TOMAHAWK, Ky (Reuters) - A vote to bar interracial couples from a small church in eastern Kentucky has triggered hand-wringing and embarrassment.
Nine members of Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church backed their former pastor, with six opposed, in Sunday's vote to bar interracial couples from church membership and worship activities. Funerals were excluded.
The vote was taken after most of the 40 people who attended Sunday services had left the church in Pike County, near the border with West Virginia. Many members left to avoid the vote.
Most members of the church "didn't want anything to do with this," said longtime church official Dean Harville, whose daughter and her black fiance had drawn pastor Melvin Thompson's ire.
At services earlier this year, Stella Harville, 24, who is working on her master's degree in optical engineering, sang "I Surrender All" with her fiance, Ticha Chikuni, 29, a Zimbabwe native, according to her father. Chikuni, an employee at Georgetown College in Kentucky, played the piano.
"There didn't appear to be any problem," Dean Harville said on Wednesday. "None whatsoever."
But Harville said Thompson told him the couple would not be allowed to sing at the church again. Thompson resigned in August but would not drop the issue.
Thompson told a local radio outlet, "I do not believe in interracial marriages, and I do not believe this (ban) will give our church a black eye at all."
He could not be reached for comment.
The move has drawn scrutiny from the hierarchy of the Freewill Baptist Church, Harville said.
"This kind of thing brands all of us so easily," said Randy Johnson, president of the Pike County Ministerial Association. "That's not who we are. From all the churches I've talked to so far, it's really not anger so much as it is shock."
IP: Logged
02:41 PM
PFF
System Bot
dsnover Member
Posts: 1668 From: Cherryville, PA USA Registered: Apr 2006
The Bible isn't against interracial couples. "Foreign" wives refers to people of different FAITHs, which is being 'unequally yoked'.
That being said: It's a private church. They can do what they want on memberships and attendance, even if I don't agree with it (and it seems many members don't, although they didn't have the b@lls to vote against it either). If the government wants to get involved somehow, well, that would be an issue of the so-called 'separation of church and state', but that only seems to work one way these days anyway, at least for Christian denominations....
That being said: It's a private church. They can do what they want on memberships and attendance, even if I don't agree with it (and it seems many members don't, although they didn't have the b@lls to vote against it either). If the government wants to get involved somehow, well, that would be an issue of the so-called 'separation of church and state', but that only seems to work one way these days anyway, at least for Christian denominations....
I agree.
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:01 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Typical. So called Christian don't normally follow anything that is contained in the Bible. No scriptural passages to support anything. Only their personal views that are counted, but if the couple were being molested by the 1st cousin they'd over look that one. I'm sure Jesus Christ isn't very pleased that they are mocking him and the so-called christian name plate. The guy and gal should find a new faith.
Typical. So called Christian don't normally follow anything that is contained in the Bible. No scriptural passages to support anything. Only their personal views that are counted, but if the couple were being molested by the 1st cousin they'd over look that one. I'm sure Jesus Christ isn't very pleased that they are mocking him and the so-called christian name plate. The guy and gal should find a new faith.
The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.
I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.
IP: Logged
05:05 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Maybe they just need to find a new (Christian) church to belong to..?
Or move away from the back woods of Kentucky. Still, if one's faith isn't backed up by passages in the Bible what difference does it make if they find a new church. 99.99% of all so-called Christian can't back-up anything found in the Bible. The easiest way to defend themselves here was to use common examples found in the Bible to squash the nonsense here about interracial couples. Instead, these morons decided to take a vote over what's found in the Bible.
One instance in the Bible where a believer married inter-racially is in Numbers 12:1-9. Moses had married a wife of another nationality. Members of his family, Aron and Miriam, "spoke against" Moses for it.
Numbers 12:1-9 New King James Version (NKJV)
Dissension of Aaron and Miriam
quote
http://www.biblegateway.com...2%3A1-9&version=NKJV 1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. 2 So they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. 3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.) 4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tabernacle of meeting!” So the three came out. 5 Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. 6 Then He said,
“Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream.
7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house.
8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?” 9 So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed.
The Bible specifically prohibits marrying one from another faith (non-Christian) but it is clear from this passage that God had no problem with it.
I'd say the church is on thin ice and it is time to move on if the pastor doesn't recant.
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 12-01-2011).]
Or move away from the back woods of Kentucky. Still, if one's faith isn't backed up by passages in the Bible what difference does it make if they find a new church. 99.99% of all so-called Christian can't back-up anything found in the Bible. The easiest way to defend themselves here was to use common examples found in the Bible to squash the nonsense here about interracial couples. Instead, these morons decided to take a vote over what's found in the Bible.
*Sigh*
I can backup most things I know from the Bible... are there some gray areas, yea... but it ultimately doesn't affect doctrine.
One of the few faults in the house I grew up in was a degree of racism. I was told interracial marriage was wrong, but when I finally read the entire Bible for myself, that was one of the things I conciously looked for. I found nothing against it. So from then on, I didn't think anything of it when I saw a "mixed" couple. Some of my best friends have checker-board skin.
But I have to agree that this church can do as they please regarding the matter. Even if they are wrong.
No church is perfect, mostly because we're all human. But they said in their own statement that they "serve the community". They don't serve it very well if they take this stand on interracial marriage.
[/.02]
IP: Logged
05:51 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
its all up for interpretation anyway. Each church interprets it differently.
Oh really, in this case did they "vote" or did they relay on their own interpretation? It appears these so-called Christians were so lazy that they bypassed interpretation all together, because that would require looking up scriptures. A vote is easier than looking towards the Bible. Once again a classic example of how America's so-called Bible belt who claim to be followers of Christ. What a mockery and what a joke.
If they have issues with interracial couples it makes you wonder what other "votes" they have if anything "black" is involved? What if they see a interracial couple at a dinner, do they serve them? Trust me on this one, there's more to it than a simple "interracial" couple issue here. Things like this go's deep, way deep and it has roots.
The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.
I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.
I find this "argument" entirely baffling. When tax paying citizens give from what's left of their money to their church, this is somehow receiving "public money?" I would think that the little money that's in my pocket after the Feds and the Commonwealth take their "shares" is mine. The town makes it perfectly clear that the civic benefit of having the Church in the neighborhood more than makes up for the money it would comparably receive in property taxes and trash fees.
That sad, take a look just at the surface of the article. There were 56 members of this small church. 71% of the membership left over the issue, presumably to other churches. 40% of the remaining membership voted "Nay." That puts their staying put in jeopardy, as well. The resultant church will have nine members.
Unfortunately, churches have humans as governing members, and humans are susceptible to all kinds of temptation, including a lust for power. Admittedly, this is not the reason that people become Pastors or Deacons or Trustees, but the temptations are still there. I belonged to a church in the City of Presidents (Two presidents born there), in which the Board felt that, as literal "next of kin" of those who founded the church in 1904, they "owned" the church. Almost 40% of the membership left along with the Pastor, who moved south and, with his wife, started a ministry that helps women who went through the Rwandan genocide rebuild their lives and care for their families.
I've moved on from there (sadly, it was kind of like a divorce) to another small church (though larger than this one in KY) that is doing some great things. And, I've been elected Moderator, so I get to run meetings and I don't get to have an opinion....
I find this "argument" entirely baffling. When tax paying citizens give from what's left of their money to their church, this is somehow receiving "public money?"
You can give whatever you want. That is private money and not what i'm talking about.
I am talking about redistribution of tax dollars. Money I never got a choice in where it gos. It was taken and distributed without my consent. And while i have nothing against people getting together and forming a church, they should be held to the same standards and pay their own way as everyone else. NO tax breaks. As far as I'm concerned, getting a tax break is the same as accepting tax dollars.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
06:43 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12400 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
All they gotta do is have a Hollywood movie made of the story, and bada-bing bada-boom, they can send their kids & grandkids to whatever kooky faith-based college or seminary they like, where they can then become pastors themselves and start their own church where they can all live happily ever after. (Yeah, I'm a Christian, but I don't have a good impression of most faith-based colleges, I'm sorry to say. But then, I don't have any better impressions of other institutions of higher learning, either.)
IP: Logged
07:00 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
You can give whatever you want. That is private money and not what i'm talking about.
I am talking about redistribution of tax dollars. Money I never got a choice in where it gos. It was taken and distributed without my consent. And while i have nothing against people getting together and forming a church, they should be held to the same standards and pay their own way as everyone else. NO tax breaks. As far as I'm concerned, getting a tax break is the same as accepting tax dollars.
But we've just established that they receive private funds. If they don't receive public dollars from the Fed, then the budget is made up of private donations. Plus, the Pastor and other employees' payrolls are taxed.
IP: Logged
07:00 PM
PFF
System Bot
blackrams Member
Posts: 33121 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
But we've just established that they receive private funds. If they don't receive public dollars from the Fed, then the budget is made up of private donations. Plus, the Pastor and other employees' payrolls are taxed.
We don't/won't agree, but as i stated above, receiving *any* tax abatements ( i guess that is a better term than "breaks" ) or achieve 'non profit' tax status is the same as receiving public dollars to me and it changes the rules. And just to clarify i don't care if they are a church, or a manufacturing plant or a food pantry or the boyscouts... I'm not being biased here, and all should be treated the same. Also, i don't care if we are talking federal or state or local taxes. Its still public funds, just from different sized pools.
That they also receive private funds is totally irrelevant to me since they still accepted public funds.
Then I can assume (if you will stay consistent in your posted beliefs) that if an individual is on government assistance (of any kind) they should lose their right to vote until they are off of it because "receiving public dollars changes the rules"?
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
Then I can assume (if you will stay consistent in your posted beliefs) that if an individual is on government assistance (of any kind) they should lose their right to vote until they are off of it?
No, i don't feel they should lose the right to vote. However, i do agree that there can be restrictions placed on them in return for the public funds that a 'private' citizen is not under. ( simple example: random drug tests. ).
While i don't have some 'magic list' of items, i think it should be restricted to how the public money is being spent. Other personal rights/liberties should be left alone. ( like your voting suggestion )
EDIT: A good example would be how items you can purchase at the grocery with food stamps is restricted. You can buy food to feed your family, but buying a pack of cigarettes is not allowed.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:26 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
So, moveon.org, Occupy Whatever and the ACLU, as well?
Just to be clear.
I did say all..
Oh, and i should include 'government contracts' too.. Its still receiving public funds, even if in those cases its for work done, not just charity.
But, if you don't accept any public funds, run your church/business/club however you want. I don't have a problem with it. I may not do business with you, and i might express my distaste for it, but its your shop, not mine.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-01-2011).]
they are all cults from the big international catholic cult to the snake handlers cults
and all cults should be taxed heavily too bad there is no anti BS tax on them that would be great the more silly ,absurd, or dangerous a cults beliefs the higher the taxes like young earthers or anti-evo nuts or racists or snake handlers or the jim jones david k types those cults should be taxed to the max
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
I've been through the Clinton administration. It might have depended on what "all" meant.
In my experience, Liberals mean "the stuff on the right" when they say all.
That said, the rules as we have them are written so that a Church is established as a private entity, and can't be compelled to accept anyone into membership that they don't want to. Democratic policy has already done considerable damage to the membership rolls of the particular organization of the O/T.
I've been through the Clinton administration. It might have depended on what "all" meant.
In my experience, Liberals mean "the stuff on the right" when they say all.
That said, the rules as we have them are written so that a Church is established as a private entity, and can't be compelled to accept anyone into membership that they don't want to. Democratic policy has already done considerable damage to the membership rolls of the particular organization of the O/T.
Ultimately I don't lean in either direction and had no "agenda", and i truly meant everyone that accepts it. And the rules should be applied equally so as not to unfairly harm, or help, any particular entity depending on the prevailing political winds. Yes i know that rues can ( and will ) be abused, but that wouldn't be my intent to enact them.
No, i don't feel they should lose the right to vote. However, i do agree that there can be restrictions placed on them in return for the public funds that a 'private' citizen is not under. ( simple example: random drug tests. ).
While i don't have some 'magic list' of items, i think it should be restricted to how the public money is being spent. Other personal rights/liberties should be left alone. ( like your voting suggestion )
EDIT: A good example would be how items you can purchase at the grocery with food stamps is restricted. You can buy food to feed your family, but buying a pack of cigarettes is not allowed.
I agree with you on most of this. Here's the thing about the voting while on gov. assistance, it is no different than the politicians pandering votes from the rich with tax breaks (which is what most of the rage the days is about). One can promise tax breaks just like one can promise more assistance to get votes from that base. It is just as easy to pander to the poor for votes as it is to pander to the rich. See the problem here? Just like the rich, who are the poor going to vote for? The one candidate that promises them the most. The difference is that the rich live on and spend their own money. Money that they earned and they vote to keep as much of it as they can. The poor vote to take money from the taxpayers for their use. Money that they didn't earn and have no right to, so they can have more to live on without earning it. There is a conflict of interest here.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
Ultimately I don't lean in either direction and had no "agenda", and i truly meant everyone that accepts it. And the rules should be applied equally so as not to unfairly harm, or help, any particular entity depending on the prevailing political winds. Yes i know that rues can ( and will ) be abused, but that wouldn't be my intent to enact them.
This goes against your stance on taxing the rich more, just because they're rich.
A national flat tax would go a long way to do what precisely you are explaining in this post and I can agree with you on this too.
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.
I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.
Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.
Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.
There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government.
In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.
Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.
Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently i failed, but i tried to make it clear several times above that this is my opinion about it and how i feel it should work. not that it does, or doesn't, work that way, but how i want it to.
Also, taxing a church like every other business would not violate the church and state separation concept. In reality, giving the church special treatment does violate it and is a smoke screen to allow the government to support religion.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-02-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:21 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Tax Exempt is not the same as accepting public funds.
Churches cannot be taxed, for to do so is a violation of the so-called 'separation of church and state', and the free exercise of religion. You can't have it both ways.
There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government.
In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.
Yep Yep
IP: Logged
01:24 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9115 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
they are all cults from the big international catholic cult to the snake handlers cults
and all cults should be taxed heavily too bad there is no anti BS tax on them that would be great the more silly ,absurd, or dangerous a cults beliefs the higher the taxes like young earthers or anti-evo nuts or racists or snake handlers or the jim jones david k types those cults should be taxed to the max
I have heard of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith but never the Cult
Are they the sister Church to our friends at Westboro Baptist? lol
The only problem i have with the 'its their place, their rules' argument ( which i normally do fully support ) is that they are in effect accepting public tax dollars since they are a tax exempt entity.
I feel that once you accept 'public funds' in any form the rules need to change and you are no longer truly a private entity.
So what your saying is?!? Stop allowing churches to be tax exempt?