Comments on: Exodus Board Member Suing to Hold Church Services in Public Library

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:17:27 +0000

I thought I’d post an update.

The federal court ruled yesterday in favor of Citizens for Community Values.

U.S. District Judge George C. Smith wrote in a 32-page decision that the library’s practice of prohibiting activities that it concludes are “inherent elements of a religious service” or elements that are “quintessentially religious” is unconstitutional.

Smith wrote that prohibiting those portions of the event that the library concluded were inherent elements of religious services “constitutes viewpoint discrimination.”

Smith did not give an opinion on the constitutionality of the library’s policy of precluding religious services.

To date CfCV has been instrumental in getting Ohio’s draconian same-sex legislation passed/blocked, new restrictions on adult businesses/strip clubs, and that with the school voucher program we must provide vouchers for parochial schools.

By: John

John — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:10:24 +0000

Jason: As I understood the reporting on this policy, prayer was alos prohibited in addition to the singing. If this is not the case, that changes matters depending of course upon how the policy is written and enforced. Any lawyer worth his salt will approach this in challenging the policy that prohibits both (which he’ll lose I wager) or separate the two in his arguments to win a partial victory. I can certainly see Justices like Scalia doing this in his questioning and the opinion he writes. As I said though, this case will have to develop and we’ll learn more as it works it’s way up the courts. Again, it could be similiar to how the Ten Commandments case in Alabama was first reported.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:31 +0000

“John said:
Jason: I specificially excluded singing because I can see the courts ruling that this would go too far in a library.”

Then…I don’t see the point in discussing this as if it would get as far as SCOTUS. I’m confused.

You seem to be saying, “Let’s pretend B isn’t part of the case. Given that, then definitely the SCOTUS will rule against the library based on A. We’ll see in a few years if i’m right.”

Seems rather open and shut to me. Prayer = Okay. Singing = Not Okay. Prayer and Singing = Still Not Okay.

I don’t get it, did I miss something?

By: John

John — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:29:01 +0000

Jason: I specificially excluded singing because I can see the courts ruling that this would go too far in a library.

Stefano: We’ll have to wait and see. Eh, give it about 5 years or so as it makes it’s way up. We’ll see how it develops. There could be more to the story than what has been reported at the moment. I recall that being the case about the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama.

By: Stefano

Stefano — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:22:04 +0000

This may never even make it to SCOTUS. It hasn’t even been heard in the Ohio courts yet, where the suit has been brought.

John: I think you’re focusing too much singularly on “a prayer”. The issue isn’t whether or not a group, or this group is saying a prayer, the issue here is what constitutes a “religious service” as opposed to a group holding a public discussion in a publicly funded facility.

As I mentioned previously, I do not think the UAL would have denied the group access solely for including a prayer as an invocation. I think their decision was based on the over-all format and context of the proposed meeting, not any singular component.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:10:32 +0000

John, I’m not so sure SCOTUS is on your side. Can you imagine the headlines “No more SHHing, singing now okay in libraries”

To my mind that’s probably more important than the religious aspect. We’ve established libraries as places of quiet, and people have come to expect and enjoy that aspect.

By: John

John — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:54:02 +0000

The big deal, as I see it, is that they are labelling prayer as verboten at these meetings. It matters not that the library is providing “subsidized” space, if it opens itself up to the public than it cannot discriminate. I do not believe this will pass scrutiny when this issue makes it up to SCOTUS. Like I said, imagine the ‘fun’ folks like Scalia will have with this.

By: NancyP

NancyP — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:42:26 +0000

I think that the library intends to exclude “religious services”, not opening prayers in a meeting. Frankly, I think they are generous in allowing church boards of trustees to hold business meetings there – I think the rationale is that these are by nature CLOSED meetings and thus not congregational services. And I don’t see what the big First Amendment deal is. City Hall isn’t obliged to open up its meeting rooms for Sunday services by particular churches.

The library is providing SUBSIDIZED (free) space to non-profit organizations. Right to Life can have its business meetings or public informational meetings there. If Burress has a non-church 501c3, he can have its meetnig there.

By: Truth Wins Out

Truth Wins Out — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:28:25 +0000

[...] at Arlington Group member organizations with information and support. And Phil Burress sued to hold taxpayer-subsidized church services in an Ohio public [...]

By: John

John — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:16:03 +0000

I agree that singing probably wouldn’t be protected and that the ADF is largely seeking precisely what Timothy says. However, I do not agree that prayer isn’t constitutionally protected speech. It doesn’t matter what their policy says about this. Lemme put it this way, what do you think Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and probably Kennedy will say? I can hear Scalia’s acerbic questions now about whether the library is going to toss out some kid who says a quick prayer before studying. This all comes back to the fact that this is a public building and the prayer aspect at least does involve free speech.