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.
The fact that you even ask that question shows we have little common ground here. The simple answer is "all men are created equal." There is no rational basis for treating a white American differently from a black American when determining who gets the franchise. What grounds do you have to the contrary?
A nation is a group of people of common descent.
So, what is America, then? We certainly do not have 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 connection with America in 1776, the white and balck "nations" were not apart in the same manner as, say, Germany and Italy. The two were quite intimately mixed.
In other words, nations have no inherent right to their own self-preservation, and are in fact wrong for attempting anything of the sort.
The American nation includes, and always has included, people from many different ethnic and racial backgrounds. You propose some sort of racialist, segregationist clap-trap more akin to Europe than this country.
Sure it was. It says so right in the first Naturalization Law passed by Congress.
If Congress passed a law saying we are all Martians, I guess in your mind that would make it so. I suppose blacks in this country haven't, in fact, been an integral part of our culture for 400 plus years, in your opinion.
Christianity is objectively true.
No, sorry, it is not. Like any other religion, its truthfullness is wholly subjective. You have no more basis to claim that Christianity is objectively true than an Hindu has to claim that his religion is, in fact, the only correct one.