It is inherently wrong to exclude people legally living within a nation's territory from the franchise based solely on their race. There is no way to make an argument that race or ehtnicity should have any bearing whatsoever on determining whether the legal inhabitants of a nation should have the right to vote.
Slaves were not and could not become citizens of the US, since the US was intended to be a country for white persons only.
Nonsense. America was not an all-white nation when it was formed. Rather, non-white Americans were unjustly excluded from exercising their inalienable rights by the American government up until sometime after the Civil War (or after the Civil Rights Era, depending on where they lived).
The only objective difference is that Christianity is Truth, while Roman Paganism and Islam are demonic falsehood.
You keep using the word "objective" when you should really be using "subjective." But you already know that and are engaging in sophistry.
Well, I disagree with this. The implication is that religion has no material bearing on any other part of life but is purely a private interior matter, therefore it matters not a whit what a man believes, or whether he believes anything at all, and that every man should be free to believe and proselytize any believe he wishes anywhere under any circumstance
Except for the "anywhere under any circumstances part" (clearly, one cannot proselytize on private property or in the middle of a freeway) this statement is correct.
If on the contrary, religion is viewed as mattering a great deal, and being a matter of eternal salvation and damnation, it is quite sensible to punish people with penal sanctions who violate the peace of a community by attacking its religious basis.
People believe a lot of damn fool things. Muslims believe this today, and we rightly call such a belief barbaric. Thankfully, we live in a country that has banned this type of stupidity.
Furthermore, if adhering to the true religion is a matter of eternal salvation, those who attempt to turn people away from it are spiritual murderers, and could reasonably be punished for a crime that is the equivalent of soul-murder.
Of course, everyone believes their religion is the true way, so what you propose is a system where disagreement with the majority= treason. Are you sure you grasp the concept of this nation?
The first view, which you are espousing, leads to the view that those who advocate a religious basis for society must be punished or excluded, because they are a menace to the personal freedom of choice of such a society
Nonsense.
Why?
There is no way to make an argument that race or ehtnicity should have any bearing whatsoever on determining whether the legal inhabitants of a nation should have the right to vote.
A nation is a group of people of common descent. If another group of people of different descent must be included of necessity within its political structures, then you argue that the nation of necessity has no right to define itself and to keep itself apart. In other words, nations have no inherent right to their own self-preservation, and are in fact wrong for attempting anything of the sort.
Nonsense. America was not an all-white nation when it was formed.
Sure it was. It says so right in the first Naturalization Law passed by Congress. Non-whites were not citizens, therefore they were not part of the nation. They might inhabit these shores, but they were not part of the body politic.
Rather, non-white Americans were unjustly excluded from exercising their inalienable rights by the American government up until sometime after the Civil War
America only dissolved the concept of the Asian Exclusion Zone in 1952. You need to extend your "unjust exclusions" quite a bit further than you have.
You keep using the word "objective" when you should really be using "subjective." But you already know that and are engaging in sophistry.
Christianity is objectively true. I am not confused on this at all.
Of course, everyone believes their religion is the true way, so what you propose is a system where disagreement with the majority= treason.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm just explaining why religions have felt that they have a right to execute heretics.
Are you sure you grasp the concept of this nation?
Yes.
Nonsense.
So you say. But every month I see new legal rulings against the religious freedom of Catholics in the pharmacies, in employment, in health care, and elsewhere. The history of oppression of the Amish due to their refusal to religiously assimilate is well known.