Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

reply to post by Honor93

where do you get such a crazy and outrageous viewpoint?

If you wish to call the south good or that there was no good and bad in the war, that is your opinion.

War, in all honesty, is evil period. You judge the good and the bad only after the war, and how they've gone on. The good side reveals itself in who builds schools and invents and who builds more tanks and seeks nothing but profits.

In this scale, the North was good, the south bad. Because one side wanted profits, the other side wanted conformity to the rights of men.

it's a short one and i'm not about to cut and paste all the info, it's there.

I am quite aware of these facts...the facts that exist in there. Not all were facts. But this really isn't all that relevant to what I said; to the point of this thread.

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

Show me where it is....

It was dealt with in the article of confederation and later other documents, and the Civil War. What it boils down to is that it can be said to be in the "unwritten constitution". This meaning, we fought a bloody war to establish the preference-but-not-fact that the union is permanent. Hell, that's why they didn't put the confederacy to trial all that much. It would mean they would HAVE to legally define it. No state wanted it. It is reserved as an act of protest, you could say. Neither stated to be a right, nor not a right.

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

How so?

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.

If it is in the people, then no state has the right to secede. For the union covers ALL the people, not just a specific state. States rights deals with the fact that all the people are not the same, and prefer different governing styles and methods; codes and common law, etc etc, as is their rights.

The South lost because they had fewer people, were interested in money, and favored slavery in an age of abolitionism. These mix to produce an unfavorable form of governing. Furthermore, there is no cheating to the constitution. By focusing on slavery for justifying the war, even though nobody wanted to admit it at first, the war was perfectly constitutionally justifiable.

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.

... and tyrants. You forgot that.

And also, no not mosques. Not churches. Stop changing what I said. I said the priest. The leader in question doing the perversions. This is not crazy talk. This is defense of humanity against the dogs that destroy it.

reply to post by Misoir

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.

If you want to go that far back, then you also have to support the crown, the "stay in your own class" argument, and strict orderly fashions.

I don't know your family, but if you are claiming to be an immigrant, maybe you should realize that under such archaic beliefs, you would be a slave...

If so, why do you talk, salve? Go back to the farm and do the owners work. After all, you have to stay in your class. You're a mere peasant. An immigrant. A man without a country. Or better yet, why are you even in this country? After all, immigrants are dangerous.


That is, of course, if you really are what you say you are.

reply to post by Honor93


PA family too, although I live in Florida. My family all lived in Pennsylvania. It was a beautiful place to visit, not sure about living as I know the state there is intrusive.

reply to post by Honor93

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.

The issue with Kentucky was not bound to the civil war. You said it wasn't the south. I said it was. You asked for proof. I showed you Jim Crow.

I repeat, stop mixing and changing what I say.

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)

So you think. But how can you govern yourself without basing that governance on others that you've learned from? Therefore you can never truly govern yourself. The memes of others you've taken from is really governing you.

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

There is no reason to think your mind is any better than mine.

reply to post by mastahunta

I think you severly understate the impact of the hippies and their protests..

i would agree with this in regards to your summary of said protests.
Do you even realize how many subjects were being protested, all at once even?

well, let's see ...
war, draft, deserters, peace, segregation, civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights, drug rights, animal rights, environmental rights, human experimentation rights and a slew of others i forget at this moment.

it was a very turbulent time glossed over by the msm, the Feds, the mainstream, the people themselves and a myriad of symptoms of the establishment from which the protests were born. cultural influences certainly played a part but they were not a prominent issue.

it's kinda like ppl saying protests ended the VM conflict ... uh, NO they didn't ... the loss of half a million+ available soldiers due to (conscientious objections) deserting their posts put the brakes on that mission.

reply to post by Gorman91


First off I am not an immigrant, my parents were born here and I was born here. My grandparents were refugees, they never wanted to move here but when the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was quashed by the invading Soviets, who conducted a mass shooting spree throughout Budapest just unloading rounds into every building on the streets, they fled to Austria so that they could apply for refugee status (along with 26,000 others).

You are interpreting Conservatism to be some political ideology, it was never intended to be, and it is supposed to be a personal philosophy. That is how I treat it. There is more to it than obeying a King or serving a Lord.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Honor93

 

it isn't about more or less as far as personal value is concerned, but rather what the cause of the disparity is, and it's found to be most concentrated in places where poverty is the worst, which is africa. africans have been the poorest, least well fed, people on the planet, for a very long time and it has produced generations of people with genetic disadvantages.

Have you ever considered that the reason for the poverty is the lower intelligence?

Of course, Political Correctness has you rationalizing it the other way around to meet their demands.

Think for yourself.

Originally posted by Honor93
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.

What I am saying is racism was essential for slavery to thrive in the American system.
Racism was a way dehumanize human beings

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I think you severly understate the impact of the hippies and their protests..

i would agree with this in regards to your summary of said protests.
Do you even realize how many subjects were being protested, all at once even?

well, let's see ...
war, draft, deserters, peace, segregation, civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights, drug rights, animal rights, environmental rights, human experimentation rights and a slew of others i forget at this moment.

it was a very turbulent time glossed over by the msm, the Feds, the mainstream, the people themselves and a myriad of symptoms of the establishment from which the protests were born. cultural influences certainly played a part but they were not a prominent issue.

I am not sure which of the above not influenced by cultural values

it's kinda like ppl saying protests ended the VM conflict ... uh, NO they didn't ... the loss of half a million+ available soldiers due to (conscientious objections) deserting their posts put the brakes on that mission.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Honor93 because: edit

Interesting that you expanded the factors to explain the nature of protestation, but you winnowed down
the reasons for the end of the Vietnam war.

How about, it threatened to bring about a world war, Via China and then Russia?
How about, the expense of the war itself?
How about, the president and the government were lying about the nature of the war.
How about , the government was becoming heavily involved in the south east asian drug trade
How about, Black soldiers were being killed for a country that was not even sure if he was totally a man.

All I am saying is, if you read the memoirs of Johnson and Nixon you will see that the protests against
the war, wore heavily upon both men.

reply to post by Misoir


philosophy = politics my good sir. And under your own views, you should be a slave.

You are a hypocrite. I am done. Have a good day.

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Honor93

 

it isn't about more or less as far as personal value is concerned, but rather what the cause of the disparity is, and it's found to be most concentrated in places where poverty is the worst, which is africa. africans have been the poorest, least well fed, people on the planet, for a very long time and it has produced generations of people with genetic disadvantages.

Have you ever considered that the reason for the poverty is the lower intelligence?

Of course, Political Correctness has you rationalizing it the other way around to meet their demands.

Think for yourself.

no, because if it were true, there would be no doctors, lawyers, teachers, inventors, physicists, scientists, politicians, etc, that are black. they have the same brain structure and learning capacity as any other race.

white people have the same capacity as people of the orient, the only difference is focal point of the society. if western culture were purely science-driven, we would be right up there in iq levels with the orient, but we produce a fine cross section of left and right brained people. and those iq tests don't ask questions like, what is the best media to use for painting on rice paper.

art, music, the sciences, and religion are all here in the west. the japanese have managed to retain those right brain art concepts enough over their generations, that they have produced many master level artists, one right after the other. but just to the west of them, the focus is almost exclusively science and technology. and the iq tests are primarily geared for those subjects (if you don't count rote memorization of historical accounts).

just thought i'd repost this post of mine from another thread. it was about an observation i made regarding news programs during and after elections.

i remember when bush was voted in the second time, there was a map on cnn called the jesusland map. the reporter who showed the map also spent time going over what he called "studies" that proved (in his way of thinking), that the people who didn't vote for kerry (red states), were not as well educated and were generally dumber than the people in the blue states. he even tried to make the case that it was biological dumbness and somehow was also related to their religion (christianity). he also played the "dumb white red neck" card, hoping to further infuriate both sides of the issue.

and to make matters worse, they claimed it was voting machine fraud that gave bush the election anyway, but somehow that's the fault of dumb white christian people, who are not educated and are fat and are biologically dumb. you heard it here first folks.

now, the map of jesusland is mostly blue states who voted for the cnn candidate (obama). wonder what the new excuse is: those dumb people suddenly grow a brain?

mark my words, if we ever get to see another election and we end up with another republican at any point, the dumb people that suddenly grew brains during this election, will lose their smarts again...conveniently, just in time to blame it on their lack of education, their skin color, and of course, their religion.


makes ya feel loved, don't it?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yes this is true. The Church, as a private organisation, can ban this couple, it is their right.

Don't know if it's been covered yet...but Churches enjoy a tax-free status therefore they don't exist in a vacuum. They are not private if they function as a not-for-profit organisation supported by tax exemptions.

reply to post by Misoir




You fail to see the big picture.. you really do.

If it was decided that race stays with race.. and all of us on this board would be of one race... we would not be discussing race since that has already been addressed and race division was already the norm..

we would be discussing class... with in the race..

Once that has been addressed and everyone is divided by class there would be MORE division within the classes.

I really do not think you see this. the division would never stop and it would go on and on...

I do not have a problem with race preservation. If some people want to do this that is fine. I just think that they should not expect everyone of their race to think the same way. I also do not think that some "master" race should attempt to subjugate or eradicate another.

The video you posted has some truths in it. Should that study be the end all be all?? i do not think so... as i think there are many factors that were not taken into account and those factors would make a difference. I am also not saying they are equal but this study is stacked in favor of whites.

From my work experience in the engineering field, race means jack. When I was a professors student assistant and tutor in college race meant jack too. My brother has pretty much confirmed what I found during his time as a tutor.

Our findings were that there are about as many dumb blacks as there are whites or any other race.

The only difference is that currently "whites" run the show and that gives them a psychological edge over all other races. It is very hard to explain but all other races are basically a defeated people.. that makes it very hard to believe they can do well in a world dominated by whites.

When I was in college my lab partner was a blue eyed blond dude. He was the whitest guy I had every met. We used to study together and became friends. When we would talk about race he would pretty much always showboat how the whites were better and they were running the show. When I would point out that I would always perform better than him in our classes he would point out that it did not matter. when i asked why he replied...."I am white, when an employer sees my name on a resume and he sees me at the interview he will assume I am smart because I am white. He will see a son, or a brother and want to hire me. On the other hand when they see your name and see you at the interview they will see you as dumb because you are not white. He will see a thief or an illegal. As a token to keep up the PC image." I sat back and said "screw you kevin" he laughed and we took lunch.

What he said is true, and my treatment early on at work was rough. One of the most socially awkward person i work with told me one day " You know what, when you got hired and I heard you were mexican I did not know what to expect. After working with you for a year, you are not that different than us." I was laughing on the inside as it was the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


Race means nothing the person inside is what matters.

Although I would never drive a pink camaro but I would drive a blue one... I would also never drive a mustang, not because I do not like its performance but because I do not like the body style. it all comes down to preference. not which one is better than the other.

Originally posted by Honor93
Jim Crow laws have nothing to do with the topic at hand

Jim Crow laws such as racial segregation were stated clearling the OP, it has verymuch to do with the topic. You already stated your position though that States have the right to enforce racial segregation laws.

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.

What evidence do you have that these laws were not enforced during the civil war? 1000's of american citizens seeked freedom during the 19th century, only to be caught and assaulted. But clearly you don't care, you think governments have legitimate right to enforce restrictive laws over america citizens based on race.

you think governments have legitimate right to enforce restrictive laws over america citizens based on race.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


this is an interesting statement of yours. don't equal opportunity laws and tax breaks for employers of "minorities" fall under that description? have to be careful how you word things because this particular approach you are taking is a two-edged sword, unless you mean to say that caucasians aren't citizens? this is such an interesting topic.

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Honor93

 

it isn't about more or less as far as personal value is concerned, but rather what the cause of the disparity is, and it's found to be most concentrated in places where poverty is the worst, which is africa. africans have been the poorest, least well fed, people on the planet, for a very long time and it has produced generations of people with genetic disadvantages.

Have you ever considered that the reason for the poverty is the lower intelligence?

Of course, Political Correctness has you rationalizing it the other way around to meet their demands.

Think for yourself.

I have spent a good deal of time around blacks in several setting and would not conclude that there is an issue of lower intelligence as a matter of genetics. Even poor whites. Have spent time around them and wouldnt say that they represent a genetically inferior strain of whites.

reply to post by mastahunta

ok, i'm back and responding to posts from the point where i left off so if i miss something here, it's because i haven't read there yet.

after reading this post, i will gladly discuss the issues you present, however, out of respect for the OP and the topic of this thread, i would prefer it take place under a proper topic and in a proper forum.

at the risk of off topic censure, i will say that i disagree with your summary.
historical facts and inter-racial relationships evidenced by DNA prove your theory incompatible with the truth.

i will agree that many of your points apply to specific situations in specific regions but that isn't enough to generalize the issue for all.

yes to segregation being used as a tool to steer the masses (both of them)
yes to manipulation engaged by slave owners (who were not always white folk) --> matter of fact, the first legal slave owner was a black man.
prior to that SC decision, the status quo was servitude not slavery.
and before you say there's no difference, there most certainly is.

whilst i would agree that the white folk interfered with the natural progression of the black folk, each person is still responsible for their own growth, learning, teaching and evolving.
claiming anyone other than self is responsible for personal inequities is a cop out.

you cannot discredit the Constitution for the acts of slavery.
slavery existed before and beyond ... so, the Constitution is irrelevant to your argument.

this quote ...

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

couldn't be any more wrong.
Lincoln proves this beyond the shadow of any doubt.
his use of excessive military force to ensure the Union and its profitability blows that statement right out into the stratosphere.

Originally posted by undo
this is an interesting statement of yours. don't equal opportunity laws and tax breaks for employers of "minorities" fall under that description?

I don't think i'd compare state mandated racial segration to affirmative action or equal opportunity laws of today, but then again I don't support affirmative action, never did. I don't believe that private businesses should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities. Employees should be free to hire the best they see fit for the position.

have to be careful how you word things because this particular approach you are taking is a two-edged sword, unless you mean to say that caucasians aren't citizens?

Not sure where I stated that caucasians weren't citizens either.

Now regarding multiculturalism, and how it is supposedly destroying individual cultures. Centuries ago, Europeans made the decision to journey beyond their lands, to conquer other lands, to establish new societies abroad. They left Europe by choice, and over the years millions of European migrants made the trek to United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so forth. With the price of settling in new lands came the inevitability of multiculturalism, whether you agree with it or not. Yes you oppose interracial marriages and this idea of multiculturalism on a personal level, but it's alittle silly to argue against it, since our ancestors played an instrumental part in causing it, by leaving their lands in the first place. Nobody forced our ancestors to leave their homogeneous socieities, they made they choice. They could have stayed among their own, and continue to stick on their own, but they didn't. They approached cultures, invaded foreign lands, and eventually set the path for multicultural societies by establishing civilization in lands they were foreigners of in the first place.

If you think multiculturalism is a threat to your racial pride and values, then I have to question what you are doing in a multicultural society, as America has always, and will always continue to be such, regardless.