Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

barry

Pisgah, AL

#4676 Jun 13, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have had all of these positive experiences with gay people, then why make up inane theories that make them out to be some kind of thought police? Why deny them marriage, if they want it? Why support a pastor who badmouths them, even though you supposedly know better?
let's get back on topic. what inane theories have i made up about homosexual people?
here in al we have common law marriage. two people just have to live as married and present themselves publicly as married and they have the rights of being married. basically property rights, inheritance and visitation privileges. what else is needed?
it is your opinion that a pastor who says that homosexual sexual activity is sin is "badmouthing" them. who made you the king's expert on what is "badmouthing" the truth is still the truth whether you like it or not.
now if you don't believe in sin then why are you bothered by it?
however if it really is sin and i chose not to participate in it, i should also not be forced to condone it nor support it.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4677 Jun 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How strange that you would no so little about world spirituality. You don't even know that Christianity, Islam, and Hebrew are all Abrahamic religions? At least it confirms what we already knew: Your knowledge of the world you live in is exceptionally limited. And you have no desire to correct your knowledge deficit.
really, i reject the idea that islam is an abrahamic religion. what was islam before the prophet mohamad?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4678 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
let's get back on topic.
Do you find it ironic that you make a plea to come back to the topic at hand, and then proceed to offer several arguments that fail to do just that?
barry wrote:
here in al we have common law marriage. two people just have to live as married and present themselves publicly as married and they have the rights of being married. basically property rights, inheritance and visitation privileges. what else is needed?
Alabama also passed an amendment banning same sex marriage and same sex civil unions in 2006, so your common law marriage example is somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand since same sex couples are excluded unconstitutionally. Feel free to indicate a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from equal protection that would render this provision constitutional.
barry wrote:
now if you don't believe in sin then why are you bothered by it?
however if it really is sin and i chose not to participate in it, i should also not be forced to condone it nor support it.
No, you right to religious freedom begins and ends with you. You do not have the right to project your religious moral standards onto others, and the constitution specifically forbids those views from being the basis of law.
I don't support the views of the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church, but that doesn't mean that my disapproval of their views means that they don't have the right to express them.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4679 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really, i reject the idea that islam is an abrahamic religion. what was islam before the prophet mohamad?
You are, of course, free to accept or reject facts that challenge your preconceived views. But rejecting basic theological understanding only emphasizes your ignorance and foolishness. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you insist on making things up as you go along and when you refuse to familiarize yourself with the scholarly work of others?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4680 Jun 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are, of course, free to accept or reject facts that challenge your preconceived views. But rejecting basic theological understanding only emphasizes your ignorance and foolishness. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you insist on making things up as you go along and when you refuse to familiarize yourself with the scholarly work of others?
i see that you didn't answer the question.

barry wrote:
<quoted text>really, i reject the idea that islam is an abrahamic religion. what was islam before the prophet mohamad?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4681 Jun 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you find it ironic that you make a plea to come back to the topic at hand, and then proceed to offer several arguments that fail to do just that?
<quoted text>
Alabama also passed an amendment banning same sex marriage and same sex civil unions in 2006, so your common law marriage example is somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand since same sex couples are excluded unconstitutionally. Feel free to indicate a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from equal protection that would render this provision constitutional.
<quoted text>
No, you right to religious freedom begins and ends with you. You do not have the right to project your religious moral standards onto others, and the constitution specifically forbids those views from being the basis of law.
I don't support the views of the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church, but that doesn't mean that my disapproval of their views means that they don't have the right to express them.
you're right.
however you didn't answer the question.

"let's get back on topic. what inane theories have i made up about homosexual people?"

my use of alabama's common law marriage was meant to be a proposed
solution to the claim of rights being denied.

no one is saying that you do not have a right to express your views. however your side is very clearly saying that we should not have a right to express ours.
no one is saying that you have to conform your life style to our views, although the mere fact that we have laws against stealing, murder and lying suggest that there is a required conformity to a moral standard, but your side is saying that we must give consent, condone and actively support your life style.

and while you make the argument that there is no "compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from [marriage]" there also is no compelling state interest that would be served by granting them the option either.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4682 Jun 13, 2013
by "not" granting

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4683 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
you're right.
however you didn't answer the question.
"let's get back on topic. what inane theories have i made up about homosexual people?"
I didn't make the allegation, ergo I didn't address your question.
barry wrote:
my use of alabama's common law marriage was meant to be a proposed solution to the claim of rights being denied.
Of course, that proposal doesn't pass muster when Alabama has a law on the books expressly forbidding same sex civil unions.
By the way, common law marriage DOES NOT guarantee all rights and protections of marriage, such as spousal privilege, next of kin, medical power of attorney, etc. It is hardly a valid substitute, and it certainly does not satisfy equal protection. Unless, of course, you are proposing that the state get out of the marriage business entirely, and strike all legal marriages currently on the books, but I somehow think that is unlikely. It would certainly be unpopular.
barry wrote:
no one is saying that you do not have a right to express your views. however your side is very clearly saying that we should not have a right to express ours.
I never said that. I merely point out that your opinion supports a position that is unconstitutional. I support your right to make unconstitutional arguments. I oppose such unconstitutional arguments being accepted as the basis of law.
barry wrote:
no one is saying that you have to conform your life style to our views, although the mere fact that we have laws against stealing, murder and lying suggest that there is a required conformity to a moral standard, but your side is saying that we must give consent, condone and actively support your life style.
Stealing and murder both have a negative impact upon another party. I would invite you to indicate any such impact of a same sex marriage upon any third party not subject to the marriage.
There are no laws against lying, except when under oath.
barry wrote:
and while you make the argument that there is no "compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from [marriage]" there also is no compelling state interest that would be served by granting them the option either.
Ah, you lack a clear understanding of the law on this point. The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Before a constitutional right may be infringed (e.g. not allowing convicted felons to own firearms) a compelling state interest must be served by the restriction, and it must be narrowly tailored so as not to cause unintended consequences. This is outlined in the judicial standard of review known as Strict Scrutiny. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
The concept of a compelling state interest derives from there.

No compelling state interest need be served by granting a right, only in order to deny them.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4684 Jun 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make the allegation, ergo I didn't address your question.
<quoted text>
Of course, that proposal doesn't pass muster when Alabama has a law on the books expressly forbidding same sex civil unions.
By the way, common law marriage DOES NOT guarantee all rights and protections of marriage, such as spousal privilege, next of kin, medical power of attorney, etc. It is hardly a valid substitute, and it certainly does not satisfy equal protection. Unless, of course, you are proposing that the state get out of the marriage business entirely, and strike all legal marriages currently on the books, but I somehow think that is unlikely. It would certainly be unpopular.
<quoted text>
I never said that. I merely point out that your opinion supports a position that is unconstitutional. I support your right to make unconstitutional arguments. I oppose such unconstitutional arguments being accepted as the basis of law.
<quoted text>
Stealing and murder both have a negative impact upon another party. I would invite you to indicate any such impact of a same sex marriage upon any third party not subject to the marriage.
There are no laws against lying, except when under oath.
<quoted text>
Ah, you lack a clear understanding of the law on this point. The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Before a constitutional right may be infringed (e.g. not allowing convicted felons to own firearms) a compelling state interest must be served by the restriction, and it must be narrowly tailored so as not to cause unintended consequences. This is outlined in the judicial standard of review known as Strict Scrutiny. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
The concept of a compelling state interest derives from there.
No compelling state interest need be served by granting a right, only in order to deny them.
clm does in al.
however you are right that it would not work as it presently stands. i was only suggesting that it could be the vehicle to accomplish what you want as churches do not recognize common law marriage.
you're also right, you didn't make the accusation so i'll wait for bros to respond.

i actually do think that government should get out of the marriage business. separation of church and state. marriage is a sacred institution not to be controlled by gov. of course that would make the mormons happy.
i also think that spousal social security benefits should be prorated based on years married and length of life but that is another topic.
as for laws against lying only being under oath, how about business contracts, advertisements, resumes, etc?

now how is marriage a "protection" of the law? what is unprotected or damaged if two people don't get married.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4685 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i see that you didn't answer the question.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really, i reject the idea that islam is an abrahamic religion. what was islam before the prophet mohamad?
There's no point in answering questions posed by a fool who doesn't care about the answer.

"Abrahamic religion" is not a term I or anyone else on the Topix board made up. I suggest you type the term into your search engine if you want to know why religious scholars classify Islam as an Abrhamic religion. Telling me that you disagree is about as useful as rubbing your hand against your genitals, but probably not as much fun.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4686 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
clm does in al. however you are right that it would not work as it presently stands. i was only suggesting that it could be the vehicle to accomplish what you want as churches do not recognize common law marriage.
you're also right, you didn't make the accusation so i'll wait for bros to respond.
Even if that were so, it is not equal protection of the law. The mere fact that one could be left with the burden of proving the common law marriage after the death of a partner illustrates this quite handsomely. Common law marriage is not equal protection of the law.
barry wrote:
i actually do think that government should get out of the marriage business. separation of church and state. marriage is a sacred institution not to be controlled by gov. of course that would make the mormons happy.
The church and state are already separate, even with the state performing legal marriages. A legal marriage doesn't give you church blessing, and a church wedding doesn't give you legal rights and protections. The two are separate, and one can pursue one or ther other without getting both.
barry wrote:
i also think that spousal social security benefits should be prorated based on years married and length of life but that is another topic.
It is, and another one I disagree with you upon.
barry wrote:
as for laws against lying only being under oath, how about business contracts, advertisements, resumes, etc?
Contracts are essentially oath or affirmation, advertising has it's own laws, anybody can lie on their resume without legal recourse (they could get canned, but not arrested) there simply are no laws against lying.
barry wrote:
now how is marriage a "protection" of the law? what is unprotected or damaged if two people don't get married.
The married couples do not have spousal privilege, they would need to make special arrangements for passing on property and joint accounts (which would be taxed when passed on), the list goes on and on. Marriage establishes legal rights and protections on these and a number of other issues.

As of yet, I have heard no reasonable argument from anyone why same sex couples should be excluded from marriage. Not one.

Ultimately it will come to pass because an increasing number of states are doing so, popular support now favor same sex marriage by a narrow margin (but one that has only ever grown), and even the decisions of the courts are turning increasingly towards equality.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4687 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
now how is marriage a "protection" of the law? what is unprotected or damaged if two people don't get married.
There have been many cases where gay couples built lives together, often estranged from their disapproving families. When one died, the family came in and took everything they'd worked for together, and denied the partner access even to the funeral. I even read a case where the family took all the clothes in the closet, like the family really had some use for them.

This is less common today than it was thirty years ago because the stigma of homosexuality is not as prevalent. But people can still be fired from their jobs for being gay in over half the states, so they might not want their partner's name on any public documents, such as a deed. Of course, if they were married, they would probably be protected from firing based on marital status. They would certainly be protected from vindictive family members taking over when one became sick or died.

Marriage law also protects the property rights of each participant. For instance, the one who works generally owns all the assets. Where one partner may have stayed home and provided for the family in other ways, marriage protects them both in the event of a break up.

I've got a better idea: Get religion out of the business of marriage. Churches can call it a Blessing of Matrimony, and they can bless whoever they want.

Your theory of common law marriage ignores the fact that many marriages already happen outside of churches. It is not an exclusively religious institution, and it never has been. And if it were sacred, how do you explain the 50% failure rate? Why is the failure rate higher among the religiously devout?

You also ignore the religious freedom due to churches that want to celebrate the marriages of their gay and lesbian congregants.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4688 Jun 13, 2013
barry wrote:
...now how is marriage a "protection" of the law? what is unprotected or damaged if two people don't get married.
One need only ask Edie Windsor.

She was legally married under the laws of the state of New York. When her spouse died, she was assessed $363,000 in federal estate taxes because her marriage wasn't recognized by the federal government under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Had she been married to man (or had she been a man), she would not have been assessed the $363,000. But solely because of their sex, the federal government didn't recognize their marriage, and the law that protects the property of surviving spouses didn't protect Edie Windsor.

The opinion in her case before the Supreme Court awaits release in the next couple of weeks. Most court watchers suspect that the Supreme Court, like the federal district court and Court of Appeal below it, will not be able to find any legal justification for such a discrimination.

I certainly can't. Can you?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4689 Jun 13, 2013
lides wrote:
...You have yet to prove that Schedule B's were obtained or posted by those you have accused. If your claim had a factual basis, you would easily be able to prove it. Since you can't, one can only assume you are full of c***....
Here's testimony to the House Ways and Means committee, published by the Government's website:

"[O]n March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that its confidential tax information—specifically, its 2008 Form 990 Schedule B—had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”)—NOM’s principal opponent in the political battles over the redefinition of marriage—published on its website, and republished on numerous other websites such as the Huffington Post. The donor names were not redacted, but there was another redaction on the PDF document that had been posted, and NOM’s computer analysts were able to remove the document’s redaction layer and discover that the document had originated from within the IRS itself. As the attached copy of that document reflects, the un-redacted original bore two markings that, according to Section 3.11.12.1.26 of the Internal Revenue Manual (01-01-2012), are placed on documents e-filed with the IRS by the IRS’s Central Information System. An identification number,“100560209,” was stamped diagonally across the middle of leaked tax return. More significantly, the header of each page read:“THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,” making unmistakably clear that the document was a confidential tax return whose source was within the IRS itself."
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/e...

Keep marriage male/female or they will target you and release your confidential tax records.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4690 Jun 13, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if one of the spouses complains about it. NO state just "steps in" and forcibly annuls a marriage, if the people INVOLVED don't care about consummation.
Exactly.....never said the state would step in without the parties asking.
I'm asking YOU, because you made the suggestion. Why are you so short on specifics? How would a civil union provide "lesser" commitment? You said it, so you must understand it.
I suggested that an opposite sex couple who entered one, might night want to be "huband and wife".
No, they're questions for YOU, because you brought it up. If you can't clearly specify how or why civil unions represent a "lesser commitment", then my conclusion has to be that it isn't true.
Think about it. If a man and a woman wish to legally marry, accept each other as husband and wife, they will do that. However, if they don't want the "husband and wife part", but want a legal relationship structure for their relationship, they enter a civil union. They are the ones who seek the "lesser".
No, we seek marriage, because marriage is a joining.
"...a joining"....yes, of husband and wife. But we both know u do not want a wife, but to be a wife.
13 states and 15 other nations are able to be more inclusive. If you’re sure it can’t work, why is it working?
Helllllloooooo McFly....they changed the rules, now just about everybody gets a trophy. They diluted the meaning of "marriage".Why not add a few more letters to the BGLT marquee over the rainbow clubhouse to be more inclusive?
They seek the legal bond that protects the one they love, and the state already calls that marriage.
Yet they ask the state to redefine that legal bond from a mongamous union of husband and wife, to "spouses for life". In other words, changed the rules. We both know that.
No, we're not.“Progress” will happen when you understand that this doesn’t really represent ANY gay people. Those gay people are in those situations because they couldn’t marry someone better suited for them in the first place (nor felt comfortable even pursuing such a person, very likely). I applaud them for not wanting to destroy their families, but you’re kidding yourself if that’s what people with same-sex orientation seek.
People with SSO obviously seek someone of the same sex, at least in most cases. I get it. However that does not mean the state is obligated to changed the definition of marriage because of this. I applaud the gay people that recognize this, and agree marriage should remain a legal union of husband and wife.
After asking you (again) for SPECIFICS, you completely dodge. These are softball questions I’m giving you. You can’t name ONE right or function that reflects a difference between civil unions and marriage?
Hellllllloooooooo...isn't it obvious. Marriage is a legally recognized union of husband and wife, a civil union, which could included SSCs, is not. There ya go, Sparky!
And, you don’t really think that vegetarians came up with veggie patties because they “liked” the word “burger”, do you?
No,(chuckle). But ya gotta admit Edmond, not a bad analogy.
My state doesn’t care about that, Stallion.
Who knows, maybe at some point your state will "pro-gress" out of the marriage business all together, once every one gets the trophy of course.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4691 Jun 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Here's testimony to the House Ways and Means committee, published by the Government's website:
"[O]n March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that its confidential tax information—specifically, its 2008 Form 990 Schedule B—had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”)—NOM’s principal opponent in the political battles over the redefinition of marriage—published on its website, and republished on numerous other websites such as the Huffington Post. The donor names were not redacted, but there was another redaction on the PDF document that had been posted, and NOM’s computer analysts were able to remove the document’s redaction layer and discover that the document had originated from within the IRS itself. As the attached copy of that document reflects, the un-redacted original bore two markings that, according to Section 3.11.12.1.26 of the Internal Revenue Manual (01-01-2012), are placed on documents e-filed with the IRS by the IRS’s Central Information System. An identification number,“100560209,” was stamped diagonally across the middle of leaked tax return. More significantly, the header of each page read:“THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,” making unmistakably clear that the document was a confidential tax return whose source was within the IRS itself."
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/e...
Keep marriage male/female or they will target you and release your confidential tax records.
So, I should believe you, because NOM says this occurred? That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Brian, NOWHERE can I find any posting of NOMs Schedule B. I can't find anything at all on The Huffington Post website. What there is on HRC is the legally available to the public form 990.

An accusation does not become true simply out of repetition.

Feel free to prove that your allegation, and those of NOM are the truth. This doesn't cut it, it's merely a repetition of the allegation from another source.
Broseph

Newark, DE

#4692 Jun 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people can marry at least religiously without government license. Legally they can still marry, and have thevmarriage valid nationwide, if they enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Oh wait.... That's not what u want.....u want the government to designate a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage.....ahhhhhh....therei n lies the challenge.
It's surprising you would say something so inane. I don't know what you are, but I'm going to assume you are a straight man. You can marry the partner of your choice. Now, pretend you're a gay man. You CANNNOT marry the partner of your choice, and only because you're a guy and your partner is too. How exactly is that fair? Why should the gay you be denied to be married to the person you love, while the straight you can not only marry the person you love, but divorce your partner and repeat the process as much as you want? How does that even remotely approach anything that is fair? Let the gays get married and move on.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4693 Jun 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no point in answering questions posed by a fool who doesn't care about the answer.
"Abrahamic religion" is not a term I or anyone else on the Topix board made up. I suggest you type the term into your search engine if you want to know why religious scholars classify Islam as an Abrhamic religion. Telling me that you disagree is about as useful as rubbing your hand against your genitals, but probably not as much fun.
real class
anyway, islam is only called an abrahamic religion because it insists that it is. there is no islam before muhamed. and there is no common thread in their beliefs that can be traced back through their ancestors to abraham.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4694 Jun 13, 2013
lides wrote:
So, I should believe you, because NOM says this occurred? That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Sworn testimony to congress. What if the HRC or Huffington Post says they got confidential taxpayer information from the IRS?

You know the IG says the IRS targeted conservatives and Tea Party organizations?

http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013r...

.
lides wrote:
Brian, NOWHERE can I find any posting of NOMs Schedule B. I can't find anything at all on The Huffington Post website. What there is on HRC is the legally available to the public form 990.
I'll bet they were ordered removed:

On March 30, 2012, HRC posted online the Schedule B of NOM’s 2008 Form 990. All nonprofits must file Form 990s, and part of it is public. But the Schedule B in a Form 990 is confidential because it contains identifying information about donors and their donations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/...

.
lides wrote:
An accusation does not become true simply out of repetition.
Nor by ad hominem defamation.

.
lides wrote:
Feel free to prove that your allegation, and those of NOM are the truth. This doesn't cut it, it's merely a repetition of the allegation from another source.
We need an investigation; without these hearings Obama would have no idea what's happening in the IRS.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4695 Jun 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been many cases where gay couples built lives together, often estranged from their disapproving families. When one died, the family came in and took everything they'd worked for together, and denied the partner access even to the funeral. I even read a case where the family took all the clothes in the closet, like the family really had some use for them.
This is less common today than it was thirty years ago because the stigma of homosexuality is not as prevalent. But people can still be fired from their jobs for being gay in over half the states, so they might not want their partner's name on any public documents, such as a deed. Of course, if they were married, they would probably be protected from firing based on marital status. They would certainly be protected from vindictive family members taking over when one became sick or died.
Marriage law also protects the property rights of each participant. For instance, the one who works generally owns all the assets. Where one partner may have stayed home and provided for the family in other ways, marriage protects them both in the event of a break up.
I've got a better idea: Get religion out of the business of marriage. Churches can call it a Blessing of Matrimony, and they can bless whoever they want.
Your theory of common law marriage ignores the fact that many marriages already happen outside of churches. It is not an exclusively religious institution, and it never has been. And if it were sacred, how do you explain the 50% failure rate? Why is the failure rate higher among the religiously devout?
You also ignore the religious freedom due to churches that want to celebrate the marriages of their gay and lesbian congregants.
that has happened to legally married couples also.
if they really were a committed couple they could have spelled all of that out in legal papers during their life time. same as my parents did when they wrote up their will. my parents even wrote out who they wanted in charge of their health concerns. it still had to be done even though they were married.

and between you and me; if a business fires someone just because they are homosexual, they are stupid. good business demands that you use the best people.

as for the 50% failure rate and its relationship to the church. i'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them don't regularly attend church and don't really hold the things of God as sacred.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Libtardimus Maximus 1,657,495
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 6 min Karenna S 1,615
Black women are hot 7 min White 4
Why blacks like to have so many kids? (Jul '15) 8 min Rocco 33
Roy Moore lost... to a white guy 8 min el rey de los cam... 13
Donald Trump is saving the US economy 9 min Kip 6
Why don't black people just brag about Nubia? 10 min WitoldPilecki 232
Pervert Alabama Republican Roy Moore 11 min el rey de los cam... 81
Leftoids Are Mentally Ill 14 min WitoldPilecki 62
MASTER IM WHITE fails at Everything!!! 18 min Deadly Guy 27
Michelle Obama for president!!!! 29 min Paul 51
More from around the web