| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"That the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does not condone interracial marriage. Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals. All are welcome to our public worship services. This recommendation is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve."
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for interracial marriages, but I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.
Don't get me wrong. I think these guys are a~#!!~@s. However, I also believe that their behavior should be tolerated on the grounds of religious freedom. To take a leaf out of Voltaire's book, I in no way, shape, or form agree with what they are doing, but will defend their right to do it. Having to defend people who's actions we hate is the price of freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey when you are busy trying to push back the clock to the 'good ole days' you have to go all the way. Once we are all back in the late 1800's and very early 1900's you'll see how much better it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I read about this a couple days ago. For the record, nobody had asked the church to perform an interracial wedding.
A girl, a member of the congregation, had shown up with her boyfriend (who happens to be a immigrant from an African country), and they very politely performed a song for the congregation for some occasion or other.
Then, after everybody left, the church came up with this new rule as a means of politely asking the girl not to bring her boyfriend again.
Not quite the same as being "forced" to perform some kind of service or ceremony. And whatever one might think of the church's right to refuse service, or whatever, that really makes no difference in light of their moral and Christian obligations to be above this sort of pettiness.
After all, it is their supposed adherence to those obligations that makes them a "church," and qualifies them for tax exempt status. If they cannot perform to the bare minimum required for such an organization (tolerance), then maybe they should just start up a drive through pay-by-prayer church service, or something useful to the public.
How can Kentucky produce such great whiskey and such terrible people at the same time?
I'd expect this kind of nonsense from Westboro, but really? Really? Banning interracial marriage? Really!?
...I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be...However, I also believe that their behavior should be tolerated on the grounds of religious freedom...
I'm not going to advocate forcing the church to do anything either, but I'm just honestly surprised about the article.
How can Kentucky produce such great whiskey and such terrible people at the same time?
I'd expect this kind of nonsense from Westboro, but really? Really? Banning interracial marriage? Really!?
...I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be...However, I also believe that their behavior should be tolerated on the grounds of religious freedom...I'm not going to advocate forcing the church to do anything either, but I'm just honestly surprised about the article.
I'm shocked by it, too. It's so stupid, I originally saw gay marriage, because that's what I expected. I had to go back and reread the OP to realize they were talking about interracial marriage.
Not quite the same as being "forced" to perform some kind of service or ceremony. And whatever one might think of the church's right to refuse service, or whatever, that really makes no difference in light of their moral and Christian obligations to be above this sort of pettiness.
After all, it is their supposed adherence to those obligations that makes them a "church," and qualifies them for tax exempt status. If they cannot perform to the bare minimum required for such an organization (tolerance), then maybe they should just start up a drive through pay-by-prayer church service, or something useful to the public.
I agree with you in principle, but I also think what you are saying should never, ever become law or official policy. I'm not comfortable with the government deciding what is or is not compliant with a particular religion and therefore tax exempt.
I agree with you in principle, but I also think what you are saying should never, ever become law or official policy. I'm not comfortable with the government deciding what is or is not compliant with a particular religion and therefore tax exempt.Not quite the same as being "forced" to perform some kind of service or ceremony. And whatever one might think of the church's right to refuse service, or whatever, that really makes no difference in light of their moral and Christian obligations to be above this sort of pettiness.
After all, it is their supposed adherence to those obligations that makes them a "church," and qualifies them for tax exempt status. If they cannot perform to the bare minimum required for such an organization (tolerance), then maybe they should just start up a drive through pay-by-prayer church service, or something useful to the public.
That was sarcasm.
Unfortunately, there's really nothing anybody can do about it. At least nothing I am aware of.
I'm all for interracial marriages, but I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.
Don't get me wrong. I think these guys are a#%&%!$s. However, I also believe that their behavior should be tolerated on the grounds of religious freedom. To take a leaf out of Voltaire's book, I in no way, shape, or form agree with what they are doing, but will defend their right to do it. Having to defend people who's actions we hate is the price of freedom.
This.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for interracial marriages, but I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.
However, the point that is missing is the religious basis for their decision. In other words. is this actually a religious practice or a racist practice being dressed up as religion to justify it and shield them from being called racists? Since they had some sort of 'vote' on it and the decision wasn't unanimous - this doesn't sound like a part of their long-held religious canon.
...and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.
Turning a blind eye to injustice has never forwarded the causes of civil rights or equality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just another example of how people can twist their theology in a knot so it matches their preconceptions.
Indeed.
I'm all for interracial marriages, but I am against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Like it or not, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose, and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.However, the point that is missing is the religious basis for their decision. In other words. is this actually a religious practice or a racist practice being dressed up as religion to justify it and shield them from being called racists? Since they had some sort of 'vote' on it and the decision wasn't unanimous - this doesn't sound like a part of their long-held religious canon.
It doesn't matter if it's long held canon or not. Otherwise, Neo-Pagans and Wiccans would be royally screwed. They stated it is their belief. That's what matters, racist or not. I don't like it any more than you, but I believe that letting the law step in would be wrong. Religion does at times espouse racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted beliefs. There is nothing that can be done about that except challenge those beliefs with the same first amendment rights that were used to throw those beliefs out there in the first place.
...and trying to interfere here will cause more trouble than it solves. Just let them be.Turning a blind eye to injustice has never forwarded the causes of civil rights or equality.
Neither has telling a church that they cannot express their first amendment rights. Having something like the first amendment means tolerating a lot of things we'd rather not tolerate for the sake of making sure everybody has the right to espouse their religious beliefs. Just because they are racist douchebags doesn't mean that it is or should be illegal for them to act like it.
Just another example of how people can twist their theology in a knot so it matches their preconceptions.
Yes. I do so hate this practice. It's so common, too. Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported. They we have the old "gays and a bunch of other people are sinners for not following the bible, but we don't have to follow everything in the bible, just what we choose to follow" argument. I have never seen someone who does everything in the bible.
Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported.
Except, of course the part of the Bible that talks about not killing...
Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported.Except, of course the part of the Bible that talks about not killing...
Murdering. Also doesn't go well with a lot of everything else in the same book.
Personally when talking of "Christian Values" and what not I tend to stick to just the four gospels and the book of Acts.
Everything before it is history, and everything after is ancient copies of, "Dear Abby" or bizarre late additions from a supposed prophet.
Why is this news?
Because the civil rights era was 40+ years ago.
Boycotts only work if pseople know why you are boycotting, though.
Just look at most churchs' condemnation of abortion, which is in no way biblically supported.Except, of course the part of the Bible that talks about not killing...
What about the bible's listed punishment for beating a pregnant woman into a miscarriage (a fine paid to the child's father) and the listed punishment for killing the woman during the beating (death)? It would seem that the one that destroys a fetus is considered an economic crime against the father, and the one that kills the woman a murder. If destroying the fetus were considered murder, you'd think the punishment would be death like for killing the woman. That seems to imply that abortion is a form of property destruction, which would imply that, if consensual, it wouldn't be a crime.
Then we have the passages where God commands his followers to kill pregnant women from other nations and rip out the fetuses.
Finally, we have the fact that the bible never calls abortion murder. Abortion was a known practice back then, so you'd think they'd say so if God really considered it murder and wanted it forbidden.
I'm sorry, but the bible does not support the God does not approve of abortion theory.
Boycotts only work if pseople know why you are boycotting, though.Maybe I misunderstood the definition of boycott then.
The practice is a bit more complicated than the term, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there's no point in calling out bigotry if it doesn't affect you personally?
That's usually the way bigots want you to act. Divide and conquer.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
|
So there's no point in calling out bigotry if it doesn't affect you personally?
To go back to this, what can you actually do?
Make a law against it? Is that getting the government too involved? Are you going to ruin them financially with taxes/lawsuits/mafia protection rackets? Hire goons to make sure they allow any one you believe they should allow?
Or are you just going to wave your finger at them and make frownie faces?
Is this any different than telling someone you don't like you that you won't be allowing them into your house anymore? It's certainly bigoted and close-minded and not at all a good thing, but what can you actually do to change their immorality?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being from Kentucky and not all that far from that place and being part of an interracial couple I can tell you this is not as uncommon as you might think. Sure most folks don't say anything, but most of those "good christian folks" do not think it is right and place it close to being gay as an "affront" to god.
In other words anything there bigoted little hearts don't like , then god doesn't like. I am not christian, but my wife is catholic and stuff like this tends to piss her off. To me, not to offend anyone but it is more of the same from those calling themselves Christians. It is nothing really new, what is new is for once in the last few hundred yes that kind of thinking is no longer Ok and excepted by all as "Gods will".
To TOZ, this is news as you need to expose bigots and racism where ever you find it. Pull it and those who think it is just and right and is "Gods will" kicking and screaming into the light and day and let those bigoted f%*%ers know it is not ok. It is not excepted, it is not right and it sure as hell is not Just.
You do not just boycott,you expose them and all who think that way. You show the world that they are small minded hate filled bigots.
To TOZ, this is news as you need to expose bigots and racism where ever you find it. Pull it and those who think it is just and right and is "Gods will" kicking and screaming into the light and day and let those bigoted f+~+ers know it is not ok. It is not excepted, it is not right and it sure as hell is not Just.
You do not just boycott,you expose them and all who think that way. You show the world that they are small minded hate filled bigots.
I agree, so long as legal restrictions on their behavior aren't used to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a religion or faith problem, this is an ignorant wretch problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe nothing to those bigots. However it lets others know, there children and those who are yet unmoving in hate that this is not "how it is". It lets others know it is not ok, and not excepted.
Many of these teach their children this crap, and all those kids every know is one side of this hate. By bringing it into the light of day, by showing public outrage, you show those people it is not "How it is" and is not ok.
Hate breeds hate, but only when it is allowed to do so and it does it best in darkness. When you drag it into the light and expose it for what it is. Then it is less effective.
I agree, so long as legal restrictions on their behavior aren't used to do it.To TOZ, this is news as you need to expose bigots and racism where ever you find it. Pull it and those who think it is just and right and is "Gods will" kicking and screaming into the light and day and let those bigoted f+~+ers know it is not ok. It is not excepted, it is not right and it sure as hell is not Just.
You do not just boycott,you expose them and all who think that way. You show the world that they are small minded hate filled bigots.
Yeah. I agree here. Even if they do not want me or others to enjoy the rights they have. That for me is the problem with folks like this. They hide behind laws they do not want others to enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's usually the way bigots want you to act. Divide and conquer."First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
I read that before - attributed to Protestant preacher from Germany commenting after WWII about the way Nazis persecuted various groups, using "We" instead of "I" (he was supossedly speaking as a member of German middle-class, often but not universally protestant at that time) and also including a line after Jews:
Then they came for the Catholics
and We didn't speak out
All in all it perfectly shows why we should interfere when injustice happening to others, if we can, even if it does not directly involves us.
Government action on the issue is clearly out of line. The entire point of the first ammendment is that people have a right to not have the government interfere with their religion/ideas no matter how racist, idiotic, out dated they are.
On the other hand a good TPing might be called for.
Anyone know where you can get some two ply in bulk?
I still think this article would still apply to interacial marriage if you have a sales tax and will help fund the government. I still think most of the benefits in this would still apply for the assumptions if they are not allowed to marry they will not buy a wedding liscense or pay sales tax. http://policymatters.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/sp09-benditt. pdf
The only reason I don't want to outlaw all marriage is it would be bad for the economy.
I'm sorry, but if you refuse service to people through bigotry, you have no right to call yourself a charity.
This is an interesting point. If a church performs marriages for its congregation, and refuses to marry a couple because of its mixed race, isn't that discrimination? Can't we say that they lose their non-profit status if they make such a discrimination? Is there precedent for revoking non-profit status to organizations that discriminate on this basis?
If a church doesn't pay property tax, and their income through donation isn't subject to local taxes, why are they afforded the same property rights as any other privately held property?
I think you could legally (but not politically) take away the automatic tax exemption of churches.
What you can't do is take away the tax exemptions of churches that disagree with you. That's going after and targeting them for their beliefs, which is a clear violation of their rights.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This just in:
Apparently quite a few people in the congregation walked out on the vote to disallow interracial marriage in disgust. The "pastor" that pushed for the policy resigned (but still insists he was right), and quite a few of the parishioners of that church are pressuring the new pastor to repeal the policy.
Not all cut and dried in that church in Kentucky, it seems.
(and, just saw this on the local Houston news, no link, sorry).
I think you could legally (but not politically) take away the automatic tax exemption of churches.
What you can't do is take away the tax exemptions of churches that disagree with you. That's going after and targeting them for their beliefs, which is a clear violation of their rights.
Unless you cut the tax exempt status of all religions across the board.
Nothing states they have a *right* to tax exemption and if you do it to everyone it's not discrimination.