Kentucky church bans mixed race couples

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Surly this can't be legal in the US?

Courts and legal authorities rarely get involved in internal church disputes. Generally, any intrusion would be considered a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  So if the dispute has to do with membership, doctrine, preaching, etc., the government does not interfere. Now, if the problem relates to child abuse, fraud, etc., that's a different matter.  But for the general sorts of ecclesiastical matters, the authorities stay out.

What Bruce said.  Separation of Church and State, remember?  It does work both ways.

Separation of church and state is good, for both the church and the state, and for society in general.  It's not good for the church to intrude upon the business of the state, and it's not good for the state to involve itself in the inner workings of the church.  Keep them separate, and nobody gets hurt.  Of course, if someone does get hurt (like priests abusing children), then the state can step in.  And believers of every stripe can speak their opinions about the state and its business, just like all citizens can. But the church should have no power over state policy, and vice a versa. 

[Asmodean]

I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.

I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.

[DeterminedJuliet]

1928 called, they want their ideals back.

[fester30]

I'm not aware of churches receiving federal funds, that would violate the establishment clause.  There are organizations with religious affiliations that receive federal funds, however, such as certain adoption agencies and universities.  However, any actual church connected with these organizations would not be allowed legally to use those funds for church activities.

It is legal to discriminate in a church.  It goes back to some of the original reasons many people came to this country.  They were undergoing religious discrimination, and wanted to go to a place where the government would not tell them how to worship or what practices they had to follow.  Still, there are limits.  Churches are not allowed to go killing people for working on Sunday.

[Sandra Craft]

1928 called, they want their ideals back.

1928?  More like 1964 in this country.

Double edged sword

Yeah.  I'm all for the separation of church and state but I couldn't help thinking "and this is what they do with it" when I read that article.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.

I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.

There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law. 

[Asmodean]

I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.

I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.

There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law. 

Are you saying that any organization is free to discriminate at will, or just those hiding their discrimination behind religion? Because if that second be the case, I refer to the second part of what I wrote. If all organizations are free to practice such policies, then there is even more wrong with the US than I initially thought.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think if the state has laws against discrimination and some fool church breaks those, that church should face the consequences as defined in the said law.

I also think that churches, whatever they might be dedicated to, do not deserve to be on any sort of exception list when it comes to following the law any more than Ken's Newspaper Kiosk does. That, which is illegal for Ken, should also be illegal for the church.

There are no laws in the US, to my knowledge, that prevent a church from discriminating as to its members, as was the case here. So, the church did not violate the law. 

Are you saying that any organization is free to discriminate at will, or just those hiding their discrimination behind religion? Because if that second be the case, I refer to the second part of what I wrote. If all organizations are free to practice such policies, then there is even more wrong with the US than I initially thought.

Generally, completely private organizations are free to determine their own memberships.  That would include churches.  I could start an organization called "Bald Men Of Texas" and exclude anyone with hair.  A church does not have to accept an atheist or a Muslim as a member. An atheist organization does not have to accept a Christian or a Hindu as a member.  A mosque does not have to accept a Jew or a Catholic as a member.  As long as they are private, they can do what they want, as long as nobody is getting hurt.  It's not just religious organizations that have that capacity, although religion is specifically protected under the constitution. 

It's the same, to an extent, for the press and speech.  The press cannot be forced to print a particular story or opinion. There is freedom of the press.  An individual cannot be forced to say any particular thing. There is freedom of speech.  A church cannot be forced to accept people who do not conform to its teachings/beliefs, whatever they are. There is freedom of religion. 

[Asmodean]

In this case, we are not talking about specific charateristics required for membership, but general discrimination based on a member's significant other not being the same shade of purple as him/her.

That is, indeed, racist and would not fly as easily in this country. Even a fully private organization can not terminate a membership based on ethnicity of the member and expect to get away with it. A religious group attempting such would likely be lynched by media in short order even before the case went to court.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

In this case, we are not talking about specific charateristics required for membership, but general discrimination based on a member's significant other not being the same shade of purple as him/her.

That is, indeed, racist and would not fly as easily in this country. Even a fully private organization can not terminate a membership based on ethnicity of the member and expect to get away with it. A religious group attempting such would likely be lynched by media in short order even before the case went to court.

That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US.  Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere.  Part of our historical/cultural DNA.

[The Magic Pudding]

That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US.  Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere.  Part of our historical/cultural DNA.

Complicated though isn't it?
Drug prohibition including alcohol, conscription, prostitution, censorship, McCarthy.
It seems it's easier to impinge if the church is with you.

[fester30]

That's one of the differences between Norway (that is where you are, right?) and the US.  Individual freedom generally trumps concepts of social justice here, outside of the public sphere.  Part of our historical/cultural DNA.

Complicated though isn't it?
Drug prohibition including alcohol, conscription, prostitution, censorship, McCarthy.
It seems it's easier to impinge if the church is with you.

That's part of the problem with the US... is that religion, especially Christianity, holds such influence in our society.  Jews have faced some discrimination, but Christians here largely view Jews as kindred folks, due to what Christians perceive is a Jewish foundation to Christianity.  I think Christianity stays so strong here out of an American need to be different than the rest of the world.  We're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere.  Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that. 

There seems to be a strong need to always have an enemy.  Until World War II, the enemies weren't religiously focused, and religion in the US wasn't quite as strong.  Then Hitler came along, who many in the USA mistakenly believed was atheist, and we wanted to be different.  Then the atheist Soviet Union was our enemy, and our reaction was to be more Christian.  Now the Muslims are our enemy, so of course Christianity is strengthened.  Maybe some day America won't feel such a need to have an enemy.

[The Magic Pudding]

We're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere.  Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that. 

I hope Juliet and Shphinx don't come and bop you Fester, Juliet is having a grumpy day you know.

There seems to be a strong need to always have an enemy.  Until World War II, the enemies weren't religiously focused, and religion in the US wasn't quite as strong. 

I find it extraordinary that alcohol prohibition laws managed to be introduced.
I know it's easy to demonise opium and drugs associated with the "lesser" races, but banning a thing with such a long tradition. 
Strangely contradictory the US claim to freedom whilst so ready to impinge on peoples private lives.

[xSilverPhinx]

We're on our own continent, in our own hemisphere.  Sure, South America is down there, but we mostly ignore that. 

[OldGit]

What Asmo says applies in the UK, too.  Actually I don't know for sure what the law says, but I know what would happen in practice.  There'd be a mass media feeding frenzy lasting weeks, questions asked in Parliament, demos, the whole bit.

We had such a rumpus recently when a christian couple refused to let a pair of gays have a room in their bed-and-breakfast place.  And I reckon race would go down even worse than anti-gay here.