Kentucky church bans interracial marriage

[Kimberlyd125]

There are many bigots.

What this church did is not right. The members who voted in favor of this are bigots.

But the term bigot is used so often, the meaning gets lost in the insult of it.

For example, I have strong beliefs regarding faith. Others who are opposed to my faith are bigoted towards it.

 

[Chewy]

There are many bigots.

What this church did is not right. The members who voted in favor of this are bigots.

But the term bigot is used so often, the meaning gets lost in the insult of it.

For example, I have strong beliefs regarding faith. Others who are opposed to my faith are bigoted towards it.

I'm sorry you feel that way. This thread isn't about your beliefs etc.

The church goers in this op are bigots and racist. But I wonder if they even think they are though.

In the above link there's a great quote

Humphrey said in October that she wanted Bardwell to resign. "He doesn't believe he's being racist, but it is racist," she said.

The guy who refused to do the interracial marriage thinks he's not racist because he's willing to marry blacks to blacks. He's worried about the "children" he says.

I mean some people are totally deluded.


I'm curious what can legally be done about it.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm sorry you feel that way. This thread isn't about your beliefs etc. The church goers in this op are bigots and racist. But I wonder if they even think they are though.

In the above link there's a great quote

The guy who refused to do the interracial marriage thinks he's not racist because he's willing to marry blacks to blacks. He's worried about the "children" he says.

I mean the some people are totally deluded.


I'm curious what can legally be done about it.

BBM, but I can give an example if I feel the need. Thanks! :smile:

BTW, it's not about Justin Bieber either.

 

[krimekat]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204

There are a couple of different MSM sources, but here is ABC.

from the article:

of 42 members, very few stayed for the meeting after church and even fewer voted . . . most congregants wanted no part in the vote. Ultimately, nine people voted for the motion and six voted against it and interracial couples were banned.

Other churches in the community have condemned the decision. The matter will be up for discussion again at the Sandy Valley Conference for Freewill Baptist Churches.

Only 36% of the congregation voted at all
Of those 60% in favor -- 21% of the entire congregation voted for the motion
The majority 79% abstained or voted against the motion

Not representative of an entire congregation & it appears the church's governing entity is looking into the motion.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...church-will-drop-ban-on-interracial-couples/1

Pastor expects church will drop ban on interracial couples


Here is a statement, issued Thursday, by the executive office of the National Association of Free Will Baptists:

Recently, the action of a Free Will Baptist church in the state of Kentucky raised questions regarding the position of the National Association of Free Will Baptists on interracial couples. This statement is intended to bring clarity to the subject.

The National Association of Free Will Baptists does not have an official policy regarding interracial couples because it has not been an issue in the denomination. The Free Will Baptist Treatise neither condemns nor disallows marriage between a man and woman of different races.

Free Will Baptists have historically championed the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of race. The denomination's leadership in the abolition movement is evidence of that fact. Free Will Baptists currently spend millions of dollars each year to take the good news of Jesus Christ to people of every race.

Many interracial couples are members of Free Will Baptist churches. They are loved, accepted, and respected by their congregations. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize the denomination as racist.

It is our understanding that steps are being taken by the church in question to reverse its decision. We encourage the church to follow through with this action. Leaders from the local conference and state association in Kentucky are working with the church to resolve this matter.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45523898

Revote Likely At Church On Interracial Couples


Stacy Stepp, pastor of Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church, told the Appalachian News-Express in Pikeville he believes state and national Free Will Baptist associations will stand with him and other members of the church who oppose the ban.

Stepp also said he is seeking another vote on the issue, perhaps as early as Sunday, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

 

[Chewy]

A revote? :floorlaugh:

Why isn't it just being thrown out the window. You know if I went to a church that even put this on the table for a vote, I'd LEAVE. The same way if I was a member of a religion that hid pedophiles I'd LEAVE. I bet they think this is a nice gesture or something.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

All actions regarding church bylaws are voted on as far as I know.

They are trying to correct the problem. The pastor that held the original vote is no longer at the church.

They are trying to say "Hey, we didn't want that!"

The will revote. It will be corrected.

 

[krimekat]

All actions regarding church bylaws are voted on as far as I know.

They are trying to correct the problem. The pastor that held the original vote is no longer at the church.

They are trying to say "Hey, we didn't want that!"

The will revote. It will be corrected.

Thank you - another fact in the article I wanted to mention. That Pastor is no longer the Pastor of the church.

Melvin Thompson has since been replaced with a new pastor who said that everyone was welcome at the church & the Harville family said the issue was dropped.

At a recent meeting Thompson, who is still a member of the congregation, brought up the issue again and asked that it be discussed at a business meeting among the church's men.

So to me it sounds like a small minded "Melvin" & a few of his cronies causing trouble -- they're going to get the smack down Free Will Baptist-style!

It's a shame that a few bad apples can spoil the entire batch. Such is the World . . .

 

[Chewy]

That's a good thing then. Great post Krimekat!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Thank you - another fact in the article I wanted to mention. That Pastor is no longer the Pastor of the church.

Melvin Thompson has since been replaced with a new pastor who said that everyone was welcome at the church & the Harville family said the issue was dropped.

At a recent meeting Thompson, who is still a member of the congregation, brought up the issue again and asked that it be discussed at a business meeting among the church's men.

So to me it sounds like a small minded "Melvin" & a few of his cronies causing trouble -- they're going to get the smack down Free Will Baptist-style!

It's a shame that a few bad apples can spoil the entire batch. Such is the World . . .

Yep. That was my point. The pastor is no longer the pastor and the majority of the church did not want this ban.

IMO it's being corrected.

 

[Constance]

I'm curious what can legally be done about it.

IMO, this is a case of religious freedom, covered by the Constitution.

Commenting on it is one thing; legal action seems a bit too close to religious persecution for this American.

:twocents:

 

[Chewy]

That's what I thought. It's disgusting that people use religion this way. But public backlash ought to bring them around. I find it strange how few people commented on this in the news compared to a silly twitter spat in Kansas. Makes you wonder.

 

[Steely Dan]

While I believe this to be the highest form of ignorance, we should not stoop to their level & call "people" names or deem an entire group of people as bigots. Generalizing seems to get us in trouble.

I was taken aback at the initial title of the thread which had the link to this story but totally understand the sentiment.

I have a hard time with people who profess to be Christian & do not follow the teachings of Christ . . .

BBM

The title of the thread is the title of the article.

www.dictionary.com

bigot
- noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

This covers most people with strong opinions about ANYTHING. Those who are intolerant of differing opinions it seems.
So I guess that's a lot of people.

I think the word is grossly misused, misunderstood, and over used.

I think racist applies here better. JMO

from the article:

of 42 members, very few stayed for the meeting after church and even fewer voted . . . most congregants wanted no part in the vote. Ultimately, nine people voted for the motion and six voted against it and interracial couples were banned.

Other churches in the community have condemned the decision. The matter will be up for discussion again at the Sandy Valley Conference for Freewill Baptist Churches.

Only 36% of the congregation voted at all
Of those 60% in favor -- 21% of the entire congregation voted for the motion
The majority 79% abstained or voted against the motion

Not representative of an entire congregation & it appears the church's governing entity is looking into the motion.

What's more disgusting is that people walked out. They allowed the vote to take place. If these people felt very strongly about the issue they would have stayed and voted. 15 people felt strongly enough to vote on it. By walking away the others supported it in absentia. JMO

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...church-will-drop-ban-on-interracial-couples/1

Pastor expects church will drop ban on interracial couples


Here is a statement, issued Thursday, by the executive office of the National Association of Free Will Baptists:

Recently, the action of a Free Will Baptist church in the state of Kentucky raised questions regarding the position of the National Association of Free Will Baptists on interracial couples. This statement is intended to bring clarity to the subject.

The National Association of Free Will Baptists does not have an official policy regarding interracial couples because it has not been an issue in the denomination. The Free Will Baptist Treatise neither condemns nor disallows marriage between a man and woman of different races.

Free Will Baptists have historically championed the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of race. The denomination's leadership in the abolition movement is evidence of that fact. Free Will Baptists currently spend millions of dollars each year to take the good news of Jesus Christ to people of every race.

Many interracial couples are members of Free Will Baptist churches. They are loved, accepted, and respected by their congregations. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize the denomination as racist.

It is our understanding that steps are being taken by the church in question to reverse its decision. We encourage the church to follow through with this action. Leaders from the local conference and state association in Kentucky are working with the church to resolve this matter.

Personally, I'd prefer they keep it. If national attention hadn't been shed upon them they would have kept it going, I believe. Now the congregation just has to keep it behind the eyes like so many in the country do about a great many things. JMO

IMO, an insincere apology is worse than no apology at all. Let's find out what people really believe in this world.

Yep. That was my point. The pastor is no longer the pastor and the majority of the church did not want this ban.

IMO it's being corrected.

IMO, you can't say the majority of the church didn't want it. Most of them walked away. If they truly didn't want it they would have stayed and let their voices be heard. Instead they left. They didn't have the guts to stand up for what they believed, if they truly didn't want the rule to pass. Only six people were willing to stay and make the right choice.

If a group of people get together to lynch a person and people against it walk away they are as culpable as the lynchers, IMO. Get in between the lynchers and the potential victim and fight for them. Walking away seems to be an: "eh it's ok with me whatever they decide." type of attitude. JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

IMO, this is a case of religious freedom, covered by the Constitution.

Commenting on it is one thing; legal action seems a bit too close to religious persecution for this American.

:twocents:

Where would you draw the line? I think the argument could be made that this is a political statement and therefore they should lose their tax exempt status.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

SD!!!! You with those dang multi-quotes!!!

:smile: I try to follow along. It's hard on Tapatalk though.

You are right! Those people should not have walked away. They should have stood up for what the believe.
My personal opinion on that is that many people hold their pastor in such high regard, they didn't want to go against him even if they felt they should.

I wish they would have stood up and been counted.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

We also don't know if those who left and refused to vote ever went back to the church.

Perhaps they were disgusted by the fact it even came up for vote and decided they didn't want to be a part of that type of church.

Who knows.

 

[Steely Dan]

SD!!!! You with those dang multi-quotes!!!

:smile: I try to follow along. It's hard on Tapatalk though.

You are right! Those people should not have walked away. They should have stood up for what the believe.
My personal opinion on that is that many people hold their pastor in such high regard, they didn't want to go against him even if they felt they should.

I wish they would have stood up and been counted.

They should have stayed and voted and then left the church. However, I think it was just a matter of wanting to get home in time for the football games or whatever they wanted to do and didn't think this was important enough to stay and address. JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Well we most likely will never know what their reasons were for leaving.

I find it hard to believe the majority of the church wanted the ban.

Skin color has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Chewy]

BBM

The title of the thread is the title of the article.



I think racist applies here better. JMO



What's more disgusting is that people walked out. They allowed the vote to take place. If these people felt very strongly about the issue they would have stayed and voted. 15 people felt strongly enough to vote on it. By walking away the others supported it in absentia. JMO



Personally, I'd prefer they keep it. If national attention hadn't been shed upon them they would have kept it going, I believe. Now the congregation just has to keep it behind the eyes like so many in the country do about a great many things. JMO

IMO, an insincere apology is worse than no apology at all. Let's find out what people really believe in this world.



IMO, you can't say the majority of the church didn't want it. Most of them walked away. If they truly didn't want it they would have stayed and let their voices be heard. Instead they left. They didn't have the guts to stand up for what they believed, if they truly didn't want the rule to pass. Only six people were willing to stay and make the right choice.

If a group of people get together to lynch a person and people against it walk away they are as culpable as the lynchers, IMO. Get in between the lynchers and the potential victim and fight for them. Walking away seems to be an: "eh it's ok with me whatever they decide." type of attitude. JMO

Excellent point. This is exactly how I see it. And trying to make excuses for them is doing the same thing you describe above.