Another attack on religious freedom: Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Another attack on religious freedom

1 2

View All

Bone Idol

Jul 29, 12 20:22

Post #1 of 32 (1371 views)

Another attack on religious freedom	Quote \| Reply

http://www.smh.com.au/...-20120730-237p7.html

Whatever made these uppity folk think that they could impose their so-called civil rights on good white god-fearing folk?

Churches should be allowed to exclude those they don't like, right?
Pretty central to the whole idea of religion, right?

Turns out they were able to get married somewhere else, so no harm done, right? Certainly no reason to trample religious freedoms. White christians have been oppressed enough. I'm glad to see them making a stand!

Duffy

Jul 29, 12 20:27

Post #2 of 32 (1364 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Was the refusal because of the black thing or the having a 9 year old daughter and not being married thing? Other than insinuation, the article didn't say why they were turned away.

____________________________________________________
"This hip-hoppers ended up tightly connected with basketball along with highway dances."

realAlbertan

Jul 29, 12 20:43

Post #3 of 32 (1358 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Pink?
___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M - 1500 metre Freestyle

patf

Jul 29, 12 20:44

Post #4 of 32 (1358 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

And the flip side http://www.smh.com.au/...-20120730-237p7.html. It appears the racially mixed church membership agrees this was wrong. Personnaly I can't understand how that would happen in a racially mixed congregation, or any congregation really. It sounds like a small group was going to kick the pastor out if he continued with the wedding. Perhaps he should have done that, but i suspect there will be some radical change in elders/officers of this church following this debacle. The pastor still held the wedding at another church so it sounds like the couple were not unhappy with him, but I did not find anything about their response.

Bone Idol

Jul 29, 12 21:44

Post #5 of 32 (1326 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Duffy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Duffy wrote:

Was the refusal because of the black thing or the having a 9 year old daughter and not being married thing? Other than insinuation, the article didn't say why they were turned away.

According to the couple involved, it was a black thing. That's not proof, but it is more than insinuation, it is a clear accusation.
'We cannot get married here because, guess what sweetie, we're black'.

Bone Idol

Jul 29, 12 21:47

Post #6 of 32 (1324 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [realAlbertan] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

realAlbertan wrote:

Pink?

No. Someone has to stand up for the downtrodden white christians. Why won't you?
If we let them marry in white churches, how long can it be before they start thinking they can marry white people? Don't scoff, it could happen. Slippery slopes, and all that.

Bone Idol

Jul 29, 12 21:54

Post #7 of 32 (1319 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [patf] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

patf wrote:

And the flip side http://www.smh.com.au/...-20120730-237p7.html. It appears the racially mixed church membership agrees this was wrong.

It appears some of them agree, just not enough. Not much of a flip side.

patf wrote:

Personnaly I can't understand how that would happen in a racially mixed congregation,...

The fact that you can even type those words goes some way to explaining how it would happen. WTF does skin colour ever have to do with the right to marry in a church?

patf wrote:

Perhaps he should have done that,...

What, exercised an ounce of ethical sense? A churchman? D'ya think?

patf wrote:

The pastor still held the wedding at another church so it sounds like the couple were not unhappy with him, but I did not find anything about their response.

Sure. As long as the black folk have their own churches, schools and drinking fountains, and stay away from the white ones, what possible complaint could they have?

Bone Idol

Jul 29, 12 22:09

Post #8 of 32 (1310 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Bone Idol wrote:

Other reports are quoting the pastor, not merely the couple.: "arguing that the church had never hosted black couples since it was opened in 1883."

"Weatherford said that he would have liked to marry the couple as planned, but he decided to perform the ceremony elsewhere as a compromise to ensure that the Wilsons could be married while "addressing a need within our congregation." http://ibnlive.in.com/...couple/276118-2.html

So keeping the blacks out is more than just a preference, it is a need, and needs must be addressed.

Imagine the suffering if blacks had been allowed to take their matrimonial vows in a church where they had never been allowed to before. The wails, the weeping, the gnashing of teeth. Oh, the humanity!

realAlbertan

Jul 29, 12 23:03

Post #9 of 32 (1295 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

They will go to 'hell' for this shit.
___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M - 1500 metre Freestyle

AlanShearer

Jul 30, 12 0:50

Post #10 of 32 (1282 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Weatherford said that he would have liked to marry the couple as planned, but he decided to perform the ceremony elsewhere as a compromise to ensure that the Wilsons could be married while "addressing a need within our congregation." http://ibnlive.in.com/...couple/276118-2.html

So keeping the blacks out is more than just a preference, it is a need, and needs must be addressed.

I interpreted this, at first, as a recognition that there was some work to be done to correct the racism within the congregation. That that was what needed to be addressed.

But your interpretation fits too.

FJB

Jul 30, 12 0:56

Post #11 of 32 (1279 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

According to the couple involved, it was a black thing.

Well that certainly settles that.

Bone Idol

Jul 30, 12 1:40

Post #12 of 32 (1266 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [FJB] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

FJB wrote:

According to the couple involved, it was a black thing.

Well that certainly settles that.

Could you read two, or even more sentences? Go on, give it a try.

rick_pcfl

Jul 30, 12 5:06

Post #13 of 32 (1221 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I do not know if this is the case here, but... Some churches do not allow couples to marry at their church if neither is a member there. I can understand it somewhat, it costs money and you never know how people may treat the church. As an example. My old church had a nice sanctuary where services and weddings were held, and at one time allowed non-members to hold weddings there. One time a couple got married, and their guests were smoking in the sanctuary, and left cigarette butts, ashes and other trash in the sanctuary.

So, you may find that it isn't uncommon for churches to refuse to allow weddings in the church if neither person is a member.

I do not know if that is the case in your OP. It could be, but the reporter did not say. It wouldn't be the first time that a reporter left out some vital information in order to present a story one way.

If their main reason for refusing to hold the wedding there was because the couple was black, then that would be racism. But something tells me there could be more to it.

<edited to add> Did some research and found that it does appear to be solely because the couple was black. That is inexcusable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rick Smith - Founder of Bus Bulletin
Parent notification software designed for pupil transportation ~ Providing information while it still matters.
http://www.BusBulletin.com

(This post was edited by rick_pcfl on Jul 30, 12 5:08)

FJB

Jul 30, 12 5:10

Post #14 of 32 (1218 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

According to the couple involved, it was a black thing.

Well that certainly settles that.
Could you read two, or even more sentences? Go on, give it a try.

I did read it and still can't figure out why they were not allowed to marry other than some members opposed it and the pastor went along. It doesn't explain the reasons. You base your argument on the fact that a black couple that were refused marriage said it was because they were black.

That's solid reporting and investigative work right there.

rick_pcfl

Jul 30, 12 6:40

Post #15 of 32 (1170 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [FJB] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Come on. You know that people don't claim to be victims of ____ism unless it is true. The article did not do anything to support their claims other than to quote the woman.

However, I googled the church name and found some other articles that were better written. It appears that a couple of members of the church went to the pastor and were able to change his mind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rick Smith - Founder of Bus Bulletin
Parent notification software designed for pupil transportation ~ Providing information while it still matters.
http://www.BusBulletin.com

Bone Idol

Jul 30, 12 6:40

Post #16 of 32 (1169 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [FJB] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

FJB wrote:

What you describe as my argument was my citing a newspaper report. "According to the couple involved, it was a black thing" is an accurate depiction of the report. If you have evidence of misreporting, provide it.

The reports do explain the reasons, insofar as they were offered. The church has never married blacks, in 130 years, and many parishioners did not want to "break that precedent". They were willing to coerce and threaten the pastor, and the pastor was willing to submit to that coercion. That was his statement against interest, so unless the report is fraudulent, I'd be inclined to believe it is accurate as to the pastor's perceptions (ie the pastor is unlikely to have engaged in a lie that makes him look so bad).

Undoubtedly there were antecedent reasons that motivated those reasons given - we are left to speculate about that.

Is it possible that your own prejudice, specifically your pro-christian bias, is making it so hard for you, even after several attempts, to read and comprehend the plain language of what has been reported?

Rick was right in his initial skepticism, and note that I referred to an accusation, not proof. But look at the reported words of the offender, not the offended. As rick says it is inexcusable. I'm sure there will be some backtracking and retractions in the coming days, and there'll be those (you perhaps?) who clutch at that as a fig leaf for what looks pretty disgusting.

Eppur si muove

Jul 30, 12 6:42

Post #17 of 32 (1165 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I assume the title of your post refers to the post itself?

I think refusing to marry a black couple is bigoted, just as would be refusing to marry a gay couple. But freedom sometimes requires that we allow people to do things with which we personally disagree. To require everyone to abide by one's own beliefs would be the very antithesis of freedom.

Rambler

Jul 30, 12 6:43

Post #18 of 32 (1164 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Doesn't this put their tax exempt status at risk?

Duffy

Jul 30, 12 7:31

Post #19 of 32 (1143 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Bone Idol wrote:

Duffy wrote:

Was the refusal because of the black thing or the having a 9 year old daughter and not being married thing? Other than insinuation, the article didn't say why they were turned away.

I've had people come up to me when I'm working at a job site and ask me for a job (money, drugs, cigarettes, etc.). Stinking, dirty, unshaven and reeking of alcohol (I work in some interesting areas). I'll say no. Many time the reply is "can't a black man get a job? You racist mother fucker!"

So when someone says they got denied something because they are black I take it with a grain of salt.

I had to evict someone from my rental unit. He accused me of evicting because he is gay. No. It was because he didn't pay the rent for 4 months.

Rarely do those who have been "wronged" are able to understand (or admit) the actual reason. Maybe the lady in the story is a total bitch. Maybe that church doesn't want to marry someone who already has a nine year old kid.

I know of several chutes in my city that will not allow people to be married there if they have out of wedlock children.

There is a church a block from my house that has never married a white couple. Do I think they are racist? No.

My personal feeling is that the church in the story is loaded with racists, and that racism was part (if not all) of the reason this lady was treated they way she was.

But going by the info given, if I was on a jury? Not guilty.

____________________________________________________
"This hip-hoppers ended up tightly connected with basketball along with highway dances."

________

Jul 30, 12 8:19

Post #20 of 32 (1120 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

The only problem I can see is that it seems the couple was mislead to believe they could have ceremony at the church. Mislead to the point where that had invitiaions printed. That cost, as well as the time and trouble, should be accounted for.

Hopefully, some accomodations were made in that regard.

But other than that, I don't see the problem. If you don't want blacks, whites, gays, left-handed folks, christians, jews, etc., using your church, that's your call.

Bone Idol

Jul 30, 12 18:42

Post #21 of 32 (1056 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Eppur si muove] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Eppur si muove wrote:

Interesting perspective. Of course no freedoms exist in an absolute sense. The freedom paradox is that any freedom, except perhaps freedom of thought, is protected in part by curtailing other freedoms. We must balance what is most valued. My freedom to commit violence yields to your freedom from violence.

Here what is in balance is the freedom to not only be racist, but to put racist views into practice in a way that causes suffering to another. Against that is the freedom to go about life untrammeled by racism and bigotry. Despite my ironic title, this has nothing to do with religion. Nowhere does the bible say "Yeah verily the lord said unto thee, let no black skinned people marry within your church". This is pure human bigotry. No one's freedoms are absolute, someone's has to be compromised. Personally, I'd say that's the bigots'. I think you've backed the wrong freedom. That's not merely imposing my beliefs, anymore than your (presumed) insistence that I not commit violence against you would be you trying to impose 'your own beliefs.' There is something far more universal at stake.

Bone Idol

Jul 30, 12 18:42

Post #22 of 32 (1056 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Duffy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Duffy wrote:

So when someone says they got denied something because they are black I take it with a grain of salt.

...

But going by the info given, if I was on a jury? Not guilty.

You would really be a defence attorney's dream juror. The accused stands in the dock and says "Yup, I dunnit" and you say "Hey, maybe the victim was stinking, dirty unshaven and reeking of alcohol, or a total bitch....NOT GUILTY your honour!"

Bone Idol

Jul 30, 12 18:42

Post #23 of 32 (1056 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [gonehome] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

gonehome wrote:

But other than that, I don't see the problem. If you don't want blacks, whites, gays, left-handed folks, christians, jews, etc., using your church, that's your call.

How about my bus, my school, my shop, my hospital? Can I turn anyone away from any service on the basis of their skin colour with no problem to you, or are churches special?

HideTheDecline

Jul 30, 12 19:01

Post #24 of 32 (1035 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I live not too far from this town and this has been a hot topic around here. The overwhelming opinion from everyone I talk too, Facebook postings, local paper editorials is that this was clearly wrong and obviously is blatant racism. It is my understanding that quite a few in this church had no knowledge of this happening. There was a great article in the paper this weekend that said the groom attended church there this past Sunday and was welcomed with open arms. Whomever this small minority was that "kept" the wedding from happening should be identified and vilified. Unfortunately some things won't change until people die off. No way though is this type of thing condoned in any shape or matter.

Duffy

Jul 30, 12 19:40

Post #25 of 32 (1022 views)

Re: Another attack on religious freedom [Bone Idol] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Bone Idol wrote:

Duffy wrote:

So when someone says they got denied something because they are black I take it with a grain of salt.

...

But going by the info given, if I was on a jury? Not guilty.

Did the accused admit racism was the reason? I must have missed that part.

____________________________________________________
"This hip-hoppers ended up tightly connected with basketball along with highway dances."

1 2

View All