Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

reply to post by TechniXcality


Those that do not respect the value of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the laws of my land - do not have life in my eyes. We go off to foreign lands, slaughter a hundred thousand innocent civilians, and you're telling me that one guilty man deserves life if he's destroying the very fabric of what those piled up dead are for?


Sure, ask him to explain himself. Let him show his fruits of the spirit. But should they be discovered to be what everyone here thinks they are, kill him. Yes, I say that quite publicly. He is the leader of a community, and he is perverting not only the law of the land, but the law of God. So yes. Kill him. He has more responsibility. Greater importance. Such men, who in leadership split communities and cause disablement of society, do not deserve life in their roles.

Most certainly a trial. Most certainly civility. But once guilty, destroy that man. Erase him.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by PrimalRed

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by PrimalRed

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by PrimalRed
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

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

Rules that involve hatred are gonna have to hit the road. This is 2011, time for humans to put on their big boy pants.

Hate has nothing to do with it, that is their belief and their rules. All of the worst crimes against humanity have been a result of one group restricting another, to censor the beliefs and practices of one group is to open the door for the same to be done to us all.

If I lived near this church, I'd pay them a visit and slap the devil out of them.

edit on 1-12-2011 by PrimalRed because: (no reason given)

That is a hate crime

edit on 1-12-2011 by PrimalRed because: (no reason given)

Edit: Racists are cruel people with cold hearts. Bad people deserve to be slapped around a little bit.

edit on 1-12-2011 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

Pretty much sums up my whole feeling. Sherman had the perfect plan for fighting racism in my opinion.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'm from Kentucky.. this is not representative of most people here. This place is just seeking attention, I guess they are just trying to pull the racists out of the wood work for a racist congregation. Please don't think this represents Kentucky, just like we don't think the Westboro Church represents Kansas. Actually they came to protest a local highschool in Ky because they had a Gay Straight Alliance club. So Kentuckians aren't generally racist/prejudiced.

reply to post by Gorman91


Damn dude, and i thought i was the intollerant one here. So if you disagree with every moral aspect of someone that means they should die. He's not even killing anybody, this belife of yours is alittle off and perhaps a few therapy sessions are needed, and after you get your KILL KILL KILL thing out maybe we can have a meaningful discussion.

I bet they think Jesus was white too, if he even existed.

reply to post by silent thunder

It's completely ridiculous and un-American to advocate the death of somebody just because you don't agree with their views

Actually it is quite American when those views are within the laws of the land. Most founding fathers preferred occasional violent acts of citizenry to water the tree of liberty.

This is the kind of hysteria that political correctness can result in. When discourse is suppressed to a certain point, it bubbles forth irrationally. When certain lines of inquiry are a priori rejected, dark flowers blossom.

No. You have a trial, you prove he's guilty, you shoot him. Simple as that. This is civil, just, and fair.

In the Victorian era, they used to drape cloth around the bottom portions of pianos to hide the piano legs. Why? Because they feared that if somebody saw the piano legs, they might be "inappropriately" reminded of a woman's legs and become aroused. This is completely insane to modern ears, but at the time it made sense to a lot of people because honest discourse about sexuality was so repressed that it could only find expression in such warped, irrational outbursts. When I see people advocating the death of others whose opinions on race they disagree with, I think a similar mecahanism of psychological repression is at work.

And those extreme actions break down boundaries of such irrational social norms.

While it remains uncertain if this story is true, when it was normal to kill civilians and cause problems in the name of God in the Philippians, General Pershing allegedly lined up a bunch of guilty men, bathed the bullets in pigs fat and blood, and shot all but one, leaving the last to inform others of what will happen. Next thing you know, civilian murders and violent acts stopped.

When presented with extreme insanity for irrational causes, the only solution for a quick and easy end is further extreme actions in the name of sanity and reason. The shock value quickly brings the irrational into rational thinking, and forces them to realize that no God of theirs is rescuing their BS beliefs.

This is quite American, and very much so has been done in our history.

If you put the priest to trial and found him guilty, lined up the people who voted to do this, and shoot the priest in plain view of them, letting the blood of the guilt be seen by all, it would quickly end racism.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by silent thunder

 

It's completely ridiculous and un-American to advocate the death of somebody just because you don't agree with their views

Actually it is quite American when those views are within the laws of the land. Most founding fathers preferred occasional violent acts of citizenry to water the tree of liberty.

This is the kind of hysteria that political correctness can result in. When discourse is suppressed to a certain point, it bubbles forth irrationally. When certain lines of inquiry are a priori rejected, dark flowers blossom.

No. You have a trial, you prove he's guilty, you shoot him. Simple as that. This is civil, just, and fair.

In the Victorian era, they used to drape cloth around the bottom portions of pianos to hide the piano legs. Why? Because they feared that if somebody saw the piano legs, they might be "inappropriately" reminded of a woman's legs and become aroused. This is completely insane to modern ears, but at the time it made sense to a lot of people because honest discourse about sexuality was so repressed that it could only find expression in such warped, irrational outbursts. When I see people advocating the death of others whose opinions on race they disagree with, I think a similar mecahanism of psychological repression is at work.

And those extreme actions break down boundaries of such irrational social norms.

While it remains uncertain if this story is true, when it was normal to kill civilians and cause problems in the name of God in the Philippians, General Pershing allegedly lined up a bunch of guilty men, bathed the bullets in pigs fat and blood, and shot all but one, leaving the last to inform others of what will happen. Next thing you know, civilian murders and violent acts stopped.

When presented with extreme insanity for irrational causes, the only solution for a quick and easy end is further extreme actions in the name of sanity and reason. The shock value quickly brings the irrational into rational thinking, and forces them to realize that no God of theirs is rescuing their BS beliefs.

This is quite American, and very much so has been done in our history.

If you put the priest to trial and found him guilty, lined up the people who voted to do this, and shoot the priest in plain view of them, letting the blood of the guilt be seen by all, it would quickly end racism.

edit on 1-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

This is one of the best post I've read on ATS this week. I think it perfectly sums up this thread and society as a whole.

Originally posted by Misoir


Skin color is not irrelevant, anyone with a functioning brain and not blinded by egalitarian PC nonsense could tell you that. With different race comes different culture, physical features, genetic traits, which effect IQ even (uh oh I went there!) It is nice to live in a fantasy land where your ideology creates the truth, but truth is blind to any personal ideology no matter how hard you try and dismiss it.

Are you an elitist or what? ( I ask you the same?)

I would never date outside my race,


As for this church, I think it is perfectly fine what they did. It is a private institution and they have the right to make their own choices on who they want in there.

this is blatantly racist!

the church has no right to dis-allow any HUMAN entrance based on their race or their spouses race. that is called racism.

you would never date outside your race? are you a grey by any chance?

finally skin color is Irrelevant just as the IQ test is irrelevant to every human of every race.

if you truely believe other races are genetically incompetent I feel you have much to learn... maybe you just need to get out more and meet people IDK but you have a very distorted view of humanity. Mis

reply to post by TechniXcality


It is the civil and just path to the destruction of evil.

There is just hate, and there is unjust hate. My hate is just, because the law agrees with it. The founders of this nation agree with it.


Sure, express your views. But if those views go against the law of the land, and you are literally leading and causing splits in community, you are a traitor to the Constitution and the bill of rights. And yes, I would go to trial against you for treason, and the death sentence.


There was a time I was against the death penalty. But I now think that those that pervert are the only ones who deserve it. Racists, rapists, and the lot of such un american traitors to the founding fathers and the law of God. Hypocrites who claim to know God but causally ignore fact.

Take the Westboro fanatics for example. They try to use the old testament to justify their hatred. When in the Old Testament, it clearly states those laws were for Israel, and no one else. And to have sanction cities so that those that disagree with the law can leave. To give those who disagree the right to leave and safely go elsewhere. Does Westboro do that? No, of course not. Because that would mean they, God forbid, read the whole word, and not pick and choose. That would mean they would have to do what Jesus would want them to do, and go to the sinner, and while you walk them away from the lands they are breaking the law, go and talk to them and have a dialogue. No. Westboro would prefer to just call damnation on them and ignore the word of God, all the same going against the constitution and the law of THIS land, not some ancient defunct nation.

What I say, is I am tired of the hypocrites. Tired of the perverts of the law, and tired of the smooth talkers dividing societies and causing the Balkanization of the United States. When in the course of human events, conditions become so irreparably against the spirit of the law, the only solution is the direct removal of such leaders of division from the land. And traitors to the Constitution, according to the law, do not meet good ends.

reply to post by Misoir


An IQ is not a basis of intelligence, and there is no reason to think it matters when the people in question have no familiarity with the style of the test, and indeed, the topics at hand.

Give a crow a test, and in time he will do as well as an ape, and indeed in some cases, as well as a man.


Skin color does not determine intelligence, and the fact you say that, toiting your "traditional conservative" is absolutely disgusting.

If your'e a conservative then you're likely a Christian, and if you're not, you're lying to yourself about being a traditional conservative. So let me give you a little piece of the word. All men are created equally.

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

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I'm from Kentucky.. this is not representative of most people here. This place is just seeking attention, I guess they are just trying to pull the racists out of the wood work for a racist congregation. Please don't think this represents Kentucky, just like we don't think the Westboro Church represents Kansas. Actually they came to protest a local highschool in Ky because they had a Gay Straight Alliance club. So Kentuckians aren't generally racist/prejudiced.

I know this GogoVicMorrow, and never suggested any of the such. I'm sure most Kentuckians are none the like, I have no doubt. Thankyou for reasurring me. This is a small group, and frm what I understand, there's even division within the Church.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Sure, express your views. But if those views go against the law of the land, and you are literally leading and causing splits in community, you are a traitor to the Constitution and the bill of rights. And yes, I would go to trial against you for treason, and the death sentence.

How do these views "go against the law of the land?" last time I checked the Bill of Rights still protects free speech.

The real traitors to the constitution are those who want to apply the first ammendment selectively. You are happy with it when it supports your views, but if it doesn't, all of a sudden you are calling for executions.

If you were truly secure in your views, you wouldn't need hysterical death threats, because you would believe that by exposing all topics to thourough debate, the truth would naturally and clearly emerge. The intent behind the bill of rights is to provide conditions that allow the truth to emerge from free and open debate, no matter what the content of one's opinions.

So racial tolerance = intolerance toward those who are not racially tolerant.

And those who state that this church has the right to say who is allowed in are wrong,
But those who say the church is wrong are right.

Elsewhere I get that only White people can be racists.

FoosM, Humans are a Species - Homo Sapiens]
The Races are a subdivision of the Species.
Like there are different breeds/races of dog, horses etc.

Gorman91, you are for killing this pastor?
When are you going to start advocating for witch burnings to begin?

Whoever said, “Edit: Racists are cruel people with cold hearts.”

Where do you get that? Are you for killing the pastor also?
Seems cruel and cold-hearted to me.

To those of you screaming “racist”….What is your definition of racist? Why is it wrong?
If I don’t want to associate with certain people, do I have that right or not?
Why do you think bad of me for it?
What is it about this that causes you to get so mad about it?

Skin color is very Relevant to a person's inherent talents. The races are each differently talented. Therefore god color-coded them.

Anyone care to address the question of why only (formerly) all white nations are being overrun by the dark races? Why exactly is there not an influx of white folk into India, Arabia or Africa? Many of them are getting special incentives for coming here. Those Pakistanis at your convenience stores get 5 years Tax Free. How that that feel to you?
Many of those Africans get free passage and when they get here they get free houses and welfare, and free medical services. How does that grab you?

Multiculturism never works. You have noticed this haven’t you? Why are you denying it?

“No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it's geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.:”
  louisbeam.com...

reply to post by silent thunder


The law of the land, indeed it's spirit too, is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was decided in both common unwritten law and in supreme court cases that when you use these freedoms to cause division and hatred, and put people at risk to their own lives, you are just as much so guilty of influencing that action.

Division leads to hatred, and hatred murder. Hatred of division, being hatred, will also lead to murder as well. Which is just and which is unjust? I say, the one that hates the unjust. He has the law backing him.

I would definable call for executions on those whom abuse freedoms to take freedoms. You can disagree. But when your disagreement becomes active action against a group, you are no longer merely saying, you are actively going against the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can go on an on about hate speech. But hate is not defined. When hatred is used to promote the dis-equality of people, then that is when it becomes very very evil.

If you were truly secure in your views, you wouldn't need hysterical death threats, because you would believe that by exposing all topics to thourough debate, the truth would naturally and clearly emerge. The intent behind the bill of rights is to provide conditions that allow the truth to emerge from free and open debate, no matter what the content of one's opinions.

The truth has emerged on this topic. It emerged when we fought a civil war over it and hundreds of thousands died. It emerged over the century it took to prove it. It emerged when we had the civil rights movement and millions of people were abused for the sake of cultural norms.

Truth has been uncovered, proven, and secured. When you back peddle against this, without any real data to prove it, you are no longer exposing truth, You are lying to try and make a different truth.

I would damn well put someone to the courts with such things. And would want a guilty verdict.

reply to post by Gorman91


Please be specific about exactly which Supreme Court cases you feel could be used as precedents to justify a death penalty in this case.

You are calling for a very serious punishment based in your alleged deep respect for the law. So I would like specifics, rooted in law. You specifically claimed that the Supreme Court has ruled in a way that would support this. If you cannot show me specifics, it seems to me you are just making up things. You are using the word "division" very loosely.

...when you use these freedoms to cause division and hatred, and put people at risk to their own lives, you are just as much so guilty of influencing that action. Division leads to hatred, and hatred murder..."

I fail to see how this church's beliefs are putting anyone's lives at risk. The only person I see calling for death is YOU. There is no law against "causing division and hatred" in the US. Hatred is an emotion and (fortunately) not yet subject to legal restriction. The day when the government tells us which emotions we can and can't feel wil be a dark one indeed.

"Division" is a vague word...there is a divsion between football fans, say...does this put anyone's life at risk? How about sectarian divisions between religions? Because a Christian and a Jew don't agree about everything, is this "division leading to hatred"? Would you respect those two religions to have a "division" between them? If so, why not this religion?

Who draws the lines here? You? No thanks, I'd rather not live in your bloodthirsty, repressive regime. I prefer the Constitution, which guarantees the rights of individuals to hold all sorts of views, utterly regardless of content. By taking a stand that is divorced from content, the Constitution sidesteps these isssues and soars above them, providing true freedom...not your repressive brand of pseudo-freedom.

reply to post by silent thunder

Please be specific about exactly which Supreme Court cases you feel could be used as precedents to justify a death penalty in this case.

No, not the death penalty. But that people whom use their freedom's irresponsibly due indeed deserve punishment and can be held accountable. Schenck v. United States.

Look on over to Brandenburg v. Ohio, and we see quite obvious that such actions are very much so not held up by the law.

It is my own opinion that such people, in leadership roles specifically, ought to be destroyed for the fact that they hold such places of authority, and abuse it in full awareness that their actions have reciprocal waves into society. This very much so is an imminent lawless action category. Take Fox news with Iran, in which they know they can blow on the winds of anger to incite war. Not good. I think Murdoch has plenty of proven guilt to justify the death penalty.

I base this opinion with good measure on what the rest of the constitution says, mentioned in previous posts.

I fail to see how this church's beliefs are putting anyone's lives at risk.

The south.... making interracial marriages unfavorable... Are you, like, forgetting what those people did to blacks just one generation ago? Are you unaware that those people would just love to bring it back? Such a generation must be stomped out and their curse on the land removed. They will not listen to reason. If it takes a few perverted priest being given the death penalty to get this point across, so be it. Of course no everyone is guilty, but when people are actively voting for this crap, no they don't deserve the death penalty, but they deserve to see what such actions get in the face of the Constitution.

"Division" is a vague word...there is a divsion between football fans, say...does this put anyone's life at risk? How about sectarian divisions between religions? Because a Christian and a Jew don't agree about everything, is this "division leading to hatred"? Would you respect those two religions to have a "division" between them? If so, why not this religion?

Vague for good reason. it should be able to be broadly interpreted in order to cover a full spectrum of possible actions. Obviously this can lead to problems of mob rule accusing he or she. That's why it should only really be with a clause of those with authority in a given community. You can't expect an uneducated man under the rule of someone to understand his actions as well as his leader. That's why the other guy is a leader.

Who draws the lines here? You? No thanks, I'd rather not live in your bloodthirsty, repressive regime. I prefer the Constitution, which guarantees the rights of individuals to hold all sorts of views, utterly regardless of content. By taking a stand that is divorced from content, the Constitution sidesteps these isssues and soars above them, providing true freedom...not your repressive brand of pseudo-freedom.

You can hold whatever views you want. When you use those views and the freedom's granted to you by law to actively cause harm and problems for other people, you're a criminal through and through. When you use your views to say someone is not equal, and indeed, in such a perverse way this priest is doing, "for parish unity", you deserve death. You are taking advantage of people, you are telling them to treat your fellow citizens as not equal, you are using double think and double talk, quite frankly, and you're using the authority granted to you by a community to organize against your fellow man. In the eyes of the law, I really don't see how that is any different than putting two people who hate each other in a room with a gun and saying the first one to shoot the other gets out.


I maintain that this is an opinion. But I welcome you to see how my view of the law is wrong. For you see, I have no authority. It's but an opinion. And opinions don't really matter when a majority of Americans seem perfectly ok to sell their freedoms for security to powerful men. My opinion has no action behind it. I would, if I had authority, have to gather popular and congressional support for my opinion. Because this is a land of laws. And I am civil.

reply to post by OhZone

Where do you get that? Are you for killing the pastor also? Seems cruel and cold-hearted to me.

Sometimes colder and crueler acts are needed in small quantity to prevent large scale cruelty.

Never said I liked it. Never said it was good. That's like saying I support genocide if I claim that it was good that America dropped a nuke on Japan so that innocent children wouldn't be used as suicide bombs against tanks in a land invasion. Saying I favor what America did doesn't make it good.

War is inherently evil and disgusting. It has a cold heart and is cruel. And I really don't see this civil issue any different than a military tactical one. Evil people exist. They stir up hate for their own contrived desires. The destruction of one of these people prevents them from taking advantage.

Ultimately, would I kill Hitler to stop WW2? Yes. Would that stop WW2? Probably not. But maybe I stopped the death of a couple million scapegoated people. Neither is a good choice. But the one with honor is the one that causes a better course of events. Not so much the ends justify the means so much as the means prevent an ends.

Whites are part-Neanderthal. Only blacks are pure homo sapiens. That is just the scientific fact.

None of this actually means anything sans appearance, the differences between races and ethnicities are cultural not biological.

The question of whether the human races genetic diversity (and cultural diversity) is being slowly eroded, is undoubtedly valid. It would be a boring world if we were all coffee coloured.

Originally posted by Gorman91
No, not the death penalty.

Thank you for backpeddling and coming down the high horse of advocating death penalty "after a trial." It is good to see you acknowledge that there is no legal basis for your rather startling "opinion."

In a sense, my work here is now done.

But I will address a few specifics before rambling on to greener pastures.

Schenck v. United States....Brandenburg v. Ohio....

OK, let's have a look.

Scheneck vs. US

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test, which lasted until 1927 when its strength was diminished. The limitation to freedom of speech was further eased in 1969, with the establishment of the "Imminent lawless action" test by the Supreme Court.

Brandenburg vs. Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

What is this "imminent lawless action", then? It seems to be at the core of both the cases you mentioned.

Does it it apply in this case? Let's check it out:

Imminent lawless action

...the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement

I fail to see how Imminent Lawless Action applies in this case. The church is not inciting anyone to anything, either legal or illegal. And especially not anything "imminent" or "likely." They aren't even "advocating illegal action at some indefinite future time," which by the way seems to be protected under the law if I understand that correctly. Where is the "imminent " and illegal action they are inciting? Remember, this supposed act must be illegal, and not just something you happen to personally dislike.

I'm sorry, but you have nothing. Your entire argument is worthless from any legal standpoint. Which you seem to have realized by backing down and stating that all this is "only your opinion." So again, I consider my work here to be done. And I will now leave this thread for more peaceful shoals on ATS...it is yet another reminder of why I resolved long ago not to get involved in race-baced issues on ATS...a resolution I only very occasionally and always regretfully break. Peace.