2 votes

Church blocks 'black couple's' wedding

Church blocks 'black couple's' wedding

by Jimmie E. Gates and Alex McDaniel - Jul. 30, 2012 06:58 AM

JACKSON, Miss. -- A Jackson, Miss., couple's dream of exchanging vows in the church they had been attending was dashed last week when the church pastor told them that some members had complained about the Black couple getting married in the predominantly white First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs.

Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson said it was devastating to move their wedding to another church only days before the July 21 wedding. Invitations and the printed program had the date and the church's name on them.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/30/20120730ch...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

why thank you for putting

why thank you for putting words in my mouth...I said most "christians" you said I said all..then you made the argument on your words not mine. Wow!! I am a christian so I was not blasting christians...I was discussing that this is not christian behavior..and that like I said most "christians" are only christian on Sunday...

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

did this church refuse to marry . . .

a non-heterosexual couple also?

If so, I could see that the church would come under attack--

the fact is that people often are drawn to churches for weddings, because of the building itself--

150 years old; it is probably a lovely building, and that is where young couples want to be married--

so, this may or may not be 'bunk', but it will probably be used by those who have an 'agenda'--

if it is true that there are those who complained about a black couple being married in a predominately white church (the bride's uncle is the custodian)--

then that is sad. But it's a church issue, not a government issue, certainly--

I hope the church loses its members; THAT would be the natural result--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

WOW! How convenient! Out of

WOW! How convenient! Out of the blue, a Christian Church under attack for denying recognition to black, gay couple!! Is the target of this story, racism or homosexuals or white bigotry? Guilt-tripping white folks, straight folks, Christians is a trifecta grand slam. C'mon Barry, you're going to have to do better than that. More B.S. is right!

Did I miss something?

As the story is reported it was just some out of the blue request by racist white folks that the pastor not marry some fellow church goers and that makes no sense. If the church were racist then it wouldn't be multiracial in the first place.

I didn't read that they were homosexual. If they were then the church has every reason to refuse to marry them and I applaud the whiteys for putting a stop to it. But like I said, I didn't read anything about them being homo and as the story is reported it makes no sense and sounds like a bunch of half truth or lies.

Holy Smokes...Did I miss

Holy Smokes...Did I miss something! My apologies. I don't know how Imisread "black couple" into a "black gay couple" It seemed too ridiculous to refuse marrying a black couple unless the issue was that they were gay. I'll try and read more carefully in the future.

Hey, I understand

I was trying to make sense of the story myself. Why would they deny them when they are members of the church? This doesn't make sense at all. Something isn't being reported accurately or something. Hmmm.

Very Christian of them

Western Christianity is paganism. You simply can't go to a Christian Church week after week and emerge a racist. There is only ONE Christian Church, the only one that ever has been since the very beginning--unchanged. You have to be willing to think to realize it in a theological and historical standpoint, but most have no willingness to think so I won't bother explaining. But I promise if you think you're Christian and you're not Orthodox, you're just playing church or actively being deceived. Come home. EVERYONE is welcome, even if you're black or can't speak english.

Hey, you're Orthodox?

I lived in Romania for a while. We had some Orthodox neighbors - nice people.

"Western Christianity" is not paganism

You can't judge all of what you call "Western Christianity" on the actions of this one church. Do you know that "Western" Christians were leaders in ending slavery in the West?

Also, the Orthodox Church broke off of Catholicism so is a lot closer to paganism than Protestantism is.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church broke off from Orthodoxy

Officially in 1054. Not long, historically speaking, after pagan barbarians had taken over Rome and the local Bishop's seat (the Pope).
Read this
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread835935/pg3

Well let's see

Christmas, Easter, Sunday, Mary worship, Rosaries, statues, American flag, false doctrines galore etc...

Yep sounds pagan to me. But it's not limited to "Western" Christianity as the guy suggests. Satan doesn't discriminate when it comes to deception.

And the further you get from Catholicism the better, if you are opposed to false teaching.

Fool

We do not worship Mary, though we venerate her.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/saint-worship

As far as the ignorant statements about worshipping statues are concerned, the statues are there not to worship, but to remember the person or events.

I do not know why I bothered to respond to this ignorant post. You make vague assertations without backing any of them up with any links.

As far as the nonsense about worship of the flag is concerned, I might remind you that even as the Iraq War began, with heavy support, it was the pope who said it would be wrong to go to war:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154807/Pope-condemns...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-13/world/sproject.irq.pope_1...

I hope that the links provided will offer some insight and that you will refrain from making such blanket statements in the future.

My only link

is Scripture. But apparently you don't have and never have had that link and that is why you are so lost.

The fact that you pray to Mary who is dead and buried and will not rise again until the resurrection shows how ignorant Catholicism is.

If you have an image, any image, that is suppose to represent who you worship then it is idolatry. If you read your bible instead of listening to the lying pope then you would know that.

I don't think I was vague at all. I made my point and if you are to Scripturally illiterate to see then that is not my fault.

The flag worship has nothing to do with Iraq. The fact is that many churches fly the flag because they think that this country is somehow special in the eyes of God and they fly the flag that they have sworn allegiance too in spite of the fact that it is an abomination.

But just in case you weren't aware of them, here are some links. King James Bible along with a Strong's Concordance and the Interlinear Bible would be a good start for you. Now go learn the Scriptural meaning of things instead of the popes paganized distortion of truth.

Wake up

We do not worship Mary. Did you not read the post?

As far as flags are concerned, I have been in many churches and in only one of them have I seen a flag.

I am not scripturally ignorant; there are many passages in the bible in which God instructs people to raise statues of gold to him. Note that it does not say worship inadimate objects, just to make them in his honor.

Finally, in case you are historically ignorant, the King James Bible was a knockoff of the original bible, and was made for political purposes when King James suceeded Elisibeth, and wished to resolve tensions between the Church of England and angry Puritans. In short, it was made with the intention of unifying a divided church. In this, it is similair to how the crusades were fought for primarilly political purposes of unifying the East Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. For reasons outside the intention of the people doing the translations, even absent of the political situation, there would be mistakes as the work was being rushed for political purposes.

Ahem.

Bite your tongue! "there are many passages in the bible in which God instructs people to raise statues of gold to him." I THINK NOT.

Exodus 20:4-5,23 and Deuteronomy 4:15-19

You show me one passage where God says to raise a statue to Him. Shame on you.

As far as the King James bible goes. You say it is a knock off of the "original bible". What original bible are you speaking of? But you are right that there were many mistakes and outright false additions by the translators. And a lot of the mistakes are a result of false teaching that had already been introduced through Catholicism which started under the rule of Constantine. That is why you need additional study resources such as Strong's Concordance and an Interlinear at least.

Response

Mary worship and rosaries are only in Catholicism, not Protestantism.

Christmas and Easter were originally celebrated so converts would not be tempted to celebrate the old pagan holidays, but they are not pagan in and of themselves.

There are records inside and outside of the Bible of early Christians gathering the worship on Sundays. That is not pagan.

Statues are not bad themselves, as long as they are not worshiped or bowed down to (like Catholics do).

Not sure what you mean by "American flag" and what false doctrines you are talking about.

The modern church is certainly not perfect and is currently often tainted by some heresies such as Zionism, but it's not exactly "pagan".

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Hmm. Let me take each paragraph

1. True
2. False They are pagan and the introduction of those observances into christian doctrine is an abomination.
3. False Sunday was never a Scriptural day of worship with the exception of the Feast of Weeks aka Pentecost and it was a high day Sabbath and had nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath. Sunday worship is pagan and stems from the Sun worship thus the "sunrise service".
4. False If you have any image that is worshiped then you are guilty of idolatry. That picture of "Jesus" you have in your house makes you an idolator. Read your bible for Christ's sake.
5. See answer #4. There are many churches that fly the American flag in their assemblies. The same flag that you are taught to pledge allegiance to. You cannot serve mammon and God. As far as false doctrines go, where do I start, there is Rapture, once saved always saved, continue in sin and be saved by belief alone, etc, etc...
6. Actually there is very little in Christian worship that is Scriptural and most all of main stream doctrine is pagan in origin.

Hope that cleared that up for you.

Clear what up?

You gave absolutely no links.

As for the Sunday worship, that is when Jesus rose from the dead, and in the Christian faith, Jesus is the Messiah. On the third day he rose... Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Tada! I will return the courtesy by giving no links to back up my statement.

You can't even get that right.

Messiah was not crucified on Friday!! My word man do you read the bible at all? He was entombed on the evening that starts the fifth day of the week known as Thursday. And he rose at the end of the seventh day known as Saturday at twilight. That is three days and three nights. You may want to study how days are recognized Scripturally.

Messiah was in the grave for three days and three nights, not one day and two nights. He rose at the end of Saturday not on Sunday morning. Messiah was crucified on Passover and so the Sabbath you are misunderstanding is the first day of Unleavened Bread which is a high day Sabbath. It was not the Weekly Sabbath that Joseph was worried about but the high day Sabbath.

So He was entombed Wednesday night and Thursday, which was the high day Sabbath, Thursday night and Friday which was the day of preparation and Friday night and Saturday, at the end of which He was resurrected. Three days and three nights just as Scripture says.

So as you can see Sunday has no significance. The only time Sunday, the first day of the week, has any significance Scripturally is on the annual Feast of weeks aka Pentecost which always falls on the first day of the week.

Again my link to this truth is Scripture. Please study it.

So sad

Have some friends that run a mortuary in a small town in Georgia. They told me of a fellow mortuary whose community threatened that 'they'd never do business in their town again' if they used their facilities for the funeral of an elderly black man. Still unofficially segregated in many parts. Many 'white' funeral homes will simply refer blacks to 'colored' funeral homes. Oh...but when James Brown passed away- ALL the white funeral homes were quite happy to partake in the funeral procession and allow their vehicles to proudly advertise their respective businesses in the highly publicized occasion. Not a religious thing- its a ass-backward a$$hole thing.

Another reason

Another reason to remove tax-exempt statuses for religions...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

So, you're a statist?

The government uses taxation as a means of forcing people into a particular way of thinking and acting. According to classical liberal thought, the government is supposed to protect people from violence, theft, and fraud. Discrimination is none of that. If a church wants to refuse to let people in its doors to worship based on the color of their hair, the way they're dressed or the size of their nostrils, that's of no concern to Uncle Sam.

Agreed. UNLESS they get

Agreed. UNLESS they get tax-exempt status. If they get special treatment from the state, they will recieve special restrictions.

In the woman's favor, I might argue that the Church committed fraud against her. She obviously believed that since she had been a member of the church for years, she would have been allowed to get married there. The fact that the church is reneging on that implied promise might be considered grounds for fraud.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The tax exempt status is because

they are religious institutions. If the federal government insisted churches pay taxes and churches refused, the IRS could then shut those churches down, thereby breaking the First amendment by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I don't recall in the article whether or not the man and woman were members of the church. If it is written in the church's bylaws that getting married in the church is a privilege of being a member of the church then she could definitely sue for damages. Although it would be unchristian (the Apostle Paul rebuked Christians for taking other Christians to court and instead encouraged them to resolve conflicts if possible within church bodies without involving the secular government), it would definitely be legal.

Why should only religious

Why should only religious institutions get tax-exempt status? There must be a wall of separation between church and state; no special privileges.

"If the federal government insisted churches pay taxes and churches refused, the IRS could then shut those churches down, thereby breaking the First amendment by "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

By the same logic:

"If the federal government insisted churches not molest children and churches refused, the FBI could then shut those churches down, thereby breaking the First amendment by 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'"

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

No, because if child molestation was occuring

in a church, the FBI wouldn't shut down the church, they would only arrest the child molesters. If non-child molestoers wanted to continue using the building and grounds for church, they could as long as no more child molestation took place.

The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from prohibiting the free exercise of child molestation, it prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Bill of Rights has been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, so if a city or county demanded property taxes from a church and the church didn't pay, the local govt. would have a problem. The church-members are merely exercising their Constitutional right to practice their religion. In order to prosecute the "tax evaders", the police would have to arrest every single person who is a member of the church, since churches belong to the congregations. Some churches on the other hand belong to denominations, so, the heads of denominations would have to go to jail for not paying the government to let people in their denominations do something that they are guaranteed the right to do in the Constitution. We don't have to pay the government for Constitutional rights, we have them by virtue of the Constitution's existence.

"in a church, the FBI

"in a church, the FBI wouldn't shut down the church, they would only arrest the child molesters. If non-child molestoers wanted to continue using the building and grounds for church, they could as long as no more child molestation took place. "

Not how it really works, especially if the organization as a whole was complicit in it. Let us say it is in their beliefs in bylaws, and they abduct children or use children of willing church members int he practice?

"The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from prohibiting the free exercise of child molestation, it prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

What if someone's religion includes child molestation? Should the government allow communities to have Sharia law? Should they allow polygamy?

"The Bill of Rights has been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, so if a city or county demanded property taxes from a church and the church didn't pay, the local govt. would have a problem."

The Supreme Court, however, defined that as the government going after specifically, and for doing it without due process. If the churches didn't pay taxes, the government wouldn't be going after them because they were religious, they'd be going after them because they didn't pay taxes that everyone has to pay (therefore fitting the 14th amendment).

"The church-members are merely exercising their Constitutional right to practice their religion."

Under this definition, anyone can do anything by claiming it is their religion. "Oh, I love murder! It is my religion! How dare you arrest me for murdering that person!"

"In order to prosecute the "tax evaders", the police would have to arrest every single person who is a member of the church, since churches belong to the congregations."

You might have to decide who to arrest. The head of the larger branch if the noncompliance occurs there, or the head of the smaller branches if it is happening there. And of course, organizations have assets. They have the money they get from donations/tithes, buildings, gold, etc.

In my book, the US should have treated the Pope like they treated Joe Paterno.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Huh?

"Let us say it is in their beliefs in bylaws, and they abduct children or use children of willing church members int he practice?"

That's beyond ridiculous. I guess from there we would have to revert to the debate on whether or not the United States of America was a Christian nation at its founding and whether or not the Founders intended it to remain a Christian nation. At the time of the Founding of this nation, there were no religious bodies who practiced such rituals or any other such pagan practice.

I couldn't find the exact quote, but, I remember reading Jefferson say that religious freedom extended so far as it didn't disturb one's neighbor. I think if we use a little common sense we can discern between what is legitimately protected under the First Amendment and what is an act of violence.

Demanding that churches pay taxes would obliterate the wall of separation between church and state. Plus, it's impossible because no real Christians would comply with it (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God's. Church money (offerings) does not belong to Caesar) and any administration that tried to declare a tax war on churches' fundamental belief system Christianity would lose badly.

Ok, but...

I belong to church and I pay taxes. I wish we were tax exempt, but that is not true.

The institution

Is tax exempt so it does not get forced to obey the state. I have heard much talk on this story about how the church dominated and was responsible for all matters of violence, yet have seen no inflection and inquiry over the possibility that maybe it is the state that dominated the churches just as it is the state that dominates the people.