Monday, December 5, 2011

Dumbass Idea of the Week

Well, it should come as no surprise to anyone that racism is not dead.  It would seem, though, that we as a society have progressed to a point where it's no longer okay to express racist sentiment publicly (so long as you're white).

Apparently, some idiots at the Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, KY, didn't get the memo that it's not a good thing to be racist.  About a week ago, the church voted to ban interracial couples from getting married at that church, and they banned them from even attending regular services.

Before the religious freedom crowd jumps in, these asshats didn't even make an attempt to put a religious spin on this.  This decision was purely out of a sense that black people and white people should not be married.  There is no religious explanation: this is racism pure and simple.

So congratulations ass clowns.  In one stroke you've managed to not only make yourselves look like awful, hateful, shit head people, but you've also taken a shit on the god you believe to have created all of us in his image, and who loves all of his creation equally and unconditionally.

Christian goodness only goes so far, I guess.  At least the pastor finally decided to void the rule, but how would that have turned out without the media backlash?


Silverfiddle said...

It is religious freedom, in that it is a church making church policy.

They made a racist decision, and they will live with the racist consequences, freely doled out by ordinary citizens, not government policy, and that is as it should be.

I can't see this church growing. They've shot themselves in the face.

Harrison said...

Another success for the Church!

Always On Watch said...

Free Will Baptists are a contentious lot.

I predict that there will be several groups splintering off as a result of this particular church's decision.

Of course, in actual fact, we are not so many years distant from those days when interracial marriages were forbidden by state law. Of course there are pockets of "religious" racism all over the United States.

Jack Camwell said...

The decision had no theological basis. Church policy can't override the law just because it has to do with a church.

As far as I know, segregation is illegal. Also, human sacrifice is illegal. If the Free Will idiots voted that they could start up human sacrifice again, does that mean they could claim "religious freedom," and get away with it? That's an extreme example, yes, but I'm sure you see my point.

You might bring up homosexuals and what not, but there's an actual theological basis for that. I might disagree with the interpretation people use to bar them from serving as members of the clergy, but they do have a theological basis for it.

There is no theological basis for blatant racism.

Jack Camwell said...

Addendum: One can argue that since homosexuality as an action can be construed as sinful, since although one may have the urge to have intercourse with the member of the same sex, one does not have to follow through with his or her urges. The argument could be that it's not necessarily sinful to be inherently homosexual, but that committing the act is a sin.

However, there's no argument that can support the notion that being black is inherently sinful. Being black is not a choice, and there is no action associated with someone being black (other than simply existing).

I suppose that one could argue that since the Jews were all about racial purity in the Old Testament, so should we remain the same, but their "purity," was not about physical race, but rather cultural and religious purity.

Either way, we know that's pretty awful, and to deny a couple a place to worship god is fairly jacked up.

KP said...

I guess this church is not listening to LMFAO and Party Rock Anthem:



KP said...

That should read:

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You seem fixated on homosexuality for some reason... I never brought that up.

@The decision had no theological basis. Church policy can't override the law just because it has to do with a church.

Two distinct issues:

Whether a church policy has a basis in theology or not is not a legal determination for freedom of religion.

US law is, as you rightly point out. I don't dispute that.

Rather, I believe we should respect property rights and allow bigots to be bigots on their own property. Better that they are out in the open. I would never step foot in such a church, and I bet I'm not alone.

This church's bigotry violates no one's natural rights, since no one has the right to enter another's property without the owner's permission.

Jack Camwell said...

I have no fixation on homosexuality. I used that as an example because it is a good example to use when arguing about when church law/policy can and cannot trump local/state/federal law. That was what I thought one might logically use to refute my position on this.

Yes, the church is on private property, but the church offers a service to the community. So long as it is offering a service, my guess is that they're not allowed to discriminate based on race.

Country Thinker said...

Is the fact that the church's position has no theological basis your contention, or their official position?

Jack Camwell said...

Good question. The official position is what I really have a problem with.

Going into theological basis was more of a way to argue against those who might say "well this is a religious freedom issue."

We're only allowed to freely practice our religion given that the practice thereof does not break the law. It wouldn't matter even if they did have a theological basis for being racist assholes, I guess.

Jersey McJones said...

I don't have a problem with a church practicing racist dogma, as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of those who have nothing to do with that church. On the other hand, if a black person were mysteriously harmed in the vicinity of that church, I would have no problem with criminal investigation those stupid racist scumbags.