Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

Originally posted by Honor93
i am not advocating the Plessy v Ferguson decision, however, it was part of history and the movement by the people brought forth change ... not the Federal government.

Brown v Education was an INDIVIDUAL plaintiff (3 of them but individuals all the same) ... change by the people, not a government. The Feds enforce such decisions, not create them.

Whether you believe the federal government enforced such decisions, or merely represented individual citizens, this action lead to the Feds and SCOTUS overruling the rights of States to continue enforcing racial segregation laws. Misoir stated that this issue should have been left to the state, the the Federal government had no business what so ever. A minority of Americans stood up against racial segregation, and the Feds took action on their behalf overruling the rights of states to continue these laws. Your position previously was that States were stil entitled to enforcing these laws, regardless.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Honor93

no, i asked you to present a valid opinion, of which you seem to still be lacking.
so, do you agree or disagree with the church members' decision and why?

I snipped the rest of it because that wasn't what I was commenting on. If you proclaim my opinion to be invalid why should I care about yours? I was originally speaking of Misor's racialist argument which to me makes little sense as all he mentions are nationalities (and the one he mentioned does not exist anymore) therefore his argument makes little sense to me. Nationalities are artificial constructs and cannot be used to identify race as there are multiple races within most nations.

I don't give a damn what some idiotic, backwoods Kentuckians want to do. It's their right to be stupid and it only effects people dumb enough to walk in that church.

edit on 4-12-2011 by antonia because: forgot something

i could care less about your opinion of me, you don't know me and this topic isn't about Me.

it is nice to see you finally addressed the topic, however, if this is true ...

I don't give a damn what some idiotic, backwoods Kentuckians want to do. It's their right to be stupid and it only effects people dumb enough to walk in that church.

then it is a sad world we live in, isn't it?
kinda hard to claim we live in a caring world when no one seems to give a damn now isn't it?

as for Misoir's post, i confess that i stopped reading it after the racialist talk started.
and, i would agree ... race can never be determined by nationality, ever.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

i currently have no opinion about previous intentions. what i will tell you is if you desire an answer, try reading the opinion of the SC who ruled the Plessy v Ferguson case. it's in there.

and last i recall reading it, racism wasn't even mentioned so to answer your question, no, i don't believe it was.

why don't you answer any of my questions ???
like this one, how does racism survive without segregation ?

me thinks you don't even realize what you're typing at this point ...

So then what is the purpose of racial segregation exactly, if it is not of a racist nature?

who said it was? (i can play your game better than you )

who's justifying racial segregation?
a black man wasn't just instrumental as you put it, he was the direct CAUSE of the legislation.
so, in light of that, why don't you ask one of his descendents why racial segregation was necessary ?? i would bet they have far more insight regarding his motivations than i do.

what you think about me has no value to the conversation whatsoever.

well, if the church's rights aren't an issue to you, why on earth is some non-existent racism?

neither the Feds or SCOTUS intervened and if Brown had not, we might still have forced segregation today.

you're speaking nonsense now because the issue has been resolved (or so we think) in the high courts.

no, we're discussing the decision of one private church concerning their congregation.
There is nothing public about the choice they've made.
all of the organizations i listed are classified "private" and most are non-profit (tax sucking) entities, so what's your point other than you're obviously OK with their brand of racism ... check.

no, we're not discussing state mandates ... you might be trying to but that isn't the topic here.
but if you want to discuss state mandates, start a thread with an appropriate topic.

2 states out of how many ??? per obama 57, right?
ooooooh, isn't that a potential deal breaker ... 2 outta 48 ... really?
i suppose residing in any of the other 46 would have been just tooooo difficult, right?

Lincoln abolished slavery ??? isn't that just bitter icing on the cake?
maybe, for a few slaves in even fewer states but yeah, he presented a propaganda piece that the US bought, what's your point ??

you can be mad at them for their industry practices but that isn't the fault of anyone existing today.
perhaps, one day when you get past the blame game and lose some of your own venom, then maybe you can find peace, too.
cheers.
_______________________________________

regarding your next post ... in a closed environment, like a church, individual demands fall to the good of the whole, always has, always will. it's the nature of the beast.

you want to call it mob rule, feel free but in a private structure, don't plan on exerting your rights at the expense of others, cause you'll soon find your feet standing outside the door.

and while i do agree with your statement for the most part ... my individual rights have been trampled by the majority EVERY day of my life ... so, when does that change?
_______________________________________

no, actually the Brown ruling reversed the previous ruling.
well of course SCOTUS made the ruling, who else was qualified?
the Feds took no action whatsoever ... it was a citizen and a citizen committee.

you can keep repeating your nonsense till the cows come home, it isn't gonna change the facts.
my position is still the same ... if Plessy had never occurred, each state could have, should have and would have made their own decision regarding it ... as several already had done.
(thereby retaining States' rights)
sorry you don't understand the concept but really dude, you're simply beating a dead horse at this point.

you will not change my opinion, you cannot invalidate the facts and you can cry about it till the moon flies over a rainbow ... the result is the same.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Let me repeat this to you again. I believe that racists are backwards, they disgust me. You disgust me.

fond of yourself, much?

Does this have anything to do with the thread or the OP? Do you want to actually contribute to the thread, and not derail it? Do you agree with what the church is doing on a personal level? I'm not talking about whether they have the right, I'm talking about whether you agree with how they feel.

You just came across as quite superior, but back to the thread, I support their right to have a Church like this, though wouldn't join it myself.

Different strokes for different folks, be a good idea for a tv show

Originally posted by Honor93
why don't you answer any of my questions ???
like this one, how does racism survive without segregation ?

Your questions have made little relevance to my OP or my previous posts. Regarding your question above, how does racism survive without segregation, racism can be part of a belief, it can come in the form of a law, it can be core value of society. Racism is not necessarily the result of segregation, this was never my position.

who's justifying racial segregation?

You justified the legitimacy of states to enforce racial segregation, above the authority of the Federal Government and SCOTUS. Now as for you personally supporting racial segregation, you claim you do not. But you have spent and aweful lot of time justifying why states should hold this authority.

a black man wasn't just instrumental as you put it, he was the direct CAUSE of the legislation.

Yes, because before this, laws segregating and limiting the freedoms of blacks didn't exist right? If this is what you wish to trot around as fact, that's your choice.

what you think about me has no value to the conversation whatsoever.

You see no value in what I think of people like you? That is absolutely fine. I wouldn't expect you to.

well, if the church's rights aren't an issue to you, why on earth is some non-existent racism?

The Church's rights to do what they did was never an issue, that doesn't mean that I don't take issue with their actions and the mentality in their belief. I posted this thread likewise over my view of their actions, this is a forum after all. You don't believe the actions of this church were racist at all? Even though their decision was to ban this interracial couple based on race? Well yes, that is rather silly to me, but it's your belief.

neither the Feds or SCOTUS intervened

So then the States decided themselves not to enforce racial segregation anylonger? Right. Yes, many people, true americans, stood up in the 50's and 60's for freedom, but it took the Feds and SCOTUS in force to implement that change over the States. The 'stand in the schoolhouse door' incident at the university of Alabama in 63' was a visable example of this.

no, we're discussing the decision of one private church concerning their congregation.
There is nothing public about the choice they've made.
all of the organizations i listed are classified "private" and most are non-profit (tax sucking) entities, so what's your point other than you're obviously OK with their brand of racism

At no time did I make any exceptions for other private and racist organisations. Can you show me where I stated that there were exceptions? Or were you just lying?

2 states out of how many ??? per obama 57, right?

Oh, you're rambling on about Obama now.

Lincoln abolished slavery ??? isn't that just bitter icing on the cake?
maybe, for a few slaves in even fewer states but yeah, he presented a propaganda piece that the US bought, what's your point ??

My previous point was not about Lincoln specifically. It was about the fact that the States at one time refused to end the institution of slavery, and it once again took the actions of the Federal government by force the end of that institution (regardless of what you believe the agenda was behind the Feds).

you want to call it mob rule, feel free but in a private structure, don't plan on exerting your rights at the expense of others,

But you were not discussing a 'private structure' in your previous comment. You were talking about the State and how the majority of the population in those states should have the last say on the rights of individuals in those States. This is where mob rules comes in. The rights of the collective decisions in private organisations or insitutions was, once again, never in question.

well of course SCOTUS made the ruling, who else was qualified?

So then I'll assume you agree with the ruling SCOTUS made now again?

the Feds took no action whatsoever

Above. The 63's university of Alabama incident was an example.

you will not change my opinion

That wasn't even my intention. You'll continue to believe what you believe for many deep and personal reasons. I can't change your mind, you'll need to do so yourself in time.

Originally posted by blueorder
You just came across as quite superior, but back to the thread, I support their right to have a Church like this, though wouldn't join it myself.

Different strokes for different folks, be a good idea for a tv show

I don't question the rights of the Church blueorder. They can ban whom they want. I have plenty to say about what they believe in, and posted my opinions likewise.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by blueorder
You just came across as quite superior, but back to the thread, I support their right to have a Church like this, though wouldn't join it myself.

Different strokes for different folks, be a good idea for a tv show

I don't question the rights of the Church blueorder. They can ban whom they want. I have plenty to say about what they believe in, and posted my opinions likewise.

fair enough

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

yet you have an avatar depicting jesus being buddies with hitler?

not a bigot are ya?

First thing i have to say is thst i am an artist. Second thing i have to say is that picture has norhing whatsoever to do with the thread subject. So, how dos that make me a biggot?

hubby told me one day that he figures god will turn out to look like whatever race you are harboring prejudice against. that seems fittingly ironic.

I don't know if it has been reported in this thread, but:

Kentucky CHurch Overturns Ban on Interracial Couples

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted.

Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes "believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color."

Its just so sad that in this day and age, people still hold these primitive views. I am white, and im not proud of being white, i am proud of being a human being. Its just another way to spread another form of hate, as simple as that. We might be different colours and cultures, but we are all the same, all human.

Its a sad world we live in

Now, back to the topic. Where in there bible does it say that mixed race people should not marry. Is it something they have just made up, just like the kkk made up this white power BS. Its all about hate!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well, this is a surprise... I certainly did not expect that. Maybe it was a change of heart, or maybe they just didn't like the resulting attention of their actions. Either way, good to hear.

It's a private institution...they can let in who they like.
However, they need to waive their government tax exemption seeing as how we the people have told our government that this behavior is unacceptable in general society.
I'm not about to let some extremists preach hate and collect income from members with my government's blessing.

Originally posted by Honor93
then it is a sad world we live in, isn't it?
kinda hard to claim we live in a caring world when no one seems to give a damn now isn't it?

Never claimed we live in a caring world.

Wow,ive never seen that interview with Muhammad Ali on this subject,i think he got the point across quite well as well.
Thanks for sharing Wotaneyed.

I don't really care for religion,but if that's what that church wants to do,then good on them.

Cheers

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth
Wow,ive never seen that interview with Muhammad Ali on this subject,i think he got the point across quite well as well.
Thanks for sharing Wotaneyed.

I don't really care for religion,but if that's what that church wants to do,then good on them.

Cheers

edit on 7-12-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)

I have only loathing for those that would react unfavorably towards a segregated white church yet remain utterly blind and silent to something like the The National Black Catholic Congress. Look at this the "Collective Black People Movement (CBPM)" of Kentucky which even lists the Louisville Chapter of New Black Panther Party. Segregated white churches are too much but the media is hypocritically silent on the CBPM. Maybe everyone should just be legally required to swap children lest they develop a bias for their own. The media excels at social conditioning even when people are aware of the propaganda.

I just watched David Icke interviewing Credo Mutwa ,a black African Zulu leader. During the interview Credo expresses confusion at how African blacks repeatedly betrayed themselves in favor of white colonial power. Credo's people are bringing about their own dissolution through diversity and tolerance much as whites do. This is blamed primarily on reptilians but hey, it is a David Icke video.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

So you're a racist, ok. And I'd assume you also support the idea of letting State governments establish jim crow laws by force over American citizens again as well, since this is where Misoir stands as well. Right.

Did he say anything about that in the post?

That is very funny you know? Because as I recalled, it was the Europeans who, more than any other group, decided to migrate around the world, invading foreign lands, mixing with the natives, establishing countries. Are you American? What the hell are you doing in America? Why are you not back in Europe? If you well and truly believe that people should not be mixing, racial groups should not be mixing, then you shouldn't be out of Europe in the first place, I mean this would make sense given your logic over this matter.

Im talking of present times,but yes your correct.

What is this about mutliculturalism not working? What does this mean? I never understood this argument. Multiculturalism simply stands for a diversity of people living and working together. Multiculturalism has been apart of human civilization for centuries. Multiculturalism doesn't require acceptance of ones culture, it doesn't require equality, all it requires is the right of people of different cultures to live, work and mix among eachother freely. What does it mean that it's not working? Does this mean that because different people of races and cultures, like you, disagree with diversity, we should 'stop' multiculuralism?

Thats right,the difference is that,the multiculturalism im talking about in the present times,is forced,not natural.

How do you intend we 'stop' multiculturalism? Seriously?

Like you said yourself multiculturalism has been happening for a long time,im just talking about preserving culture like everyone else does.

We probably cant,unless a majority of the world agreed to,or whatever nation decides to do it for their country.

Do we deport all the immigrants back to where they came from!? Since you, it ain't working!? Do we segregate all the different cultures? I mean multiculturalism isn't working right? So because it's not working in your eyes what do you suggest?

This forced multiculturalism isnt working,thats right.I mean people get "used" to people over time,it doesnt mean they respect them or necessarily like them though.

When people naturally get along,that works quite well.

Are you kidding me? So have caucasians been in North America since before anybody else? Have caucasians always been in Australia? What about the caucasians in South Africa? Are they native there? The caucasians in Brazil!? Have they always been in Brazil and Argentina as well? Are you serious?

No,i never said any of that.

But tell me,where did white people come from exactly,i would like to know.

Cheers

reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth


I just dont see the problem with muxed cultures. Why cant people realise we are all human. I am from the uk, so
i am used to different cultures livung together with no problems. My wife is chinese and my daughter is half chinese, so it annoys the hell out of me, all this hate. I have been to many places around the world. I have lived and travelled around china, and i imbrace the different cuktures i have cone across.

reply to post by Misoir


I love it when people expose Nanny Statism at its best. Nanny Staters think that they should be the ones to tell everyone how to live their lives.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93

 

But you won't. You can, but you won't. You are not governing yourself. Their memes are.

Fact is, the only way you ever could govern yourself, is if you were born blind, mute, deaf, without taste or smell, and without feeling. Total separation of the real world. But then again, there would be no way to identify the self if we could look into this mind. We don't even know if we would find something bordering reality. This mind may end up creating dozens of personalities and being all of the, and yet not. In fact, this mind would not be governing itself. It would simply be generating rules for which its own reality to exist within.


Don't reply if you wish. I don't actually notice.

edit on 4-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Don't ever use this as a defense of values clarification in schools where the NEA has decided that children must distill their own ideas without the influence of their parents.