After permit approved for whites-only church, small Minnesota town insists it isn't racist
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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.
Despite a council vote officially approving the permit this month, residents are pushing back against the decision.
Opponents have collected about 50,000 signatures on an online petition to stop the all-white church from making its home in the farming town of 280 people.
"I think they thought they could fly under the radar in a small town like this, but we'd like to keep the pressure on them," said Peter Kennedy, a longtime Murdock resident. "Racism is not welcome here."
The church the Asatru Folk Assembly bought and are requesting a permit to use as a regional church in Murdock, Minn.Renee Jones Schneider / Star Tribune via AP
Many locals said they support the growing population of Latinos, who have moved to the area in the past decade because of job opportunities, over the church.
"Just because the council gave them a conditional permit does not mean that the town and people in the area surrounding will not be vigilant in watching and protecting our area," Jean Lesteberg, who lives in the neighboring town of De Graff, wrote on the city's Facebook page.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Asatru Folk Assembly as a "neo-Volkisch hate group" that couches "their bigotry in baseless claims of bloodlines grounding the superiority of one's white identity."
Many residents call them a white supremacist or white separatist group, but church members deny it.
Lawyer and member of the Asatru Folk Assembly Allen Turnage returns to his seat, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020, in Murdock, Minn., after taking questions from the public.Renee Jones Schneider / Star Tribune via AP
"We're not. It's just simply not true," said Allen Turnage, a folk assembly board member. "Just because we respect our own culture, that doesn't mean we are denigrating someone else's."
The group, based in Brownsville, California, says teachings and membership are for those of strictly European bloodlines.
The church was looking for a new church in the eastern North Dakota region when they came across Murdock. It's unknown how many members they have worldwide or how many people will attend the new church.
"We do not need salvation. All we need is freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor," the group wrote on its website about their beliefs. "We honor the Gods under the names given to them by our Germanic/Norse ancestors."
Their forefathers, according to the website, were "Angels and Saxons, Lombards and Heruli, Goths and Vikings, and, as sons and daughters of these people, they are united by ties of blood and culture undimmed by centuries."
"We respect the ways our ancestors viewed the world and approached the universe a thousand years ago," Turnage said.
A small contingent of church supporters in Murdock said the community should be open-minded and respectful to all.
"I find it hypocritical, for lack of a better term, of my community to show much hate towards something they don't understand. I for one don't see a problem with it," Jesse James, who said he has lived in Murdock for 26 years, wrote on Facebook.
"I do not wish to follow in this pagan religion, however, I feel it's important to recognize and support each other's beliefs," he said.
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."
Stephanie Hoff, whose council term ends this month, cast the only dissenting vote.
"I know that we have the legality standpoint, and I personally felt we had a chance to fight it. I think we could have fought it had we went to court," she said, basing her argument on proving municipal harm. "I felt that we had a case with the emotional and mental well being of the city of Murdock."
The farming town about a 115-mile drive west of Minneapolis is known for producing corn and soybeans, which are shipped across the country. Latinos make up about 20 percent of Murdock's small population. Many are day laborers from Mexico and Central America, city officials said.
"We're a welcoming community," Kennedy said, rejecting the Asatru Folk Assembly's exclusionary beliefs. "That's not at all what the people of Murdock feel. Nobody had a problem with the Hispanics here."
The AFA purchased its building this year on property in a residential zone. Constructed as a Lutheran church before the zoning was changed, it was later converted to a private residence. The folk assembly needed the permit to convert the residence back to a church.
The vote has drawn national attention and condemnation.
"It's ironic the city council didn't want to commit discrimination against the church, but the church is discriminating against Blacks," said Abigail Suiter, 33, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "It's very telling of where the priority is and whose lives matter."
Prominent lawyers disagree on the council's options heading into the vote. Some of the debate centered on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which protects religious institutions and churches from unduly burdens and discriminatory land-use regulations.
The law prevents municipalities from discriminating against the placement of churches in residential neighborhoods, said attorney Brian Egan, a municipal law expert on Long Island, New York.
"It's a tightrope for municipalities to walk," Egan said. "One man's religion of hate is another man's religion of love."
Other lawyers said the property's zoning was enough to reject the permit.
"They could have said the whole area has become residential, we don't want churches in a residential area because it's incompatible with our comprehensive plan," said David Schultz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota, " ... because at that point they're not making a decision based upon the viewpoint or content of speech."
Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said the council might have been able to prevent the private sale of the property, had it known about it, through laws focused on forbidding racial discrimination in property transactions.
"No institution that proposes to exclude people on account of race is allowed to run an operation in the state of Minnesota," Tribe said.
Kavanagh said he stands by the council vote "for legal reasons only."
"The biggest thing people don't understand is, because we've approved this permit, all of a sudden everyone feels this town is racist, and that isn't the case," he said. "Just because we voted yes doesn't mean we're racist."
Tags
Who is online
428 visitors
So they are upset about a very, very small group of Norse God worshippers?
WTF?
So much for freedom of religion.
Wake me if they deny anyone membership that has proven Nordic/Norse/Germanic bloodlines that doesn't look "white"; and believes in/worships the Norse Gods. If they can even find that individual.
I doubt this church will have anyone knocking down their doors to join.
Let's not beat around the bush. This is from their website "declaration of purpose".
I don't have a problem with the existence of this religion per se. There is no shortage of oddball religions. But I suspect the attitudes and activities of the people in this church go beyond praying to Nordic gods.
What kind of activities? And who gives a shyt?
You may not care about racist activities, but other people do.
Oh sure, nothing racist there.
"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.
Oh, that pesky First Amendment....what were the Founders thinking?
Would it be considered racist if the word "whites" is capitalized in print, as media now does with "Blacks"?
How would you feel if any other business (and yes, organized religion is a business), is allowed to refuse black people, christians, gay people, handicapped people, etc...??
Would you be okay with black and white water fountains? Christians being thrown into conversion therapy?
So you don't believe in freedom of religion or belief?
The Constitution and BOR gives people the right to be hateful racists
On private property, no less..
Why would anyone from those groups want to attend such a bigoted church?
I believe you can believe and worship anything you want. I DO NOT believe you should, in any way, impose your beliefs on anyone else.
Pretty simple, huh?
See above statement.
See above statement.
Doesn't matter why.
It doesn't appear this group is forcing or imposing its views on anyone.
Everyone has the right to be offended...or not, and simply ignore them..
Doesn't allow minorities to join. Sounds like it is forcing its views on anyone who wants to join.
"It's ironic the city council didn't want to commit discrimination against the church, but the church is discriminating against Blacks," said Abigail Suiter, 33, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "It's very telling of where the priority is and whose lives matter."
The distance between Murdock, MN, and Cedar Rapids, IA, is 300 miles. What does anyone in Cedar Rapids know or care about Murdock? Why was this quote even included in the story?
Scandinavian ancestry, history, and culture are important in Minnesota because Scandinavian immigrants settled parts of the state. And Scandinavian history and culture does not include Blacks, Hispanics, or Latinos. That's true for other northern European cultures, too.
Why are people descended from African, Iberian, and southern European cultures allowed to celebrate their cultural history and traditions but northern European descendants are not?
They can, but not to the exclusion of others.
Cultural histories and traditions aren't inclusive; they are distinct and exclusive. Efforts to sustain cultural histories and traditions are unavoidably exclusionary.
There isn't much evidence that these people are appreciating their cultural traditions vs appropriating it.
You dont have to be white in order to want to worship Norse gods. But you have to be white to be in this church. Maybe its not so much about the religion then is it?
One could act in such a way as to preserve ethnic European cultural traditions without setting up an exclusionary religion, but I have another question about this. Did the 10th and 11th century Norse people elevate themselves on the basis of race? It is quite unlikely since race was not used to classify or stratify races until much later.
That's true. Just as anyone can perform a traditional Sioux Sun Dance, an Aboriginal cleansing ceremony, or a Swahili rite of passage.
Preserving and sustaining Sioux, Aboriginal, and Swahili cultural histories and traditions isn't inclusive; those are distinct and exclusive cultural histories and traditions. People from the Eurasian steppes practicing Sioux religious rites and ceremonies doesn't preserve or sustain Sioux cultural history and traditions.
The northern European pagan religions originated in northern Europe. The Norse people had no need to elevate themselves on the basis of race because they were all the same race. And the Norse people were the same race as the Goths, Visigoths, Angles, Saxons, and Celts. Northern Europe was not racially diverse.
That's utter bullshit.
Native Americans have been preserving and sustaining their culture and traditions by sharing them with "outsiders" for the whole history of this country. While most of them did unconscionable damage, 'Europeans' have also been integral in helping to preserve those traditions through writing, photography, art and though legal and political advocacy.
There is a difference between appreciating a culture and appropriating it.
This is because they are trying to do two distinct things at the same time but treating them as if they were one and the same, which isn't true. They are trying to preserve culture and racial bloodlines. Their error is that, as you point out here, anyone can practice a culture. It really doesn't matter what race you are, since culture isn't dependent on race. An example of this from our own past is white children raised in Native American culture. Culturally, they were the same as the Native Americans. Racially, they were not.
What this Asatru group is erroneously trying to do is intimate that the culture they are trying to "protect" is dependent on one's blood lines (race). This is not so. Culture is something a group does. Race is simply a reference to physical characteristics. If, eight hundred years ago a group left Africa and moved to Scandinavia and culturally assimilated, lock, stock and barrel, they would culturally be indistinguishable from the other peoples of the area, although racially they would be.
From my point of view, what this Asatru group is actually about is simply preserving race. The culture part is simply incidental.
I don't understand why you think this is so. It seems to do exactly that.
What kind of a church rejects and excludes over ninety percent of all humanity?
In my opinion, one that worships false gods.
This town should never have caved to a bunch of racists, even under the guise of a pseudo church! This was not about religious freedom, it was about racist freedom!
BINGO.
Since these people consider themselves descendants of the Norse I have to wonder if a Sami person (the original indigenous people of Scandanavia) would be allowed into their so-called Church? Probably not since the Sami are considered Eurasian.
BTW, Native Americans predate the Scandanavians by thousands of years in MN. Probably wouldn't be allowed in the so-called church either.
It appears to me anyway that you dont have to be Scandanavian or Nordic to be a member of the church, you just have to be white. Italians are considered white. I wonder if they are allowed.
Do Native Americans worship the Norse Gods?
This is an incredibly small group of people we are talking about. Anyone think people are beating down their doors to join?
What everyone is arguing over is the right for someone that isn't Nordic/German to join a church that they would normally deride (and those attending) in the first place. How stupid can this get?
Reading your comment, pretty stupid.
Considering it was a church with roots in the Middle East it would be funny if it was not so pathetic. Irony anyone?
Thank you Ed, for bringing common sense to the discussion.
It is not common sense. It is a personally held opinion that regardless of what the Constitution says about freedom of religion a person's personal feelings about a thing should rule rather than law.
Northern European cultural histories and traditions are exclusively white. Preserving those cultural histories and traditions cannot include other races or ethnic groups. White people were indigenous to northern Europe; other races are not.
Preserving and sustaining northern European cultural histories and traditions is not racist just because that excludes other races.
Christianity and the worship of God is not exclusive to Northern Europe. It began in the Middle East, so if this group refuses to allow non whites to enter and worship the same God based on skin color and ethnicity, then yes that group is is fact guilty of racism and has zip to do with European culture,
This church does not claim to be Christian, nor to worship the Christian god. They worship the pre-Christian gods of northern Europe - Norse gods. Agreed, they are racist, whether they admit to it or not.
The church in Murdock, that is the subject of the article, isn't a Christian church. The Norse pagan religions originated in the Scandinavian regions of northern Europe. The Norse people were not racially diverse.
So basically that is what the Klan says, but they believe in Jesus. You know what would be a good test, let's see if they allow Nordic Jews who convert to paganism into the church.
You know why I don't buy any of this? I know many Celtic pagans and they are very inclusive. They allow everyone to attend and partake of their rituals.
I guess Jesus would not be welcomed either at this so called church.
Revelation 1:14-15 offers a clue that Jesus's skin was a darker hue and that his hair was woolly in texture. The hairs of his head, it says, "were white as white wool, white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace.”
Considering that they worship Norse Gods; then no, Jesus wouldn't be welcome.
Jesus/God didn't tolerate pagans and heretics remember?
But as I point out here: 6.3.4 , that is not the case with Celtic Pagans.
IMO, this is where we have to realize that the First Amendment allows for and protects the existence and practice of religions that we don't like, and we can't use government to prevent them from worshipping or having a place of worship. I do not agree with what this church stands for, but I support their right to exist as a church. The town made the correct decision. If they'd denied the permit, it would have been a First Amendment issue, and they'd likely have lost.
Thank you, I agree with your answer completely.
Chances are this little religious group will either die off; or be forgotten quickly. This is their one and only shot at 15 minutes of fame; unless people make a federal issue out of this with protests- and dragging it out in a very public court battle the media will love giving a blow by blow on.
Ronin,
The legal aspect was never in question. They have to allow it since they have declared themselves a faith. What is being discussed is if this is a faith of convenience.
We have freedom of religion for better and worse. This may be a case of worse. So are those that practice animal sacrifices; but they are protected as well.
Pretty sure most of us would be against animal sacrifices as well, as being cruel and inhumane.
What I do care about is giving these people recognition. They don't deserve any. Let them practice their religion in peace, let it grow old and die out. Protesting it, dragging it through the courts, and having the media cover it- is going to extend the life of this church, and maybe increase their numbers. Though I doubt many will rush to join them in the middle of no where.
The thing about that ruling is that the prohibition was enacted to specifically hinder that sects religious practice.
A prohibition of discrimination based on race is much broader and effects all religions and businesses. So if Tribe is right, Minnesota should be able to close them down based on race discrimination.
Based on Reynolds V. US, they can't claim that their religious beliefs trump state anti-discrimination law.
It’s funny that they feel the need to put the policy in writing. Churches are one of the most naturally segregated institutions that still exist in this country, next to funeral homes. For whatever reason when god fearing folk want to congregate and praise their supposed creator, 99.9% of them prefer to do it amongst people that look like them. I wonder what their supposed creator would think about that? It lends more weight to us creating god rather than god creating us.