Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

reply to post by Honor93


Secession is a sort of right yes. But they did so under wrongful views of the constitution, and purely economic ones in many cases. Call me off base all you want. It is quite clear that the civil war had a good side and a bad side. And the good side was a dictatorship, and the bad side was a confederacy. As warped a concept as it is, the good side was good, the bad side was bad. The bad side lost because they put money first, and their own warped concepts forward. if this is arrogance from the North so be it.

Yes the 60s were violent. But aside all the politicians calling for nuclear war, all the rioting uneducated blacks, all the oppressive stuck up whites, all the drugs, chaos, and stupidity, there were good men, with good views, promoting good things. MLK, Sometimes Kennedy, Hell Nixon even had his highlights of following with decency in the public, and that man was a lying racist scum ball. The whole 60s-70s had its promoters of peace and respect, and those men and women showed us how to deal with jerks. In this day in age, I am very much so in favor of using excessive force to eliminate decay from the established order of those people. This slow and painful watch of people forgetting the value of life, liberty, and their rights. Maybe that makes me crazy, but I think it's patriotic to follow in the footsteps of what Jefferson said and what others after him worked so hard to achieve. Sometimes, you have to defend freedom with excessive force and actions, ensuring an example in a generation of what happens to those that promote division, Balkanization, and the destruction of constitutional authority.

reply to post by Honor93


My grandfather used to go after work at the factory to the protests back in the 1960s. He told me that it was always such a good time, sitting back watching while the cops beat the hippies senseless in the street and they would all run when the cops let the dogs loose on them. I never really got into it that much, and he has relaxed his opinions a lot although still proudly racist, his favorite thing to say (not mine mind you) is “I don’t hate blacks; I think everyone should own one”. I have not heard him say that in the past few years but he could not have changed too much. My grandmother would always get so mad when he would say stuff like that because she was the type to give the shirt off her back to anyone that needed it (still abhorred interracial dating though).

And these were not Southerners, they were immigrants who lived in the Northeast and came here from Hungary. I mention this little bit of information because you brought up the ‘60s, in my opinion a decade that if we skipped altogether would be the greatest gift ever given to the world.

reply to post by Misoir


Why? And from your previous posts you are not that much different from these racist relatives. The 60s was a time that established that you can be what you want. And if you really are a traditional conservative, you would support this. Because the idea that conservative means you have to abide by a strict set of guidelines really isn't conservative at all. It's no different that communist China, quite frankly, and originates from a very very bad set of ideas that are not American, but rather, an import of imperial thinking from Europe and Asia.

Furthermore, How can you explain that in 50,000 years humans could change that much to become different in intelligence, when it took 4.5 million years just to get that brain in the first place. It doesn't make evolutionary sense. And in fact, there is no method that racially different people would acquire different levels of intelligence in such short time.

reply to post by Gorman91

you are jumping through flaming hoops that do NOT exist.
just because you say "he's making the public unsafe for a specific group" doesn't make it so.
your perception certainly doesn't agree with mine so which of us is "right" ???
i'll side with the "live and let live" group every time.

i didn't ask you to assess the OWS, you claim Americans honor the acts of their fellow Americans who are exercising their rights (and i used OWS as an example) but then you rail against this church ... i don't follow your logic one bit.

so, now proximity sets the standard ???
yes, Virginia was but Kentucky was NEVER so how do you consciously make that comparison?

rebellions after the war continued ALL OVER for several decades after the CW, it wasn't a northern or southern or eastern or western thing unless you're talking state by state. (actually, that's how the kkk began)

i don't see where slavery fits into this conversation one iota.
NO, the Constitution is NOT LAW and i will never agree that it is.
since you do not understand it, i will not condemn you for your own idiosyncrasies but i would suggest you spend more time learning and less time spreading what us Irish call, malarkey.

the religious books hold no value for me, i've read enough of them to form my own view.
spirituality is key but religion is a poison upon the hearts and minds of all humans.

He who governs himself, governs the world ... i don't remember who said that but it sure is a good one.

reply to post by Honor93

just because you say "he's making the public unsafe for a specific group" doesn't make it so. your perception certainly doesn't agree with mine so which of us is "right" ???

Well yes. This is why trials exist. To allow a presentation of law and opinion, and let a consensus agree if he is guilty. Every trial that has ever existed by jury has always been based of the perception of the law by the jury. I am saying, but I must prove in front of a jury. Is this not obvious?

i didn't ask you to assess the OWS, you claim Americans honor the acts of their fellow Americans who are exercising their rights (and i used OWS as an example) but then you rail against this church ... i don't follow your logic one bit.

I said they usually mind their own business essentially.

If they do protest, they do it civilly and to their face privately, but understand a desire not to follow with their opinion.

The logic seems pretty clear. OWS has't been railed against by the majority of Americans, and those that do oppose them do not try and stop them usually. They simply argue, get their point across, and move along. It is only a few whom actively violate their right to be there.

so, now proximity sets the standard ??? yes, Virginia was but Kentucky was NEVER so how do you consciously make that comparison?

Jim Crow laws were there. example, Buchanan v. Warley

rebellions after the war continued ALL OVER for several decades after the CW, it wasn't a northern or southern or eastern or western thing unless you're talking state by state. (actually, that's how the kkk began)

Yes. And there were attempts to crush them. Your point?

NO, the Constitution is NOT LAW and i will never agree that it is.

Then you're not really an American.

the religious books hold no value for me, i've read enough of them to form my own view. spirituality is key but religion is a poison upon the hearts and minds of all humans.

This is opinion.

He who governs himself, governs the world ... i don't remember who said that but it sure is a good one.

I imagine the Devil, religiously speaking. Either way it's quite a silly statement. No man can govern himself. This is why governments exist. If this statement was true, governments would never have come together in the first place. There are plenty of desolate places on Earth if you wish to try and govern yourself in your own little bubble world.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93

 

Secession is a sort of right yes. But they did so under wrongful views of the constitution, and purely economic ones in many cases. Call me off base all you want. It is quite clear that the civil war had a good side and a bad side. And the good side was a dictatorship, and the bad side was a confederacy. As warped a concept as it is, the good side was good, the bad side was bad. The bad side lost because they put money first, and their own warped concepts forward. if this is arrogance from the North so be it.

Yes the 60s were violent. But aside all the politicians calling for nuclear war, all the rioting uneducated blacks, all the oppressive stuck up whites, all the drugs, chaos, and stupidity, there were good men, with good views, promoting good things. MLK, Sometimes Kennedy, Hell Nixon even had his highlights of following with decency in the public, and that man was a lying racist scum ball. The whole 60s-70s had its promoters of peace and respect, and those men and women showed us how to deal with jerks. In this day in age, I am very much so in favor of using excessive force to eliminate decay from the established order of those people. This slow and painful watch of people forgetting the value of life, liberty, and their rights. Maybe that makes me crazy, but I think it's patriotic to follow in the footsteps of what Jefferson said and what others after him worked so hard to achieve. Sometimes, you have to defend freedom with excessive force and actions, ensuring an example in a generation of what happens to those that promote division, Balkanization, and the destruction of constitutional authority.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

wow , no really
i just don't know where to begin with this mess.
first, the CW was never about good vs bad ... not for the North or South
and it was certainly NOT ... North = good, South = bad
where do you get such a crazy and outrageous viewpoint?

ah geez, perhaps this thread will help you if your interested ... www.abovetopsecret.com... it's a short one and i'm not about to cut and paste all the info, it's there.

secession was most certainly a Constitutional right, show me where it wasn't.

economic reasons is why Lincoln's army invaded South Carolina (totally UnConstitutional btw), not the reason the South (Carolina) chose to secede.

The South lost because the North cheated the Constitutional boundaries of which they agreed to adhere.
The ONLY Constitutional "authority" resides with the PEOPLE and solely the PEOPLE.
until you can understand this concept, please slow down and learn the difference.

yes, i agree with Jefferson that occasionally the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots, however, claiming that this church or any other (mosques, anyone?) should be eliminated from society ... well, that is just plain crazy talk.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Honor93

 

I mention this little bit of information because you brought up the ‘60s, in my opinion a decade that if we skipped altogether would be the greatest gift ever given to the world.

How is that? The protests were truly organic and based upon people actually impacting the
political system, as opposed to being wielded purely by corrupt politicians. The states had
no right to infringe upon people the way they were doing and this government had no right
carrying on a regional was behind the back of the political checks and balances. It was
probably the only time a generation was not completely apathetic to the state of union
and bad government. In many states, you couldn't eat with the half black cousin you claim
to love and you would be shunned for walking with him. In fact you would be shunned for the
fact that he is your cousin because of how that reflects upon your families "morality".
Now I hardly think, such a fine person such as yourself is lacking a good upbringing,
never the less, walking with your any percent black cousin would have reflected poorly.

Everytime those hippies heads got bashed in, that was the stigma of institutional racism
getting cracked bit by bit. You have not address the fact that the physical distance imposed by
culture, tradition and law, was a byproduct of the Slavery era. You white wash the history (pun
intended) of the practice of physical separation, you seem to think that these practices, where
the state imposed limitations on freedom on American citizens would be resolved by now.
Let me remind you that slavery was eons old and only abatted due to action, people did not
say "gee, I am tired of making money off this person for free, go on now slave, be free..."

Those hippies did something that had to be done, they had the guts and the balls to put
their heads on the line, to challenge a system that was born directly from an extremely
racist era. Far more brave than any damn solder I have ever met, no gun, no radio to
call for back up. You put so much stock in this reorganization of historic racial context,
but then again you choose to read and absorb what you do.

Do you think, segregation imposed by the state, and the vietnam war were good things?

I think you have a very easy time glossing over the real death and brutality that abridges
your current ideas to their less than savory genesis. You do not have to see it now, and you can
walk down the street with your cousin and you can be social friends with blacks, or whoever
because the state imposed tyranny was removed by individuals acting out their god given
right to protest.

Originally posted by Honor93

The South lost because the North cheated the Constitutional boundaries of which they agreed to adhere.

so are you telling us that the States were granted the constitutional authority
to curtail and regulate the activities and boundaries of a persons free movement?

The constitution does not grant the right to any authority to impose tyranny
and actual slavery on human beings. It is a farce to say that free men, created
a free country that was intended to have the power to enslave the people through
a document based upon freedom and liberty.

The confederacy was trying to protect their free labor, the basis of that free labor
was tyranny, simple.

reply to post by mastahunta


There are good things to have come out of the sixties, I wouldn't give it a blanket condemnation. However, there were some very serious negatives. Hippies and their protests aren't too relevant in the grand scheme of things, but changes in lifestyle are. It could be argued that the sixties saw the postwar materialist lifetsyle (and in a deeper sense a "materialist spirituality) really kicking in in earnest. It was also the point at which cultural Marxism really got its hooks in several key spheres of activity, primarily the media and academia. It was the triumph of the Frankfurt-School-brand of "subversion" of traditional cultures of all sorts, and the long-term effects have been disorienting and, to my mind, devastating in ways we are only now beginning to understand.

This is an interesting topic and would make for a good side-thread...

reply to post by Gorman91


I am so damn tired of correcting people who assume that Classical Liberalism is Conservatism, good God have you people ever actually studied this stuff? Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with individualism, constitutions, free-markets, etc… those are Enlightenment Liberal principles, all of which Conservatism was against.

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

– Source

[Conservatism] describes a political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.Some traditionalists have embraced the labels "reactionary" and "counterrevolutionary", defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment. Having a hierarchical view of society, many traditionalist conservatives, including a few Americans, defend the monarchical political structure as the most natural and beneficial social arrangement.

– Source

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by mastahunta

 

There are good things to have come out of the sixties, I wouldn't give it a blanket condemnation. Hippies and their protests aren't too relevant in the grand scheme of things, but changes in lifestyle are. It could be argued that the sixties saw the postwar materialist lifetsyle (and in a deeper sense a "materialist spirituality) really kicking in in earnest. It was also the point at which cultural Marxism really got its hooks in several key spheres of activity, primarily the media and academia. It was the triumph of the Frankfurt-School-brand of "subversion" of traditional cultures of all sorts, and the long-term effects have been disorienting and, to my mind, devastating in ways we are only now beginning to understand.

This is an interesting topic and would make for a good side-thread...

I think you severly understate the impact of the hippies and their protests... They very
well knew that if the white gentry saw the cops clubbing and beating kids, that their
possible racists orientation would be over run by concern over cop beating the teeth
out of white kids. It was entirely a calculated effort of bravery and organic solidarity.

I am not sure what you mean when you refer to cultural marxism. Music proceeded
the liberalization of society and popular culture. The freedom of expression lead
to a broadened interest in new forms of expression, which include music and ideas.

If the state of being a youth in the 50's was so enjoyable, the youth would have retained
the puritanical state of stasis. Obviously, they felt that the new music and potential
for new ideas was more favorable than the world that was being imposed upon them.

You have the order of liberalization wrong, Elvis did not learn how to shake his hips
from liberal professors. Liberal professors learn how to shake their hips from Elvis.
Elvis learned his shtick from the black man and their cultural music. The liberalization
of education was proceeded by cultural change, not the other way around. Supply and
Demand, the puritanical, homogenized and repressed white children obviously enjoyed
the idea of new influences, which can manifest in various forms of expression.
The universities met this demand with a supply of new ideas and topics.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by PrimalRed

 

Originally posted by PrimalRed
I fully support what the church is doing, they have the right to have their own rules within reason

Interesting phrase: "within reason". So, banning interracial couples is "reasonable" to you? Would banning young men be reasonable? Would banning black people be "reasonable" to you?

I can go downtown, find some homeless folk and then move them into your home. Surely you wouldn't discriminate against them in preference for your own family would you? After all you have no tolerance for banning people. We wouldn't want you to look like a bigot or a hypocrite would we?

reply to post by Gorman91

Well yes. This is why trials exist. To allow a presentation of law and opinion, and let a consensus agree if he is guilty. Every trial that has ever existed by jury has always been based of the perception of the law by the jury. I am saying, but I must prove in front of a jury. Is this not obvious?

well NO, it's not obvious and perceptions are not put on trial, criminal acts are. Since you can provide no basis for a criminal act, there is no need for a trial.

also, in the US, jury decisions are not based on perceptions, (well, they are not supposed to be anyway) the decisions are to be derived from the facts of the case in correlation with existing law. Again, since there is no evidence of a crime, no jury and no trial should even be considered.

as for OWS, there have been criminal acts on both sides, unfortunately, only one seems to be being excessively punished for said crimes. the others, are still on state payrolls

the mere presence of "riot police" is a Constitutional infringement of every protester present.
ppl take preventative measures, police respond ... so, where's the riot?

Jim Crow laws have nothing to do with the topic at hand nor were they present or enforced during the period of the Civil War ... you're really reaching now. slavery and segregation aren't even bedfellows.

my point was to expand your perception of "northern rebellions" as though it was exclusive to the north.

Only ppl who are not naturally born Americans would even consider stating such a fallacy.

no, that was a fact ... religious books hold no value for me (been there, done that)
this was the "opinion" --> religion is a poison upon the hearts and minds of all humans.
(and although an opinion, it is supported by many facts, would you like a list?)

the devil ??? that's the best you got ??
well, i've certainly been called worse

as for governing oneself, i do it every day, without fail, without government and with the consent of all those around me (i guess this bubble is a pretty darn good one)

well, if you don't like that phrase, perhaps this one will resonate ...

It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways. ~Buddha

In South America there are people living in the stone age:
www.sentientdevelopments.com...
These lost tribes are about 300 years behind the rest of the world. In Kentucky they have people who are about 150 years behind the times. I have seen them. They carry muskets. Soon they will catch up. Just look at them and marvel.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Gorman91

 

slavery and segregation aren't even bedfellows.

Why don't you direct some of your conversation my way?

Slavery and segregation are linked at the hip, actually...
Slavery was enforced by implementing cultural and regional
policies and traditions, intended to keep the blacks away from
whites.

The main tool in this arsenal was segregation, segregation
ensured that blacks would lack inroads into white social life and
institutions, such as churches and schools. The reason to limit this
interaction is because it ensures that black people would never be
fully humanized by social contact and friendly relations. Therefore
the slave owner, specifically, could be certain that their free labor and
property would never become the center of a political uprising within
the white communities who might catch wind to the pervasive nature
of slavery and the imposed culture which kept it alive.

Segregation was a few different things to different people, but it was
also paramount in propelling the status quo of slavery and racism
born of the slave era. Slavery could not exist without institutional
racism and institutional racism could not exist without segregation.
The states enforced the policies of institutional racism, left over
from the slave era and violated the constitution and liberty in doing so.

Please tell me where I am mistaken, I would love to get down.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Honor93

The South lost because the North cheated the Constitutional boundaries of which they agreed to adhere.

so are you telling us that the States were granted the constitutional authority
to curtail and regulate the activities and boundaries of a persons free movement?

The constitution does not grant the right to any authority to impose tyranny
and actual slavery on human beings. It is a farce to say that free men, created
a free country that was intended to have the power to enslave the people through
a document based upon freedom and liberty.

The confederacy was trying to protect their free labor, the basis of that free labor
was tyranny, simple.

no, i'm not telling you that ... i'm just reiterating long established facts.

at the time of the Civil War, slaves (not free men or freed slaves) were not considered free persons, they were property and subject to all the regulations governing said property.
again, don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

The Constitutional boundaries i am referring to are the ones preventing the Federal government from oppressing (with exceptional force mind you) the rights of the seceded states.
That was a total breech of established Constitutional authority.

for the last time, the US nor the Constitution, imposed or enforced slavery ... it was the choice of the states participating in a legal business activity, until such time as that changed. (right or wrong, moral or not, oppressive or liberating is irrelevant to the facts)

Slavery was as much an import to the US as were the pilgrims.

actually no, the North was protecting their free labor (manufacturing needed the South ... not the other way around) South Carolina and the accompanying 6 preferred their Constitutional liberty.
If the secession had succeeded, the North would have incurred additional fees for the products the South produced.
Lincoln denied them and destroyed anyone who disagreed with him along the way.

i don't dispute that "free labor" was the result of tyranny but it certainly served as an economic benefit to the North vs the South. see any economic structure of the time for examples.

and this whole South thing is really bothersome ... when the Civil War began, those "southern states" included Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, S Carolina and Georgia ... and 3 outta 7 are geographically in the South, but the whole of the South gets the blame ... what is THAT about?

reply to post by mastahunta

Why don't you direct some of your conversation my way?

i did and i will again ... am out for next couple hrs ... i can read it and respond when i return.
i am certainly not glued to this machine ... honest, i will return.

Originally posted by Honor93

no, i'm not telling you that ... i'm just reiterating long established facts.

at the time of the Civil War, slaves (not free men or freed slaves) were not considered free persons, they were property and subject to all the regulations governing said property.
again, don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

They were not considered free persons because of racism which justified slavery (plus profiteering)
and segregation, which ensured that blacks would have no inroads to white sympathizers, because
whites realizing blacks are human could lead to insurrection... It is a system, the components
are their for a purpose...

The Constitutional boundaries i am referring to are the ones preventing the Federal government from oppressing (with exceptional force mind you) the rights of the seceded states.
That was a total breech of established Constitutional authority.

So do you think if, Arizona, today decided that Mexican Americans are considered property, that the
Federal Government would be remiss in defending those peoples rights? Have you read the declarations
of succession??? The States were practicing outside of the constitution and the Federal government
did it's duty to defend the rights and freedom of Americans. Otherwise, if that was such an outlandish
move, why isn't there a massive call to reinstate slavery? Please, explain that... If it was just and
the Feds were wrong, why isn't it still an issue today?

for the last time, the US nor the Constitution, imposed or enforced slavery ... it was the choice of the states participating in a legal business activity, until such time as that changed. (right or wrong, moral or not, oppressive or liberating is irrelevant to the facts)

Slavery was as much an import to the US as were the pilgrims.

Slavery was an old institution that was wrong and corrupt, come on now man...
You are charging that is not self evident that keep someone hostage and making
money from their imprisonment is a legitimate business practice. It was overlooked,
you know it was once legitimate to cut a mans guts open in a town square, or burn people
at the stake, all legitimate at one point.

Do you thing it is legitimate to stone a woman to death today? It is legitimate to some fundamentalist
muslims...Legal too...

actually no, the North was protecting their free labor (manufacturing needed the South ... not the other way around) South Carolina and the accompanying 6 preferred their Constitutional liberty.

What on earth are you talking about???

Were there people in the North, imprisoned on a piece of property, making people the
equivalent of millions of dollars a year?

The south was protection the free labor that institutional slavery ensured.


If the secession had succeeded, the North would have incurred additional fees for the products the South produced.
Lincoln denied them and destroyed anyone who disagreed with him along the way.

Wait, so what about the millions of black people who had to live under the rule of private law?
You are choosing to ignore the fact that slavery is an immoral practice, I can only waive your
sentiment if you believe that slavery is moral, I assume you don't. Otherwise it sounds
like you are building a castle to match the furniture you picked out.

i don't dispute that "free labor" was the result of tyranny but it certainly served as an economic benefit to the North vs the South. see any economic structure of the time for examples.

OK, so when was it supposed to end, was there any imperative to end it?

and this whole South thing is really bothersome ... when the Civil War began, those "southern states" included Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, S Carolina and Georgia ... and 3 out 7 are geographically in the South, but the whole of the South gets the blame ... what is THAT about?

I am not sure, I know that the some people who live in the south do a great deal to keep that
distinction alive.

reply to post by mastahunta

ok, i'll touch this before i go ...

Slavery and segregation are linked at the hip, actually... Slavery was enforced by implementing cultural and regional policies and traditions, intended to keep the blacks away from
whites.

this depends entirely on the context you are applying.
slavery, as a world-wide practice and influence, existed long before any authoritative segregation, even in America ... and, long before the Civil War, the Native Indians had many stories to share about such acts.

now, if we're talking US history ... slavery arrived with the pilgrims and the Crown.
a few hundred years later, the Constitution was crafted and by that time, slavery was a well integrated participant in society and yes, with it came authoritative segregation which the Confederacy and the Fed capitalized on post Revolutionary war.

please note, i am not advocating any of it ... i firmly against slavery & forced segregation.

however, i do not see segregation as a lead in to slavery, rather quite the opposite. i perceive the segregation as merely a tool used to enforce the slavery status and diminish the individual aspirations of freedom and liberty.
Thus, creating conflict, resentment and the acceleration of both greed and envy throughout the lands.

long before slavery was an "issue" for the black man in America, it was an issue for many races all over the world. and, imho, America deserves accolades for being the first to abolish it

forced segregation could be considered the essence of manipulation BUT voluntary segregation is individual choice and should remain as such.

reply to post by Misoir

i'm a PA kid, i can relate and knew some of the same people with the same attitudes.

and, i personally sat with many a senior who was a youth or born around the Civil War so the 60s protests were kinda icing on the cake after a serving of first hand history.

yes, the 60s protests were alot of things ... there were so many all at once but successful ???
i wouldn't necessarily agree. they served a purpose and to some extent it was met, but the influence of the critical thinkers far outweighed the passion of the protesters, hence we have today.

and in all honesty, i could comfortably do without the 60s also, all but the music
after all, then came the 70s and boy what a disaster they were.