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: 17
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

if you are going to keep generalizing, don't expect many responses from me.
slavery was abolished long before segregation (almost 100 yrs or 4 generations)
you cannot piggy-back one to the other when they were non-existent in the time frame considered.
[slavery had been declared illegal since 1870 or earlier, forced segregation wasn't removed until the 1960s]

and to think, just under 50yrs later, we've come an awfully long way as a society

never said forward, backward, good or bad ... but we have come a long way.

non-slave or "free" states prior to the CW, were inhabited with plenty of black voters who were either, free men (as citizens of that state) or freed slaves who escaped or relocated from their prior slave-state.
and yes, those who were citizens were considered free men and some of them held official seats in the State legislatures and various bodies of government.

heck, even the first Black Congressman was elected in the Southern state of Mississippi.
the movement to abolish slavery did not start the same day as the Civil War rather much, much sooner.
slavery wasn't even a central issue to, for, or about the CW ... states' rights were.

if there was such an atmosphere of forced segregation as you describe it, then how do you explain the Tuskegee Airmen? or the Army Nurse Corp ?? or the Jefferson blood-line for that matter ??
this is what i mean about historical facts don't back up your summary.

yes, i've read the secession documents from 5 of the 7 states involved.
no state was practicing outside of any document.
the Constitution didn't prohibit the industry of slavery so what's your problem?

when the states acted upon their desire to terminate their contract with the Union, Lincoln revolted.
He and he alone declared the secessions "legally invalid" and the South(Carolina) leader of the movement turned a deaf ear and shortly thereafter the attack had begun. (see link on prvs pg for more detail)

i never said that i support, or advocate slavery of any kind but that doesn't give either one of us the right to manipulate the facts of the day to suit an alternate agenda.
sorry, but that bus already left the terminal.

there wasn't and there isn't a massive move to re-instate slavery because it NEVER was the issue at hand during that time. why ppl choose to make it that way now is utterly befuddling.

no one in this story or thread is saying slavery was right.
however, you cannot dispute that the States had every right to terminate their contract with the Union AND enjoy the protections guaranteed until such a termination occurred.
This ^^^^ is the Constitutional breach. the rights of the people of all 7 states were plowed over like dead grass.

IF you choose to ignore these simple facts, that is your choice but please, if you are not going to make any effort, find someone else to engage.
As much as i enjoy the banter, i do not agree with your current opinion.

why do you equate one bad act with another?
does that make one or the other right in your mind?
i don't agree with prostitution either but i do and will support the right to make such a choice.

slave labor or "free-labor" directly benefited the manufacturing north as much or more than their owners in the slave-state (N or S) ... see any economic depiction of the time for examples.

Lincoln couldn't bear to have the Union dissolved on his watch nor was he willing or prepared to pay additional fees for products currently produced in the slave states, hence invasion.

the South(Carolina) +6 preferred the liberty and freedom enshrined in the Constitution, hence they took the high road and filed the proper paperwork to secede. lotta good that did 'em.
need more?


Were there people in the North, imprisoned on a piece of property, making people the
equivalent of millions of dollars a year?
why yes if you consider New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware northern states because they were ALL slave states. need a map?

so now what, you're obviously out of arguments so you circle back to this ???

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.
my opinion of slavery or the morality of it doesn't change the fact that it IS history.
like it or lump it, it is what it was, not what you and some others would like it to be.
and, as per usual, your assumptions are as invalid as your argument.

clarify this please ...

OK, so when was it supposed to end, was there any imperative to end it?
what "it" and from where would an imperative originate?
[slavery, segregation, war, inter-racial relationships, bigotry, racism, which "it" exactly?]
cont'd next post




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

continued from previous post ...

I know that the some people who live in the south do a great deal to keep that distinction alive.

and i know a lot of people, specifically in the North, who depend on keeping that distinction alive, still doesn't make it right or legitimate.

i have lived in both North and South states, some once free and some once slave, and i have observed for nearly 2 decades the all too frequent misnomer of the North.
Y'all got some real problems up there. but, many of those could resolve themselves if y'all just let go already. you won, big deal ... we're all still suffering.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93
 

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.

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.

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

Kentucky joined the Union AS a slave state in 1792 and i still don't see how that or Jim Crow laws have anything to do with this Topic ... Church bans inter-racial marriages.

i said it wasn't part of the original "Southern slave states" or something similar ... they joined later.

so, now you're going to tell me how i live ??? you sure about that?
i do think, i do know and i do live it every day ... what is your point exactly?

self-governance is instinctive (like the animals) if you choose to recognize it.
it is not difficult and i usually follow one simple rule of thumb ... do unto others as i would have them do unto me.

it's pretty basic and covers both good or bad ... for that which you give, you get.
[and an unexpected bonus has been, the more i give, the more i get, cool huh?]

those that i learned from are dead and buried so how am i being governed by them or their teachings ?? perhaps when i was younger i might agree but now, not so much.

you say ... "i can never truly govern myself"
... and i would ask that you don't project your inequities on anyone unless you're talking to the man in the mirror.

not sure where you are going with this but the dead do not govern me, my neighbors do not govern me and my government does not govern me unless i ask.
perhaps your world is different than mine but i'm positive that i govern myself and a multitude of animals in my care. (ask the man of the house and he'd probably say i govern him too
)

laws certainly don't keep me honest, i do. it's a personal choice.
rules were made to be broken and where is the challenge in life if you follow all the rules ??

when i was younger, i loved an outdoor adventure (still do just not as challenging) and i looked forward to anyone telling me "don't do that, you'll get hurt" just so i could conscientiously give it a whirl. no pain, no gain.

no dear, i am a free spirit and no human has authority over me unless i request it.
this may be a concept beyond your grasp but i assure you it's for real.

who is claiming mental superiority ?? [did the Buddha quote offend you?]



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

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.

@ Undo --> please look into the Ethiopian famine in the 80s and how much better they are today ... not great mind you but a noticeable improvement ... question is, what is different about this group vs S Africa?

source
In northern Ethiopia, famine led to more than 400,000 deaths
--- snip ---
The famines that struck Ethiopia between 1961 and 1985, and in particular the one of 1983–5, were in large part created by government policies, specifically the set of counter-insurgency strategies employed and so-called 'social transformation' in non-insurgent areas.
--- snip ---
In 1984, President Mengistu Haile Mariam announced that 46% of the Ethiopian Gross National Product would be allocated to military spending, creating the largest standing army in sub-Saharan Africa; the allocation for health in the government budget fell from 6% in 1973–4 to 3% by 1990–1.
that's 1% of their GNP is allocated to the health of their people --> why so little you may ask, cause we are footing the bill for the rest and have been since 1975.


source
USAID's Ethiopia portfolio is one of the largest and most complex in Africa.

and this title ought to grab ya in all the wrong places ...

The Power of 1% and Global Health: ... USAID

now, i'm not saying "let them eat cake" or anything like that but ... we give and we give and we give some more ... so, where are the returns on our investments ???
[if we look toward Somalia for a progress report, it isn't gonna be a good one]

look, i'm all for helping out those in need but this has become international rape and i've had enough.
if you closely at the links provided, their fertility rate is phenomenal but their mortality rate really bites ... makes me wonder just what "experiments" are going on over there



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

and to this i say BS ...

What I am saying is racism was essential for slavery to thrive in the American system.
you really need to step off this merry-go-round because it's going nowhere fast.

racism is not essential for slavery to thrive, you are either mistaken or misled, your choice.
many slaves had strong, inter-personal relationships with their owners, their family members and those with whom they were stationed.
yes, racism was prevalent but that doesn't make it a necessity.

i totally disagree with your assumptions.
i was raised in a highly segregated area in PA and in grade school during desegregation, sooooo, where's my racism ??
[all of a sudden i feel slighted for some reason
]

what you're trying to peddle here is akin to this --> i say i'm a potato and you respond with "well, there must be some Idaho in you somewhere" ... wtf is that besides very poor logic ??

almost, i would say that either the whites or blacks could have ended slavery in any of the Northern or Southern states practicing it. (as is evidenced by successful laws enacted in PA, NY and others before the Civil War broke out.) If i remember correctly, i think both of these movements were spear-headed by Black men ... so again, what do the whites or the PC version, white oppression have to do with it?


segregation made sure that the "help" did not fraternize with the voting populace and threaten the
"masta's" and the profit system.
If this is true, please, share with the class who was Sally Hemings?
and let's not forget, she was only one of many during this period of history.


Do you really think that the system just fell into place like it did? No... It was intentionally
designed from mannerisms, to religion and education, all of which consisted of racially
based tradition and impositions.
NO, i don't ... i believe it was hand-delivered by the British Crown.


I agree, but I wonder way for an instant you were excoriating the Federal Government for trying to abolish the practice?
the US Federal government nor Abe Lincoln had any prior intention of abolishing slavery.

even the Emancipation Proclamation was null and void for most slaves throughout the Union.

source
This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order. But the proclamation did show Americans-- and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery.
~~ can you say ... propaganda

yes, it's hard to believe or accept for that matter but the truth is the truth.
from same link ...

A believer in white supremacy, he [Lincoln] initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. --- snip --- Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in America--this was achieved by the passage of the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution on Dec. 18, 1865--it did make that accomplishment a basic war goal and a virtual certainty.
notice the bold date ??
yeah, this was almost effective for a few slaves in even fewer states
39 Months / 3 yrs + 3 months ... Later.
yeppers, he was ON it, for sure.


It seems like you were trying to legitimize the practice by stating that the States
were being tyrannized unfairly. I do not doubt that there were many secretive motive pure and false
alike in the prosecution of the war, however in the end you like the end result.
i am not legitimizing slavery, but i am stating that the 7 seceding States were tyrannized unfairly.

Truthfully, i am not satisfied with the end result.
i am of the opinion the ppl (all of us) got screwed royally.

internally, slavery was already ending (not quickly but happening all on its own)
States rights are/were outlined in the Contract breached (Constitution)

Lincoln over-stepped his scripted boundaries by solely declaring the secessions "legally void"
that should have been decided by Congress.
And, Lincoln abused the powers of POTUS by invading Constitutionally protected citizens, businesses and lands. He simply had no authority to do any of it but once it began, there was only an end to anticipate.

i do have enough faith in humans to believe (maybe falsely but we'll never know) that slavery would have ended naturally. maybe even quicker than it did.
many of the enslaved found much worse after "emancipation" ... think it through now ... can you imagine OWS in every city for 3 straight years? (at least some of OWS have lives, jobs and contributions, slaves had nothing of the kind)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


How would it have ended if the states were allowed to perpetuate it?
please be more specific. perpetuate liberty, war, States' rights or slavery?
personally, i think slavery would have become less and less, naturally. (as it already was)
i also think the slavery we suffer today (abducted children) would be much more noticeable and less achievable with the cooperation rather apathy of the masses.

IF states' rights had prevailed, our Fed government would have fewer teeth and be less dangerous to our liberties.
and, given enough room and opportunity, the ppl would have provided for one another with less angst, reserve, withdrawal or condemnation of one another. (ok i confess, i'm a hopeless optimist but i really do believe it)


I think individuals should be allowed to segregate, but not at the expense of other peoples liberty.
agreed. gathering and sharing common ground (even racism) should not be regulated by anyone other than the participants. members of a gathering breaking laws is a different story. (just so i'm clear)
____________________

reply to post by mastahunta
 

yes, yes, all of those and more apply but this conversation isn't exactly respectful of the OP, now is it?

as for VNam, i wasn't discussing the war, rather the effect the protests are portrayed to have had on it.
[just trying to keep this off topic stuff to a minimum but would prefer even less]

so, are you being disrespectful to the Topic on purpose?
as for protests, i wouldn't mind seeing these two (Stella & Ticha) leading an inter-racial protest at that church.
it would be well within their right to do so.
if they tried hard enough, they could cripple that congregation to the point the pastor was forced out. (fair is fair)

some protests have been quite successful and others fizzled faster than they were noticed. it's the nature of the beast.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.

just for you i re-read the story and OP ... perhaps you should consider that i don't refer to the laws of segregation as "jim crow" laws.
[and incidentally, neither did you by that name]

i still don't see how they apply.
that was then, this is now.
this is not "forced segregation" as those were.
this is not "public" but private (church)
this isn't anything resembling those.
[are you familiar with any of the actual laws?]

i never said anything about any states enforcing segregation "today" (show me otherwise)
*** in a pvs discussion, i re-iterated that States did have such a right ~~ before it was curtailed Constitutionally. but that isn't today either. ***

i even argued that Kentucky, nor its legislature, or local government had any say in the matter. (again, voluntary segregation is none of the State's business)

i'm guessing that perhaps you missed this ...

Members at a business meeting decided to put the matter before the whole church. Last Sunday, nine people voted for the proposal and six voted against it, Harville said.

Read more: www.kentucky.com...
if their majority is ok with it, why does any outsider feel the need to condemn them for it? (yourself included)
If you attend there and are uncomfortable, that's another story.

aren't you an OWS supporter??
i ask because if you favor consensus/majority rulings, how is their majority wrong?

what gives you "authority" over them? are they infringing on the rights of others ??
[keep in mind, at 40+ i cannot get served alcohol sans an ID ... if i'm refused, is the store infringing on my right (by legal age) to buy it?]


you think governments have legitimate right to enforce restrictive laws over america citizens based on race
and you sir, are extremely cornfused.
could you let me know when i'm thinking the correct lotto numbers too?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
just for you i re-read the story and OP ... perhaps you should consider that i don't refer to the laws of segregation as "jim crow" laws.


You may not, but racial segregation and laws against interracial marriages are and have been considered part of the Jim crow era, its common knowledge. 'Seperate but equal' is the key statement here:
americanhistory.si.edu...

And this was made very clear in the OP. That the federal government was right in overruling the ability of State governments to mandate and force these laws on American citizens. Misoir obviously disagreed, and so did you.


i still don't see how they apply.
that was then, this is now.
this is not "forced segregation" as those were.


Those laws don't apply now, and they ain't coming back, but thay wasn't the point. The point was as to what justification government, State governments, had enforcing these laws over American citizens? What legitimacy does the government have to tell you whom you can and cannot mix, be with, love with, because of the fact you were just born, without choice, of a certain race? It's a question of freedom, a question of just what authority the government has getting involved in private lives. Misoir argued that State governments had this right, and referred to 19th century supreme court rulings (that were eventually overturned by rulings toward the mid 20th century). You readily agreed with him on this.


this is not "public" but private (church)


There was never a question of whether this Church held the right to ban this interracial couple, there was criticism on my part, and rightfully so. I had my views, I posted them, and Misoir, and others such as yourself, likewise disagreed, and further jumped up declaring that governments, State governments, should be left to these issues.


i never said anything about any states enforcing segregation "today" (show me otherwise)
*** in a pvs discussion, i re-iterated that States did have such a right ~~ before it was curtailed Constitutionally.


Let’s go back to what clearly said before:

’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.


You stated that you agreed with Misoir, that states are 'rightfully' authorized to enforce racial segregation laws and laws against interracial marriages on America citizens, that the Federal government has no right to intervene. You did not ,at any time, state that this was only in referral to the the mid-20th century, but then again that wouldn't make sense even if you did, because by your logic, States should have the authority, period.

Why step back from what you stated before? Stand firm on your position now, this is what you believe.


aren't you an OWS supporter??
i ask because if you favor consensus/majority rulings, how is their majority wrong?


Nope, never stated I was. I do sympathize with their feelings, but there are things that I disagree with them on and have stated such. This is moving off topic.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I can't understand the "racialist" arguments. They are predicated on the idea that the races are pure. You can't get a pure Irish or pure British being. Unless you can take it back thousands of years and prove no other nationality ever entered your bloodline. "Hungarian" is not a race, it was a nationality. I'm assuming your parents can show proof their bloodline comes directly from Hungary?

Urgh, all that proving would just give me and headache. I'd be too tired to even try to procreate.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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.



My theory has to do with sociology, it has nothing to do with chemical biology.
Where did I posit DNA into my argument? and what does DNA have to do with
segregation? DNA did not force segregation, people did.



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.

matter of fact, the first legal slave owner was a black man.


You later use the word cop out.... Is that what this factoid is?

The majority of slave were black, the majority of owners were white, why are you
trying to glaze over this? Segregation was imposed on Blacks, correct?





prior to that SC decision, the status quo was servitude not slavery.
and before you say there's no difference, there most certainly is.


Again... you are diverting attention away from the discussion which is slavery,
which did exist at mass.

What relevance does this factoid have? What does it do to eliminate what has happened?

Putting ketchup on eggs, won't make the eggs disappear.



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.


Ok... well I think they are on their way...



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


No, I can blame people who thought that owning other people was reasonable in a supposedly
free society.

The constitution is entirely relevant to elimination of slavery... Murder existed before and after the
constitution was penned. The State were violating individual rights, the Federal government had
all the right in the world to defend constitutional principles.




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.


Are you saying that Lincoln forced people to own slaves and profit off of free labor?

It seems like you are justifying slavery with a bunch of excuses... We are talking about
the institution of slavery, which was an economic and social system. If slaves were a part
of whites and their social circles, the slaves would have had more advocacy from whites
in the south who recognize the humanity in the slaves.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
I can't understand the "racialist" arguments. They are predicated on the idea that the races are pure. You can't get a pure Irish or pure British being. Unless you can take it back thousands of years and prove no other nationality ever entered your bloodline. "Hungarian" is not a race, it was a nationality. I'm assuming your parents can show proof their bloodline comes directly from Hungary?

Urgh, all that proving would just give me and headache. I'd be too tired to even try to procreate.


Ah, but then you have to consider where the inhabitants of Briton came from? They were
there before the Romans. I have read that half of Britons are Germanic...



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Dead men still rule and govern in the memes they left.

You act like your rule of thumb is natural. It is not. And that it let's you govern your self. Not so. If you truely were governing your self you would not be with another. And if you were truely alone you would be different.

What of the abused child who became warped and views that rule as a reason to abuse others. He never knew how to love himself, so he can only treat others as they have treated him. Only by letting the abused govern you for a while, showing them love, can you allow them to learn love and give it back.



Ergo. No one can truely govern themselves. Society would not have progressed past the cave if this wasn't true

hell, you are on a forum. That is the very definition of partial governing by another.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Those laws don't apply now, and they ain't coming back, but thay wasn't the point.

according to you it is ... your opening sentence reads ...

Yep, pritty sad this kind of mentality and ignorance still exists in society, not surprising though:
perhaps you meant to say it differently but it reads as it does.
And, the mentality that existed then to create and enforce such laws, DOES NOT exist today. got it ??


The point was as to what justification government, State governments, had enforcing these laws over American citizens?
if you knew history or bothered to look, you would realize the Brown case included the SCOTUS' admission that it was their opinion that the 14th amendment was previously misinterpreted / misrepresented.

you lead me to think "human error" isn't a good enough reason for you, is that the case?


What legitimacy does the government have to tell you whom you can and cannot mix, be with, love with, because of the fact you were just born, without choice, of a certain race?
this isn't a concern for the government of today and shouldn't have been then, so what's the point here?


It's a question of freedom, a question of just what authority the government has getting involved in private lives. Misoir argued that State governments had this right, and referred to 19th century supreme court rulings (that were eventually overturned by rulings toward the mid 20th century). You readily agreed with him on this.
i agreed that State governments did have said right until it was Constitutionally decided otherwise. and that doesn't make either of us wrong, it's historical fact.

i am truly saddened by the obvious fact that you REFUSE to see the difference but then again, stagnation isn't a problem that is only experienced by governments.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Ahh...... this thread reminds me of growing up in another country..making friends with the local children,we didn't speak the same language put played together and had fun. Ever see children of different 'colours' play and fight together with eachother?, laughing, giggling and occasionally getting mad? kids are kids, basically the same all over the world. I met tons of children from a wartorn country, refugee children who had lost everything they had including their country of origin but it struck me how they were no different than children in my own country.

Children are wiser than adults, they don't differentiate, unless they are taught to, but before the age when they can be taught to look down on eachother based on the color of there friend's skin or country of origin, they see eachother as the same. Sharing, squabbling, laughing, crying, giggling and throwing temper tantrums, but not even computing in their precious, still developing brains that the difference in skin tone should make any difference. We adults could learn from these little toddlers. They have no concept of history, they live in the moment and they are full of wonderful and mischevious love.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

now, regarding this nonsense, let's be clear, shall we ...

There was never a question of whether this Church held the right to ban this interracial couple, there was criticism on my part, and rightfully so.
WHAT gives you the "authority" to publicly criticize a private decision?
[in case that went over your head, it's the same "authority" that allows them to make such a decision]
get it yet? it's called Constitutional authority.


I had my views, I posted them, and Misoir, and others such as yourself, likewise disagreed, and further jumped up declaring that governments, State governments, should be left to these issues.
yes, i do disagree with your views and well within my rights to do so.
also, i disagreed with Misoir's opening post and defenses for several pages. once, Misoir clarified the Constitutional issue, i starred his comment and admitted why. He's right.
i still disagree with his opening statement and any perception of racial purity (or did you ignore that statement on purpose cause it doesn't fit your agenda ??)


You stated that you agreed with Misoir, that states are 'rightfully' authorized to enforce racial segregation laws and laws against interracial marriages on America citizens, that the Federal government has no right to intervene.
no, i said were and you quoted my comment "until it was Constitutionally curtailed"


You did not ,at any time, state that this was only in referral to the the mid-20th century, but then again that wouldn't make sense even if you did, because by your logic, States should have the authority, period.

... no, i didn't specify a date but for those who don't know the difference between the 1960s and the CW, i would suggest they learn.


Why step back from what you stated before? Stand firm on your position now, this is what you believe.
i am not stepping back from anything, i am repeating known facts based on Constitutional authority ... sorry, you don't understand the concept.

the time periods DO matter. The beliefs expressed then are not reflective of the beliefs of today nor the church you condemn. They are not separating anyone and they are not being forced to accept that with which they disagree.
[which btw, appears to be what you prefer ... that they conform to YOUR opinion]
so which is it ?? they are welcome to practice their Constitutionally protected right or not?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by BohemianBrim
 


...all races need to be preserved as they are all threatened by the PC Left.


This will go off topic in an on topic kind of way. My apologies, but I can't let this go. I can't agree with Misoir more then I already do.
Every single race out there, call them what you will... Are equally important. And it's extremely important that we forgo the idiotic "we're all the same" nonsense we've been force fed since day one. We're not all the same. And just because we're different from each other, doesn't mean any of us are better. Just that we're unique. And this idiotic idea of the world being one big "melting pot" goes against human nature, be you yellow, white, black or green. (Please, we all know aliens visit daily and have made a home in Area 51.)

But seriously, do you think people would be less intolerant if we all had one religion and one skin color? Nope, you'd still have people thinking their better because they come from the east side. "Damn west siders, always lazing about... Not like us east siders!". (You get what I mean, hopefully.)

And I'll be honest and say that I am wholeheartedly against mass-immigration. All it does is ruin many cultures, especially of the host country. Look at Japan, no one is complaining they're not opening their doors to massive immigration... Why? And if someone from the west (Europe for example) says what I say? They'd be labeled an ignorant bigot just because they want to preserve their heritage and culture.
But honestly, what do you think the people in the M.E. would say if they get a ton of white immigrants into their country every year? Don't you think they'd be pretty ticked off? Of course they would, because the M.E. has it's own unique culture, just like every other country out there. So they'd be upset that their culture will go the way of the do-do.

It's human nature to want to preserve what is yours, what your ancestors have built. My ancestors are vikings, we've been in Norway for thousands of years. Just like Arabians in the M.E. Why then am I vilified because I want my culture to exist for another thousand years just like everyone else wants?

We're all unique, and it's our differences that completes us. If we take those differences away, we're just mush!



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That the federal government was right in overruling the ability of State governments to mandate and force these laws on American citizens.
and this statement exemplifies your complete misunderstanding or intentional misdirection of the situation, then and now.

the 14th Amendment (the one questioned before SC) wasn't ratified until ... 1868 ... and, it wasn't subsequently questioned or clarified until 1883 ... 27 years later.
in the later case of Brown v Education, SCOTUS determined that the previous opinion was erred and the subsequent ruling became effective.

i am not advocating the Plessy v Ferguson decision, however, it was part of history and the movement by the people brought forth change ... not the Federal government.

Brown v Education was an INDIVIDUAL plaintiff (3 of them but individuals all the same) ... change by the people, not a government. The Feds enforce such decisions, not create them.

now, you can blame the lawyers who represented the Plessy vs Ferguson decision, which i could accept, however, you choose to blame and entire race of people and i wholeheartedly disagree.
That is the choice YOU made, don't blame me for it.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 




Yes I agree with you that on a whole there is no ‘white culture’ BUT since many White’s live outside of their ethnic homelands across the world there is little opportunity for us to unite ethnically so we must choose the next best thing; race.


Although there is a lot of variety in the definition of 'culture,' at its core is location. Culture is the beliefs, social mores, attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by a people in a place or time. Thus, there is no white culture because there are White people living in lots of different locations around the globe. There is a Southern culture, a New England culture, an Italian culture, a Japanese culture, a South African culture, etc. because those peoples live in the same geographic area.

As for the video about linking IQ and race, that research has been around for decades and, yes, there is a link between average IQ and race. However, keep in mind that a person's IQ is only 60-80% genetically based. If you do a little bit of math, that means it is 20-40% environmental. (That's why there are results as discussed by the previous poster about student scores going up because the teachers thought the students had higher IQs than they actually did). And keep in mind - that's talking about AVERAGE IQ scores - there is a very large spread in ACTUAL scores and a LOT of overlap when comparing the IQ scores of different races.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

good because confusing race with nationality should give you headache.
British, Irish, Hungarian are NOT races in and of themselves, they are nationalities.
if and when you sort that out, please offer a valid opinion.

psssst: bloodlines can identify a racial purity but often serve to prove just the opposite ...see Jefferson's descendent arguments for details.

personal disclosure: when i first started tracing my family name, the first 1/2 dozen families i met and garnered info from were black ... i am not (on the surface).
i have not yet connected the exact dot which blended our races but i'm sure i will eventually. (goodness it's a big family)

point here is this ... we need to quit judging the book by its cover, simple.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

your theory ...

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.
is proven fales with DNA ... and you can separate it in your mind but the biology proves your theory wrong. DNA proves segregation cannot be effectively "forced".


Slavery could not exist without institutional racism and institutional racism could not exist without segregation.
already proved this theory wrong too. Slavery did exist without racism(expressed by either side), or public segregation, in many places. But, that's the southern history you refuse to learn.

those who share your opinion also often refer to the "Jim Crow" period as being universal to all slave regions and that's a falsehood too. the segregation laws originated in Louisiana, one state.

when Plessy (a Louisiana citizen) actively and aggressively confronted Louisiana's public segregation practices (via the Separate Car Act - a STATE policy not a federal one), it garnered National attention. He (and a citizen action committee) subsequently took it to the courts.

until the SC ruled the argument as a National standard, it was central to Louisiana, as the arguments infer. the prior attempt was made moot by a Federal law that desegregated rail travel between states, hence, Plessy traveled withIN Louisiana and was subject to State Law, not Federal.
The challenge was made and the state prevailed ... the decision was appealed to the SC and the results became a national standard.

the "sociology" of the event was manipulated by the individual, not the government.
sure, after the ruling, the sociology of it became a national nightmare but that's another story.

what does "majority" have to do with any of it?
ohhhh, you're still hung up on that white oppression stuff, huh?

really? how did a conversation about a church denying marriage get to slavery anyway?????
got an agenda do ya ??


Putting ketchup on eggs, won't make the eggs disappear.
why sure it will, those eggs will disappear from the plate right into my tummy


what is this exactly? first, you question this comment, then you quote it and agree ????
what is THAT about?

i said ... "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.



No, I can blame people who thought that owning other people was reasonable in a supposedly
free society.

The constitution is entirely relevant to elimination of slavery
really ?? then you better direct that blame to Europe cause that's where it came from. [Spain, France, Engand, others]
when the Constitution was crafted, slavery was an industry ... times do change.

murder isn't specifically addressed anywhere in the Constitution.
no, a State was enforcing State Law, an individual confronted the legality of said law and the process evolved until it became a National standard.

The FED did nothing to "defend constitutional principles.", the PERSON did.

no offense intended to Homer Plessy or the citizen committee that supported this rebellion, but from a sociological standpoint, i have to say ... had they left well enough alone, National segregation would not have occurred.

State enforced segregation was already naturally dissipating/ending throughout the Union.
several practicing slave states voted the practice out (see archives for details)
several new Federal laws were enacted to prevent segregation practices when traveling outside state borders ... an example of this was the Federal law preventing inter-state rail car segregation.
and, several activists were actively pushing the 'equality for all' slogan everywhere.

so, given the facts of the situation, Plessy & company pre-empted natural progression and screwed everyone in the process, imho.
sometimes taking action too soon backfires and in this case, it sure did.

i think i quoted Lincoln earlier but if you knew about him, you'd know this is BS ...

Are you saying that Lincoln forced people to own slaves and profit off of free labor?
outta room ... more laters.




top topics



 
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join