Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

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

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @02:33AM (7 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday December 23 2020, @02:33AM (#1090507) Journal

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @03:08AM (#1090522)

    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)

      by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:04AM (#1090561) Journal
      Can we do that with more popular churches too? 
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:08AM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:08AM (#1090564) Journal

        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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:40AM (#1090580)

        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)

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday December 23 2020, @05:47AM (#1090585) Journal
          Nah, they're all 'non-prophet' organizations.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2020, @04:16PM (#1090696)

      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.