church imposes interracial ban (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/12/02/after_uproar_ky_church_looks_at_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?
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.
Surly this can't be legal in the US?
That's what I was thinking.
I don't know... It IS the US we speak of... The weirdest shit can be legal there ???
Quote from: Tank on December 03, 2011, 09:41:43 AM
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.
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.
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! ;D
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964), Title II:
QuoteOutlawed 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 8). So, I could be incorrect.
Thanks for the input Bruce and Squid.
I'm not sure where the right for religious freedom gives a person the right to break the law.
This surely must be illegal.
Quote from: Stevil on December 03, 2011, 05:45:26 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 03, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 03, 2011, 09:41:43 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 03, 2011, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 03, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 03, 2011, 09:41:43 AM
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 ::)
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on December 03, 2011, 07:23:59 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 03, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 03, 2011, 09:41:43 AM
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.
Separation of church and state is good, for both the church and the state, and for society in general. It's not good for the church to intrude upon the business of the state, and it's not good for the state to involve itself in the inner workings of the church. Keep them separate, and nobody gets hurt. Of course, if someone does get hurt (like priests abusing children), then the state can step in. And believers of every stripe can speak their opinions about the state and its business, just like all citizens can. But the church should have no power over state policy, and vice a versa.
I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.
I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.
1928 called, they want their ideals back.
I'm not aware of churches receiving federal funds, that would violate the establishment clause. There are organizations with religious affiliations that receive federal funds, however, such as certain adoption agencies and universities. However, any actual church connected with these organizations would not be allowed legally to use those funds for church activities.
It is legal to discriminate in a church. It goes back to some of the original reasons many people came to this country. They were undergoing religious discrimination, and wanted to go to a place where the government would not tell them how to worship or what practices they had to follow. Still, there are limits. Churches are not allowed to go killing people for working on Sunday.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 04, 2011, 12:16:02 PM
1928 called, they want their ideals back.
1928? More like 1964 in this country.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxDouble edged sword
Yeah. I'm all for the separation of church and state but I couldn't help thinking "and this is what they do with it" when I read that article.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 04, 2011, 10:03:56 AM
I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.
I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.
There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 04, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 04, 2011, 10:03:56 AM
I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.
I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.
There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law.
Are you saying that any organization is free to discriminate at will, or just those hiding their discrimination behind religion? Because if that second be the case, I refer to the second part of what I wrote. If all organizations are free to practice such policies, then there is even more wrong with the US than I initially thought.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 04, 2011, 06:48:45 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 04, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 04, 2011, 10:03:56 AM
I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.
I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.
There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law.
Are you saying that any organization is free to discriminate at will, or just those hiding their discrimination behind religion? Because if that second be the case, I refer to the second part of what I wrote. If all organizations are free to practice such policies, then there is even more wrong with the US than I initially thought.
Generally, completely private organizations are free to determine their own memberships. That would include churches. I could start an organization called "Bald Men Of Texas" and exclude anyone with hair. A church does not have to accept an atheist or a Muslim as a member. An atheist organization does not have to accept a Christian or a Hindu as a member. A mosque does not have to accept a Jew or a Catholic as a member. As long as they are private, they can do what they want, as long as nobody is getting hurt. It's not just religious organizations that have that capacity, although religion is specifically protected under the constitution.
It's the same, to an extent, for the press and speech. The press cannot be forced to print a particular story or opinion. There is freedom of the press. An individual cannot be forced to say any particular thing. There is freedom of speech. A church cannot be forced to accept people who do not conform to its teachings/beliefs, whatever they are. There is freedom of religion.
In this case, we are not talking about specific charateristics required for membership, but general discrimination based on a member's significant other not being the same shade of purple as him/her.
That is, indeed, racist and would not fly as easily in this country. Even a fully private organization can not terminate a membership based on ethnicity of the member and expect to get away with it. A religious group attempting such would likely be lynched by media in short order even before the case went to court.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 04, 2011, 08:11:34 PM
In this case, we are not talking about specific charateristics required for membership, but general discrimination based on a member's significant other not being the same shade of purple as him/her.
That is, indeed, racist and would not fly as easily in this country. Even a fully private organization can not terminate a membership based on ethnicity of the member and expect to get away with it. A religious group attempting such would likely be lynched by media in short order even before the case went to court.
That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US. Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere. Part of our historical/cultural DNA.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 04, 2011, 08:32:14 PM
That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US. Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere. Part of our historical/cultural DNA.
Complicated though isn't it?
Drug prohibition including alcohol, conscription, prostitution, censorship, McCarthy.
It seems it's easier to impinge if the church is with you.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 04, 2011, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 04, 2011, 08:32:14 PM
That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US. Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere. Part of our historical/cultural DNA.
Complicated though isn't it?
Drug prohibition including alcohol, conscription, prostitution, censorship, McCarthy.
It seems it's easier to impinge if the church is with you.
That's part of the problem with the US... is that religion, especially Christianity, holds such influence in our society. Jews have faced some discrimination, but Christians here largely view Jews as kindred folks, due to what Christians perceive is a Jewish foundation to Christianity. I think Christianity stays so strong here out of an American need to be different than the rest of the world. We're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere. Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that.
There seems to be a strong need to always have an enemy. Until World War II, the enemies weren't religiously focused, and religion in the US wasn't quite as strong. Then Hitler came along, who many in the USA mistakenly believed was atheist, and we wanted to be different. Then the atheist Soviet Union was our enemy, and our reaction was to be more Christian. Now the Muslims are our enemy, so of course Christianity is strengthened. Maybe some day America won't feel such a need to have an enemy.
Quote from: fester30 on December 05, 2011, 03:38:03 AMWe're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere. Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that.
I hope Juliet and Shphinx don't come and bop you Fester, Juliet is having a grumpy day you know.
Quote from: fester30 on December 05, 2011, 03:38:03 AM
There seems to be a strong need to always have an enemy. Until World War II, the enemies weren't religiously focused, and religion in the US wasn't quite as strong.
I find it extraordinary that alcohol prohibition laws managed to be introduced.
I know it's easy to demonise opium and drugs associated with the "lesser" races, but banning a thing with such a long tradition.
Strangely contradictory the US claim to freedom whilst so ready to impinge on peoples private lives.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 05, 2011, 04:55:33 AM
Quote from: fester30 on December 05, 2011, 03:38:03 AMWe're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere. Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNJoTAIO2u7zEUtPNofxA8Pu1RuOtAE9C-eNskXmSQyOuo6S8VbQ)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6S3mVIVesbE%2FTlzfu-o4MeI%2FAAAAAAAAAkc%2Fivd_C-Qre0w%2Fs1600%2Fgrumpy-cookie.jpg&hash=cd51bf130f02ba3e8e38bcf3b425f87bb6bfd030)
What Asmo says applies in the UK, too. Actually I don't know for sure what the law says, but I know what would happen in practice. There'd be a mass media feeding frenzy lasting weeks, questions asked in Parliament, demos, the whole bit.
We had such a rumpus recently when a christian couple refused to let a pair of gays have a room in their bed-and-breakfast place. And I reckon race would go down even worse than anti-gay here.
Quote from: OldGit on December 05, 2011, 11:43:40 AM
What Asmo says applies in the UK, too. Actually I don't know for sure what the law says, but I know what would happen in practice. There'd be a mass media feeding frenzy lasting weeks, questions asked in Parliament, demos, the whole bit.
We had such a rumpus recently when a christian couple refused to let a pair of gays have a room in their bed-and-breakfast place. And I reckon race would go down even worse than anti-gay here.
That's the good side of it I guess, these churches sow the seeds of their own destruction. Give them the freedom to fuck up and they most likely will...
I mean, what was it that Napoleon said? If you see your enemy tying their own noose, you just sit back and watch.
Does it say somewhere in the bible that races should be pure?
How does this reconcile with the believe that all people came from Adam and Eve?
Quote from: Stevil on December 05, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
Does it say somewhere in the bible that races should be pure?
How does this reconcile with the believe that all people came from Adam and Eve?
...And then the Devil created (Insert the n-word)
Or did I misunderstand the typical redneck view of things?
Like at my church. i don't think there's an official ban on it, but the one interracial couple that is there isn't really smiled upon. They treat him like he's the be all end all, but she kinda gets kicked to the side. (He's black she's white, but they've known him longer.) They try not to be openly racist, but there are only 3 black people in the church and that's including me and my mother. Makes me miss being home that much more. :P
Quote from: not your typical... on December 05, 2011, 10:48:24 PM
Like at my church. i don't think there's an official ban on it, but the one interracial couple that is there isn't really smiled upon. They treat him like he's the be all end all, but she kinda gets kicked to the side. (He's black she's white, but they've known him longer.) They try not to be openly racist, but there are only 3 black people in the church and that's including me and my mother. Makes me miss being home that much more. :P
Where is home?
Quote from: Tank on December 05, 2011, 10:58:31 PM
Quote from: not your typical... on December 05, 2011, 10:48:24 PM
Like at my church. i don't think there's an official ban on it, but the one interracial couple that is there isn't really smiled upon. They treat him like he's the be all end all, but she kinda gets kicked to the side. (He's black she's white, but they've known him longer.) They try not to be openly racist, but there are only 3 black people in the church and that's including me and my mother. Makes me miss being home that much more. :P
Where is home?
Philadelphia. But currently stuck between there and the small Bible Belt town of Milford. My aunt is there and she can't live alone, so we're constantly back and forth. But there I also have to be this perfect Christian child, and still act like a child while doing the work of an adult. I'm the youngest active member in the church, and though it is against my will, I'd like to have some damn respect. I have to be closeted, (pansexual) straightedge, and on top of that they want me to be like a "normal" child. I don't know if you've noticed, but just judging by my name, would you think I'm 'normal'?
Quote from: Stevil on December 05, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
Does it say somewhere in the bible that races should be pure?
How does this reconcile with the believe that all people came from Adam and Eve?
It doesn't say this anywhere. It does talk about the Jews maintaining their separateness from other tribes, but that was a cultural/religious thing, not a racial one. There is a real convoluted argument about Noah's son Ham, whose son Canaan was cursed, and some people see some reference to blacks being cursed in that, but the argument is really stupid. So, other than people stretching to find a justification for being racists, no, there is nothing in the Bible that demands that races should be pure.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 06, 2011, 02:56:53 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 05, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
Does it say somewhere in the bible that races should be pure?
How does this reconcile with the believe that all people came from Adam and Eve?
It doesn't say this anywhere. It does talk about the Jews maintaining their separateness from other tribes, but that was a cultural/religious thing, not a racial one. There is a real convoluted argument about Noah's son Ham, whose son Canaan was cursed, and some people see some reference to blacks being cursed in that, but the argument is really stupid. So, other than people stretching to find a justification for being racists, no, there is nothing in the Bible that demands that races should be pure.
The explanation I got as a kid for why blacks are inferior and not to be mingled with is that they are the descendents of Cain -- black skin being the "mark" god put on Cain after he killed Abel.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtcThe explanation I got as a kid for why blacks are inferior and not to be mingled with is that they are the descendents of Cain -- black skin being the "mark" god put on Cain after he killed Abel.
Ah, dear old god, so loving and forgiving - condemning countless generations for one man's sin (again).
I am so very sick and tired of this kind of thinking brought on by the church. Yes, now maybe you understand a bit more as to why I want to leave this disgusting country. Unfortunately, there is NO separation of church and state in the U.S.
And religious influence counts fir everything, even presidancy. A lot of people didn't vote for Obama because they thought he was muslim, and would surely secretly bring the US to its demise. *eyeroll*
But yes, this is disgusting, though sadly the "red states" in the south actually don't think they are doing anything wrong!! The KKK still exists for fuck's sake. I just really, really hope I am still alive when the church and all religion gets obliterated .. I am sick of the horrible things people do, feel, or say in the name of their 'god.'
You will be Happy to know that the church has repented and reversed its stand on interracial couples.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/?hpt=hp_bn2
I think they're incredibly slow and culturally backward, but they'll get round to modernity...eventually. The more modern the societies the better.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 06, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
You will be Happy to know that the church has repented and reversed its stand on interracial couples.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/?hpt=hp_bn2
Excellent news!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 06, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
You will be Happy to know that the church has repented and reversed its stand on interracial couples.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/?hpt=hp_bn2
That's good and all, but the fact that some people still had no issue with that way of thinking sucks.
If someone insults you, but says sorry later, it still hurts.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 06, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
You will be Happy to know that the church has repented and reversed its stand on interracial couples.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/?hpt=hp_bn2
That's good and all, but the fact that some people still had no issue with that way of thinking sucks.
If someone insults you, but says sorry later, it still hurts.
Of course it does, but at least some people can realise they fucked up and learn from their mistakes and from the mistakes of others. It's how humanity progresses.
I guess. I'm biased against the south. The southern states of America suck for a reason. They are pretty much the ones keeping super crazy religion alive here.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 04:11:01 PM
I guess. I'm biased against the south. The southern states of America suck for a reason. They are pretty much the ones keeping super crazy religion alive here.
I know what you mean. When I was in Christian school, there was this one chick from the heart of Texas. Redneck*funddie=Bad. Then throw my opinionated open-minded ass into the mix and well, let's just say me and her don't talk anymore....
That sucks. :(
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 07:20:40 PM
That sucks. :(
Yeah. We had a weekend resort trip thing and me and her were roomies.... I curse, amongst other thing that are 'against the Bible' and she's straightedge and narrow-minded.... Not a good mix.
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 07:20:40 PM
That sucks. :(
Yeah. We had a weekend resort trip thing and me and her were roomies.... I curse, amongst other thing that are 'against the Bible' and she's straightedge and narrow-minded.... Not a good mix.
I applaud your self-control
Quote from: Budhorse4 on December 06, 2011, 07:49:13 PM
I applaud your self-control
That's assuming she's still alive..... which she is.
not really
Quote from: Budhorse4 on December 06, 2011, 09:07:31 PM
Congratulations, Asmo would be proud. 8)
Thank you. To this day she still calls me Satan behind my back. Makes me feel accomplished. ;D
Quote from: Tank on December 06, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 06, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
You will be Happy to know that the church has repented and reversed its stand on interracial couples.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/?hpt=hp_bn2
That's good and all, but the fact that some people still had no issue with that way of thinking sucks.
If someone insults you, but says sorry later, it still hurts.
Of course it does, but at least some people can realise they fucked up and learn from their mistakes and from the mistakes of others. It's how humanity progresses.
That's true enough but I'm not sure it's a matter of the original 9 who voted to ban interracial couples realizing they fucked up in the sense of being wrong as fucked up in the sense of generating a shitstorm that made them look bad and just wanting to get out from under it. I get the feeling they've merely been silenced, not had their minds changed. Of course, sometimes just making it obvious how few people agree with a bad thing is the best you can do.
Quote from: not your typical... on December 06, 2011, 07:02:51 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 06, 2011, 04:11:01 PM
I guess. I'm biased against the south. The southern states of America suck for a reason. They are pretty much the ones keeping super crazy religion alive here.
I know what you mean. When I was in Christian school, there was this one chick from the heart of Texas. Redneck*funddie=Bad. Then throw my opinionated open-minded ass into the mix and well, let's just say me and her don't talk anymore....
You'll be glad to know that she isn't representative of all Texans ;D
Quote from: Squid on December 07, 2011, 01:05:46 AM
You'll be glad to know that she isn't representative of all Texans ;D
Yay! Maybe we
can visit Texas then.