It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


You need to stop contradicting yourself, I've seen you in chat bagging out many other races and ethnicities, if you choose to take pride in yours, so be it. But there is a fine line between racialist, and racist.

Racist is pride in your own race, and disregard to another.

Racialist is to recognise/favour your race, while accepting that other races are also allowed to take pride in theirs.

So please, if you're going to hide behind some stupid word, and use it to justify your disgusting behaviour, then I suggest you look up, and LEARN the difference between a racialist, and a racist.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Someone should ask Misoir how he feels about Israeli Jews being told not to marry American Jews and how he feels about the reasons why.

Ridiculous racism in thread is ridiculous. Lets grow up shall we?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TechniXcality
reply to post by FoosM
 


i dont care if men marry men and women marry women my sisters a lesbian quiet frankly i dont care if white marry black, but im not going to period thats all i was saying. Just as much as i wont marry a man i wont marry a black girl are you with me so far?


If you dont care, then why are you making a point of telling us that you wouldn't?
Obviously you do care.
Because I dont see how whether or not you find dark skin attractive
has anything to do with the "church" banning.




edit on 2-12-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
I have found it rather humorous when speaking to some of the blacks where I work and they all agree that the white man is a racist and I think to myself doesn’t that make you a bigot?


No that doesn't.
Because by the simple fact that you categorized people by color makes you a "racist"
If you dont want to be seen as a racist, then you shouldn't be seeing differences in people by skin color.
Its idiotic. Because you can do the same with eye color, nose shapes, hair types...
with people of the same color!



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by mastahunta
 


oddly enough, the lady in the video in misoir's post is trying to show how generational poverty will degrade the iq of any racial group, but i think more specifically, she means to suggest that blacks score lower world wide because their african ancestors were impoverished. it takes quite some time in good living conditions to correct that. if we look at economic charts, i bet we will find areas where generations of the same families of any race, who have been poor with poor diets, generation after generation, will as a result, score lower on the same tests. in effect, poverty sucks for everybody.


Thanks for that, I wasn't referring to the video per say, I was referencing the key role
segregating blacks and whites played in the institution of slavery. More importantly,
the conceptual segregation which was powered by pointing out distinction, instead of
similarity. Unfortunately this system of distinction was used to create an institution
where slavery was justified due to the unquestionable inferiority of the black man.
This unquestionable inferiority was cemented by creating thematic distinction, over
many generations. Will white baby born to a white racist and a black baby born to
to black racist spit on each other if you place them in a crib with one another?
The societal distinction is not carried on by genetic message, it is by word of mouth.


The entire regional culture, both black and white, perpetuated this stigma, in church,
later in schools, practice and most importantly, in distance, physical distance...

How can you realize, a white man or woman, steeped in slave culture that black men
are humans, if it is sinful to dine with them??? or it is sinful to sit together on a long
voyage by rail or boat?

You see?

There is little chance to discover that the Black man is more than an animal because
you are forbidden by culture and tradition to interact. The segregation of races was
a very real and tangible function of slavery, not some sort of mutual respect between
two different tribes.
edit on 2-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
I think this thread is very important because it exposes the degree to which this kind of denialist thinking persists in what you might otherwise think to be a modern and educated society.

Yes, I said educated. Implying that those who believe interracial mixing is bad are uneducated in the subject. I know that calling somebody "uneducated" is offensive but when you consider the arguments that have been presented here regarding genetics and IQ, etc., and weigh them against actual science and the fact that the degree to which IQ can vary between people of the exact SAME ethnicity is greater than the difference of the average measured IQ's of whites and blacks, not even considering the aforementioned valid point that IQ scores are not even an accurate measurement of genetic intelligence since social and cultural effects will alter a person's IQ score, you will come to the conclusion that such people ARE indeed simply uninformed on the subject, unless of course you are concealing some kind of Holy Grail scientific information that the rest of the informed world has yet to behold.

So, all things considered, I was a little shocked at the amount of ATS'ers who seem to fall into this category, if the number of stars given to certain replies in this thread are any measure. So much for that whole "deny ignorance" thing.

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

edit on 2-12-2011 by Magnus47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I'll just leave this here.

This is a picture of the couple in question. It comes from the link in the original post of this thread.

They look pretty happy together, don't they?

I think its important to remember in these kinds of discussions that this is about real human beings, actual specific people. It humanizes the debate to remind ourselves of this. and to my mind there is no better way to do that then with a photo.

Oh, and these people have names, by the way: Stella Harville and Ticha Chikuni

I wish them all the best.



edit on 12/2/2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnus47
 


was that addressed to me? cause i'll say it again, the problem is, generational poverty causes genetic disadvantage. the video about pro basketball players being almost exclusively black, is suggesting blacks are predisposed to athletics. here again, we're talking about genetic heritage. but today, if you get an african off the trail in somalia, and give them a basketball, an american basketball player of any race, would beat them hands down, because somalis are in really bad shape from generations of poverty. so any athletic advantage they might have, were they in better living conditions, is nearly non-existent. same for anything else. it isn't racism to suggest that human beings are predisposed to conditions thru environment and genetic inheritance and that environment, if improper to sustain healthy human life, will negatively impact future generations in the same family tree, regardless of race, and that currently, the end result of generations of extremely poor blacks in africa, is still being seen in test scores world wide, but less and less so because quality of life has risen for most people who don't live in africa.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Magnus47
 


was that addressed to me? cause i'll say it again, the problem is, generational poverty causes genetic disadvantage. the video about pro basketball players being almost exclusively black, is suggesting blacks are predisposed to athletics. here again, we're talking about genetic heritage. but today, if you get an african off the trail in somalia, and give them a basketball, an american basketball player of any race, would beat them hands down, because somalis are in really bad shape from generations of poverty. so any athletic advantage they might have, were they in better living conditions, is nearly non-existent. same for anything else. it isn't racism to suggest that human beings are predisposed to conditions thru environment and genetic inheritance and that environment, if improper to sustain healthy human life, will negatively impact future generations in the same family tree, regardless of race, and that currently, the end result of generations of extremely poor blacks in africa, is still being seen in test scores world wide, but less and less so because quality of life has risen for most people who don't live in africa.


So, what do this perspective have to do with limiting interracial relations?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't understand how that relates to the debate at hand.
edit on 2-12-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Look, I am tired of you peddling this absolute crap. I made it perfectly clear that in no way shape or form that I believe government should be interfering in private business based on race: PERIOD.


Let's go back to the first post you made in this thread:


Originally posted by Misoir
____________________________________________________
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Well considering it's been alittle under 50 years since state and federal racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws were abolished thanks to the ruling of the supreme court and the federal government
_____________________________________________________

That was a good thing? The Feds had no right to tell a state what they could do with their marriage laws. There is not one amendment in the Constitution that says "everyone has a right to marry who they want", so where did the Feds get the power to enforce this 'equality' on the states? They pulled it out of their rear end, per usual.


And I gave you a chance to also step back and reclarify what you stated, and time and time again you confirmed that you support the right of states to mandate or enforce racial segregation anti-interracial marriage laws, you support their right to mandate or enforce Jim Crow laws.

With each post since your first response Misoir, you have made every effort to insist to the rest of us that this wasn't what you really said, even though it's pritty clear from your first post. Somehow, because you supposedly personally oppose jim crow laws, we should ignore the fact that you believe that government, state governments, have legitimate authority to do so.


That is what I said; because it was stated in a way that I tried to explain why the Feds were wrong in intervening in the state affairs does not give you the freedom to distort what I had said.


What's there to distort? The federal government intervened in the actions of states because racial segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws were clearly a violation of freedoms, and no government, including state governments, had the right to continuing holding fundamental freedoms away from American citizens. You attacked my post specifically on the federal government intervening on this matter Misoir, and made in loud and clear from the start that you think the government, our state governments, were legitimate in keeping these freedoms. There's no distortion here, only your attempts to soften this controversial position of yours.


This means that the state has the ability to make these decisions and the Feds never were authorized


There we go again. The constitution supposedly gives states the power and authority to mandate racial segregation, and to mandate same race marriage. I mean this is what you're clearly arguing, and what you're clearly in support of (legally), so really, it's beyond me that you're still trying to explain away your position that you made very clear to us from the start. But don't worry, you've got plenty of sympathizers on this forum.


Does that mean that I, personally, support the state banning of interracial marriage? No, I do not,


How the hell does it matter that you supposedly 'personally' don't support it? The mere fact you support government, state government, mandating, by force, racial segregation and same race marriage, is the issue at hand here. How much of an excuse would I make if I supported state governments to have the ability to strip the rights of women to vote in this country, but I wouldn't personally support it? Does this make sense? Is this a good enough excuse for my position legally? Are you getting me now?


In United States Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court ruled that races were ‘separate but equal’ thus legalizing state segregation.


You're referring to a supreme court ruling made in 1896, and was overturned again by the Brown v. Board of education in 1954.

Since you love using outdated 19th century supreme court rulings to argue 21st century issues, let's also go back to the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling made in 1857, that ruled in favour of legalized slavery of black people.

How about minor v. Hapopersett 1875, in regards to the rights of women?

I cannot believe that in this day and age, the 21st century, issues like this still have debated.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


that race isn't really an issue, because no matter what race you are, your genetic make up is only as good or as bad as your and your ancestors quality of life. as i mentioned earlier, had the royals on the planet not been so cloistered about who they married, they'd be incredibly brilliant, since extremely good quality of life is certainly present. kinda interesting that they shot themselves in their collective foot with their inbreeding.


edit on 2-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by mastahunta
 


that race isn't really an issue, because no matter what race you are, your genetic make up is only as good or as bad as your and your ancestors quality of life.


Well, I suppose to some extent,but then again the American dream is characterized by
the ability to go from rags to extreme riches in the course of one generation, which is
a story based upon the idea that birth and history has little to do with the ability
to self actualize.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by mastahunta
 


that race isn't really an issue, because no matter what race you are, your genetic make up is only as good or as bad as your and your ancestors quality of life.


Well, I suppose to some extent,but then again the American dream is characterized by
the ability to go from rags to extreme riches in the course of one generation, which is
a story based upon the idea that birth and history has little to do with the ability
to self actualize.




which suggests that something must've changed to make that possible for families of generational poverty. perhaps social programs like welfare, created a more sustainable environment for self-actualization. because your brain needs nutrition in order to function properly.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Misoir
 

star for that post. agreed. it is NONE of the Feds business, never has been, never should be.
it is the choice of the individual.


You're not really familiar with the 60's and the jim crow laws are you? The Federal government intervened and overruled state mandated racial segregation and same race marriage over individual americans. In other words, State governments were dictating to individual americans whom they could and could not mix or be with based on race, this wasn't an 'individual' right. If anything the Federal goverment restored these matters to the individuals by the end of the 60's. Before readily jumping on the post, read it in detail, and go do research if you don't know about the events of that time.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
*crosses Kentucky off Christmas list

Wow...I really have no words. I'm becoming more and more disheartened by my southern brothers and sisters. Thanks goodness I'm northern bound in the next couple of years.

/TOA


Yea... you know the South is Beautiful, and I've met many nice and welcoming Southerners in my time. It is just too bad that there are afew bad apples that ruin it for the rest in the land. We still have a long way to go Old American....



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
So let's see; if you and a few hundred others belong to a church and we believe that God did not intend that people of a different race should marry etc. most of you would propose that the government force us to share our church with someone who offends us and what we believe? I could have just as easily said a homosexual couple but which ever the case, the argument is that even in a place of worship the few should dictate to the many, right? And while we are at it, should a church or school be forced by the government to teach our children things which go against the parents religious beliefs..for example about Gays?

Thankfully, my children are grown and I no longer believe any organized religion represents God so I am not being forced to make stands on these kind of issues but I thought someone should throw a little live bait in the water for those in need of it to chew on. Do you or I or the Government have a right to force me or anyone to share a place of worship where the majority are offended? Just curious. I know the law but since this crosses so many lines of gut level contention I thought I'd draw some of you out t show what you're really made of


edit on 2-12-2011 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by IofRa
I think most people here are forgetting the most important thing here: Love.
When two people love each other who is anyone to tell them what they can or cannot do? You sometimes can't control they way your life unfolds and how or when love is going to hit you right in the face.

My partner is black and we have 3 beautiful children. All are strong, healthy and do well in school and sports. I'm blessed with what I was given along my path. I'm also very proud of where I'm from and my heritage. But I've never let it guide my love life, know what I mean?
I think people who are always busy "preserving" their ethnicity are a little scary...But, that's me.


I wish all the best for you and your family IofRa! I'm sure your kids will have so much potential once they grow up. Don't be disheartened by those who look down upon you and your partner, they are but the fringe of society. Overall things are changing and will continue to change, and people must and will continue to live their private lives.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
So let's see; if you and a few hundred others belong to a church and we believe that God did not intend that people of a different race should marry etc. most of you would propose that the government force us to share our church


Please, for the love of buddha, read the thread. I am so sick of people coming on here arguing about things that were clearly not stated in the OP. This was already addressed, I never questioned the right of this church to do what they did. People, like myself, are criticizing them for doing it, and rightfully so. They have the right to ban this couple, and I have the right to call them out on it, simple. If you want to go around waving 'rights' on this thread, I suggest you do so both ways.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Southern Guardian because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Oh, pardon me for responding to your post as I found worth my effort and for not focusing on what you wanted me to focus on. I do tend to think for myself and say what I damn well please and unfortunately this is still a forum where jackasses can mingle with the thoroughbreds..which would be which in context to your post I leave you to figure out.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Oh, pardon me for responding to your post as I found worth my effort and for not focusing on what you wanted me to focus on.


Oh no, I'd just appreciate it if you focused on the OP, not on some position that was never made in this thread in the first place. I don't see how productive you are in discussion arguing how nobody can force this church to accept this couple, when this was never the argument. It only serves to derail the point of the thread.

If you want to ramble on about the 'rights' of this church, by all means, I just think it offers nothing to this thread and what the OP was about.


jackasses


Yep.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join