Support NeoGAF

[Shurs]

Would that include white/Asian combos or just white/black? Well I guess there wouldn't be many Asians in Kentucky anyway.

Why do you say that?

As far as I can tell, there seems to be little rhyme of reason why immigrants settle where they do, unless they're coming from a country close to a border -- like, say, Mexico.

For example, the Twin Cities has the highest population of Somali immigrants in North America. Now, when you think of Somali immigrants, do you think Minnesota?

 

[V_Arnold]

Oh wow.
This is sad.

 

[JGS]

I find it impressive that they would go as far as to ban a couple, instead of a marriage. Is it that maybe this resolution was loosely worded so that they could racially discriminate against their gay members as well?

I doubt very much that there will ever be an openly gay couple in that church unless they're into torture by sermon.

 

[mclem]

Wasn't that the one that Morgan Friedman paid for? It was in Mississippi...you're REALLY surprised they have segregated proms in Mississippi?

Well, yes.

Put it this way. Replace 'Mississippi' with '1950'. Now, your statement is fine; I'm not surprised that they had segregated proms (if they did, I've no idea, but it's plausible for the era!) in 1950.

The problem is this: I am surprised that in 2011, we can compare a large part of the US to a time *sixty years ago* in a valid statement. I think it's fair to boggle at a concept that's *so* fucked up and yet, well, valid.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Further proof that Popeye's is better.

Blasphemy!!!

 

[Chuckie]

It was in Mississippi...you're REALLY surprised they have segregated proms in Mississippi?

Yes... VERY much so. I would be surprised if there was a segregated prom anywhere in the World, let alone the 'First world'.

How can you not be surprised something like that is still possible... its fucking 2011 :O

 

[Korey]

We're not exactly pasty dude. Kentucky isn't Ireland.



Wasn't that the one that Morgan Friedman paid for? It was in Mississippi...you're REALLY surprised they have segregated proms in Mississippi?

I'm not sure what being "surprised" about shit like this has anything to do with it. It's an outrage whether you expect it or not.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Serious question: Is this even newsworthy? Is there anyone who doesn't know there are ignorant racists in Kentucky, or anywhere else? Do the goings on in a church with 40 people in it matter at all?

Yes, because this is what you do in a country that has free speech. You out people for who they are and shame them in public view. Then you apply pressure on them and make their lives very difficult (either by encouraging employers to fire them, sponsors to pull their money, or supporters to go somewhere else).

You can be racist in this country, but the rest of us are going to make your lives a living hell (within the law) for choosing that viewpoint. No matter where you are.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Religion continuing to bring the lulz.

 

[V_Arnold]

Religion continuing to bring the lulz.

No. Dumb people continue to bring the lulz.

 

[Orayn]

No. Dumb people continue to bring the lulz.

But when the two forces align, you get the will of dumb people backed up by shitty apologetics and imposed on lots of people. It's a match made in hell!

 

[ShdwDrake]

Being a black male from Louisiana it makes me happy that so many people are surprised and outraged at things like this. I just look at it like "well that's life" but so many being convinced that racism is dead makes me believe that one day it will be gone... But seriously were so far away from that it's not funny.

 

[Shurs]

Yes, because this is what you do in a country that has free speech. You out people for who they are and shame them in public view. Then you apply pressure on them and make their lives very difficult (either by encouraging employers to fire them, sponsors to pull their money, or supporters to go somewhere else).

You can be racist in this country, but the rest of us are going to make your lives a living hell (within the law) for choosing that viewpoint. No matter where you are.

You can get someone fired for being a member of a church that is ostensibly racist?

Free speech, indeed.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, because this is what you do in a country that has free speech. You out people for who they are and shame them in public view. Then you apply pressure on them and make their lives very difficult (either by encouraging employers to fire them, sponsors to pull their money, or supporters to go somewhere else).

You can be racist in this country, but the rest of us are going to make your lives a living hell (within the law) for choosing that viewpoint. No matter where you are.

You can get someone fired for being a member of a church that is ostensibly racist?

Free speech, indeed.

Yes, speech is free from government influence, but not free from consequences from other people.

 

[Htown]

Dean Harville, the church's secretary, disagreed - he said the resolution came after his daughter visited the church this summer with her boyfriend from Africa.

Stella Harville and Ticha Chikuni, now her fiancé, visited the church in June and Chikuni sang a song for the congregation. The two had visited the church before.

Harville said he was counting the church offering after a service in August when he was approached by Thompson, who told him Harville's daughter and her boyfriend were no longer allowed to sing at the church.

"If he's not racist, what is this?" Harville said.

Just makes my blood boil.

 

[Korey]

You can get someone fired for being a member of a church that is ostensibly racist?

Free speech, indeed.

A common misconception.

Free speech doesn't make you immune to the consequences of your actions and words, it just means the government can't throw in you in jail for it.

Yes, because this is what you do in a country that has free speech. You out people for who they are and shame them in public view. Then you apply pressure on them and make their lives very difficult (either by encouraging employers to fire them, sponsors to pull their money, or supporters to go somewhere else).

You can be racist in this country, but the rest of us are going to make your lives a living hell (within the law) for choosing that viewpoint. No matter where you are.

Also, eventually people in that area will be sick of freaks like this making them look bad to the rest of the country. I'm pretty sure people in the south don't enjoy being looked down upon as backwards hicks all the time. It's absolutely good to put pressure on them by shining a spotlight on these injustices.

 

[Pollux]

Well, yes.

Put it this way. Replace 'Mississippi' with '1950'. Now, your statement is fine; I'm not surprised that they had segregated proms (if they did, I've no idea, but it's plausible for the era!) in 1950.

The problem is this: I am surprised that in 2011, we can compare a large part of the US to a time *sixty years ago* in a valid statement. I think it's fair to boggle at a concept that's *so* fucked up and yet, well, valid.

While it is outrageous I'm just saying that I wasn't surprised when I heard about it. Wasn't it Mississippi where the high schoolers left the party to go kill a black guy? They ran over the first one they saw...or something like that.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You can get someone fired for being a member of a church that is ostensibly racist?

People recently have been fired for being in the KKK. If your position is such that your racist viewpoints could affect your job performance, you can absolutely be fired.

 

[Shurs]

A common misconception.

Free speech doesn't make you immune to the consequences of your actions and words, it just means the government can't throw in you in jail for it.

I know that the place where I work cannot fire people for something they do outside of work, as long as it doesn't affect them on the job. Granted, if I interviewed someone who was openly racist, I wouldn't hire them in the first place, but if I tried to fire someone because they went to a church whose views didn't match up with mine, I feel like I'd be opening myself (and my business) up to a lawsuit.

By the way, I agree that the church is terrible, and I understand (and mostly agree) with what the guy I initially quoted was saying.

 

[Cheerilee]

I'd like to know what the reason for this ban is, since it is clearly not racist like the pastors says.

I should start by saying that I'm sure these guys are racist.

But... if they allow non-white members (I'm sure they don't), and they perform non-white marriages (I'm sure they don't), then they're not exactly racist, they just oppose mixed marriages.

I think a church is probably within it's rights to ban members who went outside the church to obtain a marriage that would not have been performed inside the church. And the banned people should be glad to leave the kind of church that forces them to look elsewhere for things like that.

 

[Pand]

I'm pretty sure people are just trying to out-dumb each other these days. I mean, you've got to be a special kind of stupid if you think something like this isn't going to cause controversy.

And yeah, I'm also flabbergasted every time something like this hits the news. It never ceases to amaze me that people can be this uninformed, and it never will.

 

[ruttyboy]

Wow... go humanity go!

Don't worry though folks, it's a religious belief so it's totally fine.

 

[Chuckie]

they're not exactly racist, they just oppose mixed marriages.

Could you explain to me how this is not racist? I really do not see it.

Also how is it within their right to not perform these marriages? Is it (legally) ok to say: I shall not marry you because the person you intent to marry with is a different race.

 

[Korey]

I know that the place where I work cannot fire people for something they do outside of work, as long as it doesn't affect them on the job. Granted, if I interviewed someone who was openly racist, I wouldn't hire them in the first place, but if I tried to fire someone because they went to a church whose views didn't match up with mine, I feel like I'd be opening myself (and my business) up to a lawsuit.

Is this something you know for a fact, or just something you assumed?

 

[george_us]

I dunno man, she looks kinda swarthy to me. Persian, maybe?

Great ass, I know that much.

Edit: Sorry, I was thinking of Claudia Lynx, not god. Easy mistake to make.

*Googles Claudia Lynx*

Thank you, sir.

 

[Dead Man]

Could you explain to me how this is not racist? I really do not see it.

Also how is it within their right to not perform these marriages? Is it (legally) ok to say: I shall not marry you because the person you intent to marry with is a different race.

No church can be forced to perform a marriage, how would that work?

 

[Shurs]

I think a church is probably within it's rights to ban members who went outside the church to obtain a marriage that would not have been performed inside the church. And the banned people should be glad to leave the kind of church that forces them to look elsewhere for things like that.

I think the big thing for me is that this church, which is promoting intolerance, is probably getting a tax exemption from the government. So, while it's not sanctioned in an official capacity by the state, it is getting benefits due to its classification as a church.

I do wish there was some way to pull the plug on places like this.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Lol. I have to show my wife this. We got married in KY. This is a real shame for real though.

 

[Korey]

I think the big thing for me is that this church, which is promoting intolerance, is probably getting a tax exemption from the government. So, while it's not sanctioned in an official capacity by the state, it is getting benefits due to its classification as a church.

I do wish there was some way to pull the plug on places like this.

Yep.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/mp8p9/a_daily_reminder_of_an_injustice/

 

[Shurs]

Is this something you know for a fact, or just something you assumed?

I'm assuming that I cannot fire someone who attends a specific church. I do not know this for sure.

I also have employees who attend churches that consider homosexuality a sin -- another viewpoint that I disagree with. Then again, I don't believe in sin, either, but that's another story.

Now if these employees said racist or homophobic things in the workplace, then I'd feel that I have reprimand or fire them. There are a lot of people who attend churches and don't agree with everything that goes on there.

For example, I grew up a (very loose) Catholic. It always bothered me that women couldn't be priests and that homosexuality was looked down upon. I'm no longer a member of the church, but just because I was once a member doesn't mean that I ever bought into everything the church was saying.

 

[Chuckie]

No church can be forced to perform a marriage, how would that work?

Well if you are not member of that club I could imagine you can't get married there. But can the church simply refuse for racial reasons?
I have no idea of the legal status of a church marriage in the US but I know for instance in Indonesia it is mandatory... meaning that if a church wouldn't marry you becaus you are mixed, you should fucking switch religions to even get married.

 

[Dead Man]

Well if you are not member of that club I could imagine you can't get married there. But can the church simply refuse for racial reasons?
I have no idea of the legal status of a church marriage in the US but I know for instance in Indonesia it is mandatory... meaning that if a church wouldn't marry you becaus you are mixed, you should fucking switch religions to even get married.

In the US the actual marriage is done by the government, the church stuff is optional and ceremonial.

 

[Korey]

I'm assuming that I cannot fire someone who attends a specific church. I do not know this for sure.

They won't fire you for attending a church, but they can for you being openly and actively racist even if it's outside of work.

 

[Cheerilee]

Could you explain to me how this is not racist? I really do not see it.

It's related, and very stupid, but I think it's somewhat different. Like if they're opposed to black/asian couples, but they're completely okay with blacks and asians. I think then, theoretically, they might have an argument that they're not being racist.

It's racist in a strict sense, since it's a judgement that involves race, but it's not really what most people think of when they think of racism.

Also how is it within their right to not perform these marriages? Is it (legally) ok to say: I shall not marry you because the person you intent to marry with is a different race.

Churches are generally allowed to follow their silly little religious rules. If you don't like them, you can always get married by a judge at the courthouse (they generally aren't supposed to follow silly rules). But then, a lot of people dislike being married "legally", they want to be married "religiously", even when they've broken a few of the stupid little rules of a religion.

 

[Chuckie]

In the US the actual marriage is done by the government, the church stuff is optional and ceremonial.

Ah same as Holland then.

 

[astroturfing]

don't they understand that mixing is good for us biologically, don't they understand even the basics of genetics and evolution?

 

[Dead Man]

don't they understand that mixing is good for us biologically, don't they understand even the basics of genetics and evolution?

Oh ho ho.

 

[Onemic]

It's related, and very stupid, but I think it's somewhat different. Like if they're opposed to black/asian couples, but they're completely okay with blacks and asians. I think then, theoretically, they might have an argument that they're not being racist.

It's racist in a strict sense, since it's a judgement that involves race, but it's not really what most people think of when they think of racism.


Churches are generally allowed to follow their silly little religious rules. If you don't like them, you can always get married by a judge at the courthouse (they generally aren't supposed to follow silly rules). But then, a lot of people dislike being married "legally", they want to be married "religiously", even when they've broken a few of the stupid little rules of a religion.

I'm sorry man, but that's racism pure and simple.

 

[marrec]

It's related, and very stupid, but I think it's somewhat different. Like if they're opposed to black/asian couples, but they're completely okay with blacks and asians. I think then, theoretically, they might have an argument that they're not being racist.

It's racist in a strict sense, since it's a judgement that involves race, but it's not really what most people think of when they think of racism.

No, it's Racist in the most broad sense. It's the kind of Racism that allowed schools to be segregated until relatively recently. Separate But Equal is Racist no matter which way you cut it. That'd not pedantry either, it's plain truth.

 

[Chuckie]

It's related, and very stupid, but I think it's somewhat different. Like if they're opposed to black/asian couples, but they're completely okay with blacks and asians. I think then, theoretically, they might have an argument that they're not being racist.

It's racist in a strict sense, since it's a judgement that involves race, but it's not really what most people think of when they think of racism.

I think I understand what you mean. Because their shite rules apply to all races there might technically be no racial discrimination. All colours have the same 'rights' and the same things are 'forbidden'.

However what would happen if someone who is a child from such a marriage is member of this church. Can he not marry anyone? He is mixed race.
Would he be kicked out of the church because of his mixed race?

 

[TacticalFox88]

don't they understand that mixing is good for us biologically, don't they understand even the basics of genetics and evolution?

Considering they don't believe in evolution, I'd reckon not.

 

[Patryn]

Well if you are not member of that club I could imagine you can't get married there. But can the church simply refuse for racial reasons?
I have no idea of the legal status of a church marriage in the US but I know for instance in Indonesia it is mandatory... meaning that if a church wouldn't marry you becaus you are mixed, you should fucking switch religions to even get married.

A church can't be forced to do shit. It's a private institution.

Getting married in a church means nothing legally. The only thing that matters is the civil paperwork, which can be filled out without bothering with a church at all. The paperwork needs a signature of an authority who performs the ceremony, and that can be a priest, but it can also be a judge or a justice of the peace.

Some couples just go down to city hall and get it taken care of with no religion involved whatsoever.

In fact, claiming that churches are obligated to perform any legal marriage is a common scare tactic used by opponents of gay marriage, who claim that if it passes they'll be forced to perform them, when it fact churches would still be allowed to refuse and actively oppose the institution.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

It's funny, because Jesus was an Arabic Jew, yet most of these people probably have racist views on Arabs.

 

[Orayn]

I am going to connect this discussion to a recurring theme in other threads about religion: "Why do you care so much about what other people believe?"

People ask this question as though they think it will end the entire debate in one fell swoop. In doing so, they seem to be implying that belief itself should be unassailable, and anyone who says otherwise is just a Mean Old Atheist®. So, does that argument apply here too?

 

[Patryn]

It's funny, because Jesus was an Arabic Jew, yet most of these people probably have racist views on Arabs.

Most of these people don't believe Jesus was Middle Eastern. Keep in mind the classic picture of Jesus that they think of, he's clearly Caucasian. Even if you were to walk them through the logic of it (Jesus was born in the Middle East.... so by definition he's probably Middle Eastern), I think they'd still refuse to accept it.

 

[archnemesis]

Considering they don't believe in evolution, I'd reckon not.

Not to mention the fact that 25 states still allow first cousins to marriage.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

It's newsworthy because this shouldn't be happening anywhere in America in 2011

you cannot be that naive.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I am going to connect this discussion to a recurring theme in other threads about religion: "Why do you care so much about what other people believe?"

People ask this question as though they think it will end the entire debate in one fell swoop. In doing so, they seem to be implying that belief itself should be unassailable, and anyone who says otherwise is just a Mean Old Atheist®. So, does that argument apply here too?

We have to respect their faith.




Also, how do we know that god didn't tell them to do this?

 

[Orayn]

you cannot be that naive.

It's naive to say that people shouldn't use religion to promote racist bullshit? So does a realist have a mental list of people who should?

 

[Like the hat?]

I don't understand why churches are tax exempt anyway