Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

I understand well what he tried to convey, and though it might not be well received, it isn't "racist". it is NOT the governments right to enact on the states though it continues to do so. and some people hate racism but are also more akin to keeping historic/genetic lines going. yeah I know alot of people will say hes racist, but that was not his intention.

he could of just stated his views on the politics of the matter, but he put his social ideals on his sleeves and I don't think ATS should look down on him for that. he was very respectful and people should simply just agree or disagree. stating one's personal opinions on such a matter effects racial and cultural pillars 0%.

Originally posted by wingsfan
I understand well what he tried to convey, and though it might not be well received, it isn't "racist". it is NOT the governments right to enact on the states

So you believe that states have legitimate authority to mandate racial segregation and same race marriages, as Misoir stated? You support the right of states to established and mandate jim crow laws over american citizens? This is what Misoir stated and clarified in the first instant, and has not changed his position.

yeah I know alot of people will say hes racist, but that was not his intention.

Misoir knew full well what he was writing and saying. He believes in a hierarchy of superiority among peoples (although whether he meant individuals, I'd say he was implying racially), he believes that there are general IQ's between the races, obviously lower for africans, proving their lesser superiority, he personally opposes interracial marriages and supports the rights of states to establish jim crow laws over american citizens, and he looks down upon interracial couples.

So, his intention wasn't to come off racist huh? Well he certainly failed horribly on that front, but hey, atleast he gained plenty of sympathizers on ATS.

he was very respectful

That's your personal take.

Originally posted by wingsfan
I understand well what he tried to convey, and though it might not be well received, it isn't "racist". it is NOT the governments right to enact on the states though it continues to do so.

The thing is, the State is a government, not a small quaking man being attacked
by a large monster. If you boil this down to the individual, which is suppose to be the
core of America's sacred trust, you will see that the state has no right to enact on the
individual.

This is a really sad group of people, that would attend this church after such an announcement.

Jesus was tolerant of all people. The good Samaritan is an example of his teaching of tolerance.

The leaders of this church are incredible hypocrites.

This kind of mentality is still around, especially in the South. Some folks just want to continue stubbornly living backwards.


What would you call it ?
2nd

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Having a comparatively higher IQ does not make one race better or superior to another. If my best friend has an IQ of 130 and mine is 75, does that make him superior or better than me? No. The only difference would be that he has a higher IQ than me.

It seems many in this thread wish to interpret facts using their emotions and feelings. This leads to skewed conclusions and false accusations against others.

Originally posted by Raivan31
In closing I feel that the term 'Racist' is often used (ironically enough) in a very racist way, with people who are not actually racist, being called racist because of the colour of their skin.

Absolutely.

I don't agree with Misoir in opposing mixed relationships. Stella Harville and Ticha Chikuni do look a lovely couple.

On the other hand,

I am absolutely sick of the politically correct thought police telling me how I am allowed to think.

And being so quick to cry racism if any dissent from the PC orthodox is displayed. One essential aspect of this PC orthodoxy is that only white people can be racist.

I'm sick of it and judging by the number of stars Misoir got responding to the OP (the highest in the thread) I'm not the only one.

Few people are racist these days, but many, many , many people are sick of the Politically Correct thought police.

reply to post by ollncasino


The problem is that a lot of people don't consider something to be racist unless it involves lynching or calling someone the "N" word.

Misoir claimed in his original reply that whites shouldn't mix race because it lowers IQ...now if you don't see the racism in that...the racial superiority claim...then you are either blind, you agree, or you see it and choose to ignore it.

Many people are racist...but they claim "hey, I have a black friend, I can't be racist"...that is pretty much a sure sign of someone being racist.

All the stars Misoir got doesn't surprise me one bit...it is commonly known that ATS has a very large group of racists.

But you and others who say it's "racist" to call out people being racist That just makes it clear to me how poorly people know what racism is...I mean I guess if you aren't dragging a black guy behind your car and you are simple saying that an entire race is inferior due to their skin color...then you aren't racist

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.

are you serious ??
ummm, how much do i need to know to accept that it was a mistake?
i do know it wasn't the spawn of hatred like so many tend to think.
and it certainly wasn't the first time the Feds made such a mistake. what's your point here?

readily jumping on a post with which i happen to agree ??
fyi, i've read every post including Misoir's first one, with which i don't fully agree, as written.

why would you assume that i am unfamiliar with the material?
in the post i starred, Misoir is correct and stated properly, from a Constitutional aspect.
i didn't necessarily agree with the racialist stance.
i have personal experiences which lead me to believe otherwise.

the Fed nor the SC are authorized Constitutionally to rule on such matters, period.
the States should have no need or desire to interfere in such personal and religious matters, but if they choose to, by the will of the people, then those who oppose, are free to go elsewhere. That is the Constitutional design.

funny thing is, aside from the 'racialist' viewpoint (which i understand just don't agree) we agree.
the State has no business in it and the Fed has no authority, so, what am i missing here?

edit to add: just in case you or others are "missing it" ... this is exactly HOW the Fed gets the "power" it has ... we GIVE it to them with arguments like these. Once we submit it to the SC, we've requested government oversight.
It is NONE of their business, period.
we make it so and we suffer for it, neat huh?

oh yeah, the lawyers that's what i'm missing ... forgot all about them.
They are why the State are involved in the first place, think it through now ... why does a matter of religion need a lawyer?

reply to post by Honor93


The Church gives the government power by taking the tax deferment it is offered.

When they do that, they agree to play by a set of rules...they are free to play by their own rules...but they are going to have to pay taxes.


I bet for some reason you think that is unfair though...right?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Honor93

 

The Church gives the government power by taking the tax deferment it is offered.

When they do that, they agree to play by a set of rules...they are free to play by their own rules...but they are going to have to pay taxes.


I bet for some reason you think that is unfair though...right?

it is my understanding that all tax-exempt entities enjoy that perk, why are you partial to churches?
i don't support churches specifically, but i have participated in some of their charity work and i'm really not following your point here.

churches, imho, should pay taxes.
i don't believe they should be permitted any "special" set of rules.
i wouldn't agree that they should be free to play by their own rules as they wouldn't apply to all.
and what does churches paying taxes have to do with inter-racial marriages anyway?

Originally posted by gemineye
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I'm in Kentucky and I don't have much to say about this except that it disgusts me. Church is supposed to be about love and acceptance. This church is openly promoting hate. Absolutely disgusting.

Actually in the bible god eliminates a unified humanity because he finds their ethnic, linguistic, and political unity to be threatening. The city of Babel takes its name from this god-created "confusion". God is very discriminate throughout the bible.

God repeatedly commands his elect not to mate with other groups. Lot's daughters get their father drunk and screw him for this reason: "Come, let’s fill him, with wine and then we will sleep with him, so that our clan will not come to an end" Genesis 19:32 Living Bible-

The blessing Isaac gives Jacob "May many nations be your slaves" Genesis 27:29

ABRAHAM:” Swear by Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not let my son marry one of these local girls, these Canaanites" Genesis 24:3

Slave: "And my master made me promise not to let Isaac marry one of the local girls, but to come to his relatives here in this far-off land, to his brother's family, and to bring back a girl from here to marry his son" Genesis 24:37

Some could make a good argument that the original sin was miscegenation. Eve partook of the seed bearing fruit of the serpent bloodline thus ruining her chances in Eden. The serpent possibly representing a bloodline and DNA. Lot was pure "in his generations" meaning he was of pure blood so he was saved.

Why is it so important to list endless bloodlines in the bible if it is of no relevance?

Jesus states that he was with God from the beginning and that he is in God and God is within him.

"Remember this fact-which you know already-that the Lord saved a whole nation of people out of the land of Egypt, and then killed every one of them who did not trust and obey him" Jude 1:05

The bible is constant commandments, threats, and punishments but feel free to try and create some fluffy ideal out of that to go along with your indoctrinated Marxist ideological subversion. Even Mormons have now been bought out by Rockefeller money. Every large organization eventually becomes compromised in this way. By the way, I’m not a Judeo-Christian of any denomination.


“...the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.” ~ Yuri Beznemov, former KGB agent on Ideological Subversion

I live in a city with a Hoosier Black Expo, Black & Minority Health Fairs, Martin Luther King Jr. Street, and numerous openly black organizations and churches but not a single Fluffy ever seems to be bothered by the hypocrisy in that! My "Citizen's Gas" bill openly solicits for money (on the same page as my billing) for donations to send black children to "traditionally black colleges"!

I ask you, how often are any of you are righteously indignant because of this??? There isn't even a single holiday for a white American yet none of you notice this. The U.S. has been destroyed by those educated off of television, indoctrinated to be international citizens by politically correct learning institutions, and poisoned by an acculturated self-centered altruistic stupidity. Leave this poor church alone for holding true to its principles and the principles of the nation’s founders, of which I have not room to go into. To deliberately try and bring about the end of race by forced integration or mass brainwashing is racist and an atrocity unto itself. The same Fluffies which would applaud tribal groups and diverse unique cultures elsewhere seem hell bent on destroying it in their own nations. Ridiculous to see children excited over the unique races in a computer game but suffering from a kind of cognitive dissonance for the concept in the real world.

"Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed." Derrick Bell - Harvard Law School professor

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Misoir claimed in his original reply that whites shouldn't mix race because it lowers IQ...now if you don't see the racism in that...the racial superiority claim...then you are either blind, you agree, or you see it and choose to ignore it.

What the hell? That is not what I said; you interpreted it to mean that but in no way was that what I was implying. My point was to prove that there are differences in race, how else to do that then use science? IQ was the best thing I could think of hence the reason I chose it. Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites, on average, and Asians have higher IQ’s than Whites, on average, that does not mean every black is an idiot or every Asian is a rocket scientist. That also does not specifically imply that one is better than another; there are far more important determining factors of a person and a race than IQ.

No one would say, “Jerome was black, thus naturally inferior to Jimmy who was white, because black’s IQ on average is lower than whites”. That is preposterous and in no way what I meant. These people on the thread were saying that race is irrelevant, we are all people, and my point with IQ was to simply show that there are differing characteristics of people based upon race and ethnicity.

On this topic people are so quick to confuse, misconstrue, and misunderstand because of the emotions involved. My point, in the end, is that I am proud of my racial and ethnic heritage, I believe there are differences in people based upon race and ethnicity, and that I want everyone to want to be proud of their heritage while protecting and preserving it for future generations. That is not too much to ask for is it?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


the thing is, if it's true that historically, generational poverty has been found to cause learning disabilities, then it isn't a racist position but a fact of biology and genetics, and this would also be true for any racial group. it just so happens that africa has had and still has a huge poverty problem which contributes to genetic disadvantages of people who's ancestors derive from there. the only difference is, when quality of life is raised and is sustained, the damage appears to lessen and disappear over the course of a few generations.

i don't agree with misoir on several matters in his post, but that video has important information for the future of the black people of this planet.

reply to post by Misoir


i do agree with your position on remembering our heritage. i always wonder now, why i was never really taught much about my heritage, only about what the kings and queens were up to. i'm a european mutt, so i had to go look up the heritage of scottish, french, german and british people lol

reply to post by Misoir

and i starred this because i completely agree.
each racial group has much to offer and to see any specific group intentionally destroyed is beyond wrong, regardless the method.

speaking for myself, i'm such a mutt that i only lay claim to my father's heritage and the fact that my skin is pale but when i connect my dots (family), it's quite a colorful creation which spreads in many different directions over many generations.
i have connections to several races but you wouldn't know it to look at me.
most don't even realize i'm Irish until i say so and when i'm peeved, my german side stands tall (well, waist high anyway )
i'm just rambling because in my heart, i don't believe there is ANY purity in any race except for maybe British royalty and if that's the case, they can have it.

as for "da rules" ... rules are for fools ... govern thyself

reply to post by Wotaneyed
The verses that you quoted from the Bible are, with one exception, from the Old Testament. Many of the teachings of Jesus were a direct contradiction to the Old Testament.

That is one of the big reasons that Jesus was crucified. The Jews that held positions of authority in Jerusalem at the time held that his teachings were heretical.... and his power was a threat to theirs.

reply to post by undo


People can easily dismiss their own ethnic heritage when that culture was lacking in their childhood. We are too busy worried about new technologies in our daily lives and what leaders were doing in our history classes. The parents should be explaining why this specific holiday is special and teachers should be explaining how cultures are different and why.

Forget about the Kings for a moment and think about that peasant 500 years back who was loyal to the county, his community, and his religion; was he loyal because he was some ignorant fool? I like to think not, he was more connected to his roots than any of us are. In all likelihood he tilled the land that was tilled by his father, his father’s father, and so on for generations. They sought shade under the same trees, walked in the same grass, spoke the same language, observed the beauty of the same mountains, and clung to that. These are the people who are cast off as men of the dark ages, those unfit for reverence, well I disagree, if anything we live in the true Dark Age.

This is the sentiment of which I speak:

reply to post by silent thunder


I admit I am quick in my hatred for those whom hate. No body is perfect.

I would hope the idea of a trial would be common sense. But lo, does man forget. Perhaps subconsciously I did for not saying it directly.


The act in question cannot be said to be one thing. He said "for parish unity". hmm. Unity...racial unity... That right there is not good. And perhaps I disconnected from my libertarian tendencies, but race is something I hate in purity. And legally, it seems the reasoning for this....unity....would be nothing short of inciting distaste for something.

See I AM libertarian. Go and join the KKK for all I care. Have your little all boys white club. But try and do anything in the public area? Try to force the public to a certain way? no, that's not good. And I would beg to say that religious things are in the public area.

Once again what I say is for leaders. Because they have more responsibility. And frankly, I agree with Jefferson that leaders are the fertilizer for the tree of liberty.

Onward, for the imminent lawlessness, essentially it's the area. No more than 40 years ago there were lynches for such interracial things. Fact is, those trying to bring it back need to be made an example. I honestly think the law permits this to be trialed as treason. You are organizing people against the law's word on equality of all. For that, you must be removed as a traitor would be. I fail to see how inciting inequality among people isn't treasonous and any different than any group organizing against what the law says. Not the debatable law, but the core law. Life and liberty.

I say only my opinion, because that's exactly what it is. And until any sort of law is passed, this entire thread is but our opinions. I simply ask you to look at the law and think if it is backed right. Is there a precedence to eliminate racial dividers in this country. I think there is.

But But Women are so sexy, i would never want to experience just one type of girl. Some one please help me understand