? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

[AndyG]

Whilst most "Christians" have just celebrated the lengthening of the days that followed the winter solstice.

Don't get me started! ...coming over here, stealing our festivals...

Andy

[Osborne Russell]

“I felt that we had a case with the emotional and mental well being of the city of Murdock.”

Classic American ignorance. As if the law gives a *

Some guy wants to open a hot dog stand, you deny "the permit" on grounds of "the emotional and mental well being of the city"? GTFOOH

The modern fig leaf for religious discrimination.

[Keith Wilson]

Two conflicting rights here - freedom of religion, the right to get together on Sunday (or whenever) and celebrate your beliefs in whatever you like, sublime or ridiculous, and the legal requirement requirement to not discriminate by race. If they didn't limit it to whites only, they could be as silly as they like, no problem.

[Chip-skiff]

This got me thinking about the African Methodist Episcopal Church, which was founded by Black people wanting more autonomy for their religious institutions.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church, usually called the A.M.E. Church or AME, is a predominantly African-American Methodist denomination. It is the first independent Protestant denomination to be founded by black people.^[4] It was founded by the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1816 from several black Methodist congregations in the mid-Atlantic area that wanted independence from white Methodists. It was among the first denominations in the United States to be founded on racial rather than theological distinctions and has persistently advocated for the civil and human rights of African Americans through social improvement, religious autonomy, and political engagement.

While it is intended to serve Black protestants, I found no exclusionary language, i.e. a white person could choose to take part.

[Nicholas Carey]

The Southern Poverty Law Center on these guys and their ideology.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...y/neo-volkisch

[Chris Woodward]

And most of them are the spawn of the Mongol hordes.
Later mixed with the Roman legions.

[Osborne Russell]

Two conflicting rights here - freedom of religion, the right to get together on Sunday (or whenever) and celebrate your beliefs in whatever you like, sublime or ridiculous, and the legal requirement requirement to not discriminate by race. If they didn't limit it to whites only, they could be as silly as they like, no problem.

It's not a matter of conflicting rights. Religious freedom is a right; civil rights laws are an exercise of power. So far from being a merely technical distinction, it has enormous practical implications.

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce. It did not define any rights at all. It created legal remedies for discrimination of certain kinds in various contexts, but not all. Subsequent acts have dealt with other contexts and other remedies. Still not all. Unless and until legislation defines a context, and provides a remedy, there is no way to enforce an asserted "civil right"; and there can be no legislation not derived from a specific source of power in the Consitution. Hence the continuing effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

The right of religious freedom, by contrast, can be asserted by the individual aggrieved, in any context in which it is violated.

Therefore, the whacko church scenario is not a matter of conflicting rights. Therefore following that avenue is a waste of resources, because it cannot lead to an effective response. That's a practical effect, eh?

[Ian McColgin]

Perhaps some notice that "freedom of religion" is different from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". For example, in states where it is practiced, evangelical snake handling is illegal and no federal constitutional case has overturned those laws.

[Keith Wilson]

Osborne, exactly that same logic could be used to defend a revival of the old Aztec religion, including human sacrifice.

[Osborne Russell]

Perhaps some notice that "freedom of religion" is different from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". For example, in states where it is practiced, evangelical snake handling is illegal and no federal constitutional case has overturned those laws.

Freedom of religion is a natural right, a moral principle. "Make no law" is law, premised on the natural right.

Snake handling is conduct, which is not protected by freedom of religion. If you set up a stand and say, buy this pill for $20 and it will make you immune to snake bite, try it and see, I have a snake right here, it can be prohibited, any and all religion not to the contrary.

[Osborne Russell]

Osborne, exactly that same logic could be used to defend a revival of the old Aztec religion, including human sacrifice.

Belief, OK. Practice, no.

[Keith Wilson]

Belief in 'whites only' OK, practice no? Making a law against a belief is at the very least a bit futile. Even laws against heresy aren't actually against belief (how would you know?), but against admitting the belief; taking about it, writing about it, behavior in the real world, not just the mind.

[skuthorp]

I am always amazed at the stupidity level evident in human beings.