In Defense of Christian Ethnic Homeland Nations
For many today the idea of an “ethnic homeland nation” may seem strange. However, the reality is that the vast majority of nations in world history, and even today, are “ethnic homeland nations”, as defined herein. Denmark is the historic homeland of Danes, Ethiopia is the historic homeland of Ethiopians, and Japan is the historic homeland of Japanese. As Dr. Samuel Huntington observed in his book Who are We?, America itself for most of its history has been a nation for a certain people group, that incorporates within it foreigners who have assimilated into it. This model for the USA has gradually waned though and been replaced by the model of a multicultural global nation. National cohesion as a goal has been replaced by the notion of diversity as a moral imperative for the nation. This model of a multicultural global nation has also been theoretically embraced by various European nations.
The Biblical model for civil governance is the Christian ethnic homeland model and not the multicultural global nation model. Secular humanism and multiculturalism are failures rooted in falsehood. They are a following after the principles of ancient Babel. Needed instead are homelands for each ethnic people in which Biblical Christian principles are the law of each homeland, in a form that may be called Biblical ethnic nationalism. Such ethnic nationalism follows after the example of Old Testament Israel in its moral aspects.
This is not urging ethnically pure homelands (for homelands inevitably and properly have people within them not of the ethnicity of the majority), nor forbidding or prohibiting inter-ethnic and inter-racial marriage, but encouraging homelands for each ethnic people (especially each ethnic people that wants it) so that each ethnic people has a refuge for that ethnic people. Immigration and other policies should allow each homeland to preserve that ethnic group’s dominant status within that homeland, so it can remain that ethnic group’s homeland from generation to generation. History has shown that when an ethnic people lacks a homeland, it is often subject to the abuse of the ethnic group in power. Two more recent examples of abusive treatment were the Tutsi Rwandans in then Hutu-dominated Rwanda, and white farmers in Mugabe’s black-controlled Zimbabwe. (It should be pointed out that President Mugabe has not only heaped abuse upon whites, but upon other blacks outside his own tribe. The Ndebele tribe of Zimbabwe should be allowed a homeland separate from the Shona tribe of President Robert Mugabe.) Furthermore, each ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture, heritage and language, insofar as they are not opposed to Biblical principles. And a homeland for each ethnic people and tribe affords the best mechanism for preservation of these.
Each ethnic people should be allowed a homeland, but Christian ethnic homelands should especially be promoted, because only Biblical Christianity provides true equity, justice, peace and truth. Christianization of nations is not to be forced by military conquest, but by the work of the Holy Spirit working on the hearts and minds of people. And Biblical Christianity finds its advanced and true expression in the doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards. A worthy goal is for each ethnic people and tribe to have its own homeland, and for each such homeland to adhere to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards and to be run accordingly. There is good reason to believe that the Bible promises such as our long-term destiny, to some extent in the “millennium”, and to an even greater extent in the New Earth when Jesus Christ returns.
No ethnic people or tribe should be brow beaten to forego having its own homeland. The liberal politically correct elite would argue Tibetans, Kosovars, Palestinians, and Jews each have a right to a homeland, but would deny such a homeland for white, English-speaking, Christian Americans, labeling the latter idea as racist. We should reject such inconsistent treatment as a devilish impediment to Christian rule and peace.
Nations have the right to pass laws limiting and regulating immigration (most or perhaps all nations in existence today have such laws), stipulating an official national language, making sure that schools in the nation teach their nation’s history and heritage (by all means not to the exclusion of the history of the rest of the world, but with a focus that not each and every other nation gets), etc. And it is our view that all nations have a moral duty to stipulate the reformed Christian faith as the national religion. If it were immoral for a nation to regulate immigration, and a nation like Israel today were to have a totally open borders policy, within a relatively short time it would cease to be a Jewish homeland, for the majority of its citizens would not be Jewish and they would in all likelihood not want Jewish political leaders. And some (and perhaps even many) would want to see the Jews persecuted. But if a nation can limit and regulate its immigration, then it can do so in such a way as to preserve its ethnic, cultural and linguistic dominance in the nation.
What Advocacy for Ethnic Homelands is Not
This advocacy for ethnic homelands is not a defense or support for what many call “kinism”, at least in its more full-blown expressions. Such kinism advocates for prohibition of inter-ethnic marriage, including among Christian believers. No nation or state has the right to separate or nullify what God has joined together, and scripture is abundantly clear that a male and female Christian married to one another, even if they be of different ethnicities or races, constitute a legitimate marriage, and may not be nullified by man on erroneous grounds. Articles addressing kinism can be found at http://www.puritans.net/news/kinism072111.htm and http://www.puritans.net/news/kinism081711.htm .
Advocacy for ethnic homelands is a form of ethnic nationalism, but it does not mean approval all forms of ethnic nationalism. Clearly, there are many ways in history that ethnic nationalism has been taken to a sinful degree, such as was the case with Hitler’s Nazi fascism.
This advocacy for ethnic homelands is not a defense or support for what has historically been called “segregationism”, which advocates an absolute segregation of the races or ethnicities. There simply was not such absolute segregationism in ancient Israel, nor should there be in Christian commonwealths today. While Biblical ethnic nationalism advocates ethnic homelands, it rejects absolute segregationist models. To the extent the old South African apartheid system tended towards absolute racial segregation, it was objectionable. See http://www.puritans.net/what-should-we-think-of-the-old-south-african-apartheid-system/ .
The Rationale for Ethnic Homelands
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee shows from scripture at http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf why ethnic homelands (in which a nation is designed to be a homeland for a particular ethnic people) are and inevitably always will be the case. America has not been a counter-example to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee’s thesis, but an example of it, for historically America has had a dominant ethnicity (white, English-speaking, Christian Americans), and historically America has been a homeland for this people. Dr. Samuel Huntington ably demonstrates this in his book Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. He also ably demonstrates that in recent decades there has been a growing lack of assimilation to the dominant historic American culture, which will have a likely fracturing effect, since nations without a dominant ethnic identity cannot successfully hold together over the long term.
A proper treatment of this topic must begin with a consideration of the meaning of the term “nation” in scripture. What does the term “nation” in scripture commonly mean and imply, such as starting with the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (“These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood”)? In the sense that even as Gentiles we are part of the ‘holy nation’ of the Church (spiritual Israel), is that not because we by God’s grace have chosen to have Abraham as our father in a spiritual sense? If we focus upon the use of the term ‘nation’ in the political sense, and as the term may bear upon political philosophy, does not the term “nation”, especially when used in a political sense, commonly imply a certain dominant (notice I use the word dominant and not pure) common ethnic heritage (as well as culture, religion, and language)? For instance, was not one common dominant feature of the political nation of Israel is that it consisted of those who had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their biological ancestors and/or wanted to assimilate into that people that did (eg, Ruth, Uriah)? (Or in contrast, not having descendants of Javan and those who had no desire or interest in assimilating into the people descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Historically speaking (including scriptural history) gold and silver have generally been used as money, just as historically speaking (including scriptural history), a nation in the political sense (excepting empires) has generally been characterized by a dominant common ethnic heritage and those who have sought to assimilate into that dominant group. It is not a sin not to follow these historical norms, but those that have tried in history not to follow these historical norms have often ended up having some significant problems and ended up returning to the historical norms.
In addition, if all manifestations of tribalism are sinful and pagan, is it not odd that God chose to organize His people – the 12 Tribes of Israel- at least for centuries both internally and externally- ethnically and tribally? Was not Old Testament Israel a homeland for ethnic Jews, even as it is today? This alone is sufficient argument against those that denounce all forms of ethnic nationalism as sinful.
In addition, passages like Revelation 21:24 (“And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.”) suggest that our eschatological destiny is to be many nations under one King Jesus and not one nation (in a political or tribal sense) under one King Jesus. In other words, Christianity makes it possible for the nations to live in peace and love (and, yes, inter-marry, when they want), but not to obliterate all tribal manifestations (see also Isaiah 19:21-25). Regarding the non-theoretical aspects of this, the nations of Europe can co-exist on far better terms as separate nations, rather than trying to get Europe to become one political nation. The result of trying to do the latter could be what has happened to Yugoslavia in the last 20 years (civil war leading to break up). Also, the Rwandan genocide perhaps could have been avoided if Tutsis and Hutus had their own separate nations, rather than fighting each other to dominate one nation. A good case study in tribalism among professing Protestant people is the relation of England and the Netherlands over the last 400 years (including the Anglo-Dutch Wars). God has not erased human tribalism in the New Covenant, and there are dangers in assuming human tribalism can be erased in establishing nations.
Some Christians suggest that it is wrong for a civil government to limit and regulate foreign immigration (on ethnic tribal considerations) on the basis of such passages as Leviticus 19:34 (“[But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.”) But this argument ignores that there were God ordained laws in Israel that had the effect of preserving ethnic tribal dominance of a certain territory, such as Leviticus 25:10 (“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”) Commenting upon this verse, Matthew Henry writes: “That the distinction of tribes should be kept up; for, though a man might purchase lands in another tribe, yet he could not retain them longer than till the year of jubilee, and then they would revert of course.” I point this out not to suggest Israel’s tribal land laws in the Old Testament judicial law are binding today, but rather to point out the Biblical propriety of laws which preserve the ethnic tribal control over a certain territory. I would further argue that such laws have the effect of improving relations among the tribes of mankind (including God’s people), because they were not threatened that a foreign tribe (whether Israelite or non-Israelite) was going to dispossess them of a tribal homeland state under their control. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that it is proper for nations to maintain “hedges”, and it is a judgment of God when they lack them.
If the response back is that Leviticus 25:10 was put in place solely for messianic purposes, then that has to be proved. I myself doubt that was the *only* reason for such laws, because 1) the effect could have been accomplished in other ways 2) mankind has historically (including in scriptural history) organized politically along tribal principles (this is not unique to the Jews – see Genesis 10,etc) 3) there are various verses in scripture which support that a tribal nation’s territorial integrity should be respected (eg, see Moses’ request to pass through the land of Edom), and it would seem a tribal nation would not have to surrender its territorial control to another tribe just because a lot of people from another tribe want to immigrate into it. I am not persuaded either that many will not want to immigrate in so long as there are no extravagant government welfare programs. If a tribal nation is sitting on oil or gold (just to take some examples), history shows a lot of foreigners would like to move in and take over the land (regardless of their government welfare programs). Hawaii did not have many welfare programs, but the USA and Dole saw fit to get a lot of the Hawaiians’ land (it grows great pineapples) and then take over their territory. (This was done by professing Christians by the way, for those who believe mankind has outgrown tribalism via Christianity. I am sorry, but I do not buy that tribalism is a thing of the past or ever will be. The NAACP, La Raza, etc etc tell me otherwise. The wise approach is to constrain tribalism within Biblical principles (as ancient Israel did), not to try to pretend tribalism can be erased.) For info on the Hawaiian takeover, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii .
Furthermore, even foreigners converted to the Hebrew religion and admitted into the Old Testament Jewish church did not necessarily attain civil citizenship in Israel, with all of its civil privileges. A relevant quote from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming on this matter of strangers in Israel is as follows: “In respect of members; for, as Mr Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of proselytes who had the name of Proselyti Justitice.1 They were initiated into the Jewish religion by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and they were allowed not only to worship God apart by themselves, but also to come into the church and congregation of Israel, and to be called by the name of Jews,—nevertheless they were restrained and secluded from dignities, magistracies and preferments in the Jewish republic, and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites, even as strangers initiated and associated into the church of Rome have not therefore the privilege of Roman citizens. Thus Mr Selden, who hath thereby made it manifest that there was a distinction of the Jewish church and Jewish state, because those proselytes, being embodied into the Jewish church as church members, and having a right to communicate in the holy ordinances among the rest of the people of God, yet were not properly members of the Jewish state, nor admitted to civil privileges; whence it is also that the names of Jews and proselytes were used distinctly, Acts ii. 10.” So American theonomists like Gary North and Gary DeMar that allege immigration laws on the basis of ethnicity are illegitimate are without Biblical support. Furthermore, the basis for many American theonomic arguments are contrary to the sound Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards relating to the Israelite judicial law.
Finally, many American Christians support a Jewish homeland nation (ie, Israel) but seem to believe that Western nations have a responsibility to open borders and no right to a homeland dominated by a certain ethnic group (whether English, Dutch, French, German, Irish, etc.). But the Society believes the following have a right to homeland nations alongside Jewish people: French, Mexicans, Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, Americans (as that latter term has historically been defined), etc. In order to have a homeland nation, that means there must be territorial rights so as to preserve the homeland as a homeland nation dominated by a certain people. If every Arab or African that wanted to enter Israel and become an Israeli citizen were allowed to do so, then the Jewish homeland would soon cease to exist. (And the same can equally be said of the French homeland, Mexican homeland, Japanese homeland, American homeland, etc.) In scripture such barriers to entry by foreigners are called “hedges”. eg, “Why hast thou [then] broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her?” (Psalm 80:12) It is a divine judgment if a nation loses her hedges (which is only one sign of the divine Americans. The Church should be clear not only that every nation has a duty to be explicitly Biblical Christian, but also that every nation has a right to hedges to protect itself as a homeland for whichever ethnic people dominates it and to judgment on America, which to a great degree has lost control of her borders and is essentially legalizing illegal immigrants). So the point is this: what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Jews have a right to a homeland; so do respect the territorial sovereignty of other nations. (The very term ‘nation’ in scripture carries with it the concept of a people dominated by a certain ethnic heritage and culture.) Too many Christians have bought into politically correct ideas that say a nation has a moral responsibility to open borders. Such politically correct ideas are foolhardy and un-scriptural. The reality is that people tend to be self-segregating, even though they sometimes do not want to acknowledge this in order to conform to politically correct norms. One recent illustration of this is reported in the article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269058/British-families-self-segregate-whites-abandon-urban-areas-countryside.html . It is time that modern politically correct ideas are recognized for what they are: un-Biblical and unrealistic.
The Solemn League and Covenant
The Solemn League and Covenant was entered into by three separate ethnic homeland nations, that of the Scots, the English, and the Irish. They covenanted to serve Jesus Christ according to the Biblical principles that would be formulated in the Westminster Standards. In so doing, they did not merge into one united nation, but rather preserved their separate ethnic homeland nations, while joining in a common covenant to God. The nations of the earth today should follow this pattern and model. Historically speaking, in the context of Scotland, it was the conservative Presbyterians (“Covenanters”) who argued most vociferously for a separate ethnic homeland for the Scots and the idea of ethnic homeland nations, whereas the more “moderate” elements in the Church of Scotland supported union with England and dissolution of separate national status. Professor Christopher Whatley, of Dundee University’s history department, has documented this in his book called The Scots and the Union. (see http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/nationalist-hero-who-was-really-a-union-man-1-540579 ). Lord Belhaven of Scotland voiced this conservative sentiment, which really represented the view of most Scots at the time, in his famous speech against the Act of Union. Here is a brief excerpt from that speech:
“…I think I see a free and independent Kingdom delivering up that, which all the World hath been fighting for since the Days of Nimrod; yea, that for which most of all the Empires, Kingdoms, States, Principalities, and Dukedoms of Europe, are at this time engaged in the most bloody and cruel Wars that ever were, to wit, a Power to manage their own Affairs by themselves, without the Assistance and Counsel of any other. I think I see a national Church, founded upon a Rock, secured by a Claim of Right, hedged and fenced about, by the strictest and most pointed, legal Sanction that Sovereignty could contrive, voluntarily descending into a Plain, upon an equal Level with Jews, Papists, Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, &c…” (see http://cranntara.org.uk/belhave.htm )
The trend of the last 30 years has been in the direction of more ethnic homeland nationhood, not less. For example, consider how the Soviet Union broke up into the ethnic homelands of Armenia, Georgia, etc. And consider how Yugoslavia broke up into Serbia, Croatia, etc. And consider how the Germans have united in one nation but Czechoslovakia broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Also Sudan is breaking up along tribal and religious lines. And even notice the movement in the UK away from the United aspect. The effects of trying to have such disparate nations as Greece and Germany in one economic union are being felt in the current EU economic fiasco. Syria is breaking up by ethnicity, as is Iraq. Libya is breaking up along tribal lines. And the list goes on. Even the USA, that great bastion of a multicultural “global nation”, is showing signs of fracturing. This modern trend in some respect is part of that great historical trajectory away from the ancient humanistic Babel to the future world of Christian ethnic homeland nations.
The Negative Consequences of Rejecting Ethnic Homelands
A flawed multicultural policy like the USA (and many other Western nations) has can eventually lead to terrible civil strife to disentangle what was created, worse even than what Yugoslavia has experienced in its post-communist era. Another concern is that eventually in response to the mess created, there might be a 180 degree pendulum swing to something that insists upon racial or ethnic purity within a nation (“ethnic cleansing”), which will also be misguided and wrong. It seems that the policy of the USA since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is misguided, running contrary to Biblical principles of prudence. It is not an orderly process of assimilation of foreigners so as to preserve national cohesion.
The article at http://www.puritans.net/news/crisis033011.htm discusses the crisis of national identity that the USA now faces, especially from Mexico, among the many other problems of the USA.
Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
Two Erroneous Extremes
American Christians are tending to two un-Biblical extremes: one that takes ethnic nationalism to un-Biblical extreme (either kinism or absolute segregationism) and one that regards all manifestations of ethnic nationalism (and organizing political states along ethnic homeland principles) as sinful and pagan. Can either of these two extremes be Biblically supported? It is not sinful not to organize nations along ethnic homeland lines, just as it is not sinful if a nation does not use gold and silver as its currency. But in both cases, people should be aware that they are straying from the scriptural and historical norm, and they should not be surprised if problems arise because there are some very practical reasons why they have been scriptural and historical norms. One problem that arises is that some then in reaction take ethnic nationalism to an un-Biblical extreme (such as the kinists are doing). Both Plymouth Colony of the English Pilgrims and Jamestown Colony were essentially forms of ethnic homeland societies, *but* the Pilgrims humanly speaking would not have survived without the Indians like Squanto that settled with them and advised them (becoming an integral part of their society), and John Rolfe’s marriage to Pocahontas was of great value to Jamestown. And Old Testament Israel (which was an ethnic homeland for the Jews) would not have fared so well without the help and inclusion of Rahab and her family. Just to be clear, religion (more specifically, the reformed Christian faith) trumps ethnicity. But we must caution against an un-due aversion to all manifestations of political ethnic nationalism, which is such in vogue among the Western (esp American) intelligentsia, and in some respects has been imbibed by the American evangelical community, based upon a mis-interpretation of verses like Galatians 3:28. Galatians 3:28 is not intended to prohibit all distinctions between males and females, nor to prohibit all manifestations of political tribalism and ethnic nationalism.
It goes against the grain of scriptural principles to mark one congregation for one ethnicity and another congregation for another ethnicity. Squanto, living in Plymouth Colony, should be welcomed in the congregation in Plymouth, not have to walk miles to an Indian church. (And there should be one worldwide visible reformed church, consisting of the synods from each nation.) But when it comes to organizing political nations, I would argue (again, I am speaking practically, not because I believe this is a matter of Biblical command) having publicly labeled ethnic homeland nations actually helps inter-ethnic relations, rather than hurting such relations. If a nation labels itself Greece, because it will be dominated by Greek ethnicity, culture, language, etc, or Navaho, because it will be dominated by Navaho ethnicity, culture, language, etc., then it is not threatening if a non-Greek or non-Navaho family moves in, because it will be understood they will assimilate into that heritage, culture, language, etc. (“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.) On the other hand, when a nation takes a multicultural approach, then foreigners that move in can become much more of a perceived threat or even an actual threat. Is the culture, language, etc. of this place up for grabs to the tribal group that gets the political upper hand or increases most in numbers? If Rwanda had been split between a Hutu-dominated nation and a Tutsi-dominated nation, would the genocide have been less likely? Now that Bosnian Serbs have a separate political enclave they dominate from Bosniacs, has that not reduced the fighting between the two? Would splitting Belgium into two not actually help relations between the Flemish and Walloons?
A Summary of Recommended Principles
Summarily stated, here are some of the leading principles of the Society:
1. It has been the historical norm that nations have been organized along ethnic nationalist principles (Genesis 10), and this historical norm remains a prudent approach to political organization, so long as it is done consistent with Biblical principles. When each people has its own homeland nation, there is less likelihood of abusive and unjust treatment. Even when some are an ethnic minority in one nation, it is prudent that they have a homeland nation to which to flee if the majority people in their own nation becomes abusive.
2. It is our eschatological destiny that nations will be Biblically Christian and politically organized along ethnic nationalist principles (Isaiah 19:21-25, Matthew 28:19-20, Revelation 21:24).
3. Biblical ethnic nationalist principles mean a political nation is dominated by a particular ethnic people, but it does not mean it is “racially/ethnically pure”, as is abundantly clear in the case with the ancient Israelites. It consisted of those who had Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their biological ancestors, but also had those of other ethnicities that wanted to assimilate into that people (eg, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah).
4. It is the right of every ethnic homeland nation to enforce immigration laws which allow that people to remain the dominant people in their homeland nation.
5. Christ’s visible church should be united around the world according to Presbyterian principles outlined in the original Westminster Standards, without respect to ethnicity.
6. No person ought to be excluded from membership or officership, treated in a second class manner, or treated as unwelcome to attend or join any Christian congregation, simply on the basis of that person’s ethnicity or race.
7. Full-blown “kinism”, which seems to advocate for civil governments to outlaw marriage between people of two different ethnicities though they both be Christians, is erroneous, whereas the Bible teaches that what God has joined together, let not man put asunder, and many Biblical saints rightfully married outside their ethnic tribe (Joseph, Moses, Boaz, Bathsheba, etc.).
8. Nazism, that calls for racially and ethnically pure nations, is contrary to sound scriptural doctrine and in reality is impossible to implement, but disastrous when tried.
9. Imperialism, which generally amounts to one tribal people lording it over other tribal peoples in unjust ways, and improperly disrespects the national sovereignty rights of other ethnic peoples, is misguided. This is distinct from the reality that nations will vary in strength, and those nations that are stronger will exert more international power than those that are weaker, especially in their regional neighborhood.
10. Tribalism or ethnical nationalism, if Biblically expressed, is a natural and non-sinful characteristic of mankind, but ethnic nationalism can take on sinful manifestations, and the sinful manifestations should be condemned and rejected, but not tribalism or ethnic nationalism itself. Efforts to erase tribalism and ethnic nationalism will not succeed, and such efforts generally make matters worse.
A Recommended Plan of Action
We should promote Christian ethnic homeland solutions which we believe will help address many modern societal ills. We are already witnessing the growing problems of multiculturalism in the West in general and in the USA in particular. There is a good reason to fear that the situation in the USA could evolve into a situation like Yugoslavia experienced during its break up and civil war. We believe a much better resolution to such is described in the article at http://www.puritans.net/articles/plan.htm , as well as in the booklet entitled “A Plan for Peaceful Partition”. The Society has also made available a 2-page tract which summarizes the booklet. The tract is intended to be distributed more widely, directing people to the booklet itself.