weight around and determining value." Frankly I
d rather take my chances with bartering than I would governments (& silicon valley) as they've proven not to know that first thing about scarcity or supply and demand, but I'm not also going to pretend that the alternative is sunshine and roses.

KilroywasNOTHere said:

you'll notice that I kinda corrected bintananth by pointing out the context of the scripture was trying to use to justify taxes

Click to expand...

Sorta corrected.

Basically, your taxes are no different from your bar tab: it must be paid because if it's not paid you just stole something from someone and they aren't happy with you.

EDIT: we're going way off-topic here and I don't want to get another thread ban, so can we please stop before a Mod says "knock it off".

ShieldWife said:

So, is it a mistranslation that Jesus said to give away all of your money and possessions?

Click to expand...

Not a mistranslation, but a misreading. It's a case of pulling one line out of context, and ignoring everything else in there.
Jesus told that one rich man that if he wanted to "go all the way" he should dispose of his wealth and become one of Jesus' disciples. Nowhere did He mandate that everyone is expected to do that.

ShieldWife said:

Maybe in the original Greek those passages say to start a mega-church and own 5 mansions.

Click to expand...

If I wanted to, I could probably find a Bible verse to take out of context to justify that one, too.

But let's look at the context, shall we? Jesus was training up the group of people who would be leaders of the early church. If one wanted to part of that, one could not at the same time be somewhere else running a business. Can't be doing two things at once.

And while owning 5 mansions would be nice, there's a problem: those buildings are yours only because society agrees that they are. (Well, you know what I mean)
If they turn toxic and start saying "No, those mansions are not yours anymore, because people who believe like you do don't get to own things! We're confiscating your wealth, heretic!" what do you do? Whip out an MP5 and mow 'em all down?

Jesus and His disciples understood something about earthly wealth: it's an insecure investment of effort, due to property rights not being reliable. Do not store up treasure on earth, where inflation devalues, and Socialists nationalize and redistribute.
Store up treasure in Heaven, where there is no inflation to devalue it, and there are no Socialists! :-D

bintananth said:

Basically, your taxes are no different from your bar tab: it must be paid because if it's not paid you just stole something from someone and they aren't happy with you.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are.

Just because if you don't spend money in a bar, they have no hold over you.

Getting back to the subject, Segregation. I'm of the opinion that if it's done by consent of the people of the nation in question, then it's fine.

(I used to suggest we Australians give the Aboringines a State, and let that be it. No more guilt, no more games, no more money, they can do whatever they want, and we don't have to care!)

Simonbob said:

Getting back to the subject, Segregation. I'm of the opinion that if it's done by consent of the people of the nation in question, then it's fine.

(I used to suggest we Australians give the Aboringines a State, and let that be it. No more guilt, no more games, no more money, they can do whatever they want, and we don't have to care!)

Click to expand...

And there it is.

I figured it would be an American or South African who said "enforced racial segregation is totally A-OK".

I wasn't expecting it see it come out of an Australian. Although, Australia is where the British Empire dumped their criminals instead of hanging them.

bintananth said:

And there it is.

I figured it would be an American or South African who said "enforced racial segregation is totally A-OK".

I wasn't expecting it see it come out of an Australian. Although, Australia is where the British Empire dumped their criminals instead of hanging them.

Click to expand...

to be fair the british empire would probally dump you in australia if the way you buttered your crumpet didn't sexually intice the local lord enough.

Cherico said:

to be fair the british empire would probally dump you in australia if the way you buttered your crumpet didn't sexually intice the local lord enough.

Click to expand...

They did consider "petty theft" to be a crime worthy of a public hanging back then so the ones who got exiled to Australia got lucky in terms of prosecutors, judges, juries, and charges.

bintananth said:

I wasn't expecting it see it come out of an Australian.

Click to expand...

To be fair, we've had welfare specifically for aborigines for longer than I've been alive. Abstudy, which pays for almost anything an aborigine wants to study, there are tax payer funded competitions, "Best New Author" and the like, and their own govenment department.

Then there was the whole "Land Rights" thing. That was really annoying, and quite horrible. Also dumb.


Heh. There was at least one case, where the Gov was keeping a section of land that a mining company wanted to mine, on no grounds that made any sense, when the local aborigine tribal elders claimed it, got it, and then made a deal with the mining company. Jobs and money all round! And, then, the Gov said "No, you can't do that! You can only have the land for Traditional Use!" Just crazy.

Simonbob said:

To be fair, we've had welfare specifically for aborigines for longer than I've been alive. Abstudy, which pays for almost anything an aborigine wants to study, there are tax payer funded competitions, "Best New Author" and the like, and their own govenment department.

Then there was the whole "Land Rights" thing. That was really annoying, and quite horrible. Also dumb.


Heh. There was at least one case, where the Gov was keeping a section of land that a mining company wanted to mine, on no grounds that made any sense, when the local aborigine tribal elders claimed it, got it, and then made a deal with the mining company. Jobs and money all round! And, then, the Gov said "No, you can't do that! You can only have the land for Traditional Use!" Just crazy.

Click to expand...

I get the impression that the Australian government can't make up its mind what it wants to do with the Abbos: help them become part of the modern world, or keep them as some sort of living museum exhibit.

Or - being a bunch of shitlibs - just keep the problem festering so they can continue to virtue-signal how much they "care" about it.

Simonbob said:

To be fair, we've had welfare specifically for aborigines for longer than I've been alive. Abstudy, which pays for almost anything an aborigine wants to study, there are tax payer funded competitions, "Best New Author" and the like, and their own govenment department.

Then there was the whole "Land Rights" thing. That was really annoying, and quite horrible. Also dumb.


Heh. There was at least one case, where the Gov was keeping a section of land that a mining company wanted to mine, on no grounds that made any sense, when the local aborigine tribal elders claimed it, got it, and then made a deal with the mining company. Jobs and money all round! And, then, the Gov said "No, you can't do that! You can only have the land for Traditional Use!" Just crazy.

Click to expand...

Your government, like all governments, does stupid things. The way you said it reminded me of the racist abolitionist rhetoric which basically amounted to "Send the N-words back to Africa because that's where they belong and we don't want those people here."

Up until 1926 the Oregon State Constitution said that it was illegal for someone black to be in Oregon. That's where my wife is from and Oregon wasn't the only US state which had laws prohibiting the presence of both slaves and blacks.

When my great-great-great-grandparents arrived from Japan and settled in Indiana in the 1850s they were welcome but blacks were prohibited from being within the state by the Indiana State Constitution.

bintananth said:

Your government, like all governments, does stupid things. The way you said it reminded me of the racist abolitionist rhetoric which basically amounted to "Send the N-words back to Africa because that's where they belong and we don't want those people here."

Click to expand...

No, I want no special treatment. No extra rights, no extra money, no free whatever. I get to pay for things that a supposed to be bad, that happened before I was even born.

But, there's a bunch of shithead fuckwits who insist on GUILT. I have to pay! Why? Because somebody, somewhere, blames my ancestors, even if they weren't in charge of anything.

You want to know why I'm black pilled? Why I don't give a shit about any 'Minority'? Because, the only option I have, outside of just doing what I'm told, like a good slave, is to fight back, however I can.

Simonbob said:

No, I want no special treatment. No extra rights, no extra money, no free whatever. I get to pay for things that a supposed to be bad, that happened before I was even born.

But, there's a bunch of shithead fuckwits who insist on GUILT. I have to pay! Why? Because somebody, somewhere, blames my ancestors, even if they weren't in charge of anything.

You want to know why I'm black pilled? Why I don't give a shit about any 'Minority'? Because, the only option I have, outside of just doing what I'm told, like a good slave, is to fight back, however I can.

Click to expand...

Personally I just tell them "Go take a long walk off a short drop." and go about my day, but, as an American I have to acknowledge I live in a country that is split into 50 states that can act semi-autonomous (when they actually have the spine to do so) so how affected you are by social issues such as Covid and white guilt really depends on how deep you are in heavily leftist run territories. Australia I'm quickly finding don't have that luxury. The way it's government is set up essentially means the federal government has it's people over a barrel.

as far as wanting to keep aboriginals as some sort of living museum exhibit, it wouldn't surprise me. We are dealing with the same thing in the states with the different American Indian tribes. Some tribes have tried working with various energy companies to help with industrialization and modernization but they get shouted down by governments. Meanwhile the media does wall to wall coverage of the "tribe leaders." protesting the project. There seems to be this idea that all natives want to be complety separate from "White society" when the reality is a lot more complex. some people want to go back to the old days, some think it's long past time to get off the reservation and intergrate with the rest of society.

Gee people are complex individuals whoda thunk it.

Government enforced segregation is a silly concept because it is doing something most communities already impose, just not by the same means or for the same ends. Segregation is a present reality across all nations - whether it be defined by race, creed, or economic status, often a mixture of those criteria along with many more - and perpetuated by a variety of social factors. Legally enforced segregation isn't just wrong, it's stupid; why waste time or taxes on something so narrowly defined (race) when the people will do it anyway?

Besides, government enforced assimilation is a much more entertaining question.

Yes it would have been wrong. If you have Black Christians and White Christians and you ban them from interacting in they way that Christians need to. Then you have literally violated not only God's law but also the US Constitution.

Sailor.X said:

Yes it would have been wrong. If you have Black Christians and White Christians and you ban them from interacting in they way that Christians need to. Then you have literally violated not only God's law but also the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

I normally try to keep religion out of politics, but, indeed, I think we all remember that set of scriptures where Phillip was sent to the Ethiopian Eunuch and instead refused the Holy Spirit with the words:
"No, he needs Black Jesus, separate but equal."


Oh, wait...

King Arts said:

So yeah, if blacks and whites literally had the same number and quality of public accommodations would racial segregation have been wrong? Also, we can expand this beyond race, to religion, sex, politics, hair color whatever. Would government-enforced separate accommodations for all of these be wrong?

Click to expand...

Yes. I could understand a few things being separate such as male and female restrooms. But to do so onto groups of people based solely on race or faith would be wrong no matter who does it. You would need to give a damn good reason why I can go eat at a place yet my black brother-in-law can't or why I can sit wherever on a bus but he has to walk his ass to the back so us fine upstanding people need not see him.

I may be a southern man but I'm by no means a racist man. Segregation is not only a bad thing to do onto a people but I see no good reason why anybody should want it to be done.

SpaceOrbis said:

Yes. I could understand a few things being separate such as male and female restrooms. But to do so onto groups of people based solely on race or faith would be wrong no matter who does it. You would need to give a damn good reason why I can go eat at a place yet my black brother-in-law can't.

Click to expand...

If people generally choose to live in different areas, is that bad? The issue, is force.

There's generally "Black" areas, in many cities. There's Chinese and Indian places in Sydney, my home town. They choose that.

The thing I'm not particualy fond of is using force to compel it, although I think it's going to become much more common, in the next few decades. There's already places, organisations, where Whites aren't welcome. The BBC, in UK, has taken to advertising jobs with "No Whites" in the descriptions.

Sooner or later, it's going to go both ways, unless we can get the leftists to stop with their extremes.

Simonbob said:

If people generally choose to live in different areas, is that bad? The issue, is force.

There's generally "Black" areas, in many cities. There's Chinese and Indian places in Sydney, my home town. They choose that.

The thing I'm not particualy fond of is using force to compel it, although I think it's going to become much more common, in the next few decades. There's already places, organisations, where Whites aren't welcome. The BBC, in UK, has taken to advertising jobs with "No Whites" in the descriptions.

Sooner or later, it's going to go both ways, unless we can get the leftists to stop with their extremes.

Click to expand...

Then you have rural South Carolina where you have many of areas in which Black People and White people are next door neighbors. Cities and the suburbs are not the be all and end all of how people live.