Insisting [the city council] isn’t racist, Minnesota mayor and attorney defends approval of ‘whites only’ church [permit]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d find it particularly comforting to know where all the whack-a-doodles could be found in my neighborhood at least for one hour on Sunday. Maybe go out and do some shopping.
 
Unless the group were engaged in something illegal, I don’t see that the city could refuse to approve on a basis that is within the constraints of the first Ammendment.
 
What a poorly written headline by the author (not the OP). The ‘it’ refers to the city (which isn’t even mentioned in the headline), not the church.
 
Wampa said:
What a poorly written headline by the author (not the OP). The ‘it’ refers to the city
Click to expand...
I changed it. Is this title better?

“Insisting [the city council] isn’t racist, Minnesota mayor and attorney defends approval of ‘whites only’ church [permit]”
 
Much better. The headline that the NY Daily News wrote was claiming the mayor and attorney were saying the church wasn’t racist. Being a Minnesotan and seeing this on the local news already, I knew that wasn’t right! 😛
 
Last edited:
Well the first thing to say is that the application for a whites only church is putting race above Christianity.

I have lived in many countries where people organise around racial lines and i think the government should have minimal interference in that.

It is Christianity that should be a positive movement (among other groupings) to put the most highest morals above race rather than government being a negative movement to tell people what not to do.

I expect this church is small potatoes and unChristian if it wants to outright ban some races.

If this spreads (and i don’t think it will) it will signify a bigger problem that needs to be addressed properly and if it doesn’t (which i suspect) then it really doesn’t matter much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top