Miscegenation: Morality Versus Prejudice in Societal Terms
Essay Preview: Miscegenation: Morality Versus Prejudice in Societal Terms
Report this essay
MISCEGENATION
Morality versus Prejudice in Societal Terms
RS-360 Foundations of Christian Morality
INSTRUCTOR
SCHOOL
March 7, 2007
Statements that miscegenation destroys every race that practices it are mistaken. In fact, miscegenation or race mixing emphasizes a commitment to compromise and compassion for all humankind. Critics advocate that allies of miscegenation jeopardize religious fundamentals, such as a Christians posterity or a Muslims forgiveness. Critics also challenge the excessive amount of propaganda that favors miscegenation arguing that these tactics of acceptance are intensified by media exposure but not morally acceptable. While it is true that the media exposes a great deal of tolerance for miscegenation and do so within legal boundaries, Christians and Muslims have strong belifes in their faith and opposition on miscegenation. Regardless there are millions of people who deny this opposition and feel that their beliefs and compassion supersede the stance and seek to persuade people to look past their prejudices and consider the broader affect of miscegenation. By do that Americans can display their morals in the true form of freedom, in which collective values, rather than separate interpretations will represent the highest supremacy.
By definition miscegenation is the interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds. It is the cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races.(Webster). miscegenation marriages have a difficult fence to climb, to include prejudice of others and the innate problems of cultural pressure already embedded in a marriage. miscegenation marriages enrich society and thus the parent of birracial children just want what any other parent wants, happiness for their children. Incidentally these children will have the benefit of two cultures and hopefully the strength to stand for their cultural differences and confidence in their moral construct. As a society it is the challenge of Americans to dismiss this prejudice and not reduce morality one single construct, because there is not just one right answer and therefore culturally there is not one morally correct direction in life
On June 12, 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that laws against miscegenation were unconstitutional in the United States of America. Even though the law prohibited miscegenation marriages many people viewed this as a social conflict with religious undertones of the moral foundations of this country. For centuries there have been racist practices directed against people of color and has been an inherent component of American history to include present day American society. As stated by Don McLeese “There was musical miscegenation at a time when segregation was the common rule” ,Therefore, as a society Americans have innate racist attitudes that are entrenched in American culture. There are common cultural differences that breeds prejudice through ignorance and those racial differences are heightened when combined with miscegenation marriages. These common racial differences are a combination of cultural separatism with the added problems of a miscegenation marriage that add up to conflict on personal and societal levels where both partners in the marriage must take a risk and believe in their love and moral construct to withstand the indifference ahead. Moral deeds constantly materialize in every day life, directing almost everything we do. Our moral construct is constantly challenged by societal pressure to follow their guidelines on what is determined morally acceptable and chastising those who do not follow these rules. .
For years now, the leading voices of our cultural world have been telling us that diversity is an unconditional good. Promoting that there could never have too much diversity. Critics of miscengenation disagree commenting that racial and ethnic diversity weaken any groups ability to harmoniously pursue individual and collective goals furhtermore critics suggest that miscengenation agitates social problems like crime, poverty, and unemployment, contues to lead to the suppression of free speech and thought. It is absurd to rationalize this type of thinking, it is not irony that miscegenation is promoted by the very people who advocate diversity, it is the because of bleeivers that we strive for and continue to gain on racial harmony, we do not want racial diversity in the sense of being separate from each other, we advocate for diversity in recognition that everyone is equal regardless of their
skin tone or religious beleifs. It is a beautiful rainbow of love and compassion that miscegenation creats by filling the world in such a colorful array people. Critics want to bleeive that by avoiding miscengerantion the world can maintain a compilation of pure races, But in truth and spirit racial harmony and cohabitation as well as miscengenation is the pure race we are purely children of earth, faith and love, this is Utopia.
There are several Christian references in the Hebrew Bible regarding miscegenation marriage. In 1 Corintians 7:39 and 2 Corithians 6:14-18 Christians are to only marry Christians. Another reference is in Ezra 10:3, the faithful put away their illegitimate wives and children. “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law” (KJV). Although the separated children were partly Jewish, they still were not accepted among the men in Israel because of the strange woman. The child even though being half Jewish did not have the favor and inheritance the child was separated from the community. Coincidently in Numbers 2, Moses married a black (Cushite) lady and God did not rebuke Moses, but rebuked Miriam, who criticized Moses marriage. Therfore, if God did not rebuke Moses it is feasible to expect that man can accept miscegenation. The answers are available and obtainable but the real task is for individuals to take a stand on their
own morals and judge themselves rather than others.
For instance, Israel, theologically and practically, has every right to keep its citizens from having to be inflicted by anti-homogeneity among Arab populations: even by such things as not inviting intimate closeness concerning things like