WI:Church of the Fiery Cross

Sort of a general idea and a specific though about the history in it...

In the 1910s/1920s during the heyday of the KKK, a Christian Minister decides to openly spread a version of Christianity that follow tenets of the Klan called the Church of the Fiery Cross. In the South at least, this church whose religious tenets call for Negros to not even be treated as Human gains some following (maybe 50 churches across the Lower south by the beginning of WWII.)

By the 1960s, members of these churches challenge the civil rights laws on Religious grounds. Having to serve a Negro at my Restaurant or bake a cake for his wedding violates my religious freedom,etc. And Virginia v Loving gets much more interesting in enforcement among clerks who are members of CFC. Any idea which way the Supreme Court at the time is likely to go on this?


(Yes, this entire idea came from trying to setup a parallel for the current legal situation on Same Sex marriage to the African American Civil Right movement), but I'm curious as to how this might run legally...
 
Alma White's Pillar of Fire Chuch in OTL was highly supportive of and associated with the Klan, but I don't know if it was active at all in the South.
 
By the 1960s, members of these churches challenge the civil rights laws on Religious grounds. Having to serve a Negro at my Restaurant or bake a cake for his wedding violates my religious freedom,etc. And Virginia v Loving gets much more interesting in enforcement among clerks who are members of CFC. Any idea which way the Supreme Court at the time is likely to go on this?

Well, Brown Vs. Board Of Education in 1954 was decided unanimously, so I would doubt that there would be much support for miscegnation laws in 1967, when Loving was decided.

As for SCOTUS clerks, the real question is not "How many would be members of the Church Of The Fiery Cross", but "How many would be hardcore racists of the KKK-type?", with or without a formally racist religion. I'm guessing that by the late 60s, there weren't a lot of Ivy League law graduates who were like that.

re: the religious freedom argument around segregation, if that carried any weight, it probably would have been tried in OTL. Someone could just say that his faction of, let's say, Baptist churches teaches that the races should be separate(and I'm sure there were Baptist churches preaching that), and get integration blocked on those grounds.
 
re: the religious freedom argument around segregation, if that carried any weight, it probably would have been tried in OTL. Someone could just say that his faction of, let's say, Baptist churches teaches that the races should be separate(and I'm sure there were Baptist churches preaching that), and get integration blocked on those grounds.
It was. It didn't work, fortunately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ted-religious-freedom-way-avoid-desegregation
 
(Yes, this entire idea came from trying to setup a parallel for the current legal situation on Same Sex marriage to the African American Civil Right movement), but I'm curious as to how this might run legally...

I'm not entirely sure that I see the parallel. Interesting WI, though.
 
'Hooded Americanism' by Chalmer & 'The Invisible Empire: Ku Klux Klan' by Karen have some details on the involvement with the Klan by organized churches. Initially when the resurgent Klan pushed its temperance/morality/patriotism line some religious leaders provided some support. By the mid 1920s they were repelled by the Klans violence & anti Catholisism. Post 1925 there were some 'fringe' religious leaders still supporting the Klansmen, but most were willing to condemn the Klan at least indirectly.
 
Top