04 August 2012

What Jams says

I've somehow missed this story of sabotaged wedding of a black couple in Mississippi, but what Jams says here is good enough for me:

I can only imagine that most people in Mississippi are extremely embarrassed by this cretinous action.
I can only add that it seems that most people in the Mississippi city are embarrassed indeed.


Dick Stanley said...

I can't tell from the stories at the links provided (here and at the other blog) just why this couple expected to be married in this church.

Are they members? Says they were "attending regularly" but not whether they were members. If not, that wouldn't work anywhere---no church, no synagogue would do it. Churches and synagogues aren't charities and they don't support events of people who are not members.
But, of course, it's Mississippi and the Guardian, the one is an unfair stereotype and the other is utterly predictable. And generally clueless about the real world.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I have checked other sources, too. Unfortunately, the story checks out.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The most detailed review of the case:


shaun downey said...

Oh come on. its not as if the couple walked up to the church and asked to be married. They had attended the church the pastor had agreed to to conduct the ceremony. There is no excusing this.

Oh btw it's not as if the Guardian was the onlly paper to cover this story. Are you suggesting that because I chose a guardian link and not say the Telegraph or another British media outlet that this proves that the whole reason for this story is to mock Americans from the Southern states?

Dick Stanley said...

NO, I'm not accusing you of that, Shaun. Although it is the Guardian's style, and your own ranting on the story is pretty excessive. How do you know there was no excusing it? Do you believe everything you read in the media? Or just when it's about American "racists"?

Dick Stanley said...

Thanks for the link. The story doesn't really check out, though. There are several unanswered questions. And if raising them makes me a putative racist, so be it.

It says there the Wilsons aren't members of the church. They just attend it regularly, freeloading off the membership, in other words, which apparently is mostly white. Why would they want to attend a mostly-white church? Doesn't say. Reporters apparently didn't ask. Big surprise. Reporters seldom are believers and therefore know nothing about how churches are run.
So as non-members, the Wilsons were not entitled to any consideration for a personal event, unless the members were feeling charitable and wanted to pay the utility and cleanup bills, etc. The pastor apparently was willing to force the congregation to do it for his own reasons. Sounds like he's got some issues with them. BTW, it's not "his" church. He's their employee. Works exactly the same in a synagogue.
It says "a minority" of the members prevented the wedding because, supposedly, the pastor was worried they'd vote him out of his job. Let's stipulate that this minority are racists. Fine. Even though we have no proof. Not even an unidentified quote from these awful racists. But, well, they are from Mississippi. Ipso facto. But how could a minority of the membership vote the pastor out?
In other words, there are (to my mind) some significant holes in the story, which are being papered over by the usual Mississippi stereotype and the usual racial ranting. Was this a publicity stunt? Could be. Wouldn't be the first one. The smirk on Mr. Wilson's face in the Guardian photo isn't what you'd expect from an aggrieved person.