Kentucky Church bans interracial couples

reply to post by Honor93


That's exactly what the priest is doing. Call it a resource battle if you want, but he is "uniting" his church by essentially saying race is purity. Disgusting. Treasonous, in my opinion. Traitors to the law get shot. Plain as that. You bring them to trial, you trial them for treason, and you shoot them once found guilty.

As for Obama, and his teacher? What am I suppose to say about them? What do their actions say? Like I said. Say whatever you want. I have no stake in that. It is the results of it, indeed the fruits of it, that we then look at. Are there mobs of angry black people killing white people because "one of theirs" is in the white house? No. There are not.

You have the right to think and say as you please. When those freedoms are perverted to incite destruction of equality, freedoms, life, liberty, etc etc, then we go after you. Because that's when your freedoms are being used to destroy freedom. That's when it's a crime. That's when it's a disease to be put out.

This priest is advocating racial purity if I am to believe what he said is true. Furthermore, people actually voted in favor. It is clear his words and actions have now gone past mere opinion, and into blocking out American law with is psedo-theocratic law. This is no different than a group of Muslims placing sharia law on the block they live in, and I'd be willing to bet that more people on ATS would favor what I say if it was directed to them, disgusting as that is.

Irregardless, it's treasonous. It's replacing our laws, made by elected officials of the law, with local laws and viewpoints.

I could take this into many different places. And there has to be a line. After all, a religion has the right to view certain things. For example, they have a right not to marry gays, they have a right to only have male priests. But the question in particular is if this is going beyond mere opinion and becoming a law of the land in question, overshadowing the law here. Frankly, I don't even think marriage should be a government institution. It's purely religious in its nature. But the question remains. Are you going against our laws and inventing your own? Clearly it is. Because now a church community is split, angry, and divided. Now a priest is calling for "purity". These things are disgusting. And treasonous. And the cost of treason in the court of law is death.



Having slept on it, the question is now open. Does a religious institution have the right to organize people to hate? I think they have the right to express their opinion. Organize it into action however? When that organization in question goes against the laws of the land, no I do not think that is so wise. Here the line gets blurry, and let me say I am undecided. But for race, i am very much so decided. Because it is not a question of sexual preference, or of gender roles, or of this or that. It is of something that is quite simply an established universal fact of humanity: racial equality. And to be frank, I'll even go a little biased and say no established religion says really anything in their holy books on race in my memory.


Quite frankly, it's one of those disgusting habits of humanity that has to be driven out with extreme actions whenever it finds a home. Racism, quite frankly, is no different than rape and slavery. These are things that are simply common sense to be wrong, and ought to be driven out like a cancer.

reply to post by Gorman91

i realize this wasn't addressed to me but ...

I fail to see how inciting inequality among people isn't treasonous and any different than any group organizing against what the law says. Not the debatable law, but the core law. Life and liberty.

so, how does a church ban (not a state-wide or country-wide) apply?

and, not picking here but, how does one incite inequality by banning a specific act within a closed community?
didn't you just suggest something like "go join the kkk" ??
wouldn't they fit your description of treasonous activity?

how 'bout the black panthers or the amish or zionists or the muslim brotherhood , or, or, or ... you know there are plenty of isolationist groups ... are you suggesting they all be eliminated ??
if so, how does that fit in with your perception of the "core" law of life and liberty ??

and, which "law" exactly would you be referencing ??
if you are referring to Constitutional guarantees & protections, please say so cause otherwise, i'm confused.

reply to post by Honor93


I was saying you can hold whatever opinion you want. You have the right to. But when you go and do things in that act, then you are really not obeying the law. When you take a piece of public land, like a town, conform it to your laws and your ways, and don't welcome opposition, you are literally seceding from the union in this act. Tell me, how is that any different than the sharia law example I gave? Wouldn't a city block being enforced into sharia law have seceded in doing so?


This is primarily a right to be in public without your life and freedom's being threatened. That's all this is about. You want to go buy a hundred acres and ban black people from it, fine. That's your private property. You want to take over a town and not welcome interracial couples? no, that's not good, and quite frankly there is precedence for the national guard being called in to crush such communities.

hmm. Perhaps that is the clearest I've actually explained it.

reply to post by Misoir

My point was to prove that there are differences in race, how else to do that then use science? IQ was the best thing I could think of hence the reason I chose it. Blacks have lower IQ’s than Whites, on average, and Asians have higher IQ’s than Whites, on average

And you are basing those higher and lower IQ scores on race...where more likely it is socieconomic issue and a cultural issue.

Please note...culture DOES NOT EQUAL race or ethnicity.


But you don't even attempt to acknowledge any of that...you just bring it down to race...to the color of ones skin. And that IMO is ignorant.

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

Be "proud" of your "race" all you want...I'm proud of me as an individual...I don't have to pretend I'm better than others based on the color of my skin.

Is it too much to ask for people to view everyone as equal despite the color of ones skin?

And please...what of your "heritage" are you proud of and what part of your heritage do you "preserve" in your daily life?

reply to post by Southern Guardian
There you go again thinking what you think is important is what IS important. However, to the contrary, since you have taken up my time with your post and I was kind enough to consider it, you will pardon me for responding to what interested me in the subject matter.

I am assuming you are a "Sir" bit whatever the case, you remind me of these Surveys that keep calling me asking me for my opinions and and then go about asking me questions with options for answers which will only give them the response they want and if I refuse to answer A, B or C they hang up. Well, I read what you had to say and A B or C are not only not the answers but I am not interested in the questions you want answered.

Nevertheless, I will put you out of my misery until the day we all meet on the pavement when I am certain so mangy things will finally be answered openly, honestly and hopefully to the well being of our country.

reply to post by Gorman91

oh no, don't go mixin' it up to suit your agenda.

Call it a resource battle if you want, but he is "uniting" his church by essentially saying race is purity.

i used the resource battle to describe your horrible example earlier.

Free speech allow him to promote such a thing, as it does for all the other ANTI and PRO groups throughout the lands. That's the way America was designed to be.

Try them for their thoughts or speech ?? what a waste of resources.
Their act of banning inter-racial marriage causes harm to whom?? no one as far as i can see.
hence, they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, what's your problem?

if their congregation disapproves (which many did) they have their own recourse, how is it your or my business? i'm not a member there are you?

oh, so you're good with teaching methods that emphasize "kill the whitey" cause that's what?? free speech ?
but a Baptist church desiring to honor their doctrine deserves death ?

wow, i need some meds after that one

well, if you really feel as you state, please start at the top and work your way down
at least that'd be one way to eliminate some of those crazy Congress critters.

there is no local law governing the church ... why are you being silly ?
not any of 'em ... does the story say the State or the legislature is banning them?
no, of course not but you sure are reaching for the stars.

i think you're confused ... laws do not define or dictate my life, they are merely guidelines ... try to remember, i'm only punished IF i'm caught, otherwise, my behavior is a natural right. (whether or not you agree)

and just for the record, how do you surmise this organization is fostering hate?
isn't that a rather big leap? i'll give ya intolerance but hate, nah, not seeing it.

I'll even go a little biased and say no established religion says really anything in their holy books on race in my memory.

well then, you better get back to the reading process because bloodlines are emphasized over and over and over again in many of them.

such a knee-jerk reaction should be systematically dismissed.
Extremism on either side of the fence is unnecessary and abusive in its own right.

Maybe we should consult a successful and intelligent American about racial integration:


If this doesn't work the Youtube video title is "Muhammad Ali - Racial Integration"

It bothers me that so many think they have a moral high ground in regards to this when in reality they are merely a self-serving acculturated product of their time. Demoralized people that have lost esteem for themselves automatically look elsewhere for fulfillment. Once a people have lost esteem for themselves they self-destruct, this has always been a favored tactic in warfare. If you have do not emotionally find something relevant you will not be compelled to defend it. If you consider yourself to be of many you'll be more likely to fall into globalist mindset.

It's odd that even squirrels vocal warning of predators, which place themselves at risk, fall off with the genetic distance of those they a warning. We have a largely subjugated natural instinct which has an increasing difficulty protecting its gene pool.

“It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slowly and is divided into four basic stages. The first one is demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).” ~ Yuri Beznemov, former KGB agent

We are are now so diverse that no one agrees on anything. Everything which was once strongly identified with has been turned upside down and when the time comes to separate family members at birth that will seem perfectly natural too and opposition to it will be "sickening". I keep thinking about the Borg from Star Trek. The Borg likely got their start in the United States of planet Earth. Prepare for assimilation...

Originally posted by ThreeThreeThree

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by BohemianBrim

 

White, Hispanic, Black whoever, if they are willing to do my laundry I do not care they are welcomed!

It is so funny seeing people fail to comprehend the difference between racial supremacy and racial pride. You poor bastards did not have a chance.

Racial Supremacy and Racial Pride both are silly, lol...

WOW, Carlin quoted scripture?!

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I rarely say this, but string the pastor up. Just kill him. The fact that some were even undecided is disgusting enough. When problems like these arise, their very nature go against the spirit of the law of God, man, and decency, and examples must be made to promote the destruction of such things.

"It sure ain't Christian. It ain't nothing but the old devil working," Harville said.

Damn right Harville

"...string the pastor up. Just kill him..." So you want the Pastor of that church to be killed....then you speak of God and decency....and I am assuming you claim to be a Christian?

Wow....way to go...you are setting such a good example for people....(not!...extreme sarcasm).

You need help....I suggest to run not walk...to the nearest therapist and get yourself straightened out.

Race and IQ wth?

Its the culture and environment that affect how someone learns... some cultures are more strict on education while some are not. There was no drop out option for me until i get at least a Bachelor in my family.

I worked with people of many races.. i do live in Toronto... about 70% of the black guys i worked with when i was part-time didn't care about dropping out of school, they wanted to make money, buy their own cars at like 18.. i was saving them up for college. Dropping out would be like a instant kick out for me, let alone all my relatives talking about the one kid in their family that dropped out in like the last 50 years.

According to some of you who thinks average black guys has lower IQ.. would it be the same if he was raised by a Asian or Indian family? What about a Asian kid growing up in a black family living with very low income? colour of the skin has nothing to do with IQ or intelligence.

reply to post by Wotaneyed

Maybe we should consult a successful and intelligent American about racial integration

Really?

You are going to take your guidance on this from a boxer? Ali was a great boxer...doesn't mean he is more enlightened then anyone else...great boxers can be stupid too (and after all the hits they take to the head, most are).

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93

 

I was saying you can hold whatever opinion you want. You have the right to. But when you go and do things in that act, then you are really not obeying the law. When you take a piece of public land, like a town, conform it to your laws and your ways, and don't welcome opposition, you are literally seceding from the union in this act. Tell me, how is that any different than the sharia law example I gave? Wouldn't a city block being enforced into sharia law have seceded in doing so?

oh no my friend, you'd be seriously mistaken.
please, anytime you feel the desire ... read it from the horses' mouths ... Federalist Papers
States secede from the Union, not communities. Communities are supposed to be free in the design of the people who encompass them.

IF (and i sure don't support this) a community acted to actively practice Shari'a within the confinement of it's community (like the Amish already do), so long as it produces No Constitutional conflict (which automatically excludes Shari'a), i cannot disagree.

There are fundamentalist enclaves all throughout the US, they are not illegal and shouldn't be.
Those who present a Constitutional conflict have been "dealt with" in ways i don't always approve but it wasn't my decision that day.

This is primarily a right to be in public without your life and freedom's being threatened. That's all this is about. You want to go buy a hundred acres and ban black people from it, fine. That's your private property. You want to take over a town and not welcome interracial couples? no, that's not good, and quite frankly there is precedence for the national guard being called in to crush such communities.

hmm. Perhaps that is the clearest I've actually explained it.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

actually, it is not a right to be in public w/o threat ... it is solely your responsibility to defend yourself as the need may or may not arise. (see many SC cases supporting this)

and, that is not what this is about.
how does banning marriages in a specific church threaten you?

You want to go buy a hundred acres and ban black people from it, fine.

no, this would be UnConstitutional under the protections covering discrimination.

you can make it very uncomfortable, unwelcoming and generally a pain in the visitors you know what but an outright ban would be illegal.

got a link for that National Guard claim ?? (kent state is not a community)

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

When two people from two different races have a child that child belongs to neither race, it is interracial thus a mix of two which destroys both.

That's not how I see it, I guess your a glass half empty kind of person, for me the child belongs to both races, and can enjoy both cultures. And even if it does "destroy" the races what the problem with that? Really is there a medical risk? If people and parents don't pass down their traditions then that's their fault not the fault of interracial couples.

And yes the White race is not only dying off but being encouraged by the pseudo anti-racists

So what if the white race dies? What does that even matter? In what way does the world benefit from having more pure white people than less pure white people? And why are you focusing on white people, for every white person "lost" to an interracial couple there is another person as well(asian, black, indian) who was "lost" from their race.

The people who are foolish enough to sacrifice their own racial/ethnic heritage should be ashamed of themselves, but they won’t be. They will be encouraged to do that to fulfill an ideology espoused by the Cultural Marxists. Is that conspiracy theory nutjob talk? No, it is well documented and there for you to view if you so choose. This was a planned strategy, plain and simple. People walked right into it.

Again what's foolish about it? Why should I be ashamed? How does having relations with a girl who's not white cause me to "sacrifice" my heritage??? That's so ridiculous man I'm sorry , again if people and parents decide not to pass down their traditions and heritage it's their own fault, this is not a race issue.

I am white, I am in an interracial marrige, my wife is from Mexico, she is an interracial child, she is half Mexican and half Spanish, she grew up in a great loving home, enjoyed Mexican and Spanish food, traditions and holidays for her entire life, because of being half Spanish she has had more opportunities then most Mexicans, she has a European pass port and has been to Spain several times, because of her passport it has been a lot easier for her to come to live here with me in Canada, I'm seeing lots of positives here, none of your negatives. I am in an interracial marrige, I still every year enjoy Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Canada Day, Valentines day, Halloween, I have lost none of my heritage, it has not been "destroyed". And now, thanks to my beautiful love of my life I also enjoy Cinco De Mayo, Mexican Independence Day, The Day of the Dead, and everytime the Mexican soccer team plays it's like a celebration too! Mexican and Spanish food is also sooo goooood, an awesome addition to my life and traditions.

Its pretty sad to limit your chance for true love to just your own race, its a big world out there, what's more important the past or the present? If anything its the old stubborn ways of the past that is keeping the world apart from harmony, everyone's to busy fighting over our differences and whos better than who, what's the problem with coming together as A SINGLE human race, not black race, white race, asain race, we are the Human Race, we should embrace eachother not separate, of course above all we should all have the free and open choice to be with whoever we want, if someone wants to stick with their own race then that's great! Go for it have a great life, I wish you the best.

reply to post by Honor93


America was designed to be whatever you want, actually. The founding fathers hoped that the good nature of citizens would promote the destruction of such people whom seek to destroy our freedoms. It's worked fairly well, but historically change only comes from good men in leadership positions having the courage to crush bad men in leadership positions. In the civil war this was done with bullets. In the Civil rights a century after this was done with honor and peace. There is no preference to either way. I simply prefer the whatever method is needed int he given situation.

Try them for their thoughts or speech ?? what a waste of resources.

Put them to trial for trying to rip down our freedoms. For making the public areas unwelcoming to things that they do not respect. Even when Americans don't like a certain group they at least show respect and let them go their way. Sometimes you get a jerk who won't. You must remove these people.

Their act of banning inter-racial marriage causes harm to whom?? no one as far as i can see. hence, they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, what's your problem?

Because it's the south, and people still exist whom would take this as a hint to go further. If it the 1960s were a century ago perhaps I would be more lenient. But no. Being lenient in these matters historically just makes people want to take it further. After all, the KKK and all those problems in the early 20th century that caused the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened if we kept up the slaughter of racists and confederate sympathizers in the 1880s. We got lazy. So it rebounded. If you are going to start a war, you must finish it. And such a war as that only ends with the utter destruction of that line of thinking. These things have a tendency to find their way back into society. I'd rather not see a return to it. Kill it now and the beast is gone.

if their congregation disapproves (which many did) they have their own recourse, how is it your or my business? i'm not a member there are you?

You are correct. I said it wouldn't be any of my business for most matters of that. But it is clear that he is seeking purity of their parish. Which is a community. They are not merely saying, they are no acting and doing. You want to hold these beliefs personally go right ahead. You want to make a community in your image, that's a step too far.

oh, so you're good with teaching methods that emphasize "kill the whitey" cause that's what?? free speech ? but a Baptist church desiring to honor their doctrine deserves death ?

You can say and think what you want. Actually act on it when it goes against the law, and that's a crime. Wouldn't give a damn if it was just a priest saying it. I do give a damn now that he's deciding what an entire parish accepts or not.

well, if you really feel as you state, please start at the top and work your way down at least that'd be one way to eliminate some of those crazy Congress critters.

Put a congress person to trial for treason and go right ahead. We don't assassinate people. We trail them for treason and find them guilty. Otherwise we would be no better than the savages we want to get rid of. We follow the law, not the passions of emotion.

there is no local law governing the church ... why are you being silly ? not any of 'em ... does the story say the State or the legislature is banning them? no, of course not but you sure are reaching for the stars.

The law of the land, that is the constitution, is perfectly clear of the equality of man. By conforming a community to that which is not in agreement to the law, you are saying your local law is higher than the constitution. No. You conform to the constitution.

i think you're confused ... laws do not define or dictate my life, they are merely guidelines ... try to remember, i'm only punished IF i'm caught, otherwise, my behavior is a natural right. (whether or not you agree)

I very much so agree. And we have caught here people trying to divide a community and go against the constitution.

I am a very big fan of laws being guidelines and not intrinsic fact. But even so, then the law guides us to promote maximum public freedoms, mobility, and choice, so long life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are promoted. This act by this priest goes against the happiness of some, promotes a lessening of liberty, and in doing so, devalues life not equal to his own image. It's still very much so illegal, perhaps even more so if we use the law as guidelines and not solid state facts.

and just for the record, how do you surmise this organization is fostering hate? isn't that a rather big leap? i'll give ya intolerance but hate, nah, not seeing it.

Intolerance is hate.

well then, you better get back to the reading process because bloodlines are emphasized over and over and over again in many of them.

It is pretty universal that joining a family of faith makes you part of that blood line. Muhammad, Jesus, and many others all talk about how you become their family by joining them.

reply to post by caladonea


It is quite christian to desire the removal, indeed destruction, of those that bound people to hate and intolerance. Take a read of Isaiah 58 before you assume wrong. Practically everything I said is based off that and the law of the land.

Love is a primary goal. But sometimes the destruction of those in the way of love is something that is needed.

I made it quite clear that a trial is needed before you go and kill him. But I stand by what I say. Those that promote such destruction of life liberty and pursuit of happiness ought to be trialed as traitors to the constitution and shot. Preferably with witnesses being those that voted to support him.

It is what this country has done historically, and indeed, why the hell should I support the slaughter of a hundred thousand Iraqis to "promote democracy and freedom" in a war and not support the destruction of one man trying to get rid of that at home?

You say I need help. No. I'm simply viewing the whole picture. And the law is quite clear on traitors to the constitution. You put them to trial.

reply to post by Gorman91

America was designed to be whatever you want, actually. The founding fathers hoped that the good nature of citizens would promote the destruction of such people whom seek to destroy our freedoms.

i can agree with this sentiment (a bit simplistic but on the mark)

It's worked fairly well, but historically change only comes from good men in leadership positions having the courage to crush bad men in leadership positions. In the civil war this was done with bullets. In the Civil rights a century after this was done with honor and peace. There is no preference to either way. I simply prefer the whatever method is needed int he given situation.

hahahahaha, thanks for the chuckle, this nearly brought tears to me eye. 60s protests done with honor and peace in whose history books?

you better find some facts before you tout that opinion ... about the only event of the 60s that might fit that description would be Woodstock.
beyond that, it was anything but peace, love or honor.
and the violent protests of the day took many peaceful innocents along the way.
and this lasted for more than a decade ... ok, so a few public speeches and rallies were uneventful but for the most part, there wasn't anything peaceful about it.
i'll get back to the rest of this laters.

btw, if you think the CW was about "good men in leadership positions having the courage to crush bad men in leadership positions" ... you got bunches more reading to do.

reply to post by Honor93


The civil war was about states rights. But those promoting it were not good people. And obviously there were good and bad on both sides. It is a generalization however. the North fought for centralized government defending equality, the south fought for...confederacy...and state decision on rights. On a pure ethics, the south was morally bankrupt.

The 60s were indeed violent. But the leaders of good things were not. Peaceful protesting, however, was the main theme. The fact that one side was more violent does not make it a violent movement. Many were peaceful protesters for good reasons.

reply to post by Gorman91

ah geez, this again?
Free speech does not incite "hatred" ... you either hate or you don't, period.

Even when Americans don't like a certain group they at least show respect and let them go their way.

and i would suppose acts committed against members of OWS clearly exemplify this, right??

Because it's the south, and people still exist whom would take this as a hint to go further. If it the 1960s were a century ago perhaps I would be more lenient. But no. Being lenient in these matters historically just makes people want to take it further. After all, the KKK and all those problems in the early 20th century that caused the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened if we kept up the slaughter of racists and confederate sympathizers in the 1880s. We got lazy. So it rebounded. If you are going to start a war, you must finish it. And such a war as that only ends with the utter destruction of that line of thinking. These things have a tendency to find their way back into society. I'd rather not see a return to it. Kill it now and the beast is gone.

Kentucky is NOT the South or in the South for that matter.
Kentucky wasn't ever a "slave state" so if you choose to ignore history, please stop spreading such vile nonsense around like you know so, cause you don't.

the kkk was co-opted and if you don't know that, please go start at the BEGINNING.
got a link for that "slaughter of racists and confederate sympathizers" ??
here, try this one ... CW & secession

so, if the acts of the church aren't to your liking, protest it and make your opinion known.
and, why aren't you protesting Westboro ??
do you support their bigotry and aggressive acts toward innocents??

wow, it's ok when the teachers teach it but not ok when the students act on it ???
that's some backwards logic there my friend, backasswards indeed.
oh, and for the record, the majority of the congregation walked out or did you miss that part? they can easily demand his replacement, it's not a difficult process.

sorry, but i have to disagree with ya on the "following the law" part ... too much experience to agree with that one.

for the last time, the Constitution is not Law, it wasn't intended to be and it shouldn't be viewed as such.
the Legislature create laws, not the Constitution ... IT protects and guarantees unalienable rights.
if you don't understand this basic premise, there is no chance you'll understand the rest.

joining a "family" is not perpetuating a bloodline, how old are you?
you sure have a black & white opinion, i see there's no room for an ounce of tolerance in your repertoire. cheers and good luck with that.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Honor93

 

The civil war was about states rights. But those promoting it were not good people. And obviously there were good and bad on both sides. It is a generalization however. the North fought for centralized government defending equality, the south fought for...confederacy...and state decision on rights. On a pure ethics, the south was morally bankrupt.

The 60s were indeed violent. But the leaders of good things were not. Peaceful protesting, however, was the main theme. The fact that one side was more violent does not make it a violent movement. Many were peaceful protesters for good reasons.

oh you are sooooo off base it's almost hilarious if it weren't so sad.
7 of 13 states (a majority btw) submitted secession papers to the Fed.
Lincoln wasn't going to stand for a separation of the Union under his watch and responded with excessive force (also UnConstitutional if you look closely)

the South was morally bankrupt ??? you must be joking.
if not, then i would suppose the North never lost their arrogance or found any humility, especially regarding their own errors.

as for the 60s, there was an awful lot MORE violence than peace.
not sure what you're reading, but i was there.
violence in all directions, you couldn't pick a subject for conversation without sparking a violent response from someone. it was a very turbulent and brutal time, definitely not all love and roses like you envision or whatever has been romanticized to you.

reply to post by Honor93


I did not say free speech incites hatred. I said he is using his free speech to incite hatred. But even this doesn't matter. What does matter is that he is using his free speech to make the public unsafe for a specific group.


OWS? Not all are the same. It's civil mostly on the East coast. One bad cop sometimes does wrong. On the west coast it's anarchists vs crocked cops. No real good guys.

And the actions done against them are not good. Public areas are a place to protest and there is a right to protest in them. Actions taken against them are to be taken as such. Acts of cruelty against protesters. But this is a strawman argument because it's not related to making a group of people unwelcome in public space. Still though, the leaders of those cities in which cruelty has been ordered, do indeed hold themselves viable to trial of violating the constitutional right to assemble.

Are they traitors of the Constitution? Good question. I'm talking about those that make their fellow men unequal. Not those whom treat their equal man as criminals. That's an entirely different area. One tries to say a group has no rights because they are not equally human, the other says that those rights can be ignored for safety.

I think Kentucky is in it. It's in that southern reign of influence. West of Virginia. It was a slave state.

The KKK became influential in government in the 20s and early 20th century. But it wasn't as racist as it has become or was. It's history is not stagnate.

The North put down a lot of small rebellions after the civil war.

so, if the acts of the church aren't to your liking, protest it and make your opinion known. and, why aren't you protesting Westboro ?? do you support their bigotry and aggressive acts toward innocents??

Like I said. They are protesting. They are not saying their equal men are unequal. I do not agree with them, and perhaps you missed my rant of their false teachings a few posts ago. Read it if you wish.

There is protesting against your equal man, and then saying your equal man is not equal because of how he was born. Protesting is a right. Slavery is not.


I disagree that you claim the constitution is not the law. It is the codified guide stones of the nation, and that makes it the law.

joining a "family" is not perpetuating a bloodline, how old are you? you sure have a black & white opinion, i see there's no room for an ounce of tolerance in your repertoire. cheers and good luck with that.

Not physically marrying into it. Plenty of the old religions say that following their faith makes you part of their family. There aren't a whole lot of mainstream religions that say who you are born as makes you better or worse. They say things about saying you have more responsibility though. It is the nature of a chosen people was not that their blood is special, but that their actions are greater in importance. Still some assume it makes their blood important. Because they don't read their own religious books.

I am black and white in my views I admit. There is some gray though. Just not a lot.