A small victory in CA.

[LeeVegas]

Library's ban on prayer service upheld on appeal (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/21/BAG1OL9DMJ1.DTL&hw=ban+on+prayer+service&sn=001&sc=1000)

Of course, it's the "activist" 9th circut, and there will be an appeal...

from the aritcle:

A lawyer for Faith Center said he would appeal Wednesday's ruling.

"The effect of this decision is to treat Christians and all religious people, who might want to worship in an otherwise public meeting room in a public library, as second-class citizens," said attorney Gary McCaleb of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Second class citizens, indeed.:rolleyes:

LV

[Toto]

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton of Sacramento, temporarily assigned to the appeals court, cast the deciding vote for the county. He wrote a separate opinion saying the "sorry state of the law" was due to Supreme Court rulings that have weakened the separation of church and state by blurring the distinction between "religious practice and secular speech."



I'd like to read that opinion when its available. It might show up here (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17426)

Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover, 05-16132

[trendkill]

I dunno, I'm not sure how prohibiting prayer meetings in library meeting rooms helps anyone or anything, or is mandated by the Constitution. Given that allowing them to meet there wouldn't constitute preferential treatment or coerce library users to join in, I'm just not seeing a victory here. Actually, if anything it looks like just one more thing the religious right can point to as an example of that crazy 9th Circuit and librul religious oppression. And unlike their usual silly complaints, they might just have a point about this one.

[Toto]

It's not a prayer meeting, it's a "prayer, praise and worship" service. I would reserve judgment until your read the specific facts in the case. It sounds like the library may be more concerned about noise levels than the content of the speech.

[trendkill]

It's not a prayer meeting, it's a "prayer, praise and worship" service. Yeah, I got that.
I would reserve judgment until your read the specific facts in the case.I read the whole article. I'm not going to read the entire record of the court proceedings.

I would reserve judgment until your read the specific facts in the case.If the concern is noise, then religion should not be among the grounds for the group's dismissal, and this shouldn't be a CSS discussion.

[Toto]

Majority opinion (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A893E056B32B153882571EE00794928/$file/0516132.pdf)

Plaintiff Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries is a non-profit religious corporation led by plaintiff Pastor Hattie Mae Hopkins (collectively “Faith Center”). According to Faith Center’s verified amended complaint, Pastor Hopkins believes that she is called to share her Christian faith with others. Pastor Hopkins believes that there are many individuals who need to hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ but who may never enter a traditional church building. To reach those individuals, Pastor Hopkins holds meetings and worship services in non-church buildings under the auspices of Faith Center. Participants at Faith Center’s meetings generally “(a) discuss educational, cultural, and community issues from a religious perspective; (b) engage in religious speech and religious worship; and (c) engage in discussing the Bible and other religious books [as well as] teaching, praying, singing, sharing testimonies, sharing meals, and discussing social and political issues.”

Pastor Hopkins believes that divine providence guided her to begin holding Faith Center meetings in Antioch, California. In May 2004, Pastor Hopkins submitted applications requesting to use the County’s Antioch Branch Library meeting room for May 29, 2004 and July 31, 2004. In each application, Pastor Hopkins described the purpose of Faith Center’s meetings as “Prayer, Praise and Worship Open to the Public, Purpose to Teach and Encourage Salvation thru Jesus Christ and Build up Community.” Pastor Hopkins received confirmation from Antioch Library staff that her applications had been approved and that Faith Center’s dates were reserved on the library’s calendar.

Faith Center advertised its May 29, 2004 meeting with a flyer describing a “Women of Excellence Conference” sponsored by Faith Center Evangelistic Ministries Outreach. The flyer stated:

Coming to Antioch, California, on May 29th 2004, where the power of God would be moving to bring miracles into your life. “For this is the hour of the believer,” thus saith the Lord, for divine impartation of spiritual gifts, and empowerment, for the body of Christ to move forward in total victory. Come and receive your blessing!
The flyer divided the day’s activities into a “Wordshop” from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., refreshments, and an afternoon “Praise and Worship” service with a sermon by Pastor Hopkins from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The topic of the morning “wordshop” was “ ‘The Making of an Intercessor,’ an Endtime call to Prayer for every Believer, and how to pray fervent, effectual Prayers that God hears and answers.”

Faith Center held its meeting and service on May 29, 2004. Toward the end of the afternoon service, Antioch Library staff informed Faith Center representatives that they were not permitted to use the meeting room for religious activities.

According to Faith Center, the library staff did not express concern about excessive noise but rather about a violation of the “Religious Use” policy, which, at that time, prohibited the use of library meeting rooms for “religious purposes.”1 In June 2004, the County removed Faith Center’s July 31, 2004 meeting from the Antioch Library calendar and later confirmed with Faith Center that the July meeting had been cancelled.

. . .

The County agreed that its former meeting room policies were overly broad and that Faith Center’s morning “wordshop” at the May 29th meeting was the type of religious speech activity that would be permitted under the current policy. The County, however, argued that barring Faith Center’s religious worship services from the meeting room was a permissible exclusion of a category of speech meant to preserve a limited public forum for its intended uses. The County viewed Faith Center’s May 29th afternoon “praise and worship” session as mere religious worship exceeding the purpose for which the meeting room forum had been created.

[Toto]

The majority opinion goes on to spit some fine hairs as to the difference between religious speech and religious activities.

Then there is the concurrence:

KARLTON, Senior District Judge, Concurring:

I concur in Judge Paez’s well-reasoned opinion, which reflects the sorry state of the law. I write separately to express my dismay at that sorry state.

This should be a simple case it asks whether the county can be forced to subsidize a religious organization’s prayer meetings by requiring it to provide the religious organization with a free place to worship. A quick reading of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should answer the question. Judge Paez’s opinion tracks the cases and reaches its laborious result because the law has so elaborated that the reaching of the conclusion requires the effort the opinion demonstrates. As I now explain, that elaboration is premised on a failure to accept the plain meaning of the First Amendment.

Both Good News Club v. Milford Cen. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) and Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. GLOVER Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993), turn on the High Court’s purported inability to distinguish between a sermon and a speech. That distinction, however, is compelled by the First Amendment, which establishes different standards relative to government action concerning speech and government action concerning religion. The purported inability of the High Court to adhere to the distinction embodied in the First Amendment leads it to conclude that the issues tendered by cases, such as the one at bar, implicate viewpoint discrimination under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. They simply do not. As the First Amendment notes, religious speech is categorically different than secular speech and is subject to analysis under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause without regard to the jurisprudence of free speech.

Those, like myself, who advocate adherence to the strictures of the Establishment Clause, do so not out of hostility towards religion. See McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211-12 (1948); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 433-34 (1962). Rather, we are motivated by recognition of the passions that deeply-held religious views engender, and the serious threat of marrying those passions to government power. Engel, 370 U.S. at 431-32 (“Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.”).

. . .

[SLD]

Interesting aside, but in Birmingham the local atheists have their "service" at a local public library. If they can stop a church service they can stop our local atheists. I don't know if I can agree with that.

But if the issue was noise control than the library certainly was within its rights to demand cessation.

SHHHHHHH!!!!

SLD

[hagiograph]

Unfortunately if this is only a "noise" issue and it becomes a CSS issue, then the good thumpers get to feel "victimized" and "martyrs" for their faith in an increasingly "hostile" country. Ugh.

Interesting that atheists are one of the most reviled groups in this "secular" nation, but the Christians get to trumpet non-stop how put-upon they are for their peaceful pursuit of God's love through worship.

Why don't they try meeting in a coffeeshop or out in the middle of the park where they can be as noisy as their religious ecstasy might cause them to be.

OR MAYBE A CHURCH?

Hmm, nah, that's silly.