Another beautiful day in hillbilly racist land...

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-01-2008, 00:50

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't fault the church for trying to accommodate a grieving(if racist) family. A funeral is neither the time to take a social stance nor a teachable moment.

The church could have refused to switch pastors, but that isn't really their mission. Christian values dictate that you accept people as they are first, and try to show them the correct way as time progresses.

Just as society expects that a Christian church wouldn't turn an unwed mother away, it also should accept that some in the flock have backwards views towards race and realize that a funeral is not the place to try and change that. A sermon on Sunday is definitely in order, though...

They asked for a trained minister; they got one and didn't like his skin color.

Plus, look at the other treatment this pastor has received. It doesn't sound to me like he's gone out there and tried to impose himself on others inappropriately or sought out controversy, it sounds like all of that has come to him on its own.

All in all, inexcusable behavior. It will have a negative social reaction and it deserves one, otherwise people like this are never going to change their ways. It may make them feel resentful but oh well; I'd rather them feel resentful because they're racist and unpopular than someone feel like they can't even live a normal life and do their job because of their skin color.

**HoreTore** · 10-01-2008, 04:04

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't fault the church for trying to accommodate a grieving(if racist) family. A funeral is neither the time to take a social stance nor a teachable moment.

If the grieving family doesn't want a black priest, then they are more than welcome to find some other arrangement. But doing that is not a job for the church. And fortunately, most of the church understands that.

**Mikeus Caesar** · 10-01-2008, 04:37

Having spent half my life living in the country, i find that racism doesn't seem to be aimed at skin colour, the very large majority of the time. As was said earlier, if the culture and expectations of life are the same, then skin colour doesn't get looked at. You all end up good friends. It's when a culture that can be seen as 'alien' is brought into a community that racism begins. Country folk are just afraid of change, is all.

But then obviously there are communities like the one mentioned in the OP topic. This is just a case of people being vile, bigoted scum.

**KukriKhan** · 10-01-2008, 13:44

I just wonder why avowed atheists, agnostics, and anti-religionists even give a hoot how or why some church somewhere does anything, or picks its clergy, or performs its rites.

OTOH, the guy's treatment outside of church bears law enforcement attention.

IMHO.

**HoreTore** · 10-01-2008, 13:52

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I just wonder why avowed atheists, agnostics, and anti-religionists even give a hoot how or why some church somewhere does anything, or picks its clergy, or performs its rites.

This particular church isn't just some random church, this is the state church. I don't care what the random churches are doing, but I care about what the state church is doing, because it's under state authority. Through democracy, I elect the leaders of this church.

**KukriKhan** · 10-01-2008, 14:07

My bad, then. The whole concept of state churches is foreign to me. If you're paying for it, you have every right to have a say. Sorry.

**HoreTore** · 10-01-2008, 14:46

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

My bad, then. The whole concept of state churches is foreign to me. If you're paying for it, you have every right to have a say. Sorry.

I wish it was for me too.......

Oh well, it'll be gone soon enough, the majority is against it now. Only two kinds of people still support it really; liberals who want to control the church, and xenophobes who see the church as some wall against muslim hegemony or something.

**KukriKhan** · 10-01-2008, 15:09

We don't have a state-church, but we do allow exemption from taxes for organizations defined as churches, which I believe we should do away with (not the churches, the tax-exemptions). So, we do have a kind of left-handed support of churches here, I must admit. And we (taxpayers/citizens) have no say whatever in how those places are run.

**HoreTore** · 10-01-2008, 15:19

Yeah, well, I'm just talking about getting rid of the state control of the church and the higher status that church has. Here we give money to all religious groups based on the number of members(ie. x amount for each member). I'm fine with that. If only the money from those of us without any religious affiliation(like me) isn't automatically given to the state church.

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-01-2008, 17:42

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I just wonder why avowed atheists, agnostics, and anti-religionists even give a hoot how or why some church somewhere does anything, or picks its clergy, or performs its rites.

OTOH, the guy's treatment outside of church bears law enforcement attention.

IMHO.

Hypocrisy is always news, Kukri. ;) It really says something about people if someone is dead, a minister shows up, and your biggest problem at the moment is that he's black.

**Don Corleone** · 10-01-2008, 19:06

Taxing a church is by definition double-taxation, correct?

Churches in the U.S. are completely funded by donation. If I go to work, earn some money, get half of it taxed, then give some of the half I was allowed to keep to a church, and the church gets taxed on that, how is that NOT double taxation?

If we're going to tax churches, I say we should do away with the concept of tax-exempt organizations all-together. Why should St. Francis's pay taxes on the donations it receives but a marxist one not?