Monsignor Glenn on race-mixing

[Perun]

Building a nation on religion is artificial

If you mean by religion alone, then yes. But thats never's been the case. What I was saying that in certain cases(where the ethnic groups in question are very similar) religion has often taken a more central role. Since the ethnic groups in question are very similar, to base ones identity largely on that element would not make much sense.

[Milesian]

Perhaps we could build it around the Cult of Atheism, that might work

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Perhaps we could build it around the Cult of Atheism, that might work

Yeah well even secular based nationalisms have had to rely on quasi-religious elements. No matter how you look at it, religion and nationalism are inseperable in many ways.

[Nerthus]

Of course there are cultural differences between the North and the South. And of course this is the case of many other countries as well. It's a regional thing. But from there, to creating new nations is a long way. No matter how many Bavarians will think they should separate, I still find it a bad idea. It is divisive, it is conflictual. They are all Germans even if different in faith, besides there are Roman Catholics in the North as well. Should they feel the need to divide as well, this would only cause chaos.

[Perun]

Well Bayerisches, Im not German so I cannot say whether or not Bavaria should seperate. If the Bavarian people decided they should, then I will respect their decision.

The most I can do is give a comparison of a similar conflict between Eastern and Western Ukrainians. Eastern Ukrainians are largely more prone to seeing themselves as Russians while Western Ukrainians(mostly Galicians) are more nationalistic. And one problem that faced Ukrainian nationalism(and still does even today) is bridging a gap between the two factions. Even the nationalism among Eastern Ukrainians is often of a different nature than Western Ukrainians. And one major difference is religion: wheras the Eastern Ukrainian identity(which tends to be more Russophile) is based on the Orthodox faith while the Western Ukrainian identity(which is more nationalistic and Europhile) is based on the Byzantine Catholic faith. Indeed one book Ive meaning to read on this topic is Paul R Magocsi's The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism : Galicia As Ukraine's Piedmont.

Naturally, as a Byzantine Catholic and of Galician descent, my views fall more towards the Western Ukrainian perspective.

[Awar]

It's THE most perfect way to create a bunch of useless little religious nation-states which are
bound to eventually become prey to larger states, especially those who are focused on their own functionality, rather than romantic goals.

IMO, a government must only be functional, providing the basis for life, and a set of standards which provide functionality.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Perun

Naturally, as a Byzantine Catholic and of Galician descent, my views fall more towards the Western Ukrainian perspective.

Which translates to a bunch of useless conflicts and wars between brethren,
which in turn provide a lot of profits for countries which sell weapons,
and neighbours who want a piece of teritory for themselves.

[Perun]

Yeah Awar, whatever! The goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists has always been to bridge the gap with Eastern Ukrainians. You even saw this with the ZUNR uniting with UNR during the revolution.

Even during the last election, it wasnt the Western section that threatened to secede over the results.

[Awar]

LOL!
"Yeah Whatever!"

We're of course talking about the Ukrainian 'nationalists' who
are fighting to become one more lapdog for USA and NATO.

[Perun]

Yes I have criticised that view common among Ukrainian nationalists. Their Europeanism is misplaced.

However, the other choice is to once again be dominated by Russia. And frankly I fail to see how that's really any different.

[Nerthus]

I'd have to agree with Awar here. Besides, what would the outcome be if every nation that wasn't homogenous in faith wanted to separate itself into more nations? More crumbling, which isn't really needed. Especially not when some countries have artificial borders already.

By the way, presently, Bavarian separatism isn't as much religiously based as it is economically. Of course, they also oppose cultural uniormisation. Other arguments they give in favour of separation are the high regional demographics which is comparable to that of other European countries, the fact that Bavaria used to be a state for a long time etc.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Besides, what would the outcome be if every nation that wasn't homogenous in faith wanted to separate itself into more nations?

I'm suspecting that you and Awar are not fully understanding that my argument is explaining a situation that varies according to circumstances. Sometimes religious differences matter more, other times they do not. Not every nation with religious divides turn to conflict, but again it depends. But trying to sweep those differences under the rug very often does not help. Forced unity often leads to more disunity. Usually having a clear majority faith helps in providing more stablity, or the faiths in question have somethin in common: example Catholics and Protestants in Germany can get along better on the common grounds of both being Christians; while Muslims and Hindus in India cannot since they belong to two completely different faiths.

Bridging the religious divide in Ukraine has always been a major goal for Ukrainian nationalists, and the Byzantine Catholic church has often been a staunch advocate of closer ties with the Orthodox. Yet many factions within the Orthodox church(particularly the Russian faction, since the Ukrainophone factions are often eager as well for unity) have tried to derail these attempts.

More crumbling, which isn't really needed. Especially not when some countries have artificial borders already.

It's usually those countries with artifical borders that are most prone to crumbling. In many ways, smaller nations provide better stability than bigger artificial states. Hence the essence of subsidarity.

[Awar]

Any country consists of at least a few different regions,
each region has it's own little quirks, economic advantages and disadvantages,
but, it's actually anti-nationalist for each of such regions to seek its independence.

Even if such a region reaches its independence, it's bound to be short-lived,
or a simple hoax.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Awar

Any country consists of at least a few different regions,
each region has it's own little quirks, economic advantages and disadvantages,

Yes this is quite obvious.

but, it's actually anti-nationalist for each of such regions to seek its independence.

Of course, that's commonly referred to as regionalism.

[daspit]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Love and lust know no racial, cultural or spiritual limits. Rationality does.

But, fact is, as long as people will love and lust, we will see these kind of relationships. While a mixed-race relationship is harmful to one's people, a mixed-faith one is not IMO. At least not to the same extent, if ethnic homogenity is maintained for example.

If mixed-faith marriages are such a problem, one should also ask oneself this - should people of different nations be allowed to marry? Should people pertaining to different social classes be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different political orientations be allowed to marry? Should people who hold different beliefs in general be allowed to marry?

They might be permitted to marry, with the recognition that holding their marriage will be more difficult. But if those different beliefs or circumstances put them at opposite extremes (e.g. a Marxist marrying a monarchist, or a couple from opposite sides of a national war), then a union might become impossible and reason should prohibit it.

The same *may* be true for religion, if the religious beliefs are so opposed (say Hindu and Muslim, or a devout Catholic and an atheist) that a union would be impossible. Most Christians of different denominations do not have that grave opposition, and so a "mixed marriage" is permissible, but there is still the problem of confusion among the children as to which religion they should believe, if any.

[daspit]

Originally Posted by Perun

Religious purity and ethnic purity were one and the same thing to the Hebrews. In fact you see this in many cases where marrying outside the faith equals marrying outside the race. Famous example is Northern Ireland, where marrying a non-Catholic(ie Protestant) more often than not equals marrying a non-Irishman.

Ethnic identity very often becomes heavily tied in with religious identity: you see this with Catholic peoples like the Irish, Italians, Spanish, French, Western Ukrainians, etc. Orthodox peoples like Serbs, Greeks, and Russians. And even Protestant peoples like the English.

Saying that religious purity and ethnic purity were the same among the Hebrews is a bit of a blanket statement. Don't forget the story of the Book of Ruth, in which a Gentile is welcomed into the Jewish community for her loyalty. No nation is completely ethnically pure.