Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Journal by DeathMonkey

When the church doors open, only white people will be allowed inside.

That’s the message the Asatru Folk Assembly in Murdock, Minnesota, is sending after being granted a conditional use permit to open a church there and practice its pre-Christian religion that originated in northern Europe.

Murdock council members said they do not support the church but were legally obligated to approve the permit, which they did in a 3-1 decision.

“We were highly advised by our attorney to pass this permit for legal reasons to protect the First Amendment rights," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said. "We knew that if this was going to be denied, we were going to have a legal battle on our hands that could be pretty expensive.”

City Attorney Don Wilcox said it came down to free speech and freedom of religion.

“I think there’s a great deal of sentiment in the town that they don’t want that group there," he said. "You can’t just bar people from practicing whatever religion they want or saying anything they want as long as it doesn’t incite violence.”

After permit approved for whites-only church, small Minnesota town insists it isn't racist

 

Reply to: Re:Gotta fight for your right to be a douchebag

    (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:51AM (#1092778)

    This would almost have been persuasive, if only for a couple of problems:

    First, Dworkin was very clear, and very consistent, about women being oppressed, as a class, period.

    Not some women.

    Not on the second Sunday after Lent.

    Not only between the hours of 4 and 7, or south of 40th street.

    Not only married women.

    All the time.

    This means that her postulated possibility of sex between equals remains, given her oft-repeated position, is at best a theoretical possibility, and more aptly a disingenuous deflection based on what she realised was robbing her of credibility.

    She said then that sex shouldn't put women in a subordinated position - but her rhetoric about women's liberation was the rhetoric of revolution, not compromise, not even detente, and she repeatedly spoke about how men relate to sex as dominant predators and conquerors.

    She didn't, even, point at a bunch of heterosexuals and say that they were doing it well, and others were doing it poorly. She made some handwaving references to lesbian sex, but her entire view of heterosexual sexuality appears to have been bound up in her abuse.

    So while those quotes from interviews are all heart-warming, they're directly contradicted by her writings, and the interviewers were too clueless to demand a differentiation between practical facts and theoretical possibilities.

    Case not proven. Next evidence? Title, edition and page.

Post Comment

Edit Comment You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Public Terminal

Anonymous Coward [ Create an Account ]

Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!


Logged-in users aren't forced to preview their comments. Create an Account!

Allowed HTML
<b|i|p|br|a|ol|ul|li|dl|dt|dd|em|strong|tt|blockquote|div|ecode|quote|sup|sub|abbr|sarc|sarcasm|user|spoiler|del>

URLs
<URL:http://example.com/> will auto-link a URL

Important Stuff

  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
  • If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.