That/s what my answer was getting at. As unappealing as it certainly is, there is nothing to stop some group of nutjobs from worshiping Hitler, excluding Jews and blacks from their membership and services, and any number of other repulsive things.
We can mess with the constitution, but I can’t see how we could restrict freedom of religion without restricting freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of association.
I think the best we could manage is to eliminate all the tax benefits for churches – all churches of course, not just the “bad” ones. I am entirely in favor of this.
While I’m inclined to believe that within a house of worship, the members of such a house or worship should, in general and within limits, be allowed to act as they choose, this is a ridiculous comparison. The blacks and whites in the post you quoted, and the men and women in your post, are of the same religion. You are again stretching your analogies beyond reasonable limits.
Orthodox Jews and most Muslims object to men and women praying together because they think it will cause men to think about sex. As a result they pray separately.
If that’s what they want, I don’t see how we can stop them from doing that without violating freedom of association laws.
That’s also why the Nation Of Islam can exclude whites from attending their meetings.
I don’t think so. I can’t think of any reason why a religion couldn’t allow only male or female members, and then not allow non-members in. Or for that matter, have some kind of half-assed junior membership for some group they don’t like, and not let THEM in for various services or rituals.
What you should respect is the choice a person makes to support a false claim - as long as it does not interfere with the well being of society.
For example, a Christian should be respected in their choice to be a Christian in, let’s say 1785, but when they use their religion to justify slavery and torture then respect goes out the window and they have to be judged according to universal humanistic moral values (more on that on a different thread, maybe).
It’s like the other popular notion we have - that family members should give their support to a criminal just because the criminal is family. Like religion, it’s understandable why people would have strong emotional ties with people in their family, siblings, parents, etc, but when it comes to their behavior, such expectation of blind support is destructive and immoral.
I think not allowing non-Mormons is okay, because anyone can become Mormon. It’s when the requirement become Mormon and not female, that it crosses a line.
You make a good point about Freedom of Association. I honestly don’t have an answer for you. I suppose it’d require Constitutional amendment, however mucking about with Bill of Rights opens up a lot of potential trouble that could be worse than the problem to be fixed.