the status of multiculturalism , 2019

[hyksos]

In the 20th century, a word was used by some Americans to describe marrying outside of one's social tribe : miscegenation.

miscegenation noun mis·​ce·​ge·​na·​tion | \ (ˌ)mi-ˌse-jə-ˈnā-shən, ˌmi-si-jə-ˈnā-\
: a mixture of races especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race

The idea that one must stick to one's own community, ethnicity, race, or tribe when marrying is as at least as old as the oldest books of the Bible. Old Testament passages describe miscagenation with women outside the tribe as a "trespass" against Israel. (see citations)

The marriage of prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, to American actress , Meghan Markle, raised eyebrows and had the queen making squirelly faces at her during the wedding ceremony. British news media openly described Markle as quote, "Britain's first mixed-race princess."

My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I'm half black and half white. While my mixed heritage may have created a grey area surrounding my self-identification, keeping me with a foot on both sides of the fence, I have come to embrace that. To say who I am, to share where I'm from, to voice my pride in being a strong, confident mixed-race woman.

As one can imagine, far-right nationalist groups within the United Kingdom had more :cough: colorful language to describe the royal wedding between English Prince and LA-born actress.

The state of Maryland had laws on-the-books that prohibited marriages in that state between black+Filipino, Filipino+white, and black+white couples. That state law was not repealed until 1967.

A spate of American states began to repeal their on-books miscagenation laws after a landmark case in 1959 in Virginia. "Loving v. Virginia" was a case that went to the supreme court. It involved a mixed-race marriage where the families were in different states. Interestingly the couple was charged wtih cohabitation, their marriage was not even recognized as legal in Virginia. In successive years, repeals came in Idaho (1959) , Nevada(1959), Arizona(1962), Nebraska(1963), Utah(1963), Indiana(1965), Wyoming(1965).

I will add my own personal anecdote. I remember clearly a documentary that was aired on MTV that followed a british host and his black girlfriend. The entire documentary took place inside the United States and parts of Texas. It aired in the middle 1990s. The core message of the documentary was the issue of dating someone outside of one's race. This was still considered a taboo topic at the time. I may also say , anecdotaly, that in the year 1989 the United States was still very culturally segregated. The Arsenio Hall show, running in six seasons from 1989 to 1994 was a catalyst for introducing "white America" to a sector of popular culture they had never seen. It is not a coincedence that a white rapper, Vanilla Ice, appeared at the same time.

For brevity. WEC = White/European/Caucasian
In the year 1950, the USA's population was 90% WEC. Even by the year 1960, WECs still made up 89% of the population in the entire country. This means that the total of Hispanic, Latino, African-American, east Asians, Indians all combined made up only 11% of the population pie chart.

The US Census Bureau projects that by 2043, WECs will be the minority in the United States.

This 83-year decline from 89% white majority to a 49% white minority has been given a name by certain radical groups. Particularly among White Nationalists and neo-nazi groups, they dub it The Great Replacement. The core idea of a "great replacement" is what underlies the chants of "Jews will not replace us", chanted in unison by tiki-torch weilding protestors in Charlottesville , Virginia in August of 2017.



Days following in Charlottesville, a member of the tiki-torch weilding protestors rammed his car into a crowd intentionally. This resulted in 28 serious injuries and the death of one woman. The driver was recently sentenced to life in prison.

____

Citations
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-cha ... ing-class/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
https://www.census.gov/library/publicat ... s1-10.html
https://news.sky.com/story/meghan-markl ... n-11378988

Bible Old Testament Passages. ("stranger" in King James english means "foreigner") ("Strange woman" is basically a foreign woman.) ("miscagenation" appears in the KJV as the verb "to mingle", and "mingle" in KJV means "to mix". In modern parlance, essentially "race mixing". ) Ezra 9:1 + Ezra 9:2 , Jdg 11:2 ,Isa 56:5 + Isa 56:6 , Isa 62:8 , Prov 5:3 , Prov 23:27 , all of 9th chapter of Ezra.

[TheVat]

Your OP focus seems not as broad in scope as your title. Heh.

Interesting history of miscegenation law, though I'm not clear on what your point is. That they were idiotic and barbaric and racist and cruel? Duh. That neo-Nazis are pathetic and horrible douchbags? Yes, okay. But how do we extend these notions into the sphere of social science in a way that adds to our understanding?

[doogles]

I was also, like TheVat, looking for the point of the post .

My broad take was that Hyksos was making a case for the way that miscegenation attitudes have changed over the last century or so up to the present and that the projection for the United States at least is that by the year 2043, WEC (people of White, European, or Caucasian) origin will be in the minority. If the changes are gradual, I can't personally see where this can cause any problems anywhere in the world.

I guess this makes me a multiracist person. I actually like the principle behind the 1969 song Melting Pot by Blue Mink
“What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough to take the world and all it’s got
And keep it churning for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee-coloured people by the score"

Please do not confuse my favour for multi-racism with multiculturalism.

I like multiculturalism in theory, but I do not like the exhortations to violence, hate, and prejudice contained in the tenets of some cultures. This includes a number of the teachings in the Old Testament of the King James version of the Bible, as well as the Q'ran.

[hyksos]

I like multiculturalism in theory, but I do not like the exhortations to violence, hate, and prejudice contained in the tenets of some cultures. This includes a number of the teachings in the Old Testament of the King James version of the Bible, as well as the Q'ran.

I point your attention to the citations section I left there.

("stranger" in King James english means "foreigner") ("Strange woman" is basically a foreign woman.) ("miscagenation" appears in the KJV as the verb "to mingle", and "mingle" in KJV means "to mix". In modern parlance, essentially "race mixing". ) Ezra 9:1 + Ezra 9:2 , Jdg 11:2 ,Isa 56:5 + Isa 56:6 , Isa 62:8 , Prov 5:3 , Prov 23:27 , all of 9th chapter of Ezra.

Read all of those passages. Then after you are done reading them, quietly ruminate on the following topic/issue/debate :

"The horrors inflicted by the NAZIs on racial and ethnics group would never manifest or take place in the United States of America, on account of the fact that the USA is a Christian culture."

You are going to come across this argument, either on this forum, on the internet, or maybe by chance in your real life. From such a claim as that in quotes above, one would presume the key scriptures of the Christian religion (Old and New Testaments) must therefore be welcoming, all-inclusive, multicultural documents.

The reality is that the Bible depicts a racist, misogynistic, tribal patriarchy. Full on. And it is not even subtle.

In addition to that, racial miscagenation laws and even race-based cohabitation laws existed on-the-books in over a dozen states and those laws were not erased until (in some cases) the early 1960s.

The argument that "Christian Morality" somehow inoculates a person from committing genocide, should be compared against the facts of history, starting with : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

[TheVat]

The reality is that the Bible depicts a racist, misogynistic, tribal patriarchy. Full on. And it is not even subtle.

Stop the presses!

[doogles]

I don't think we have to "stop the presses" as TheVat suggests, because what Hyksos has said is virtually the nature of the 'spin' that the Old Testament put on a number of its 'teachings'.

At least, that's the way I see it. And I also perceive that modern-day Christians regard many of those Old Testament teachings as being outdated. The Old-Testament-Support-Group (Jehovah's Witnesses) may be an exception to that statement.

(Before anybody organises a lynch mob against me, I have to say that the Old Testament in my opinion was a very useful guide in its time for people who wanted working hypotheses for where we came from, where we would finish up, for general guidelines on daily living and ethics, for medical and veterinary and agricultural advice, and many other pieces of advice on daily living practices).

But that 'spin' to my mind is totally different from the 'spin' of the New Testament.

I think Hyksos would agree to exclude the New Testament from his generic use of the word 'Bible' if he has a re-think about his last posting. The New Testament does not have anything in the nature of "racist, misogynistic or tribal patriarchy" in its historical presentation. On the contrary, Jesus of Nazareth preached a philosophy of 'love', rather than of hate or prejudice. I say this as an objective statement after being probably only one of a handful of atheists who have read the Bible from one end to the other, word for word.

I've supported Hyksos in my statement of dislike of many of the tenets espoused in the Old Testament.

I used it as one of my few objections to multiculturalism. I take umbrage to people who espouse those sections of the Old Testament of the Bible that support 'racist, misogynistic or tribal patriarchy'.

I also have objections to a multiculturalism that includes people who support the numerous passages of the Q'ran that exhort followers to use violence against non-believers or to treat women as subserviant beings.

[Forest_Dump]

I suspect a lot of people have changed their views and opinions in the last few thousand years. Perhaps not everyone but most. I suspect that if you could go back to Old Testament times and travel the world you would find very few people, if any, who thought like we do today.

[TheVat]

I don't think we have to "stop the presses" as TheVat suggests, because what Hyksos has said is virtually the nature of the 'spin' that the Old Testament put on a number of its 'teachings'.

In the US, the phrase is an ironic (and humorous) way of saying that a statement is a truth widely known. It comes from the newspaper industry, when a sudden breaking story emerges and the press machines need to be stopped and new plates inserted. So, again, meant ironically. Will comment more later - am busy this morning.

[doogles]

It's okay TheVat. From the age of about 10 in the 1940s I used to go to the picture theatres with my brother about 4 nights a week.

There were many films centred around 'Reporters' and the hectic daily production of newspapers. Every reporter was hoping for that 'scoop' that would 'Stop the presses!'.

Newspapers were our main sources of news in those days. I delivered morning papers and afternoon papers in our suburb. Although Melbourne had a population of less than a million, we had three separate morning papers and one evening paper. The business was highly competitive.

We were too poor to possess an alarm clock, and my brother and I had to be at the newspaper shop by 5.00 AM each morning. So we would head off whenever we thought it was somewhere near the time. Judging by the length of time we spent sitting on the front step of the shop waiting for the delivery truck to arrive, I'll swear that we must have got there by three AM some mornings.

Your use of the term brought back many quaint old memories. But I misinterpreted your use of it on this occasion to mean that 'our members should prepare themselves for some hot debates or arguments on multiculturalism'. I didn't have any problems with what Hyksos said about the Old Testament, so simply replied that they wouldn't have to 'Stop the Presses' on this occasion.

I must say that I'm personally in favour of the way multiculturalism has progressed in Australia since WW11.

I believe we are a better nation because of it. I've mentioned my two main concerns about people who bring the hateful and bigoted aspects of their cultures with them.

.

[hyksos]

World War Eleven. That's a lot of wars in Australia. ;)

[hyksos]

I suspect a lot of people have changed their views and opinions in the last few thousand years. Perhaps not everyone but most. I suspect that if you could go back to Old Testament times and travel the world you would find very few people, if any, who thought like we do today.

If we 'round off' and single out the year 1960 as the watershed era where all states repealed their miscegenation and cohabitation laws --- then this thing called multiculturalism is about 59 years old. Literally. At least in the United States.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

I don't know when this arc of the moral universe began. Was it the Civil War in 1861? After the civil war, the USA began a massive ethnic cleansing campaign in the unsettled portions of the west.

It seems to me this should be seen in a larger context of on-going colonization by European powers in many places. How did other "colonized" places eliminate slavery and interact with indigenous populations?

[Lomax]

It seems like there's a confusion between multiculturalism and multiracialism in this thread. "Black" isn't a culture, for example. "Miscegenation" refers to racial (or better still, ethnic) mixing, regardless of whether the lovers have different cultures.

The multiracial question is easy, and the arc of history does seem to favour the rights of Native Americans, Africa-Americans et al to live on American land. The multicultural question is more challenging - if a majority of Native Americans did not wish to live by the Constitution, how would the rest of America respond? Famously, a German judge in 2007 denied a woman the right to divorce her abusive lover, citing the reason that misogyny is a part of the Moroccan-Islamic culture whence the couple came. In my home-town, some people lament the fact that Asian Islamic and Sikh residents are not culturally integrated - they live in their own areas, open businesses which tend specifically to their own communities, and have their own community leaders into whose hands the law is often taken. Against this point, there would be a shortage of medical practitioners and culinary diversity if these communities were not present. This is a different question to that of who's white or whatever - and if xenophobes blur the lines between the two questions, that's all the more reason for the rest of us not to repeat that mistake.

[doogles]

I agree with you Lomax. You've elaborated on what I said in my first post here -- "Please do not confuse my favour for multi-racism with multiculturalism." I was too polite to point that out to Hyksos.

I also added that "I like multiculturalism in theory, but I do not like the exhortations to violence, hate, and prejudice contained in the tenets of some cultures. This includes a number of the teachings in the Old Testament of the King James version of the Bible, as well as the Q'ran."

Your mention of the tendency for new migrants eg Sikhs and Asian Muslims to form enclaves has been echoed here in Australia since WWll.

Our Mediterranean immigrants tended to congregate in the same suburbs, but they did integrate within a generation or so into Australian culture. You mentioned the culinary advantages we could have adopted from them. There was a certain arrogant bigotry amongst our own Australians to think that our own culture was the best (my personal opinion). I regret that we did not adopt more of their dances, their social cohesion and their cooking methods.

The Vietnamese boat people of the 70s and 80s also formed their own enclaves initially, but they are integrating well now -- after only two generations.

The Middle Eastern Muslims form their own enclaves here, but unfortunately they still seem to cling to their own hereditary/cultural/politico/religious ways. According to reports from Europe since the 'African mass migration', they are doing the same in every country they settle in. It's difficult to understand why they leave countries in which they have trouble surviving in peace and harmony, and yet they seem reluctant to change their ways when they immigrate. The figures I saw a couple of years ago were that 11 million Muslims had been killed by other Muslims since 1948 -- so much for Islam being 'The Way of Peace'. Apparently there are official groups of people attempting to officially re-interpret the phrases of the Q'ran, but there is a taboo on changing a single word of the 'now-written' word of Allah as espoused verbally to Mahommed by the Angel Gabriel.

I can add one more positive thought about multiculturalism Lomax. Almost every city in the world has a 'Chinatown'. These go back to gold-rush day origins. But wouldn't the cities be missing something if the 'Chinatowns' disappeared?

[Lomax]

Your mention of the tendency for new migrants eg Sikhs and Asian Muslims to form enclaves has been echoed here in Australia since WWll.

I used to live in Australia, of which my father is a citizen, and one thing that baffled me was the tendency of British-born migrants (or "expats", as the doublespeak goes) to form their own communities. "Go visit Manly Bay", he says, "that's where all the Pommies live". What's so appealing about moving to Australia if you can't bear to speak to the Aussies? It's even more bizarre given that we speak what can almost be described as the same first language.

[BadgerJelly]

Your mention of the tendency for new migrants eg Sikhs and Asian Muslims to form enclaves has been echoed here in Australia since WWll.

I used to live in Australia, of which my father is a citizen, and one thing that baffled me was the tendency of British-born migrants (or "expats", as the doublespeak goes) to form their own communities. "Go visit Manly Bay", he says, "that's where all the Pommies live". What's so appealing about moving to Australia if you can't bear to speak to the Aussies? It's even more bizarre given that we speak what can almost be described as the same first language.

People like the idea of exploring and trying something new, yet deny that they are fearful at the same time. There is such a thing as ‘culture shock’ and I’ve seen it take hold a few times. ‘Visiting’ a new country, even spending a few months there, doesn’t compare to ‘living’ there. When that happens, if at all, people are naturally inclined to seek out the familiar - the more so the more alien the circumstances.

Of course, personality is a major factor too. Some thrive on such cultural ‘upheaval’. As for myself I’ve always felt like a bit of an oddball (and many people confirm this feeling) so living in different countries makes me feel ‘at home’ because I am ‘out of place’ ... if that makes sense? Haha!

The US is a curiosity for me. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to have a mooch around there someday.

As for multiculturalism. The world has massively shifted toward a feeling of ‘oneness’ as far as I can tell. People are more aware about the rest of the world than ever before. I don’t think the term ‘racism’ is particularly useful anymore as when it comes to internal conflicts it boils down to general prejudices - in the US it is quite another matter though from what I can tell from the outside.

I grow a little tired of talk about race relations if someone lazily equates the issues in the US to the issues in the UK.

Generally things are looking good to me. We’re just transitioning from an enclosed patriotic world into a broader sense of global identity as ‘humans’ rather than a collection of ‘nations’. This doesn’t necessarily mean diverse cultures will die out and that is part of the reason why many people fiercely guard their current sense of identity closed off from the world rather than enjoying their sense of identity alongside other cultures.

[hyksos]

The degree to which Jesus Christ of Nazareth was attempting to send his message to the entirety of humanity is both controversial and hotly debated among historians. Many historians argue that Jesus was exclusively motivated in reforming the Jews, and only the Jews of Israel. (There is actually a particular passage about lost sheep or what have you. If anyone knows it, chime in). For those of you who like to google-research, this problem among religious historians is called the Universalist Problem. Not all sects of Christianity agree on it, doctrinally.

I wanted to ask a little trivia question to the forum.

In the entirety of the New Testament, how many people, total does Jesus speak to who are gentiles? That is -- how many total people does Jesus speak to who are not officially Jews?

[doogles]

I haven't read anything of the New Testament for decades, so what I have to say is virtually a 'recall of my impressions' of what is printed in the King James version of the Bible.

Firstly, anything that anyone has to say of Jesus has to come from what others of his time have said about him. My impression is that he never wrote a single word on parchment scrolls about anything. I'm inclined to think that he was illiterate. He may have drawn a fish in sand with a stick at one stage, but there are no reported documents written by Jesus.

There is no doubt from the reports of others that he was a powerfull public speaker and maybe, to some extent a 'spiritual healer' (Read ARIGO: THE SURGEON OF THE RUSTY KNIFE for an account of such a person).

My impression from reading the New Testament is that Christianity would never have got off the ground if Paul and Peter had not gone on the Mediterranean talk circuits, entertaining the citizens of all of the Roman-occupied towns with stories of the Good News (Gospel) that a son of God had turned up in Jerusalem with a philosophy of love and altruism, instead of hate, towards ALL humans, including enemies. The other apostles, apart from Peter did not get a mention in any of the reports by others.

Of course, the big break for Christianity was when Constantine adopted it (Apparently for political reasons) as the official religion of Rome c 300 AD.

My impression is that his reported philosophies were aimed UNIVERSALLY. I do not think he cared who was in his audience and that he genuinely regarded all people as equals (at the level of children) in the eyes of his God. There are no records as far as I know about the cultural breakdown of the people who constituted his audiences.

So Hyksos, that's my two cents worth on WHAT HE MAY HAVE HAD IN MIND, and of his target audience, judging FROM MY IMPRESSIONS OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE REPORTED ABOUT HIM.

Like you, I'm intrigued to hear what others have to say about your question.

[Lomax]

I've been wracking my hemispheres to see if I can answer this question without the aid of Google. Of course most of his conversations take place on Israeli soil and not with the occupying Roman soldiers; some historians and theologians argue that the "neighbour" in "love thy neighbour" refers to "thy fellow Jew"; and he doesn't appear to have travelled far, notwithstanding going to the desert. If we really stretch the meaning of "person" we can say he speaks to God at least twice (once in the desert, once while bearing the cross), to Satan at least once (in the desert) and to the fig tree he curses. Without stretching the definition I can't think of any examples. But I'm far from a Biblical scholar.

[hyksos]

The Biblical historians have discussed, debated, chewed up, translated and worked this piece of meat to its completion. And the historians have reached a definitive and non-controversial conclusion :

Jesus Christ of Nazareth was speaking only to Jews.

The universalist approach... ya know the whole Take-the-message-to-the-gentiles thing... that whole ball of wax. All of that came from Paul of Tarsus.

So I am aware fully aware that what I just typed there does not coincide with the smalltown Jesus cults of Appalachia and the Bible Belt. It is both unanimously understood and un-debated among actual historians.

[hyksos]

I've been wracking my hemispheres to see if I can answer this question without the aid of Google. Of course most of his conversations take place on Israeli soil and not with the occupying Roman soldiers; some historians and theologians argue that the "neighbour" in "love thy neighbour" refers to "thy fellow Jew"; and he doesn't appear to have travelled far, notwithstanding going to the desert. If we really stretch the meaning of "person" we can say he speaks to God at least twice (once in the desert, once while bearing the cross), to Satan at least once (in the desert) and to the fig tree he curses. Without stretching the definition I can't think of any examples. But I'm far from a Biblical scholar.

We might ask a trivia question. In the entirety of the New Testament , how many people, total does Jesus speak to directly who are gentiles? Or in other words, how many people does Jesus speak to directly who are not Jews living in Israel? The answer is two. 1 The Canaanite gentile woman mentioned above. 2 Pontius Pilate. Absolutely everyone else that Jesus speaks to in all the gospels were Jews living in Israel.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=35338

[doogles]

I'm having trouble understanding the importance of this thread. I must be missing a point somewhere. There seems to be a debate about whether Jesus was espousing a message to all mankind or just to his fellow Jews. Have I got that correct? If so, does it matter who actually listened to what he had to say and who ran with that message?

This sentence in your previous thread Hyksos, seems to be saying that because those people who attended his talks were mainly Jews, then his messages were aimed at Jews only -- "We might ask a trivia question. In the entirety of the New Testament , how many people, total does Jesus speak to directly who are gentiles? Or in other words, how many people does Jesus speak to directly who are not Jews living in Israel? The answer is two. 1 The Canaanite gentile woman mentioned above. 2 Pontius Pilate. Absolutely everyone else that Jesus speaks to in all the gospels were Jews living in Israel."

As I said in a previous post, someone would have had to do a census of the people in the crowds of people he spoke to on any given occasion (and there are no such figures), but because he never left Israel, one would have to make a guess that by far the majority of his audiences were Jewish. Because his audiences were mostly Jewish, it does not logically follow that his messages were for Jews only.

In fact Paul, in particular, and to some extent, Peter, were both around in his time, and they had NO problems relating Jesus' messages to the rest of the Mediterranean world as if his messages were aimed at all Mankind.

I can't personally understand why there is a dispute anywhere, of any kind, about such an issue.

[toucana]

If you wish to rely upon the text of the holy bible as a relevant historical source, then you might do worse than to consult the Book of Acts - Chapter 2 v.6-11, which deals with the events on the morning of Pentecost (the 50th day after the Passover last supper) when the holy spirit of God descended on the heads of the disciples, and they began to speak in tongues:-

6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitudes came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold are not all these that speak Galileans ?

8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born ?

9. Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and in Cappodocia, in Pontus and Asia.

10. Phrygia, and Pamphilia in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.

11. Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful words of God.

Sounds like a pretty multicultural form of messaging to me.

[hyksos]

doogles ---

The Canaanite woman falls at Jesus's feet sobbing. He ignores her outright. He tells his apostles that he is sent to earth only for "The lost sheep of Israel." Then he doubles down and compares foreigners to dogs eating scraps off their master's table. Seriously. Matthew chapter 15.

[hyksos]

toucana ---

You moved the goalpost. The question at hand is whether Jesus was preaching to all gentiles, or just the Jews.

I didn't make any claims about the book of Acts or about Paul of Tarsus taking his epistles to the Greeks.

If you wish to rely upon the text of the holy bible as a relevant historical source,

At least temporarily, yes. Because we are going to fully concede to the religious sensitivities of the hordes of millions of Christians in OECD countries who do take the New Testament as historical documentation. Even when such a concession is in-effect, do we perceive clearly a multicultural message? We do not, at least from Jesus we do not.

The argument at hand, is that what happened in the concentration camps run by NAZI Germany will not happen again because Americans are "good Christians who follow the Bible" --and that somehow that inoculates them from committing such crimes. Or that it inoculates them from racism, generally. That book -- the Bible -- does no such thing.

[Lomax]

The argument at hand, is that what happened in the concentration camps run by NAZI Germany will not happen again because Americans are "good Christians who follow the Bible" --and that somehow that inoculates them from committing such crimes. Or that it inoculates them from racism, generally. That book -- the Bible -- does no such thing.

That's a much simpler question. They wore "Gott Mit Uns" on their belts; they kept bibles by their beds. Their first open deal was a concordat with the Catholic Church, which later helped many of them escape Europe unpunished for their crimes. They had the support of Father Tiso in Slovakia and the Ustashe in Croatia. Their party platform stated that their movement "represents the standpoint of Positive Christianity". Their leader promoted "Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of racial and political life". We need not be theologians to answer a question that has been empirically settled by 20th century history.

[toucana]

If you wish to rely upon the text of the holy bible as a relevant historical source,

At least temporarily, yes. Because we are going to fully concede to the religious sensitivities of the hordes of millions of Christians in OECD countries who do take the New Testament as historical documentation. Even when such a concession is in-effect, do we perceive clearly a multicultural message? We do not, at least from Jesus we do not.

The problem here is that according to received Christian teaching, God, Jesus and the holy ghost are essentially one and the same entity (‘ομοούσιον in Greek). That at least is the position of the Nicene creed which is the doctrinal basis of most forms of Christianity in the USA.

If you wish to give even temporary credence to any of the early κοινε Greek sources like Acts that refer to the disciples speaking to the multitudes in tongues on Pentecost, then you presumably also have to give lip-service to the idea that it was Jesus in the form of the holy ghost who was speaking through them to all the peoples of the world.

[hyksos]

I'm going to extend a little more on the opening article.

Miscegenation and cohabitation laws were being rapidly overturned in several states in the USA in the early 1960s. There were conservatives at the time who referred to those rapid changes as "radical leftist progressivism".

I think there might be a hidden Creationist hook buried in this topic. If you believe that homo sapiens were literally created on earth in recent geological history by a divine intervention (not say "intelligently designed" or some such), then it follows from logic that you also believe God created the races too. Now your thinking is a mere stairstep away from a conclusion that goes something like "God created the races to be different and He did not intend for them to co-mingle."

Indeed, racial miscegenation is then considered somehow disobeying God's schemes and intentions.

It is entirely possible that the lawmakers within the United States not only believed this to be literally true, but then went about indoctrinating these beliefs directly into law in their states. One alternative viewpoint is that these laws were part of segregation of black people from white neighborhoods, and thus could be construed as extensions of Jim Crow. I would claim the data contradicts that viewpoint. For example, in Maryland it was illegal for a caucasian to marry a Filipino. The law specifically mentions Filipino, (as well as blacks) seemingly lacking mention of the myriad other races that could be included.