Kentucky church bans mixed race couples

[Sandra Craft]

church imposes interracial ban

I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but figured religion was a good a place as any.  Condensed story: after a white woman in the congregation started dating an African man she'd met at college, the rural Free Will Baptist Chruch she'd attended since childhood voted 9-6 to ban interracial couples from all services except funerals.  A number of people, including the current pastor, are working to overturn this but the woman whose relationship started it all, and who is now engaged to her boyfriend, says she not likely to go back to that church even if they do repeal the ban.  Can't say I blame her.

One of the things that puzzles me, and that isn't religion related, is that the church's former pastor, who voted to ban interracial couples, denies being a racist and insists that the ban isn't motived by racist feelings.  This is hardly the first time I've heard of people who've done or said apparently racist things denying that there's racism involved but without explaining what is then involved.  I have to wonder, am I missing something?

[Tristan Jay]

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I don't think your missing something.  I would be hard-pressed to interpret it other way myself; and I would call BS.  The onus is on them to explain how it's not racist, otherwise they can't complain it isn't.  Mind you, I'm gut-reacting right now, speaking from the perspective of a white man who married a black lady, so I'm not unbiased.  God and his people embarrassing themselves again, ha!  Watching these epic failures, it's just never going to get old, is it?  Makes me feel a little satisfied, yet also sad.  If only God would lift a finger to put his house in order...yeah right.  Same old problem, as usual.

[Tank]

Surly this can't be legal in the US?

[OldGit]

That's what I was thinking.

[Asmodean]

I don't know... It IS the US we speak of... The weirdest shit can be legal there  ???

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Surly this can't be legal in the US?

Courts and legal authorities rarely get involved in internal church disputes. Generally, any intrusion would be considered a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  So if the dispute has to do with membership, doctrine, preaching, etc., the government does not interfere. Now, if the problem relates to child abuse, fraud, etc., that's a different matter.  But for the general sorts of ecclesiastical matters, the authorities stay out.

[Too Few Lions]

it's a pretty shocking story, just shows that not all of the US has moved on quite as far as it should have since the dark old days of racial segregation. And yes, that ex-pastor does look like a clear racist even if he wants to try and deny it.

[xSilverPhinx]

Well, if their god is a racist, then they can place responsibility on him for that and problem solved! The pastor can be a racist and not be a racist (hey, god says so) at the same time!

[Squid]

For those not in the U.S., you must realize this is in Kentucky - a part of the U.S. bible belt where God, guns and Guts (although many mistake being an asshole for having "guts") are the unofficial motto.  After reading about the church, it seems their vote centered around interracial couples.  Many people would view it even on par with their disdain for gay marriage.  I think the reason it is doubtful we would see an legal intervention from authorities outside of a go round of civil lawsuits is that:

1. It's Kentucky
2. It's a church
3. The church isn't saying a particular race of people cannot attend just interracial couples.

I'm by no means defending this church or it's views.  I see how someone can look at it and say, isn't that illegal?  But as far as I know, it isn't.  Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II:

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

However, if the church receives ANY federal funds and they are found to be practicing discrimination, they could lose that federal funding under Title VI.

BUT, I'm not a lawyer nor am I well versed in law by any means - my training is in social science/psychophysiological research  .  So, I could be incorrect.

[Tank]

Thanks for the input Bruce and Squid.

[Stevil]

I'm not sure where the right for religious freedom gives a person the right to break the law.
This surely must be illegal.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm not sure where the right for religious freedom gives a person the right to break the law.
This surely must be illegal.

It is not against the law for a religious institution in America to restrict its membership as it sees fit.  As Squid pointed out, if it was receiving federal funds, that might present a different case.  However, I doubt that this is the case for a small rural church in Kentucky.  As I previously mentioned, the freedom of religion clause allows churches to determine their own membership - the government cannot force them to accept any particular person as a member, and they may essentially draw those lines based on their religious beliefs.  There is no legal right for the interracial couple to be a member of this church.  Can't see why they would want to be, anyway, after this.

[KingPhilip]

As soon as I saw "Kentucky church" I knew it would be bad. Sadly, this is extremely common. I lived in West Virginia, right next to Kentucky, and similar situations with churches were not at all abnormal there.

[Sandra Craft]

Surly this can't be legal in the US?

Courts and legal authorities rarely get involved in internal church disputes. Generally, any intrusion would be considered a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  So if the dispute has to do with membership, doctrine, preaching, etc., the government does not interfere. Now, if the problem relates to child abuse, fraud, etc., that's a different matter.  But for the general sorts of ecclesiastical matters, the authorities stay out.

What Bruce said.  Separation of Church and State, remember?  It does work both ways.

[xSilverPhinx]

Surly this can't be legal in the US?

Courts and legal authorities rarely get involved in internal church disputes. Generally, any intrusion would be considered a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  So if the dispute has to do with membership, doctrine, preaching, etc., the government does not interfere. Now, if the problem relates to child abuse, fraud, etc., that's a different matter.  But for the general sorts of ecclesiastical matters, the authorities stay out.

What Bruce said.  Separation of Church and State, remember?  It does work both ways.

Double edged sword