SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 22 2020, @10:23PM (64 children)
If blacks are banned at the door you ARE racist. They can drop the whole "we're not racist" bullshit right now.
You are objectively, demonstrably, racist but that is your right in our country so long as you don't incite violence or commit other crimes.
(Score: 3, Funny) by barbara hudson on Tuesday December 22 2020, @10:48PM (7 children)
A bunch of white people should go in hyper-realistic blackface, just to fuck with their heads. Wearing "Black Lives Matter" t-shirts.
Accompanied by blacks in whiteface. See the movie "Two White Chicks".
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:17AM (6 children)
The only rational reaction is exactly what you said. Let's play dress-up. Black people become white, white people become black, brown folks just have some fun, mix it up.
You can't tell the difference now? Great, that's the point, you don't need to tell the difference, it wasn't important to begin with! I performed that skit for years, I didn't get rich, I didn't do it for money, I did it to make the world a better place by expanding some minds.
Now we have supposedly left-wing gate keepers that think any pale-skin who went along with the exercise must be cancelled; denounced as racists. Ridiculous.
It's true, I do not yet have a cage full of rats locked around my head, but this is some grim shit nonetheless. It's a new puritanism. It's the exact opposite of everything historically called 'left.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:09PM
It's so interesting to consider that when we look back at history we tend to arbitrarily label things good or evil. But for people living through those times there's no doubt that things were likely not especially different than what we're experiencing today. This [wikipedia.org] is the Fascist Manifesto. That is ground-zero fascism and lays out the framework for how Mussolini saw his party's political goals. The word fascism itself was derived from fascio which is just an Italian word that means a bundle or sheaf. The idea being that people working together for a better society are strong and unbreakable, whereas individually they're fragile and weak.
And reading the manifesto one immediately notices it's basically the foundation for modern day Progressive, with a capital P, ideology. Of course Progressivism is not inherently fascist. Rather the point I make is that what labels people give themselves (or others) are ultimately irrelevant. Who people are is defined by their actions, and is also how history will ultimately judge and record these people.
And indeed during the rise of Fascism in Italy there's no doubt that people felt they would be going down on the "right side of history" even if it involved getting their hands a bit dirty in the mean time in order to ensure a better and more just society for everybody, moving forward. They might be initially surprised (though probably not upon honest reflection) that instead of going down on the "right side of history", their party's very name itself ended up becoming little more than a political pejorative for self righteous intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:11PM
Amen.
My perspective is a little different, because I work in music. I can only describe what I've had to deal with as the new victorianism. No, we're not putting skirts on pianos in case the legs arouse the audience to an ecstasy of hormonal rage, but the content must be so carefully watched that right now putting out anything with lyrics that didn't pass a screen of editors is an invitation to be dumped.
I thought we were past all this after the mind-numbingly idiotic addition of content warning labels to appease Tipper and her gang of thugs back in the '80s, but I was wrong. I should have known. Satanic Panic in the '80s. Political Correctness in the '90s. A brief respite in the naughties and now it's Woke World 2020. The cheerleaders every time? The left.
I'm not Ted Nugent yet, but he's starting to make a lot of sense to me. This is a new feeling and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 23 2020, @06:29PM (3 children)
The racists can use their freedom of speech to say that minorities are bad.
The progressives can use their freedom of speech to say that racists are bad.
It's a win-win!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @07:40PM (1 child)
And a bunch of regular folks can chime in, saying both racists and progressives are stupid, just in different ways?
A poem for you, from a danish hero:
For many system shoppers it's a good-for-nothing system
that classifies as opposites stupidity and wisdom,
because by logic-choppers it's accepted with avidity:
stupidity's true opposite's the opposite stupidity.
-- Piet Hein
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @09:20PM
Ok, I read the poem, now where's the Danish?
'Let them eat cake.', he says.. I'll show them cake!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @09:14PM
Yeah, well, can one of ya use their *freedom of speech* to order up my pizza??
No, wait, scratch that, gimme a pastrami on rye, hold the mayo, and make it snappy, at my age, seconds count, you never know when the big one is gonna pop.. C'mon! Chop chop! You want something for the tip jar, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2020, @11:03PM
Supposedly the town is not happy about it, but they couldn't deny a re-zoning to make their building a church.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2020, @11:39PM
That doesn't make it right [nationalreview.com] as we keep telling the Dims even if they don't quite get it. [thefederalist.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @02:33AM (7 children)
Let 'em have their church. Just take away their 501(c)(3) privileges. Only then will we see their true faith.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @03:08AM (6 children)
501(c)(3) is the "non-profit" code. Churches are not 501(c)(3) entities to start with (unless the church applies for 501(c)(3) status).
But you do have an otherwise good idea. Take away the typical tax free status of the church and see what the church thinks of their teachings then.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:04AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:08AM
Stop teasing!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:40AM (2 children)
I'd be fine with taxing all churches equally.
They are all "for profit" organizations now anyway.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:47AM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Funny) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 24 2020, @02:00AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:16PM
Picking favourites among churches or, in general, treating them inequitably is a straightforward violation of the first amendment.
Wouldn't even pass a district court, let alone the supremes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @03:04AM (43 children)
I think you've conflated two things here.
One -- the church itself. Clearly, yes, the church itself is without question racist
Two - the town govt. that approved the church permit. The town govt. is a different entity from the church. And the town govt. was caught between a rock and a hard place. They could deny the permit, and face legal issues on freedom of religion grounds, or they could approve the permit, and face reputation issues by being called racists.
It looks like the town govt took what, to them, appeared to be the less costly option in dollars, by approving the permit to avoid the possibility of an expensive legal battle that might have granted the permit anyway. But choosing to take the less money expensive route, when given only two terrible choices from which to pick, does not, per. se. mean the town govt. themselves are also racist.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2020, @06:06AM (27 children)
Alright, your opinion is noted. Now - what if, the local black population build themselves a church, and deny membership or entry to any non-black people? Maybe they even define how black you have to be. No Latinos, no half-blacks, no people who can't grow a respectable Afro. Will you have the same opinion? If not - then you are being hypocritical.
Note that on college campuses around the nation, black people are insisting on exactly that. They WANT segregation. They DEMAND that there are "No Whites Zones" created for them.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @09:33AM (18 children)
Fine by me.
Yes. If the local black population wants to build a "black only" church, and pick and choose their members based on a "blackness" score that they themselves define, I'm still fine with it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2020, @02:47PM (17 children)
Just remember that racism by a minority is still racism.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:14PM (16 children)
Never said it was not. Fusty asked if I'd care if the local black population wanted to build themselves a "black only" church. And I answered that one. Don't care in the least if they want to do this.
But you also have seemed to skip over the "new liberal" viewpoint of what is racism. The "new liberal" viewpoint is that racism by a minority is not racism at all, it is perfectly fine. In the "new liberal" mindset, there can be only one racism. That one being the privileged [1] whites who are racist against anyone who is not a privileged white. That and the new definition of "racist" as "anything a white person disagrees with me about, no matter their reason for disagreeing".
[1] And, in this new definition, privileged simply means "white", so the extra adjective they attach has no meaning, it is just present "for show".
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:28PM
Liar!
I was right, you people really can't read!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:36PM (14 children)
Yeah, this is a consequence of what they call "critical race theory" in which racism only exists if it's done by the powerful.
Interestingly, it's not about the majority, but the powerful, which is why they still get to cheer for black south africans, despite them being the majority by far.
Anyway, aside from all that, they have a stock set of excuses surrounding it. For example, when the privileged (whoever they are at any one moment) complain, it's not pointing out hypocrisy, it's "fragility" displayed by people who can dish it out but not take it. If you live in or near a college town you'll probably hear this all over the place. Then there's a heaping helping of warmed-over marxist class rhetoric rebranded as race/sex/whatever power analyses.
This is pretty much the same logic as that followed by Andrew Dworkin on the topic of feminism back when she was still alive. Depending on how old you are, you might remember the logic, but it went something like this: women are oppressed as a class in society, the oppressed cannot meaningfully consent to their interactions, ergo consent is off the table, ergo all penetrative intercourse is rape. It ... uh, didn't stop a lot of college girls getting their freak on. So I guess it failed.
And the new critical race theory doesn't seem to stop a lot of folks with darker skins going to work in the conventional economy, despite it being a tool of hegemonic oppression. So they're all slaves! Slaves to the machine!... or something. I can feel braincells dying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 25 2020, @04:55AM (13 children)
So close and yet so far. Maybe if you actual read what those people say, you'd be in a better position to understand them and form your own thoughts instead of echoing the thoughts of others. Too bad the only brain cells dying are yours on right wing talking points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 25 2020, @04:28PM (12 children)
OK, I've only spent hours listening to them explain how it's all about power and "punching up" and so on, but I'll give you a fair hearing too:
What's it all about?
Break it down for those of us on the short bus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 25 2020, @08:25PM
Sorry, but experience around here says don't feed the trolls, they just want more excuses to push their own talking points. Too bad if you're even halfway serious. Maybe we can have better discourse in 2021!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2020, @02:03AM (10 children)
Why don't you come back when you actual read Patricia Bidol and Andrea Dworkin. A nice first step in actually criticizing their work, instead of caricatures of it. It would also require less effort than "hours" spent listening to those who aren't explaining it, can't explain it, or are not doing so through a mechanism you understand. Much easier to pay attention to the nuance and subtlety of the complex arguments they presented that you are apparently missing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2020, @05:20AM (9 children)
I did read Dworkin. She was very plain about:
a) women are, as a class, oppressed
In fact, this could be said to underpin pretty much everything she wrote
b) oppressed individuals can not be taken to have autonomy within an oppressive system, especially not with respect to what the system's favoured people may require of them
Over and over again, in fact.
The rest simply follows, and before you say that it was a twisted version, may I point out that the whole PIV-is-rape thing gained substantial currency among her own followers.
Now go ahead, and explain these supposed mystical subtleties that I, and many of Dworkin's followers, are missing. Book and page references would be better, so that I can confirm.
Go on, do your scholarship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2020, @07:27AM (1 child)
Foul! Foul!! Foul!!! No kicking the ball through the goal posts! Foul!!!! Ref, can we get someone to move these goal posts again?
I read about Critical Race Theory and they lost me at experience based reality. What a crock of shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:55AM
That's actually an interesting example of a concept pulled from postmodernist theory - where the subjective experience and interpretation leads to reinterpretations that can actually be in flat contradiction to evidence of authorial intent through notes, correspondence and so on.
Poor Wittgenstein. He never meant what those morons derived from his work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 26 2020, @08:34AM (6 children)
Doesn't mean that she actually claimed that. There are plenty of examples of her clearing that up. Probably the most direct example occurred in an interview where she gave his response to the question, "After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?"
Another good one was from another interview. She replied to a similar question with the following answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @07:14AM (2 children)
Different AC, though I too must yet read Dworkin. Hmm,
Mostly I conclude that I must get around to reading Dworkin because my first reaction is that she hasn't heard of woman superior positions. That cannot possibly be it. Can it?
But mostly when I read things like that I get a sneaking suspicion that I'm reading somebody describe having sex with somebody they aren't attracted to. It cannot possibly be the case that she hasn't heard of woman superior positions or is homosexual but unaware? Maybe she is transmasc and not aware?
Male feminists eat this up, because it perfectly describes how a heterosexual guy might experience sex with another guy, especially a guy with a dick. The other shit they bitch about perfectly describes how a cisgendered guy might experience being forced to present feminine.
When I get right down to it, every time I realize that what I'm actually reading is a man describing the experience of having a menstrual cycle (with additional gender dysphoria on top of normal PMS-type dysphoria), being forced to present feminine from birth, and experiencing discrimination on the basis that he is (somehow--cisgendered people and their social constructions of gender make no damn sense) is a woman, I just sort of have to lol.
No actually looking over her bio that is almost certainly her trauma talking. I will not be reading Dworkin. I'll stick with Marxism. Marxism isn't perfect but at least it's not a bunch of drivel that assumes that everybody's experience of sexuality and gender is the exact same as the writer's.
If Andrea Dworkin finds penetrative sex violent, then perhaps she should have stopped being an incel and gotten a girlfriend.
I mean, fuck, I'm about to drive to somewhere in Nevada and drop $1k I could instead use to rebuild my gaming rig, or just imagine how many hot meals I could buy the local homeless population!--so that I can stick my girl cock in a vagina, already knowing full fucking well that the only thing it will prove is what I already know, just so I can say that I'm not an incel and actually, really, provably, objectively am not attracted to women, even if I am the only person on the planet it seems like that is not attracted to women! I like dicks--excepting my own of course, and Andrea Dworkin does not like dicks!
Guess what!!!! Here's a fucking revelation for feminism! Sexual assault is sexual assault whether or not the assailant has a dick!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2020, @07:32AM (1 child)
argh, I let my own trauma get ahold of me toward the end.
But this is why I'll always be an anti-feminist. Feminism dismisses survivors of sexual assault right out of hand when the assailant is a woman.
It really is a problem. That and other problems cast doubt on whether there is a feminist road to gender equity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:58AM
I think you are viewing violence as some sort of zero-sum phenomenon, which she did not claim. The violence is inherent into the act of sex itself. Whether the penetrator is the one actively pushing the object into another or the penetrated is the one pushing themselves onto the other. This also holds for other types of sexual activity as well. After all, if you aren't initiation contact with the other and stimulating erotic areas, you aren't really doing "sex" so to speak. Penetrative intercourse takes this one step further by taking one person's body and overcoming whatever resistance is provided to insert said penetrating object into the penetrated entrance. Who is doing the active part doesn't really change that underlying requirement.
Now it is true that her own abuse and proclivities may color how severe that problem is. In addition, she was writing said pieces decades ago before civil rights for those she saw as disadvantaged had advanced in popular culture and pornography. Today, I think it is easy to see that the violence, despite being inherent, is not necessarily a requirement given adequate work and it is clear that she didn't either back then. Instead, she made clear many of the issues and their solutions that have subsequently been worked towards. Many people at the time had no idea or otherwise internalized such features that they couldn't see them until pointed out and that is the purpose she tried to fulfill.
Regardless the underlying violence also doesn't mean that there are not other sex acts that are even more violent. Sex with a loving partner (or five) can have positive aspects that override and outweigh any negative aspects. Proper consent can negate any violence conveyed. Assault perpetrated against you can outweigh any violence in any sex acts that are also done by multiple orders of magnitude. You point out that people can often be shortsighted and only see problems that affect them directly, but to assign said individual views to the field as a whole is a mistake. But it does make me wonder, if your ally in ending sexual assault is not the feminist, who is it? After all, women not being equal doesn't somehow stop them from sexually assaulting others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:51AM (2 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @06:20AM (1 child)
Is that the best you could come up with after 4 days is to just reiterate the same points again? Points that she denied. Points you also later denied in your parent post as being hers either, interestingly enough. At this point, you do not seem honest. Short of a multivolume analysis, and maybe even then, I'd just point to another thing she wrote and you'll just reiterate those same misunderstandings of her corpus as contradicting them. The evidence stands on its own but feel free to chalk this up as a great moral victory against those evils you disagree with, since everyone else can see otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 31 2020, @07:06AM
Denials are cheap. The transcripts of the trials at Nuremberg are full of denials.
Dworkin never gave a coherent answer to how a woman, as an oppressed person, might give a man, as an oppressing person, meaningful, independently considered consent.
Or if she did, I've never seen it - and I looked for it. There are no Dworkinite Consent Processes. There is no Dworkin's Guide to Non-oppressive Intercourse.
She didn't even, that I saw, give any kind of verifiable checklist on how you might know that consent might have been theoretically freely given.
No, all we got from her was women are oppressed, men are the oppressors, and that's pretty much it. Denying after the fact that her writings lead to where they lead is about as convincing as Goering on the witness stand.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:06PM
The white zone is for loading and unloading of passengers only
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @12:23AM (6 children)
[Citation needed]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 24 2020, @12:41AM (5 children)
I thought it was common knowledge, so I didn't supply any links.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-students-demand-segregated-spaces-white-students/ [thecollegefix.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/28/racial-segregation-college-campuses-ethnic-division-racist-civil-rights-column/4587577002/ [usatoday.com]
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/finding-the-line-between-safe-space-and-segregation/496289/ [theatlantic.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/11/15/racial-segregation-on-american-campuses-a-widespread-phenomenon/?sh=78a30e044552 [forbes.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @01:13AM (4 children)
The articles you linked reference fewer than ten colleges.
There are more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the US.
That's (charitably) ~0.25% of colleges and universities.
I'd add that in all the cases you cite, it's not *students* that are "demanding" this. Rather, it's "Diversity Officers" at these few schools.
So, as usual, you're taking a tiny group and claiming that it's something universal.
Blecchh.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 24 2020, @01:33AM (3 children)
OK, right back at you. Citations needed.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @02:27AM
The links *you* posted.
And you're welcome.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @04:09AM (1 child)
https://www.thedemands.org/
Note that exactly *one* of these sets of student demands (from 80 different schools) includes a demand for a "segregated" area. That being at Cal State East Bay, where they demand a single "Afro Room."
Like always, you're talking out of your ass. No surprise there.
Scumbag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @03:55AM
Wrong.
"WE DEMAND the creation and financial support of a CSLA housing space delegated for Black students and a full time Resident Director ..."
Calpoly: "We demand gender neutral or cogender housing options ..." (OK, that's about sex, not race, but the principle applies.)
Claremont McKenna: "Institutional funding for multicultural clubs" (I'm pretty sure one for white people would immediately get buried ...)
Clemson: "We want the construction of a multi-cultural center, a safe space for students from underrepresented groups." (Doesn't sound really broadly welcoming, if you catch my drift.)
Eastern Michigan: "We demand a CMA that has the capacity to host large groups of marginalized students in a safe space without restrictions on outside food. We demand a functioning CMA allowed proper space and given proper recognition." (Bet they don't think the kids of unemployed appalachian coal miners are on that list.)
Emory: "Black student organizations are underfunded and overpoliced. Forcing black organizations to collaborate with predominantly white organizations that are interested in surface level interactions and superficial celebrations of diversity is violent. Black student organizations are often told that their events are exclusive. These claims are unfounded because events are created specifically for black students because they do not exist anywhere else on campus." (Exclusive events, but not allowed to call out that they'e exclusive? How 1984.)
Iowa State: "We demand the creation of larger Multicultural Center on ISU’s central campus. This will be a place where students of color feel comfortable expressing themselves or their culture. Neither El Centro nor the Current Multicultural center do enough to empower the current student population, and the recent proposals to extend those spaces are not sufficient to fulfill the needs of students." (More of the same ...)
These comments don't have infinite space, so I'll stop there (not even halfway through the alphabet) but I'll point out that I didn't even cover the demands for broader increased spending on people with the right skin hues, the demands for the installation of quotas (in contravention of applicable law, quite often), the demands for special financial arrangements or copious demands for the installation of staff and training on a list of political wishlist points.
But even if you're only interested in specifically segregated spaces, you're still wrong.
And it didn't take me long to find it. So were you just lazy, stupid, or lying? Or more than one of the above?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday December 23 2020, @01:53PM (14 children)
They had other choices.
The first was to not listen to the lawyer. Given that in any legal battle, half the lawyers lose (there's always a winner and a loser), just refuse the resining.
Then it becomes a question of whether this fringe group even has enough money to engage in a legal battle. The more likely situation is they look somewhere else.
The second is to restrict new church zoning to the most expensive area of town. Got a big shopping centre? With expensive rents? The same tactic can be used with massage parlours - instead of zoning to force them into cheap locations. It's not discriminatory if it applies to all new churches.
Third, a moratorium on building conversion to churches. Again not discrimination against churches if it applies to all churches. Works for condo conversions. Existing churches won't complete because they like the lack of new competition.
Parking restrictions. No street parking, require paved parking lots with proper connection to storm sewers (no storm sewer? Sorry, you can't dump waste water into the sanitary sewer any more - and you'll have to pay for the street storm sewer installation. Got a million dollars as a bond?)
When you change the vocation of a building, the city can require it be brought up to the latest regulations. Just make it financially impossible and they'll go away. It's what the big cities do. This must be a real hick town.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:16PM (10 children)
Fringe groups make very popular pro-bono cases, good PR for the firm that takes them, if they win.
That can't afford the court costs like a big city can.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:59PM (9 children)
"Some" fringe groups make very popular pro bono cases. In other cases (see Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell in re Trump) you're better off walking away. Powell isn't being paid.
And a case like this is bound to get a lot of "friends of the court" siding with the town. So it cuts both ways.
Of course the real problem is the constitution - it's really too old for the modern world.
Look at the stalled ERA amendment.
Of course the court could just say that race isn't real, there's only the one human race, and say if you wanna limit admission, you have to do it as a private club, not a church. Pay business rates, etc. And as a private club you can't ban people on the basis of skin colour, so problem solved.
Could apply it to all churches because they are in essence business es, same as charities and not-for-profits.
Seriously, allowing churches special treatment on the basis of religion is discrimination.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @06:14PM (8 children)
What, you want the 1st amendment to be repealed? Hope not!
And not really constitutional. There is nothing in there that permits the privileges they enjoy. It only says that a practitioner's faith is protected by law, not that they don't have to pay taxes like everybody else.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 24 2020, @02:12AM (7 children)
Why not? The first amendment is a holdover from when religion interfered in everyday life and justified things like slavery, child abuse, and rape. Religion is the problem. It doesn't need special protections and tax exempt status.
You are against slavery, right? And child abuse? And rape? And incest? And honour killings? And forced marriage?
And the IRS hasn't been able to get tax filings from the Watchtower Society or many mega churches because they refuse, citing the 1st amendment.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday December 24 2020, @05:07AM (4 children)
The 1st amendment does not provide tax exempt status. Where do you get that idea? Show me where you see this privilege. You should read it some time. And please, to repeal it would be most fascist. The freedom to speak and of faith and of thought is absolutely paramount. Nobody should ever be allowed to interfere with those who want to hear, believe or think. You really don't know what you're talking about.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday December 26 2020, @05:33AM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday December 26 2020, @05:59AM (2 children)
Sorry, We don't like censorship. State control of speech is fascist. "Hate speech" doesn't make me hate anybody, does it you? Direct your energy to the people who can't control their feelings instead
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:19AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:32AM
They didn't become civilized by banning speech.
You like censorship, I don't. Just leave it at that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @07:03AM
You must not be awake to fail to see the current religion interfering with human lives is scientism, where magical sky fairies have been replaced by TV doctors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2021, @04:00AM
Wow. Just ... wow.
The first amendment doesn't provide for slavery. Nor child abuse. Not rape, incest, honour killings nor forced marriage.
In fact, the text is pretty clear as is the precedent on the point: a church organisation or doctrine can not excuse activity that would be otherwise illegal.
All the amendment says is that there can't be an establishment of religion, which has been interpreted to include backdoor preferences for, or restrictions on any given religion.
If you like, it's the right to be officially wrong; not to ignore other law.
Of course, the first amendment was also about freedom of speech, press and right to assemble and petition - but we already know that the leftists are dead set against those, so I suppose religion is just the cherry on top, here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:55PM (2 children)
I live in MN, and I've never heard of this town before this. Looking it up, it has a grand total of 278 people living there.
This was the right move for the town. Let someone else with deeper pockets come in and sue the racists.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @02:35PM
Hell. I think Philadelphia is a hick town. And don't even get me started on cow towns like Albany or Cleveland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2020, @07:59PM
Yeah, with only 278 total residents, not trying to "fight" this one in any way (even BH's suggestions) was the best choice for the 278 residents.
Someone else, with more funding, will swoop in eventually to fight out the court battle of the legality of this new church's rules, saving the 278 residents from bankruptcy if they had tried to fight it themselves.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @07:03AM
People on the right are typically protestant. Orthodox Jews and traditional Catholics also lean right.
Where do we find pagans? Oh hey, it's the left. That's you.
Normally the left is a little bit more subtle about being racist:
* low expectations for behavior, capabilities, and more
* in the numerous videos of Biden sniffing girls, he only chooses Asians and whites
* rich white leftists hire Hispanic housekeepers, not scary black ones
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 24 2020, @05:22PM
Being racist isn't (and should not be) illegal unless you take certain specific actions motivated by said racism. Be glad of this. It means the DNC can't be shut down either.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.